/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230103.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, January 3, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 3

                            Headlines

AEREA SALON: Faqir Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages
AIYA MOTORSPORTS: Batista Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
AKERSON ENTERPRISES: Pena Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ALL METRO HEALTH: Court Grants Ivory's Bid for Class Certification
ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

APPLE INC: Morales Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Iglesias Sues Over False Labeling & Advertising
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: Wilhoit Sues Over Age Discrimination
ATLANTIS INDUSTRIES: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ATRIUS HEALTH: Doe Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois

BANCO POPULAR: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Lipsett Suit
CARILLON TOWER: Court Ends Special Master Appointment in Dou Suit
CENGAGE LEARNING: Allowed to File Under Seal Memorandum of Law
CESCAPHE LTD: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Randall Suit Granted
CHIMA LLC: Perrong Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania

CITIBANK N.A.: Bjorklund Suit Removed to N.D. California
COINBASE GLOBAL: AP7 Named as Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
CONCENTRIX SOLUTIONS: Barnett Appeals Dismissal of Labor Class Suit
COUNTER CULTURE: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DIESTEL TURKEY: Wetzel Must Produce Responsive Docs, Court Rules

DISCOVERY INC: OH Funds Named as Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Appeals Remand of Curts Suit to State Court
ENTERGY CORPORATION: Fifth Circuit Dismisses Stewart II Appeal
GOLDMAN SACHS: Chen-Oster's Bid for Discovery & Sanctions Denied
GOOGLE LLC: Brown Appeals Class Certification Ruling to 9th Cir.

HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Hutley Sues Over Anticompetitive Conduct
HCL AMERICA SOLUTIONS: Kennedy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HEY DUDE (US): Mackey Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE: Samokovski Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HOLTON INVESTMENT: Cuesta Sues Over ADA Violation

HOME DEPOT INC: Clark-Alonso Suit Removed to N.D. California
HP INC: Balanzar Sues Over Unauthorized Interception of Data
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Bissell Suit Transferred to C.D. California
INDIANA FINISH LINE: Redick Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Gutierrez Suit Removed to C.D. California

JEVO INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
JLM VENTURE IV: Zayas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JOSEPH F. ADA: GSOG Files Suit in D. Guam
KANKAKEE HOSPITALITY: Karnes Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
KIA AMERICA: Day Suit Transferred to C.D. California

KIA AMERICA: Jones Suit Transferred to C.D. California
KIA AMERICA: Loburgio Suit Transferred to C.D. California
KIA AMERICA: Marvin Suit Transferred to C.D. California
KIA AMERICA: Moon Suit Transferred to C.D. California
KIA AMERICA: Pue Suit Transferred to C.D. California

KIA AMERICA: Simmons Suit Transferred to C.D. California
KIA AMERICA: Yeghiaian Files Suit in C.D. California
KING COBRA: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KODY KINSLEY: Timothy B Sues Over Ongoing Discrimination
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Kezdy Suit Transferred in W.D. Pennsylvania

LENOVO INC: Augustine Sues Over Unauthorized Interception of Data
LIBERTY ONE: More Time for Class Cert Response Sought in Ramirez
LIBERTY ONE: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Jan. 26
LOOP TRANSPORTATION: Santana Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LULIFAMA.COM LLC: Pop Suit Removed to M.D. Florida

LYONS MAGNUS: Nakanishi Sues Over Contaminated Products
LYONS MAGNUS: Pereyra Sues Over Failure to Ensure Safety of Product
M-I LLC: Court Recommends Partial OK of Last Class Cert Bid
MAD MUSHROOM: Guinnup FLSA Suit Transferred to N.D. Indiana
MARIANI PACKING: Diesel Suit Removed to N.D. California

MASSACHUSETTS: Wright Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
MATCH GROUP: Baker Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
MATCH GROUP: Berger Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Hamlin Sues Over Removed Activation
MIKOT CONSTRUCTION: Almonte Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages

MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Johnson FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
MRO CORPORATION: Morton Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: James Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
NELK USA INC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NELNET SERVICING: Kohrell Suit Transferred to D. Nebraska

NEVADA: DeOtte Files Suit in U.S. Sup. Ct.
NHK SPRING: Defendants Seek Sealing of Confidential Material
OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Bid for Incentive in Bowles Suit Partly OK'd
PA HIGHER EDUCATION: Beadle FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
PACIFIC PAPER TUBE: Mason Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

PAIGE LLC: Patterson Files Suit in S.D. Florida
PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT: Railey Files Suit in C.D. California
PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES: Loughry Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
PFIZER INC: MSP Recovery Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
PLAYMAKAR INC: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PNC BANK: Vandermarliere Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Albright Sues Over Failure to Meet Requirements
PRESIDIO INC: Final Approval and Judgment Issued in LaPrairie Suit
PRESTIGE CONSUMER: Chaplin Sues Over Unlawful Sales and Marketing
PROMOTION PROS: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

REDBUBBLE INC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
REJOICE DELIVERS: Webb Suit Removed to N.D. California
REX VENTURE: Nationwide Substituted as Plaintiff in Bell v. Werts
REX VENTURE: Nationwide Substituted as Plaintiff in Orso v. Chauvet
RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Sorey Suit Removed to C.D. California

ROI NETWORK: Morales Files Suit in D. Connecticut
ROODLE LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAFE CLEAN: Hanslik Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Saballos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SASOL LIMITED: Parties Must Justify Claims Denial in Moshell Suit

SCIENTIFIC MODELS: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SENSIO INC: S.D. New York Dismisses Gardner Products Liability Suit
SHERRIE GLASSER: Barbara Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SHIR LAW GROUP: Camacho Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
SIERRACIN/SYLMAR CORP: Castro Appeals Class Decertification Order

SING FOR SERVICE: Appeals Suit Dismissal Bid Rulings to 9th Cir.
SPOKEO INC: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Extended to Jan. 3
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Appeals Ruling in Giron BIPA Suit to 7th Cir.
SYNCREON TECHNOLOGY: Galeas Suit Removed to C.D. California
SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION: King Sues Over Anticompetitive Scheme

SYNGENTA CROP: Bohrer Farms Sues Over Supra-Competitive Prices
TAILORED BRANDS: Barbieri Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
TAKEDA PHARMA: Value Drug's Bid for Leave to File Docs Partly OK'd
TIKTOK INC: Sued Over Interception of Electronic Communications
TOM BROWN'S RESTAURANT: Celeski Sues Over Unpaid Compensation

TONAL SYSTEMS: Willis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TROPIC WATER SPORTS: Davis Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
TRUGREEN INC: Elsy Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging
U.S. VISION INC: Odell Files Suit in D. New Jersey
UCOR LLC: Speer Sues to Remedy Illegal Discrimination

UNILEVER: Rullo Suit Transferred in D. Connecticut
UNILEVER: Schriver Sues Over Defective Dry Shampoo Products
UNITED COLLECTION: Rubashkin FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
UNITED FURNITURE: Alomari Sues Over WARN Act Violation
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: Evans Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

UPPER PENINSULA POWER: Roll Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Oconnor and Chung Suits Consolidated and Stayed
UTILITY TREE SERVICE: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
VENTURA FOODS: Gramstad Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
VERITABLE VEGETABLE: Zhang Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

VIVATERRA INTERNATIONAL: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WALMART INC: Appeals Remand Order in Brunts Suit to 8th Circuit
WALMART INC: Morris Suit Transferred to C.D. California
WASTE PRO USA: Broady FCRA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
WOODENBOAT PUBLICATIONS: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

WOW RESTAURANT: Chen Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
WRIGHT & FILIPPIS: Cullin Sues Over Exposure of PII and PHI
YUSEN LOGISTICS: Metcalf Seeks to Certify Class, Subclasses
ZILLOW GROUP: Conlisk Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
ZILLOW GROUP: Huber Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington

ZILLOW GROUP: Kauffman Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
ZILLOW GROUP: Popa Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
ZILLOW GROUP: Strelzin Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington

                            *********

AEREA SALON: Faqir Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Az El Arab Faqir, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AEREA SALON NYC INC., ELIZABETH CHRISTENSEN
and ALEX PAPAGIANNIS, as individuals, Case No. 1:22-cv-10863
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2022), is brought to recover damages for the
Defendants' egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour
laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws
arising out of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages.

The Plaintiff was regularly required to work 54 hours or more
hours. Although the Plaintiff regularly worked 54 hours or more
hours each week from February 2019 until February 2020 and from
November 2020 until December 2021, the Defendants did not pay
Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half for his hours regularly
worked over 40 in a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime
provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL.

The Defendants failed to properly pay Plaintiff his wages within
seven calendar days after the end of the week in which these wages
were earned. The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the
minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place
at the location of their employment as required by both the NYLL
and the FLSA. The Defendants willfully failed to keep payroll
records as required by both NYLL and the FLSA. Defendants willfully
failed to provide Plaintiff with a written notice, in English, of
his applicable regular rate of pay, regular pay day, and all such
information as required by NYLL. Defendants willfully failed to
provide Plaintiff with any wage statements, upon each payment of
his wages, as required by NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs was employed by the Defendants as a hairdresser,
hair washer, and haircutter from February 2019 until October 2022.

DAWN TO DUSK LANDSCAPING, INC., is a New York domestic business
corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AIYA MOTORSPORTS: Batista Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Batista, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AIYA MOTORSPORTS GROUP, INC., Case No. 727065/2022
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., Dec. 26, 2022), is brought challenging
the Defendant's discriminatory business practices with regards to
the Defendant's Website which contained access barriers that
prevented the Plaintiff and other visually impaired and/or legally
blind individuals from purchasing products thereon.

The Defendant is an online retail company, who owns and/or operates
https://motorhelmets.com/ ("Website"). Through the Website,
Defendant sells its products, such as motorcycle apparel, helmets,
gloves, boots, jackets, pants, parts, and accessories. The
Defendant and its and its Website--which is not equally accessible
to blind and/or visually impaired consumers--violate the following:
the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff
brings this action in both an individual capacity and on the behalf
of other similarly situated blind and/or visually impaired people
who sought to purchase the goods and products that Defendant sells,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually impaired, handicapped person.

The Defendant owns and/or operates the Website:
https://motorhelmets.com/, which is a place of public
accommodation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: 212/595-6200
          Fax: 212/595-9700
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com


AKERSON ENTERPRISES: Pena Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Waleska Pena, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AKERSON ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. 727063/2022 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., Dec. 26, 2022), is brought challenging the
Defendant's discriminatory business practices with regards to the
Defendant's Website which contained access barriers that prevented
the Plaintiff and other visually impaired and/or legally blind
individuals from purchasing products thereon.

The Defendant is an online retail company, who owns and/or operates
kindredbravely.com ("Website" or "Defendant's Website"). Through
the Website, Defendant sells its products, such as clothing,
underclothes, and supplements for mothers. The Defendant and its
and its Website--which is not equally accessible to blind and/or
visually impaired consumers--violate the following: the New York
State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and
the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff brings this
action in both an individual capacity and on the behalf of other
similarly situated blind and/or visually impaired people who sought
to purchase the goods and products that Defendant sells, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually impaired, handicapped person.

The Defendant owns and/or operates the Website: kindredbravely.com
which is a place of public accommodation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: 212/595-6200
          Fax: 212/595-9700
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com


ALL METRO HEALTH: Court Grants Ivory's Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Louis L. Nock of the New York Supreme Court, New York County,
grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
lawsuit captioned CHEREDA IVORY and JACQUELINE SISTRUNK,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs v. ALL METRO HEALTH CARE, OR ANY OTHER RELATED ENTITIES,
ALL METRO HOME CARE SERVICES OF NEW YORK, INC., ALL METRO FIELD
SERVICES WORKERS PAYROLL SERVICES CORP., ALL METRO AIDES INC., ALL
METRO HOME CARE SERVICES INC., ALL METRO MANAGEMENT AND PAYROLL
SERVICES CORP., and ALL METRO PAYROLL SERVICES CORP., Defendants,
Index No. 160341/2017 (N.Y. Sup.).

In this statutory wage and hour litigation, the Plaintiffs and
putative class representatives Chereda Ivory and Jacqueline
Sistrunk move to amend their complaint and to certify a proposed
class action.

Judge Nock says so much of the motion that seeks to amend the
complaint is granted, and the Second Amended Complaint in the form
attached to the Plaintiffs' papers is deemed served and filed
without opposition. The motion for class certification is resolved
as set forth here.

As an initial matter, the Defendants argue that the Collective
Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") which covered the Plaintiffs during
their employment with the Defendants, as well as two subsequent
memoranda of understanding ("MOUs") between the Defendants and
1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East (the "Union"), require the
Plaintiffs to forgo a class action and submit their dispute with
the Defendants to binding arbitration.

Judge Nock finds that the MOUs do not contain provisions regarding
specific dispute resolution procedures, instead incorporating by
reference the provisions of the CBA. To the extent that either of
the MOUs references dispute resolution, the 2014 MOU says only that
the parties to the MOU will meet in good faith to negotiate an
alternative dispute resolution procedure related to claims under
certain unspecified federal and state statutes.

To the extent the parties to the MOU later agreed to such a
procedure, it is not specifically set forth in the record. The CBA
itself provides that, following an internal grievance procedure,
the union may submit to binding arbitration a dispute arising
between the Union and the Employer concerning an alleged breach of
a specific provision of the CBA.

As there is no specific reference to any statutory claims being
subject to arbitration or any waiver of the right to bring a class
action, Judge Nock holds that the Plaintiffs cannot be held to have
waived the right to seek redress before the Court, either on their
own behalf or in the form of a class action.

The case of Abdullayeva v Attending Homecare Services LLC (928 F.3d
218, 223-224 [2d Cir 2019]), cited by the Defendants, supports the
lack of waiver, as there the agreement at issue specifically
referenced statutory claims as being subject to arbitration.
Similarly, in Agarunova v Stella Orton Home Care Agency, Inc. (794
Fed Appx 138, 139-40 [2d Cir 2020]), the Second Circuit, in
considering language similar to that in the 2014 MOU, found that
such language was an unenforceable agreement to agree.

The Defendants do not challenge that the Plaintiffs have met the
numerosity requirement. Instead, the Defendants argue that the
Plaintiffs do not meet any of the other five requirements. At the
core of the parties' dispute is whether the Plaintiffs and the
putative class were fairly compensated under the New York State
Department of Labor's ("DOL") 24-hour rule for home health aides
(the "24-hour rule"). As set forth in the DOL's regulations, the
minimum wage for a home health aide working a 24-hour period need
not be paid during the aide's meal and sleep periods.

The DOL later expounded upon this requirement, stating that home
health aides "be paid not less than for thirteen hours per
twenty-four hour period provided that they are afforded at least
eight hours for sleep and actually receive five hours of
uninterrupted sleep, and that they are afforded three hours for
meals" (Andryeyeva v New York Health Care, Inc., 33 N.Y.3d 152, 166
[2019], citing NY St Dept of Labor Op No. RO-09-0169 at 4 [Mar. 11,
2010]).

If the aide does not actually receive five uninterrupted hours of
sleep and three hours for meals, then those exclusions do not
apply, Judge Nock notes. The Defendants take the position that
determining whether each member of the class actually received the
required meal and sleep time for each shift so as to determine
whether they would be paid appropriately is a fact-intensive
inquiry, and, thus, common questions of law or fact do not
predominate for the class, and a class action would not be the most
appropriate manner of resolving this controversy. Nor, the
Defendants say, are the Plaintiffs' claims typical of the class, as
the Plaintiffs did not frequently work 24-hour shifts for which
such a calculation would be necessary.

The Plaintiffs submitted affidavit testimony, time records, pay
records, and the Defendants' policy regarding calling in and out
for shifts. The Court notes that the procedures for calling in and
out to register that a particular aide is on duty for a 24-hour
shift do not provide for reporting whether the aide has received
the required meal and sleep breaks in order to justify payment for
only 13 hours out of the shift.

Accordingly, Judge Nock holds, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently
demonstrated that their claim is not a sham, that common questions
of law or fact predominate, and that a class action is the most
appropriate means of resolving this controversy. Additionally, and
for the same reasons set forth in (Kurovskaya v Project O.H.R.
[Office for Homecare Referral], Inc., 194 A.D.3d 612, 613 [1st
Dept], appeal dismissed 37 N.Y.3d 1104 [2021]), the Court finds
that the Plaintiffs have adequately shown that their claims are
typical of the class and that they will adequately represent the
class.

Judge Nock, accordingly, rules that the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend the complaint is granted, and the second amended
complaint in the proposed form annexed to the moving papers will be
deemed served. The defendants will serve an answer to the second
amended complaint or otherwise respond thereto within 20 days from
the date of filing hereof.

The Plaintiffs' motion to certify this action as a class action
pursuant to CPLR 901 and 902 is granted; and the class is to be
defined as:

     All individuals who performed home care services on behalf
     of defendants All Metro Health Care, All Metro Home Care
     Services of New York, Inc., All Metro Field Services Workers
     Payroll Services Corp., All Metro Aides Inc., All Metro Home
     Care Services Inc., All Metro Management And Payroll
     Services Corp., and All Metro Payroll Services Corp.
     (collectively All Metro or defendants) as non-residential
     home care workers in the State of New York at any time
     between November 21, 2011 and today (the Class Period).

The publication of notice to the members of the class will proceed
in accordance with the annexed publication order of even date
herewith.

The counsel are to appear for a preliminary conference in Room
1166, 111 Centre Street, on March 15, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Decision dated Dec. 12, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/34ywfjfd from Leagle.com.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anheuser-Busch, LLC.
The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-10878 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 26, 2022).

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

Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC -- https://www.anheuser-busch.com/ --
is an American brewing company headquartered in St. Louis,
Missouri.[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


APPLE INC: Morales Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Morales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10872 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 24,
2022), is brought seeking damages and an injunction to stop the
Defendant's false and misleading advertising practices with regards
to its Apple Watch, purporting to measure the oxygen level of a
wearer's blood directly from their wrist ("Product").

The early devices, were used in a person's ear, used light-based
technology or spectrophotometry to measure oxygen levels. In the
1970s, a fingertip oximeter was invented that was easier to use
than its predecessors. For decades, there have been reports that
such devices were significantly less accurate in measuring blood
oxygen levels based on skin color. The "real world significance" of
this bias lay unaddressed until the middle of the Coronavirus
pandemic, which converged with a greater awareness of structural
racism which exists in many aspects of society.

Researchers confirmed the clinical significance of racial bias of
pulse oximetry using records of patients taken during and before
the pandemic. The conclusion was that "reliance on pulse oximetry
to triage patients and adjust supplemental oxygen levels may place
Black patients at increased risk for hypoxemia." Since health care
recommendations are based on readings of their blood oxygen levels,
white patients are more able to obtain care than those with darker
skin when faced with equally low blood oxygenation. While
traditional fingertip pulse oximeters are capable of measuring
blood oxygen levels and heart rate, wrist-worn devices like the
Product determine heart rate, as blood oxygen measurements from the
wrist are believed inaccurate.

Algorithms designed for fingertip sensing are inappropriate when
based on wrist measurements, and can lead to over 90% of readings
being unusable. Though one recent study concluded the Product was
able to detect reduced blood oxygen saturation in comparison to
medical-grade pulse oximeters this fails to recognize the failings
of pulse oximetry in general with respect to persons of color. As a
result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is
sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $400, excluding
tax and sales.

The Plaintiff was aware the Product purported to measure blood
oxygen levels and he believed it did this without regard to skin
tone, which was relevant to him based on his skin tone. The
Plaintiff expected the Product would not incorporate biases and
defects of pulse oximetry with respect to persons of darker skin
tone. Plaintiff paid more for the Product than he would have had he
known the representations and omissions were false and misleading,
or would not have purchased it. The value of the Product that
Plaintiff purchased was materially less than its value as
represented by Defendant, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff bought the Product at or exceeding no less than $400
price.

Apple, Inc. is a California corporation with a principal place of
business in Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Iglesias Sues Over False Labeling & Advertising
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Iglesias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-09108
(N.D. Cal., Dec. 23, 2022), is brought seeking to secure injunctive
relief to stop Defendant's unlawful labeling and advertising of the
Products and to dispel the public misconception caused by the
misrepresentation, damages, restitution, disgorgement of the
Products' purchase price premium, and Defendant's ill-gotten gains
for the Class, as consistent with permissible law, for Defendant's
false and misleading advertising in violation of California's
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 ("UCL"), Business &
Professions Code Section 17500 ("FAL"), and the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act Civil Code Section 1750, ("CLRA"), as well as for
breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment.

The Defendant falsely labels and advertises its AriZona beverage
products, including but not limited to: AriZona Kiwi Strawberry
Fruit Juice Cocktail, Lemonade Fruit Juice Cocktail, Mucho Mango
Fruit Juice Cocktail, Fruit Punch Fruit Juice Cocktail, Watermelon
Fruit Juice Cocktail, Pineapple Fruit Juice Cocktail, Iced Tea with
Peach Flavor, Arnold Palmer Half & Half Iced Tea Lemonade, Golden
Bear Strawberry Lemonade, RX Energy Herbal Tonic, Green Tea with
Ginseng and Honey, Diet Peach Iced Tea, Diet Raspberry Iced Tea,
Diet Lemon Iced Tea, Orangeade, Grapeade, and Lemonade Drink Mix
(collectively referred to as the "Products") as being "All
Natural," "100% Natural," or "100% All Natural," when in reality,
each of the Products contains at least one of the following
ingredients that are not natural: added coloring (including but not
limited to "beta carotene," "fruit and vegetable juices,"
"annatto," and "vegetable juice"); ascorbic acid; high fructose
corn syrup; malic acid; erythritol; and "natural flavors." The
prominent label attribute "ALL NATURAL," "100% NATURAL," or "100%
ALL NATURAL," is depicted on the front of the Product container to
mislead consumers into believing that the Products are entirely
natural.

The Defendant also falsely labels and advertises a subset of its
AriZona beverage products, including but not limited to AriZona
Kiwi Strawberry Fruit Juice Cocktail, Lemonade Fruit Juice
Cocktail, Mucho Mango Fruit Juice Cocktail, Fruit Punch Fruit Juice
Cocktail, Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail, Orangeade, and Grapeade
(collectively referred to as the "Preservative Products") as
containing "No Preservatives," when in reality, each of the
Preservative Products contains ascorbic acid, a well-known
preservative. The prominent label "No Preservatives" is depicted on
the front of the packaging, to mislead consumers into believing
that the Preservative Products do not contain preservatives.

Despite Defendant's "All Natural" representation, Defendant also
includes in this Product the following unnatural, artificial,
and/or synthetic ingredients: beta carotene, high fructose corn
syrup, citric acid, ascorbic acid, fruit and vegetable juice for
color, and natural flavors. This information is barely visible in
the back of the products. Furthermore, even if consumers see these
ingredients, they do not necessarily know that these ingredients
are unnatural, artificial, and/or synthetic because they lack
specialized knowledge. Despite Defendant's "No Preservatives"
representation, Defendant also includes in this Product a
well-known preservative, ascorbic acid. This information is barely
visible in the back of the products. Furthermore, even if consumers
see these ingredients, they do not necessarily know that this
ingredient is a preservative because they lack specialized
knowledge.

The Plaintiff relied upon Defendant's labeling and advertising
claims, namely, the "All Natural" and "No Preservatives" labels
clearly printed on the front of the Product. These claims were
prepared and approved by Defendant and its agents and disseminated
statewide and nationwide, to encourage consumers to purchase the
Products. If the Plaintiff had known that the Defendant's
representations were false and misleading, he would not have
purchased the Product, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Mucho Mango Fruit Juice Cocktail from a
Foods Co. in San Francisco, California on several occasions since
2017.

AriZona Beverages USA, LLC, is the owner, manufacturer, and
distributor of the Products, and is the company that created and/or
authorized the false, misleading, and deceptive packaging of the
Products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Yana Hart, Esq.
          Tiara Avaness, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22525 Pacific Coast Highway
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Phone: (213) 788-4050
          Fax: (213) 788-4070
          Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                 yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
                 tavaness@clarksonlawfirm.com


ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: Wilhoit Sues Over Age Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wilhoit, Christina Hargrove, Giji Mischel Dennard, Julie
Magers, Megan Small, Regina Rusgrove, and Lisa Marshall,
individually, and on behalf of the class and all others similarly
situated v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, LP, Case No.
1:22-cv-01634-UNA (D. Del. Dec. 26, 2022), is brought alleging
violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
("ADEA"), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ("Title VII"),
and the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA").

On April 29, 2022, AstraZeneca executed what was effectively a
massive reduction in force ("RIF"), terminating up to 200 religious
employees who were over the age of 40 who sought exemption to the
company's vaccination mandate. But the RIF could not be so deep as
to endanger profits. That is why AstraZeneca's approach was
brilliant because it allowed the company to not terminate all of
its older and religious employees, only a sufficiently large group
that hit the sweet spot between cutting costs and retaining
experienced employees necessary to maintain profitability. The
April 29, 2022 mass termination of older employees was a
continuation of AstraZeneca's established corporate strategy to
cultivate a younger workforce, which has repeatedly come at the
expense of older more experienced employees and job candidates,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked for AstraZeneca.

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP is incorporated under the laws of
the
State of Delaware and has its principal place of business located
in Wilmington, Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas S. Neuberger, Esq. (#243)
          Stephen J. Neuberger, Esq. (#4440)
          17 Harlech Drive
          P.O. Box 4481
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Phone: (302) 655-0582
          Email: TSN@NeubergerLaw.com
                 SJN@NeubergerLaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq.
          Walker Moller, Esq.
          Laura Carroll, Esq.
          SIRI | GLIMSTAD, LLP
          745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Phone: (212) 532-1091
          Email: ebrehm@sirillp.com
                 wmoller@sirillp.com
                 lcarroll@sirillp.com


ATLANTIS INDUSTRIES: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantis Industries,
LLC. The case is styled as Jose Zarzuela, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Atlantis Industries,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10845 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2022).

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

Atlantis Industries -- https://www.atlantisusa.com/ -- manufactures
for consumer, industrial, safety, commercial firearms, defense, and
pharmaceuticals markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ATRIUS HEALTH: Doe Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as John Doe and Jane Doe, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ATRIUS HEALTH, INC.,
Case No. 2282CV00982 was removed from the Norfolk County Superior
Court, to the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on Dec. 23, 2022, and assigned Case No.
1:22-cv-12196.

The Plaintiffs allege that a tracking "pixel" from Facebook, which
is now known as Meta (the "Meta Pixel"), is "one of the world's
most prevalent tracking pixels," and is "embedded on millions of
websites," including "many of the top hospitals in the United
States," The Meta Pixel is a snippet of JavaScript code. The
Plaintiffs allege that "Facebook touted Meta Pixel (which it
originally called Facebook Pixel) as 'a new way to report and
optimize for conversions, build audiences and get rich insights
about how people use your website.'" According to the Complaint,
"tracking pixels" facilitate collection of "dozens of data points
about individual website users who interact with a website."

The Plaintiffs contend that the information allegedly disclosed is
protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The Plaintiffs further contend that Atrius
Health violated HIPAA privacy rules by "allowing Facebook to
capture and exploit patients' Protected Health Information" without
"express written authorization from patients." Based on these
allegations, the Plaintiffs assert the following claims on behalf
of a putative class of Massachusetts residents: interception of
wire communications in violation of Mass. G.L.; invasion of privacy
in violation of Mass. G.L.; "breach of fiduciary duty and/or common
law duty of confidentiality;" breach of express contract; breach of
implied contract; and unjust enrichment.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Tucker Merrigan, Esq.
          Victoria Santoro Mair, Esq.
          Erin E. McHugh, Esq.
          SWEENEY MERRIGAN LAW
          268 Summer St. LL
          Boston, MA 02210
          Email: tucker@sweeneymerrigan.com
                 victoria@sweeneymerrigan.com
                 emchugh@sweeneymerrigan.com

               - and -

          Foster C. Johnson, Esq.
          David Warden, Esq.
          Nathan Campbell, Esq.
          AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, & MENSING, P.C.
          1221 McKinney Street, Suite 3460
          Houston, TX 77010
          Email: fjohnson@azalaw.com
                 dwarden@azalaw.com
                 ncampbell@azalaw.com

               - and -

          Seth Meyer, Esq.
          Alex Dravillas
          KELLER POSTMAN LLC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Email: sam@kellerpostman.com
                 adj@kellerpostman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Maria R. Durant, Esq.
          Kayla H. Ghantous, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          125 High Street, Suite 2010
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 371-1000
          Facsimile: (617) 371-1037
          Email: maria.durant@hoganlovells.com
                 kayla.ghantous@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Allison Holt Ryan, Esq.
          Adam A. Cooke, Esq.
          Columbia Square
          555 Thirteenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: (202) 637-5600
          Facsimile: (202) 637-5910
          Email: allison.holt-ryan@hoganlovells.com
                 adam.a.cooke@hoganlovells.com


BANCO POPULAR: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Lipsett Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
BANCO POPULAR NORTH AMERICA, doing business as Popular Community
Bank, is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to
compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Frankie Lipsett,
Plaintiff, v. Banco Popular North America, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-03901, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brought this putative class action against the Defendant seeking
monetary damages arising from Banco Popular North America (BNPA's)
alleged "assessment and collection of 'overdraft fees' on accounts
that were never actually overdrawn."

Lipsett opened an account with BPNA on Aug. 9, 2004. Lipsett's use
of his account is governed by BPNA's Personal Banking Disclosure
and Agreement ("PBD&A").

In 2004, the then-effective version of the PBD&A was the one dated
March 2002. The 2002 PBD&A did not contain any dispute resolution
provision, let alone a provision requiring mandatory arbitration.
BPNA amended the PBD&A in 2008. Unlike the March 2002 PBD&A, the
2008 version included an arbitration provision. The 2008 PBD&A's
arbitration provision also contained an opt-out clause.

About six years later, on Jan. 17, 2014, BPNA sent a notice to its
customers, including Lipsett. The 2014 Notice advised customers
that BPNA had made "modifications" to its customers' "initial
account disclosures as a result of changes in federal regulations,
state law and bank policy." The 2014 Notice also provided BPNA's
customers an opportunity to reject the Amended Account Agreement in
whole by closing their account. It enclosed the amended agreement
that would control Lipsett's relationship with BPNA.

In 2021, BPNA again amended its PBD&A. The 2021 PBD&A's arbitration
provision included amended language defining "Claim" but otherwise
substantively remained the same as the 2013-2014 PBD&A's provision,
including with respect to how new and existing customers could opt
out.

On Jan. 27, 2022, before the action was commenced, Lipsett's
attorney, Jeffrey D. Kaliel, mailed a letter to BPNA's Arbitration
Administrator Customer Care Center, as designated in the 2021
PBD&A, purporting to opt Lipsett out of the arbitration provision.

On May 17, 2022, after Lipsett filed the action, BPNA responded by
"electing to arbitrate the claims made" by Lipsett. In that letter,
BPNA disputed that Lipsett's Jan. 27, 2022 letter was timely and
asserted its belief that Lipsett remained subject to the
arbitration provision.

BPNA filed its motion to compel arbitration and brief in support on
Sept. 8, 2022. Lipsett opposed the motion on Oct. 13, 2022 and BPNA
filed its reply on Nov. 3, 2022.

On Dec. 9, 2022, the Court denied BPNA's motion to compel
arbitration through an Order entered by Judge Victor Marrero. Judge
Marrero first assessed whether a valid and enforceable agreement to
arbitrate exists between Lipsett and BPNA. He concluded that
because Lipsett had no meaningful opportunity to opt out of
arbitration in 2008, in other words to clearly manifest assent to
arbitration at that time, no contract to arbitrate was formed.
Accordingly, BPNA's addition of the arbitration provision is
invalid and not binding as to Lipsett.

For the reasons, Judge Marrero denied BPNA's motion to compel
arbitration with Lipsett under the parties' bank deposit
agreements.

The appellate case is captioned Lipsett v. Banco Popular North
America, Case No. 22-3193, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on December 22, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee FRANKIE LIPSETT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Michael Reese, Esq.
            REESE LLP
            100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
            New York, NY 10025
            Telephone: (212) 594-5300

Defendant-Appellant BANCO POPULAR NORTH AMERICA, DBA POPULAR
COMMUNITY BANK, is represented by:

            Jason Wayne McElroy, Esq.
            WEINER BRODSKY KIDER PC
            1300 19th Street, NW
            Washington, DC 20036
            Telephone: (202) 628-2000

CARILLON TOWER: Court Ends Special Master Appointment in Dou Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LINA DOU, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARILLON TOWER/CHICAGO LP,
FOREFRONT EB-5 FUND (ICT) LLC, SYMMETRY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT II
LLC, and JEFFREY L. LAYTIN, Defendants, Case No. 18 CV 7865 (N.D.
Ill.), Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants in part
and denies in part the Defendants' motion to terminate the
appointment of special master.

Although this investor-fraud case settled back in October 2020,
significant issues still linger largely because of the Defendants'
empty promises of payment of the settlement amount. Before the
Court is the Defendants' motion to terminate the Court's
appointment of a special master.

In support of the motion, the Defendants assert that the special
master has performed the tasks identified by the Court and that any
further work would be duplicative and unnecessary. The Plaintiffs
oppose the motion and argue that because the Defendants have not
provided the special master with the additional information
requested to complete the investigation, the Defendants should be
sanctioned.

The parties reported to the Court on Oct. 29, 2020, that they
resolved this class action case. On Feb. 4, 2021, the Court granted
final approval of the class settlement for the benefit of 83 class
members. The class settlement obligated the Defendants to pay each
class member $550,000 by March 21, 2021. The Defendants did not do
so and for about six months thereafter, they repeatedly reported to
the Court that they expected soon to have the funds from a loan
from an overseas lender to satisfy their settlement obligations.
Even now, however, the Defendants have not met these obligations
and do not appear to be able to do so.

On Oct. 14, 2021, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for the
appointment of a special master in this case. The following day,
the matter was referred to the Court for the selection of a special
master under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53. The parties
conferred and agreed on the special master's identity, scope of
work, and sources of compensation.

Pursuant to the parties' agreement, on Jan. 5, 2022, the Court
appointed Karim Mahmoud with Hadef & Partners LLC in Dubai, United
Arab Emirates, to serve as the special master and entered an order
outlining the scope of work to be performed. The special master
then began investigating and responding to specific questions
enumerated by the Court, including whether the Defendants had
procured "a valid and enforceable $250 million loan" ("Loan") from
an overseas lender and whether the Defendants and/or their counsel
knowingly misrepresented material facts to the Court regarding the
Loan or the terms of the closing escrow.

The special master filed an initial report on Feb. 16, 2022,
concluding that "there never was any real loan" between the
Defendants and an overseas lender. The alleged Loan was a
fabrication, the purpose of which was seemingly to illicit funds
from the Defendants in the form of alleged government and
regulatory fees. On April 19, 2022, the Court adopted the special
master's conclusion, finding that the Defendants do not currently
have, and never previously had, a valid and enforceable loan from
any lender from which the class settlement payment obligations can
be satisfied.

As to whether the Defendants or their attorneys knowingly
misrepresented material facts to the Court regarding the Loan or
the terms of the closing escrow, the special master concluded that
he lacked sufficient information to answer this question. He found
that the Defendants either lied to the Court or "were potentially
defrauded" into sending payments to offshore bank accounts to
secure the funding of the Loan. To issue a finding, the special
master said he needed more information from the Defendants and
their attorneys.

Thereafter, the special master reviewed additional information
provided to him and on June 13, 2022, filed a supplemental report
finding that the Defendants and their attorneys misrepresented
material facts regarding the Loan to the Court. Such misstatements
included: (1) the Defendants had a valid and enforceable Loan with
an overseas lender; (2) the Defendants consulted with an accounting
and legal expert in connection with the Loan; and (3) the
Defendants set up a title or closing escrow for funds from the
Loan. But because the Defendants provided bank records verifying
payments they made to purported lenders, the special master found
that the Defendants acted in good faith in entering into the Loan
and initially reporting on the same to the Court. As such, the
special master concluded that he could not "authoritatively
confirm" that the Defendants knowingly misrepresented material
facts to the Court.

To make a conclusive determination on this issue, the special
master again requested additional documentation from the
Defendants, including evidence of a title or closing escrow being
set up, and evidence of legal or accounting experts being consulted
in respect to the Loan.

The Defendants did not provide the additional information the
special master sought, opting instead to file the current motion.

The Defendants seek to terminate the Court's appointment of the
special master. Based on conditions set forth in an agreement by
the parties, the Defendants have paid the special master's
fees--totaling more than $59,000 as of Dec. 4, 2022--to investigate
the questions enumerated by the Court. The Defendants contend that
the special master sufficiently answered these questions, having
received verification that the Defendants spent nearly $650,000 in
purported origination and regulatory fees to try to secure the
Loan, and that any additional investigation by the special master
would be duplicative and unnecessary.

The Plaintiffs disagree, arguing that the special master's work is
not yet complete, and that the Defendants must provide him the
additional information requested so that he can investigate whether
the Defendants or their attorneys knowingly misrepresented material
facts to the Court. The Plaintiffs also ask for a negative
inference, discovery sanctions, and default judgment based on the
Defendants' failure to provide "sufficient documentation showing
they conducted due diligence before making incorrect statements of
material fact" to the Court.

The special master then received confirmation from TD Bank that
Symmetry paid the fraudulent origination and regulatory fees.
Accordingly, the special master concluded in his supplemental
report that at least initially, the Defendants exercised "good
faith in entering into the Loan" and reporting that information to
the Court. The special master expressed concerns, however, that at
some point the Defendants and their attorneys "likely" realized
that the information they were providing the Court was "at the very
least unreliable and from questionable sources."

To investigate this issue, he set forth "subsequent steps" to be
taken, including the gathering of additional documents from the
Defendants and questioning of witnesses, including the Defendants,
their counsel, the purported lenders, and the third-party advisors
to the Loan.

The Court grants the Defendants' motion to terminate the
appointment of special master. The special master has largely
completed his work and any additional investigation by him would
result in "unreasonable expense" in violation of Rule 53(a)(3).

Judge Kim holds that whether the Defendants or their attorneys
later learned that the Loan was fraudulent and conveyed information
to the Court they knew to be incorrect remains unclear. But the
Court agrees that the Defendants should be "spared" the cost of
continuing to pay the special master's fees to resolve that narrow
issue. Moreover, the Court does not wish for the special master to
have to track down the Defendants for full and timely payment for
his services. The Defendants still have an outstanding balance of
$10,384.77 to be paid to the special master even after the Court
granted the Defendants extra time to pay, and the Court has ordered
the Defendants to make full payment. Accordingly, the Court
terminates the special master's appointment.

In his stead, the Court recommends that the Court perform certain
investigatory steps the special master proposed to determine
whether additional light can be shed on the sole remaining issue.

Judge Kim opines that lying to the Court is among the worst kinds
of misconduct--and not only corrupts the litigation process but
also wastes judicial resources and the time and money of honest
parties.

To this end, the Court orders an in camera inspection of the
documents the special master identified--more specifically,
documents referring or relating to the set-up of a title or closing
escrow; consultation with legal or accounting experts in respect to
the Loan; the Aug. 11, 2021 Guarantee Letter being called upon; the
alleged March 11, 2021 site visit being conducted; any attempt by
the Defendants and/or their counsel to directly contact Al Hilal
Bank; and any written communication or evidence of any of the
Defendants or their attorneys discussing the legitimacy, validity,
or any irregularities in respect of the Loan, internally or with
the Purported Lenders.

The Court should also question under oath Jason Ding, the Symmetry
manager who acted on behalf of Symmetry in connection with securing
the Loan. In their motion, the Defendants characterize Ding as
principally responsible for the Defendants' efforts to obtain a
loan to fund the class action settlement and recapitalize the
Chicago project.

Based on information provided by the Defendants, the special master
indicated that Ding worked with a third-party broker and advisors
to identify prospective lenders. Those third parties in turn
connected Ding with Richard Simon, a purported domestic agent for
an overseas lender. In his efforts to ensure the funding of the
Loan, Ding allegedly attended a March 11, 2021 site visit and was
involved in communications with Simon and the purported lender.
Given Ding's knowledge of the facts relating to the Loan, the Court
should question him to resolve the outstanding question of whether
the Defendants knowingly misrepresented material facts to the
Court.

As for the Plaintiffs' request for a negative inference, discovery
sanctions, and default judgment, the Court declines to grant such
request because the Plaintiffs have not shown they are entitled to
such relief, and the Court has already entered a consent judgment
in this action to enforce the Defendants' payment obligation under
the Settlement Agreement.

For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' motion in part
and denies it in part. In accordance with this order Special Master
Mahmoud's appointment is terminated. However, the Court recommends
that the Court order the Defendants to submit the documents
identified herein for an in camera inspection and to produce Jason
Ding for in-court questioning under oath when ordered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order and
Report and Recommendation dated Dec. 12, 2022, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/39v6dwmn from Leagle.com.


CENGAGE LEARNING: Allowed to File Under Seal Memorandum of Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bernstein, et al., v.
Cengage Learning, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-07541-ALC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon Judge Sarah L. Cave entered an order granting the
Defendant's letter-motion requesting to file under seal Memorandum
of Law in Support of its Opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and appointment of class counsel and several
accompanying exhibits:

   1. Cengage's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Opposition
      to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and
      Appointment of Class Counsel; and

   2. the accompanying Appendix of Evidence (other than exhibits
      A, A9, A10, A12, A25–A27, C1–C12, C15–C23, J, L, M, P,
and
      Q, which need not be sealed).

Cengage's Opposition and the accompanying Appendix of Evidence
reference or include documents and deposition testimony that
Cengage has designated as "Confidential" or "Attorney's Eyes Only."
Cengage will file unredacted versions via ECF using the "Selected
Parties" viewing level.

Cengage's Opposition and the accompanying Appendix of Evidence
contain proprietary information regarding Cengage's business
activities and publishing agreements. Documents containing "trade
secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial
information," such as the proprietary information and contract
terms at issue.

Cengage is an American educational content, technology, and
services company for the higher education, K-12, professional, and
library markets.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VsMXH8 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Chritopher Chorba, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          www.gibsondunn.com
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-7396
          Facsimile: (213) 229-6396
          E-mail: CChorba@gibsondunn.com

CESCAPHE LTD: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Randall Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the Defendants' motion
to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled MOLLY RANDALL, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs v. CESCAPHE LIMITED, L.L.C., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 21-2806 (E.D. Pa.).

In their amended complaint, Plaintiffs Molly Randall, Michael
Randall, Pete Vargas, Meichelle Feinberg, Robert Daniels, Maggie
Vargas, and Deborah Monti assert claims, individually and on behalf
of purported class members, against Defendants Cescaphe Limited,
L.L.C., and Joseph Volpe for breach of contract, rescission, unjust
enrichment, conversion, fraud, and violation of the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (the "UTPCPL"),
premised on allegations that the Defendants wrongfully refused to
return "non-refundable" deposits that the Plaintiffs had placed to
hold their respective wedding receptions at the Defendants' venues
that were cancelled or postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and
resulting restrictions.

Before the Court is a motion to compel arbitration filed by the
Defendants pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"),
premised on arbitration provisions (the "Arbitration Provisions")
contained in the written agreements governing the parties'
relationships. In their response in opposition, the Plaintiffs
contend that: (1) this matter should not go to arbitration because
some of the Plaintiffs are not parties to the Arbitration
Provisions; (2) the issue of whether the Plaintiffs' class claims
should be arbitrated should be decided by the arbitrator; and (3)
the Arbitration Provisions are not enforceable because they were
illegal.

Cescaphe is an event management company that offers hosting,
planning, and management services for events, such as weddings.
Volpe is the owner and chief executive officer of Cescaphe.

Plaintiffs Molly Randall, Michael Randall, Pete Vargas, Meichelle
Feinberg, Maggie Vargas, and Kyle Miller entered into written
agreements (the Letter Agreements) with Cescaphe for their weddings
to be held at Cescaphe's various venues. Plaintiffs Robert Daniels
and Deborah Monti were not parties to the Letter Agreements;
however, they paid the required deposit for their daughter's
wedding, as required by the Letter Agreement.

The Letter Agreements included relevant provisions for "Payment
Schedule" that requires a non-refundable and non-transferrable
deposit of $5,000, and for "Law and Arbitration."

The Plaintiffs assert various claims, including breach of contract,
premised on the Defendants' alleged failure to discharge its
obligations under the Letter Agreements. The Plaintiffs' claims are
premised on the existence of the Letter Agreements, copies of which
have been provided to the Court. It is undisputed that the Letter
Agreements each contain an arbitration provision. As such, the
issue of arbitrability is apparent on the face of the amended
complaint. Thus, the Court finds that the Rule 12 motion to dismiss
standard is applicable to determining the validity and
enforceability of the Arbitration Provisions at issue.

The Defendants move to compel arbitration of all of the Plaintiffs'
claims on an individual, rather than a class, basis, because of the
inclusion of a clear and binding arbitration provision in each of
the written agreements underlying the Plaintiffs' claims and the
absence of any provision addressing class arbitration.

Based on the allegations in the amended complaint, Judge Quinones
Alejandro states that there is no dispute that Plaintiffs Daniels
and Monti are currently seeking to enforce terms of the Letter
Agreements by asserting claims based on the Letter Agreements'
provisions. Indeed, in the amended complaint, Plaintiffs Daniels
and Monti--along with all of the other Plaintiffs--assert "breach
of contract" claims against the Defendants premised on various
purported breaches of the Letter Agreements. As a result,
Plaintiffs Daniels and Monti are equitably estopped from avoiding
the Arbitration Provisions contained in the Letter Agreements.

Like the agreements in Opalinski v. Robert Half International Inc.,
761 F.3d 326 (3d Cir. 2014), the Letter Agreements here, including
the Arbitration Provisions contained therein, are silent with
respect to the availability of class-wide arbitration or whether
the issue should be submitted to the arbitrator, Judge Quinones
Alejandro notes. As such, the Court finds, consistent with
Opalinski, that the issue of whether the Plaintiffs' class action
claims are arbitrable must be decided by the Court rather than an
arbitrator.

Turning to the arbitrability or not of the Plaintiffs' class action
claims, this issue has been definitively resolved by the United
States Supreme Court's (the "Supreme Court") decisions in
Stolt-Nielssen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 559 U.S.
662 (2010) and Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, - U.S. -, 139 S.Ct. 1407
(2019).

In the absence of any indicators within the parties' Letter
Agreements showing the parties' consent to class-wide arbitration,
the Court finds that the parties have not agreed to class-wide
arbitration. Judge Quinones Alejandro also finds that the parties
have consented to individual arbitration only, and not to classwide
arbitration.

Lastly, the Plaintiffs argue that the Letter Agreements are
unenforceable because it was allegedly illegal to perform the
contracts due to various COVID-19 governmental restrictions. This
argument, too, has been expressly rejected by the Supreme Court,
Judge Quinones Alejandro says.

In Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (2006),
plaintiff consumers sought to avoid an arbitration provision
contained in their agreements with a check cashing company on the
basis that the agreements--not the arbitration provisions--were
void for illegality. Rejecting the plaintiffs' arguments, the
Supreme Court held that "a challenge to the validity of the
contract as a whole, and not specifically to the arbitration
clause, must go to the arbitrator."

Here, in seeking to avoid arbitration, the Plaintiffs do not
challenge the legality of the Arbitration Provisions but, rather,
challenge the legality of the Letter Agreements themselves. This
determination must be decided by the arbitrator, not the Court,
Judge Quinones Alejandro holds.

For the reasons stated, the Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration is granted but only on an individual basis.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Dec. 12,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/339ykcy6 from
Leagle.com.


CHIMA LLC: Perrong Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CHIMA, L.L.C. The
case is styled as Andrew Perrong, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CHIMA, L.L.C., Case No.
2:22-cv-04654-JS (E.D. Pa., Nov. 21, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Chima -- https://chimasteakhouse.com/ -- operates as a restaurant.
The Company offers food, salads, desserts, and bar services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (508) 221-1510
          Fax: (508) 221-1510
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          237 S. Dixie Hwy., 4th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: avi@kaufmanpa.com

               - and -

          Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq.
          BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          403 South Allen Street, Suite 210
          State College, PA 16801
          Phone: (814) 234-2626
          Fax: (814) 237-8700
          Email: jjackson@bower-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kevin Dooley Kent, Esq.
          Andrew Kabnick Garden, Esq.
          CLARK HILL PLC
          2001 Market Street
          Two Commerce Square, Suite 2620
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 640-8531
          Email: kkent@clarkhill.com
                 agarden@clarkhill.com


CITIBANK N.A.: Bjorklund Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Emily Bjorklund, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. CITIBANK, N.A.; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. CGC-22-600868 was removed from the San
Francisco County Superior Court, to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on Dec. 22, 2022, and
assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-09085.

The Plaintiff's Complaint seeks damages, penalties, restitution,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest for the
following claims: failure to include additional remuneration when
calculating overtime wages; failure to authorize or permit meal
periods; failure to authorize or permit rest periods; failure to
indemnify employees for employment-related losses/expenditures;
failure to timely pay earned wages during employment; failure to
timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of
separation of employment; and unfair business practices in
violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daryl S. Landy, Esq.
          Nancy Nguyen, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
          Phone: +1.714.830.0600
          Fax: +1.714.830.0700
          Email: daryl.landy@morganlewis.com
                 nancy.nguyen@morganlewis.com


COINBASE GLOBAL: AP7 Named as Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Leda Dunn Wettre of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey grants Sjunde AP-Fonden's Motion for
Consolidation, Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and Approval of Lead
and Liaison Counsel in the lawsuits styled VIJAY PATEL,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., et al., Defendants. DENNIS DEAN
LAFFOON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case Nos. 22-4915 (BRM) (LDW), 22-5744 (BRM) (LDW) (D.N.J.).

Before the Court are Motions for Consolidation of Related Actions,
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and Approval of Lead Counsel filed
by Charles Bethune III, Sjunde AP-Fonden ("AP7"), Dr. Rahul Saraf,
Dairen Wright, Henry Gotlob, and Maria Scagliotti.

The Court heard oral argument on the motions on Nov. 18, 2022.

The Patel and Laffoon cases are putative securities fraud class
actions brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against Coinbase Global, Inc., which provides
financial infrastructure and technology products and services for
the cryptocurrency economy, and certain of its executives.

The Plaintiffs generally allege that the Defendants made false or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Coinbase
custodially held crypto assets on behalf of its customers, which
assets Coinbase knew or recklessly disregarded could qualify as the
property of a bankruptcy estate; (ii) Coinbase allowed Americans to
trade digital assets that Coinbase knew or recklessly disregarded
should have been registered as securities with the SEC; (iii)
Coinbase had plans to, and did in fact, engage in proprietary
trading of crypto assets; and (iv) as a result, Coinbase's public
statements about its operations were materially false and
misleading.

Following a May 10, 2022 public disclosure that Coinbase's
custodially held crypto assets may be considered to be the property
of a bankruptcy estate and a July 25, 2022 Bloomberg article
reporting that Coinbase faced an SEC "probe into whether it
improperly let Americans trade digital assets that should have been
registered as securities," the price of Coinbase's Class A common
stock declined. Following a Sept. 22, 2022 Wall Street Journal
article reporting that Coinbase was engaging in proprietary
trading, the stock price again dropped.

The first-filed Patel action was initiated on Aug. 4, 2022. In
accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
("PSLRA"), the Pomerantz law firm published notice of the filing of
the class action complaint in Global Newswire on Aug. 4, 2022. The
notice advised Coinbase shareholders of the pendency of the action,
the claims asserted therein, the time period of the action, and
their right to file any Motions for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
on or before Oct. 3, 2022.

Accordingly, on Oct. 3, 2022 institutional investor AP7 and
individual investors Bethune, Saraf, Wright, Gotlob, and Scagliotti
timely moved to be appointed Lead Plaintiff. Wright, Gotlob, and
Scagliotti subsequently filed notices informing the Court that they
do not appear to have the largest financial interest in the action
as defined by the PSLRA and do not oppose the competing Motions for
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Bethune, AP7, and Saraf each filed
oppositions to the remaining Motions for Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff on Oct. 24, 2022.

The Patel and Laffoon matters assert the same claims on behalf of
Coinbase investors, based on substantially the same alleged
conduct, for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Although the Laffoon
action names one additional individual Defendant, Emilie Choi, and
asserts a putative class period that is two months longer than the
class period in Patel, common questions of law and fact predominate
over these minor discrepancies, and the Court finds that
consolidation is appropriate.

Movant AP7 bought and retained 141,484 shares of Coinbase stock at
a total cost of $19,032,411.93 and sustained a loss of
$10,015,636.79. The Court finds that AP7 has the largest financial
interest in the relief sought by the class.

Having made a prima facie showing of both typicality and adequacy
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and having
the largest financial interest in the relief sought in this action,
Judge Wettre holds that AP7 is the presumptive lead plaintiff.

AP7 has selected Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, to serve as
lead counsel and Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Brody & Agnello, P.C., to
serve as liaison counsel. No party has challenged either firm's
fitness for their respective roles. As evidenced by the firms'
resumes and litigation track records, AP7's counsel has the
requisite experience in securities litigation to competently pursue
relief on behalf of plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court approves
AP7's choice of lead and liaison counsel.

For the reasons set forth, AP7's Motion for Consolidation of
Related Actions, Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and Approval of its
Selection of Counsel is granted. The remaining Motions at ECF Nos.
13 and 22 are denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 12, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ymzn29cd from Leagle.com.


CONCENTRIX SOLUTIONS: Barnett Appeals Dismissal of Labor Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM BARNETT is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss his collective and class action
complaint entitled Adam Barnett, Plaintiff, v. Concentrix Solutions
Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00266-DJH, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

In the collective and class action complaint, the Plaintiff alleges
that Concentrix failed to pay him all wages due, including regular
time, overtime, and paid sick time with factored incentive pay. He
brings the following three causes of action: Count I for failure to
pay overtime wages and preserve accurate time records under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 29 U.S.C. Section 207 et seq.;
Count II for failure to pay timely wages due under the Arizona Wage
Statute A.R.S. Section 23-350 et seq.; and Count III for failure to
pay paid sick time under the Arizona Paid Sick Time Statute A.R.S.
Section 23-371 et seq.

The Plaintiff seeks to bring Count I as a collective action under
the FLSA on behalf of himself and all similarly situated current
and former employees employed by Concentrix within the last three
years prior to his filing of his Complaint. He further seeks to
bring Counts II and III as a class action under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated current and former employees employed by
Concentrix in Arizona from Feb. 18, 2019, to present.

On Mar. 18, 2022, Concentrix moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's
collective and class action claims pursuant to the waiver contained
in an Application Acknowledgment signed by the Plaintiff.

On Dec. 7, 2022, Judge Diane J. Humetewa granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's collective and class action
complaint and denied as moot the Plaintiff's motion to certify
class and motion to seal document.

Judge Humetewa first discussed the validity of the Acknowledgment
under Arizona law. She then examined the parties' respective
arguments regarding the enforceability of the provisions of the
Acknowledgement. She concluded that the portion of the
Acknowledgement containing the class action waiver is enforceable.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff may proceed with his claims individually
but not as a class. As to the validity of the Application
Acknowledgement as a binding contract, Judge Humetewa agreed with
Concentrix that the Acknowledgement constitutes a valid agreement
between the parties.

For these reasons, Judge Humetewa granted Concentrix's motion to
dismiss. She concluded the Application Acknowledgement signed by
the Plaintiff constitutes a valid, binding contract, and the class
action waiver therein is enforceable. She severed the
unconscionable statute of limitation provision in the
Acknowledgement and enforced the remainder of the Acknowledgement
against the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff must bring his
three causes of action as an individual, but not as a class.

The appellate case is captioned Adam Barnett v. Concentrix
Solutions Corporation, et al., Case No. 22-16958, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December
21, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 28,
2022;

   -- Appellant's opening brief is due on February 21, 2023;

   -- Appellee's answering brief is due on March 23, 2023; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]

COUNTER CULTURE: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Counter Culture
Coffee, Inc. The case is styled as Daysi Hernandez, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Counter Culture
Coffee, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10846 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2022).

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

Counter Culture Coffee -- https://counterculturecoffee.com/ -- is a
specialty coffee roaster sourcing exceptional single-origin and
specialty coffee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DIESTEL TURKEY: Wetzel Must Produce Responsive Docs, Court Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kevin R. Sweazea of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Mexico grants the Defendant's motion to compel
the Plaintiff to produce responsive documents in the lawsuit titled
CYNTHIA WETZEL, on behalf of herself and all other New Mexico
consumers similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIESTEL TURKEY RANCH,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-1213 DHU/KRS (D.N.M.).

The Plaintiff brings a putative class action against the Defendant
(referred to as "Defendant," "DTR," or "Diestel") for violations of
the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, New Mexico's False Advertising
Law, and common law unjust enrichment, based on allegations that it
provided false and misleading statements and advertising about its
turkey products.

In its Motion to Compel, the Defendant asks the Court to compel the
Plaintiff to: (1) produce all e-mail correspondence between the
Plaintiff and Helga Schimkat; (2) produce documents as maintained
in the usual course of business or identify which documents are
responsive to each request for production ("RFP"); (3) serve
amended responses that remove boilerplate objections to RFP Nos.
13-14 and 20-24; and (4) provide amended responses to the
Defendant's RFPs stating under oath that all responsive documents
within her possession, custody, or control have been produced.

In response, the Plaintiff argues that the correspondence between
the Plaintiff and Ms. Helga Schimkat is privileged and irrelevant
as to any claim or defense in this case. The Plaintiff explains
that Ms. Schimkat is an attorney, who worked with the Plaintiff's
counsel's firm on a previous case in California state court
alleging that the Defendant violated California's consumer
protection statutes. The Plaintiff contends her communications with
Ms. Schimkat are privileged because Ms. Schimkat worked with the
Plaintiff's counsel on similar litigation and the communication was
made privately and was not intended for further disclosure.

The Plaintiff further argues she was not required to disclose the
e-mail with Ms. Schimkat on a privilege log because it was not
responsive to any RFP, the RFPs specifically excluded privileged
communications, and the parties had agreed to forego producing
privilege logs for communications between litigation counsel and
clients about the litigation.

Regarding the remaining issues raised in the Motion to Compel, the
Plaintiff agrees to supplement her responses to RFPs and
interrogatories by identifying by Bates number the documents
responsive to each request, and asks that the Defendant be ordered
to do the same. The Plaintiff also agrees to provide amended
responses to RFP Nos. 13-14 and 20-24.

In its reply, the Defendant maintains that the correspondence
between the Plaintiff and Ms. Schimkat is relevant and not
privileged, and regardless, any privilege has been waived. It
argues that the Plaintiff should be ordered to identify which
documents in her production are responsive to each RFP, and this
should not be conditioned on the Defendant being ordered to do the
same. The Defendant also maintains that the Plaintiff's objections
are improper and leave unclear whether all responsive documents
have been produced.

Plaintiff testified at her Sept. 13, 2022 deposition that she met
her counsel through her friend, Helga Schimkat. The Plaintiff
stated that during a phone conversation in 2019, Ms. Schimkat told
her about the California state case against the Defendant and they
"talked about the fact that these turkeys were raised in an
industrial agriculture operation, even though they claimed not to
be." The Plaintiff stated that Ms. Schimkat followed up after the
phone conversation by sending the Plaintiff one e-mail with links
to videos about the Defendant's turkeys and "a news article or two"
from the "Washington Post and Slate."

The Defendant argues that the e-mail correspondence between the
Plaintiff and Ms. Schimkat is responsive to RFP Nos. 5, 21, 22,
24-26, and 28-31. These RFPs seek non-privileged communications
between the Plaintiff and any other person relating to the
Defendant or its products (RFP 5), as well as documents relating to
the following: the Plaintiff's contention that the Defendant's
representations indicate its turkeys are not raised on typical
factory farms (RFP 21); investigations of the Defendant or its
turkey raising operations, the animal welfare conditions at the
Defendant's facilities, the Plaintiff's contention that the
Defendant knew its marketing, advertising, or conduct was false or
misleading (RFPs 22, 24-26); and the Plaintiff's contentions
regarding how the Defendant's turkeys are raised (RFPs 28-31).

Because the correspondence from Ms. Schimkat is about the
Defendant's products and its representations of its turkey raising
operations, the Court finds that the e-mail and attachments are
responsive to the RFPs.

The Court also finds no evidence to support a finding that the
communication at issue was made for the purpose of facilitating or
providing legal services or in anticipation of litigation, and the
Plaintiff has not submitted affidavits or any other support for
such a finding. Therefore, the Court finds that the communication
is not a privileged attorney-client communication or protected as
attorney work product.

Having found the e-mail and attachments sent from Ms. Schimkat to
the Plaintiff are not protected as an attorney-client communication
or attorney work product, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion
to Compel as to this claim. It is, therefore, not necessary for the
Court to consider the Defendant's contention that the Plaintiff
waived privilege by failing to object to the RFPs on the basis of
privilege or produce a privilege log.

Nevertheless, the Court reminds the Plaintiff that when a party
withholds information otherwise discoverable by claiming that the
information is privileged or subject to protection as
trial-preparation material, the party must: (i) expressly make the
claim; and (ii) describe the nature of the documents,
communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed—and
do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself
privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the
claim.

Accordingly, in addition to producing the disputed communication
between the Plaintiff and Ms. Schimkat, the Plaintiff will provide
supplemental discovery responses stating whether any responsive
pre-litigation communications have been withheld on the basis of
privilege and, if so, provide a privilege log as required by Rule
26(b)(5)(A).

Next, the Defendant argues that in response to its RFPs, Plaintiff
improperly produced documents from the previous California state
case without identifying by Bates number which documents are
responsive to each RFP. The Plaintiff states in her response that
she will provide supplemental responses to the Defendant's RFPs and
interrogatories that identify by Bates stamp the documents
responsive to each request. She asks the Court to require the
Defendant to do the same with its discovery responses. In reply,
the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff cannot condition her duty
to identify which documents are responsive to each discovery
request on the Court ordering the Defendant to do the same.

The Court grants the Defendant's Motion to Compel as to this
request and the Plaintiff will provide supplemental discovery
responses that identify by Bates stamp the documents responsive to
each request as she proposed in response to the Defendant's Motion
to Compel. Regarding the Plaintiff's request for the Court to order
the Defendant to do the same, the request is improperly made in a
response brief, not a motion to the Court. Moreover, in its Order
Granting in Part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, the Court has
already ordered the Defendant to supplement certain disputed
discovery responses by properly identifying responsive documents by
Bates number.

The Defendant next contends that the Plaintiff improperly asserted
boilerplate objections to RFP Nos. 13-14 and 20-24. RFP Nos. 13-14
seek website and social media statements made by the Defendant
which the Plaintiff contends are false or misleading. RFP Nos.
20-24 seek all documents relating to consumer expectations
regarding the Defendant's products, contentions that the
Defendant's representations indicate its turkeys are not raised on
typical factory farms, investigations of the Defendant, photos or
videos of the Defendant or its operations, and animal welfare at
the Defendant's facilities. The Defendant asks the Court to require
the Plaintiff to provide supplemental responses to these RFPs
withdrawing her objections and stating whether all responsive
documents have been produced.

The Court agrees and will grant the Motion to Compel as to these
RFPs and require the Plaintiff to withdraw her objections and
provide supplemental responses stating whether she has produced all
responsive documents in her possession, custody, or control as
required by Rule 34.

Finally, the Defendant moves to compel the Plaintiff to provide
amended responses to its RFPs confirming whether a reasonable and
diligent inquiry was undertaken and that the Plaintiff has produced
all responsive documents within her possession, custody, or
control.

The Court will grant the Defendant's Motion to Compel on this issue
and require the Plaintiff to produce documents in compliance with
Rule 34 and confirm when the production is complete. If the
Plaintiff withholds any responsive documents on the basis of
privilege, Judge Sweazea says the Plaintiff must provide a
privilege log as required by Rule 26(b)(5).

Judge Sweazea grants the Defendant's Motion to Compel. The
Plaintiff will provide the supplemental responsive information as
set forth here by Jan. 6, 2022.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 12, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/53fu8y9e from Leagle.com.


DISCOVERY INC: OH Funds Named as Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York appoints the Ohio Public Employees Retirement
System and the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio as lead
plaintiffs in the lawsuits entitled COLLINSVILLE POLICE PENSION
BOARD On Behalf of the COLLINSVILLE POLICE PENSION FUND,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. DISCOVERY, INC., WARNER BROS. DISCOVERY, INC., DAVID
ZASLAV, and GUNNAR WIEDENFELS, Defendants. VIOLETA TODOROVSKI,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. DISCOVERY, INC., WARNER BROS. DISCOVERY, INC., DAVID
ZASLAV, and GUNNAR WIEDENFELS, Defendants, Case Nos. 22-CV-8171
(VEC), 22-CV-9125 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.).

On Sept. 23, 2022, Collinsville Police Pension Board filed this
putative class action alleging violations of Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities and Exchange Act. On Oct. 24, 2022, Tome
Todorovski and Violeta Todorovski also filed a putative class
action for violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) (Todorvski, et
al. v. Discovery, Inc., et al., No. 22-CV-9125). The Court
consolidated that action with Collinsville Police Board Pension
Board on behalf of the Collinsville Police Pension Fund v.
Discovery, Inc., et al., No. 22-CV-8171, on Nov. 4, 2022.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4a(3)(B), the Court is required
to determine the "most adequate plaintiff" in this action by
reference to which applicant for appointment as lead plaintiff "has
the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class,"
and "otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23."

The Court received applications for lead plaintiff and for approval
of applicants' selection of lead counsel from eight parties,
including an application from the Ohio Public Employees Retirement
System and the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio ("Ohio
Funds"). The other seven applicants have since withdrawn their
applications or, in lieu of responding in support of their own
applications, submitted notices acknowledging that the Ohio Funds
have the largest financial interest in the sought relief. These
include (1) Tom Kimmeth; (2) the Norfolk County Retirement System;
(3) Bruce and Lou Ann Murphy; (4) the Wayne County Employees'
Retirement System; (5) Robert Buchwald; (6) Macomb County
Employees' Retirement System, City of Warren Police and Fire
Retirement System, City of Warren General Employees' Retirement
System, City of Roseville Police and Fire Retirement System, and
City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System; and (7) Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi (PERS).

No applicant objects to the Ohio Funds' selection of lead counsel
(Grant & Eisenhoffer P.A.). PERS requested that its attorney, Wolf
Popper, LLP, be allowed to participate in some way. The Court has
no reason to believe that Grant & Eisenhoffer is not fully capable
of handling this litigation without the assistance of another firm
and generally believes that the addition of additional firms
redounds to the detriment of the class because it inevitably
results in duplication of efforts.

If Grant & Eisenhoffer believes it needs assistance in handling
this litigation, whether from Wolf Popper or any other law firm,
Judge Caproni holds that it must seek leave to have another firm
added to the representation. The Court further finds that the Ohio
Funds satisfy the requirements of Rule 23.

The Court appoints the Ohio Funds lead plaintiffs for the putative
class in this action. The Court approves lead plaintiffs' selection
of Grant & Eisenhoffer P.A. as lead counsel for the putative class.
As of this Order, the Defendants' time to answer or otherwise
respond is no longer stayed.

The parties were to submit by Dec. 21, 2022, a joint proposed
schedule for filing a consolidated amended complaint, as well as
for the Defendants' time to move or answer. The schedule should
include a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss, if made.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 12, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4n8ask2a from Leagle.com.


EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Appeals Remand of Curts Suit to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE COMPANY, et al. are taking an appeal from a
court order granting a plaintiff's motion to remand the lawsuit
entitled Connie Curts, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Edgewell Personal Care Company,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00235-GAF, from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri to the Circuit
Court of Jackson County, Missouri.

On August 27, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
against the Defendants in the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri under Case No. 2016-CV17871. The Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendants falsely represent that Wet Ones Antibacterial Hand
Wipes "kill 99.99% of Germs" in violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA").

On April 8, 2022, the Defendants removed the case from the Circuit
Court of Jackson County, Missouri to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri under the Class Action Fairness
Act (CAFA).

On May 9, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action
to Jackson County Circuit Court, which the Court granted through an
Order entered by Judge Gary A. Fenner on Dec. 14, 2022. The
Defendants' motion for leave to file and motion to dismiss the case
were denied as moot.

The appellate case is captioned Connie Curts v. Edgewell Personal
Care Company, et al., Case No. 22-8021, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on December 23, 2022.
[BN]

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

            Katherine Feierabend, Esq.
            David Lee Heinemann, Esq.
            Christopher S. Shank, Esq.
            SHANK & HEINEMANN          
            1968 Shawnee Mission Parkway, Suite 100
            Mission Woods, KS 66205
            Telephone: (816) 839-7020
                       (816) 471-0909

Defendants-Petitioners EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE COMPANY, et al., are
represented by:

            Ashley Marie Crisafulli, Esq.
            Megan McCurdy, Esq.
            STINSON LLP
            1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900
            Kansas City, MO 64106
            Telephone: (816) 842-8600

                    - and -

            John W. Moticka, Esq.
            STINSON LLP
            7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
            Saint Louis, MO 63105
            Telephone: (314) 863-0800

ENTERGY CORPORATION: Fifth Circuit Dismisses Stewart II Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismisses
for lack of jurisdiction the appeal titled ANTHONY J. STEWART;
DIANE RALEY; TOMIKA JORDAN; SHEENA ALTINE; TYELGA J. KEARNEY, ET
AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. ENTERGY CORPORATION; ENTERGY NEW
ORLEANS, L.L.C.; ENTERGY LOUISIANA, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellants,
Case No. 22-30132 (5th Cir.).

The case presents a second appeal (this time under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1291) from the same district court decision remanding the
case to the Louisiana state court. In Stewart v. Entergy Corp., 35
F.4th 930, 931 (5th Cir. 2022) (per curiam) ("Stewart I"), the
Defendants-Appellants in this case ("Entergy") appealed the
district court's remand order under 28 U.S.C. Section 1453(c)(1),
regarding the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").

The Plaintiffs in this case brought a class action against Entergy
based upon alleged negligence and other breaches that caused
extensive power outages following Hurricane Ida in southeast
Louisiana in 2021. The district court concluded that CAFA
jurisdiction did not apply and also rejected the other allegations
of federal question and bankruptcy jurisdiction.

In Stewart I, which addressed the CAFA jurisdiction issues, the
Court of Appeals concluded that CAFA did not provide jurisdiction
because the statute's local controversy and home state exceptions
applied. The Court of Appeals also rejected the notion that its
ability to address CAFA jurisdiction gave it jurisdiction to decide
whether the district court properly remanded the case under federal
question and bankruptcy arguments.

Following that decision, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss
this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, which the motions panel
carried with the case. Based upon the decision in Stewart I and the
lack of any exception to Section 1447(d) applying in this appeal,
the Court of Appeals concludes that the motion to dismiss should be
granted.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals dismisses this appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 12, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3uryxz2c from Leagle.com.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Chen-Oster's Bid for Discovery & Sanctions Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York issued an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion to compel additional discovery and for sanctions
in the lawsuit titled H. CRISTINA CHEN-OSTER, SHANNA ORLICH,
ALLISON GAMBA, and MARY DE LUIS, Plaintiffs v. GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO.
and THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 10-CV-6950
(AT) (RWL) (S.D.N.Y.).

The Order resolves the Plaintiffs' letter motion seeking relief
related to a complaint (the "Complaint") presented to Defendant
Goldman Sachs & Co. by a former female partner concerning conduct
largely occurring in 2018-19 and which was the subject of news
reports in November 2022 (Sridhar Natarajan and Max Abelson,
Goldman Sachs Paid Over $12 Million to Bury Partner's Claim of
Sexist Culture, Bloomberg (Nov. 15, 2022),
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-11-15/goldman-settled-sexist-workplace-complaint-for-over-12-million).

In particular, the Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an order
compelling Goldman to (1) immediately produce the Complaint and all
additional complaint files requested in the instant case; (2)
provide a signed declaration when that production is complete and
attest that no such additional documents exist; and (3) produce CEO
David Solomon for a deposition. The Plaintiffs also ask that
Goldman be sanctioned for failing to turn over the Complaint and
others not previously produced.

On Nov. 30, 2022, the Court requested Goldman to submit the
Complaint for in camera review. Goldman did so, and the Court has
reviewed the Complaint, as well as the parties' letter briefs.
Having given deliberate and thoughtful consideration to the matter,
and in light of all prior proceedings and the limited scope of
subject matter being addressed in this class action, the Court
denies the Plaintiffs' requested relief.

Judge Lehrburger states that certain parameters define the
boundaries of this case. Those parameters are the subject of
multiple prior decisions of the Court. For instance, the certified
class includes individuals from only three of Goldman's revenue
generating divisions.

The principal issues to be tried as a class are (1) the allegedly
discriminatory impact of three processes -- quartiling, 360 review,
and cross-ruffing -- on the evaluation, promotion, and compensation
of female employees in certain positions within the three
divisions, and (2) allegedly discriminatory treatment based on
Goldman's knowledge of discriminatory impact caused by the three
processes. Discriminatory treatment grounded in the so-called
boys-club allegations -- concerning individualized circumstances of
discrimination and harassment based on sex -- has been excluded
from the defined class. The procedural posture of the case is also
of note: discovery is complete, and pre-trial submissions are due
on Feb. 1, 2023.

The Court first addresses the Plaintiffs' demand for documents and
request for sanctions. Goldman represents that it already has
produced all complaints that it was required to produce or
otherwise agreed to produce. The Plaintiffs' contention that
Goldman has not done so is based on the fact that Goldman did not
produce the Complaint.

The Complaint, however, was not made by an employee from any of the
three divisions at issue and does not mention any of the three
processes at issue. Rather, the Complaint focuses on the conduct of
one individual, his treatment of two particular women, and
Goldman's response. To be sure, the Complaint is rife with
allegations about repugnant "Bros' Club" behavior and Goldman's
tolerance of it. Had the class been approved with respect to
boys-club conduct, the Complaint no doubt would be relevant. But
that is not the case at hand, Judge Lehrburger points out.

The Complaint does include a handful of sweeping general
allegations of institutional gender bias, systematic
discrimination, and "unvalidated" company-wide policies and
practices governing compensation and promotion, Judge Lehrburger
notes. Those assertions, however, are highly conclusory, and
untethered to what is at issue here, Judge Lehrburger holds. The
allegations of substance, and the policies and practices complained
of, do not describe or reference any of the three processes at
issue here.

The Court does not agree with the Plaintiffs' statement that
Goldman agreed to produce complaints by persons outside of the
three divisions at issue. In support of its contention, the
Plaintiffs refer, among others, to a Jan. 15, 2019 letter from
Goldman concerning document production.

In that letter, which pre-dates the Complaint, Goldman represented
as follows: "Specifically, in response to Request No. 4, we have
not located any complaints by anyone outside of the three relevant
Divisions against so-called male culture carriers, and will update
the response to the Request for Production accordingly. Defendants
also have not located any updated policy documents responsive to
Request No. 9, and continue to confirm whether any additional
responsive documents exist. To the extent Defendants locate any
such documents, we will produce them. As to Request No. 15,
Defendants confirm that they have produced all responsive
organizational charts."

According to the Plaintiffs, the portion of the letter in which
Goldman states that "[t]o the extent Defendants locate any such
documents, we will produce them" applies not only to policy
documents but also to complaints outside the three relevant
divisions. That misreads the letter, Judge Lehrburger says. The
letter represents -- with respect to Request No. 4 -- that Goldman
would update its response to document requests to reflect that no
complaints outside the three divisions had been located. In
contrast, the "we will produce" commitment follows only the
statement about not having located updated policy documents
responsive to Request No. 9. Multiple other correspondences cited
by Goldman shows that it consistently objected to producing
complaints outside the three relevant divisions, Judge Lehrburger
opines.

In short, Judge Lehrburger holds, Goldman did not agree and was not
obligated to produce the Complaint; there is no need for Goldman to
provide a declaration attesting to completeness of its production
of complaints; and there is no basis for sanctions.

The Court now turns to addressing the issue of whether David
Solomon should be compelled to appear for deposition. When
discovery was still open in 2020, the Plaintiffs sought the
deposition of Mr. Solomon, along with two other apex personnel,
Lloyd Blankfein (Senior Chairman and former CEO) and Gary Cohn
(former President and COO). The Court ordered that both Mr.
Blankfein and Mr. Cohn be made available to be deposed but did not
require Mr. Solomon, or other senior managing executives, to be
deposed unless the Plaintiffs came forward with evidence that they
had knowledge of disparate impact caused by the challenged
processes and were involved in, or had the ability to influence,
the adoption or modification of those processes.

The Plaintiffs are presumably correct that Mr. Solomon was and
remains a senior leader with the ability to affect decisions
involving the three class divisions and that he had the ability to
influence the adoption or modification of the relevant processes.
But, Judge Lehrburger opines, that is only part of the necessary
predicate. The Plaintiffs still have not come forward with any
evidence to show that Mr. Solomon had knowledge of disparate impact
caused by or otherwise linked to the challenged processes.

As the Court previously found with respect to the Plaintiffs'
motions seeking additional boys-club evidence from upper-level
management to demonstrate discriminatory animus, there must be
evidence of nexus regarding the particular individual or group's
role in approving, revising, implementing, or ignoring disparities
linked to the three processes; otherwise, proof of their animus is
tangential at best to the specific issues being tried in Phase I of
this action.

Judge Lehrburger finds that the Complaint does not demonstrate the
nexus to warrant the deposition of Mr. Solomon. Nowhere does it
connect Mr. Solomon with knowledge of disparity linked to the three
at-issue processes, which as noted, are nowhere mentioned in the
Complaint. The Complaint does, however, contain a few allegations
specifically about Mr. Solomon, including (1) his alleged notorious
reference during a meeting to being in the unique position of
having had a certain type of sexual gratification the night before,
(2) hearsay questioning the genuineness of his belief in gender
diversity, and (3) his involvement in the promotion of men into
leadership roles. But there is nothing that implicates the three
processes at issue.

Finally, given the closure of both fact and expert discovery and
the impending pre-trial filing deadline, re-opening discovery at
this juncture is ill-advised, Judge Lehrburger holds. The
Plaintiffs suggest that their demands would not delay proceedings.
Their requested relief, however, indicates the opposite as it
broadly seeks "re-opening of any deposition where it may be
inferred that witnesses have knowledge of a late-produced
complaint."

Make no mistake, the discriminatory conduct alleged both in this
lawsuit and in the Complaint is reprehensible, Judge Lehrburger
says. In deciding the discovery issue at hand, however, the Court
must be guided by the limited scope of the class actually certified
and by legal principles limiting discovery from apex personnel.

For these reasons, Judge Lehrburger denies the Plaintiffs' motion
to compel the additional discovery sought and for sanctions. The
Clerk of Court is requested to terminate the motion at Docket
1381.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 12, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3dfvxszh from Leagle.com.


GOOGLE LLC: Brown Appeals Class Certification Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHASOM BROWN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting in part and denying in part their motion to certify class
in the lawsuit entitled Chasom Brown, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Google
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-03664-YGR, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on June 2,
2020, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Alphabet, Inc. and
Google alleging that Google had unlawfully collected their data
while they used "private browsing mode." The Plaintiffs asserted
four claims: (1) unauthorized interception under the Wiretap Act,
18 U.S.C. Section 2510 et seq.; (2) violation of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), Cal. Penal Code Sections 631 and
632; (3) invasion of privacy; and (4) intrusion upon seclusion.

Additionally, the complaint sought class action relief on behalf of
two alleged classes: (1) "All Android device owners who accessed a
website containing Google Analytics or Ad Manager using such a
device and who were (a) in 'private browsing mode' on that device's
browser and (b) were not logged into their Google account on that
device's browser, but whose communications, including identifying
information and online browsing history, Google nevertheless
intercepted, received, or collected from June 1, 2016 through the
present" and (2) "All individuals with a Google account who
accessed a website containing Google Analytics or Ad Manager using
any non-Android device and who were (a) in 'private browsing mode'
in that device's browser, and (b) were not logged into their Google
account on that device's browser, but whose communications,
including identifying information and online browsing history,
Google nevertheless intercepted, received, or collected from June
1, 2016 through the present."

On Sept. 21, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint
("FAC") in lieu of opposing the motion to dismiss. In addition to
the four claims from the original complaint, the FAC asserted a
claim for violation of the California Computer Data Access and
Fraud Act ("CDAFA"), Cal. Penal Code Section 502. On Oct. 6, 2020,
the Court denied as moot the Aug. 20, 2020 motion to dismiss.

On Oct. 21, 2020, Google filed a motion to dismiss the FAC. Among
other arguments, Google argued that all of the Plaintiffs' claims
should be dismissed because the Plaintiffs consented to Google's
collection of their data. On Nov. 18, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an
opposition to Google's motion to dismiss the FAC. On Dec. 7, 2020,
Google filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss the FAC,
and a filed reply in support of its request for judicial notice.

On March 12, 2021, the Court issued an order granting both parties'
requests for judicial notice, denying Google's administrative
motion for leave to file a reply in support of the arguments raised
in Google's affidavits, and denying Google's motion to dismiss the
FAC.

On April 14, 2021, the parties stipulated to allow the Plaintiffs
to file a second amended complaint ("SAC"). In addition to the five
claims asserted by the FAC, the SAC asserts two new claims against
Google: (1) breach of contract; and (2) violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections
17200, et seq. ("SAC"). On April 15, 2021, the Court granted the
parties' stipulation.

On May 17, 2021, Google filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
claims for breach of contract and violation of the UCL. In
connection with its motion to dismiss, Google filed a request for
judicial notice.

On June 15, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Google's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and
violation of the UCL. In connection with their opposition, the
Plaintiffs filed a request for judicial notice. On June 29, 2021,
Google filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and violation of the
UCL.

The Plaintiffs moved for class certification of their seven claims
under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3), and alternatively for issue
certification under Rule 23(c)(4). Those claims are: breach of
contract, intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, and claims
for violation of the Federal Wiretap Act, CIPA, CDAFA, and UCL.

On Dec. 12, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification through an Order entered
by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The Court determined that the
Plaintiffs have met their burden under 23(b)(2) and therefore
granted their motion to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2).
However, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a
damages class under Rule 23(b)(3) because it found that individual
issues of implied consent are likely to predominate over any common
issues.

The appellate case is captioned Chasom Brown, et al. v. Google,
LLC, Case No. 22-80147, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 23, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners CHASOM BROWN, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            David Boies, Esq.
            BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
            333 Main Street
            Armonk, NY 10504
            Telephone: (914) 749-8200
            E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com

                    - and -

            Mark Mao, Esq.
            BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
            44 Montgomery Street, 41st Floor
            San Francisco, CA 94104
            Telephone: (415) 293-6800
            E-mail: mmao@bsfllp.com

                    - and -

            Bill Carmody, Esq.
            SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
            1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Fl.
            New York, NY 10019
            Telephone: (212) 336-8330
            E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com

                    - and -

            John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
            MORGAN & MORGAN
            201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Fl.
            Tampa, FL 33602
            Telephone: (813) 223-5505

Defendant-Respondent GOOGLE, LLC is represented by:

            Andrew H. Schapiro, Esq.
            QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
            191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
            Chicago, IL 60606
            Telephone: (312) 705-7400
            Facsimile: (312) 705-7401
            E-mail: andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com

                    - and -

            Stephen A. Broome, Esq.
            QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
            Viola Trebicka, Esq.
            865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
            Los Angeles, CA 90017
            Telephone: (213) 443-3000
            Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
            E-mail: sb@quinnemanuel.com
                    violatrebicka@quinnemanuel.com

                    - and -

            Diane M. Doolittle, Esq.
            QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
            555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
            Redwood Shores, CA 94065
            Telephone: (650) 801-5000
            Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
            E-mail: dianedoolittle@quinnemanuel.com

                    - and -

            Jomaire A. Crawford, Esq.
            QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
            51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
            New York, NY 10010
            Telephone: (212) 849-7000
            Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
            E-mail: jomairecrawford@quinnemanuel.com

                    - and -

            Josef Ansorge, Esq.
            QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
            1300 I Street NW, Suite 900
            Washington, DC 20005
            Telephone: (202) 538-8000
            Facsimile: (202) 538-8100
            E-mail: josefansorge@quinnemanuel.com

                    - and -

            Jonathan Tse, Esq.
            QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
            50 California Street, 22nd Floor
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 875-6600
            Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
            E-mail: jonathantse@quinnemanuel.com

HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Hutley Sues Over Anticompetitive Conduct
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Hutley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY GROUP, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00902 (W.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2022), is brought as an antitrust
action directed at Harley-Davidson's anticompetitive conduct:
Harley-Davidson used its warranty to try to force Harley owners to
use its own parts, rather than the many quality aftermarket parts
available for its motorcycles.

Harley-Davidson's use of its warranty in this manner violated the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, as
charged by the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and admitted by
Harley-Davidson in its acceptance of the consent decree it entered
with the FTC on June 22, 2022. Harley-Davidson is one of the oldest
and most recognizable vehicle brands in the world. The company was
founded in 1903 and accounts for approximately half of all
roadgoing motorcycles with engine displacements in excess of
601cc.

Because of the longevity and popularity of its motorcycles, and
because of customers' willingness to customize and/or keep older
Harley-Davidsons on the road for many years, there is a vast
aftermarket for parts to repair and customize Harleys. The
aftermarket for Harley-compatible parts became a threat to
Harley-Davidson's bottom line. Harley-Davidson makes approximately
15% of its annual revenue from parts. In order to maximize its
parts revenue and profit, Harley-Davidson used its warranty to try
to suppress competition from aftermarket parts competitors and to
force Harley owners under warranty to use only Harley-Davidson's
own parts.

Harley-Davidson illegally tied its own branded parts to its
motorcycles (and the factory warranties that go with them). As a
result, Harley-Davidson has lessened competition in the market for
Harley-compatible replacement parts. This has allowed
Harley-Davidson to charge supracompetitive prices for its parts, at
the expense of the consumers who buy them.

The FTC's consent decree with Harley-Davidson obtained injunctive
relief to put a stop to at least some of Harley-Davidson's illegal
business practices. The FTC, however, lacks the authority to
recover consumers' damages. In this litigation, Plaintiffs seek to
recover those damages--the overpayment for Harley-brand parts--from
Harley Davidson for the proposed consumer Class, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a Harley motorcycle from Harley-Davidson of
Jamestown on July 9, 2020.

Harley-Davidson was the largest motorcycle manufacturer in the
world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
          RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC
          111 West 2nd Street #1100
          Jamestown, NY 14701
          Phone: (716) 854-3400
          Email: bailey@ruppbaase.com

               - and -

          Marco Cercone, Esq.
          RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC
          1600 Liberty Building
          424 Main Street
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Phone: (716) 854-3400
          Email: cercone@ruppbaase.com

               - and -

          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
          Jessica N. Servais, Esq.
          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          Email: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
                 hmsilton@locklaw.com
                 jnservais@locklaw.com
                 jcbourne@locklaw.com


HCL AMERICA SOLUTIONS: Kennedy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HCL America Solutions
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Daniel Kennedy, an individual,
on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. HCL America Solutions Inc., HCL Technologies Limited,
Does 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22603642 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Dec. 22, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

HCL America Inc. offers computer programming solutions. The Company
provides informational technology, infrastructure management,
software engineering, data center, and application development
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
          JCL LAW FIRM, APC
          5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600
          San Diego, CA 92121-6720
          Phone: 619-599-8292
          Fax: 619-599-8291
          Email: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
          ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
          5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600
          San Diego, CA 92121-6720
          Phone: 619-255-9047
          Fax: 858-404-9203
          Email: shani@zakaylaw.com


HEY DUDE (US): Mackey Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Samantha Mackey, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. HEY DUDE (US) LLC, Case No.
22-005038-CI was removed from the Circuit Court of the Sixth
Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Nov.
23, 2022, and assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02685-CEH-AEP.

The Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts that HEY DUDE violated the
Florida telephone Solicitation Act (the "FTSA"). The Complaint
states that the "matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$30,000.00 exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney's fees." The
Defendant denies the allegations in the Complaint.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Aaron S. Blynn, Esq.
          GENOVESE JOBLOVE & BATTISTA, P.A.
          4400 Miami Tower
          100 Southeast Second Street
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 349-2300
          Facsimile: (305) 349-2310
          Email: ablynn@gjb-law.com

               - and -

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


HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE: Samokovski Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nadia Samokovski, Christopher Baldwin, Ryan Colley, Susan Frazee,
Danny Millhouse, Gina Moore, Sherry Nelson, Stephanie Roar,
Jennifer Thomas, Natasha Perkins, Kevin Wilson, and Adrian Wheeler,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE INC., ONESOURCE EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT, LLC,
CRYSTAL CARE OF IRONTON, LLC, MCKENNA HEALTH CARE OF FRANKLIN
FURNACE INC., MCKENNA HEALTH CARE OF PORTSMOUTH, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-00701-MWM (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 29, 2022), is brought pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of the Defendants'
failure to pay overtime wages.

The Plaintiffs regularly work more than 40 hours in a single
workweek. The Defendants have not compensated the Plaintiffs at an
overtime premium rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate(s) of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.
The Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiffs for all overtime
hours worked at the proper rate of one and one-half times her
regular rate of pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as nursing staff
members and kitchen staff members.

The Defendants jointly own and operate "River Run Health Care"
which is comprised of three Nursing Homes in Coal Grove, Ohio,
Franklin Furnace, Ohio, and Portsmouth, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
          Rhiannon M. Herbert, Esq.
          MANSELL LAW, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Phone: 614-796-4325
          Fax: 614-547-3614
          Email: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
                 Rhiannon@MansellLawLLC.com


HOLTON INVESTMENT: Cuesta Sues Over ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Carlos Cuesta, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals v. HOLTON INVESTMENT, LLC
D/B/A APPLEWOOD GROVE SHOPPING CENTER and APPLEWOOD VIETNAMESE
RESTAURANT, LLC D/B/A APPLEWOOD VIETNAMESE RESTAURANT, Case No.
1:22-cv-03038-NRN (D. Colo., Nov. 22, 2022), is brought for
injunctive relief, a declaration of rights, attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act or ("ADA").

Although nearly 30 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. In spite of the
abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received
since 1990, Defendants continue to discriminate against people who
are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of
Defendant's Commercial Property and the Defendant's business
therein.

The Plaintiff visited the Commercial Property and as a
patron/customer. He intends to return to the Commercial Property in
order to avail himself of the goods and services offered to the
public at the property. Plaintiff found the Commercial Property to
be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered
architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and wishes to
continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has
encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA
at the subject Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the
Defendant's Commercial Property and Defendant's business within the
Commercial Property have each denied or diminished the Plaintiff's
ability to visit the Commercial Property and endangered his safety.
The barriers to access, which are set forth below, have likewise
posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and
pursuant to the ADA and is, among other things, a hemiplegic with
partial paralysis on his left side of the body.

HOLTON INVESTMENT, LLC, owned and operated a commercial shopping
center located in Street Golden, Colorado (hereinafter the
"Commercial Property").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
          GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.
          1600 Broadway, Suite 1600
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: (303) 386-7208
          Facsimile: (305) 553-3031
          Email: ajperez@lawgmp.com
          Secondary Email: dperaza@lawgmp.com
                 bvirues@lawgmp.com


HOME DEPOT INC: Clark-Alonso Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mike Clark-Alonso, individually and on behalf of
a class similarly situated individuals v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
doing business as: The Home Depot, Case No. CGC22602499 was removed
from the San Francisco County Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 28, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-07487-AGT to the
proceeding.

The nature suit is stated as Other P.I.

The Home Depot, Inc. -- http://www.homedepot.com/-- is an American
multinational home improvement retail corporation that sells tools,
construction products, appliances, and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          Rachael Ga-Yue Jung, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Phone: (415) 543-7861
          Fax: (415) 543-7861
          Email: eagrover@kellergrover.com
                 rjung@kellergrover.com

               - and -

          Scot Bernstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN
          101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Phone: (916) 447-0100
          Fax: (916) 933-5533
          Email: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Anne Margaret Voigts, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          601 South California Avenue, Suite 100
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: (650) 422-6710
          Fax: (650) 422-6800
          Email: avoigts@kslaw.com


HP INC: Balanzar Sues Over Unauthorized Interception of Data
------------------------------------------------------------
Emir Balanzar, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. HP INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02030-MMA-WVG (S.D. Cal.,
Dec. 22, 2022), is brought for damages and injunctive relief
against the Defendant, and its present, former, or future direct
and indirect parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents,
related entities for violations of the Federal Wiretap Act (the
"Wiretap Act") and the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"),
in relation to the unauthorized interception, collection,
recording, and dissemination of the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
communications and data.

This case stems from Defendant's unauthorized interception and
connection to Plaintiff's and Class Members' electronic
communications through the use of "session replay" spyware that
allowed Defendant to read, learn the contents of, and make reports
on Plaintiff's and Class Members' interactions on Defendant's
website.

The Defendant utilized "session replay" spyware to intercept
Plaintiff's and the Class Members' electronic computer-to-computer
data communications, including how Plaintiff and Class Members
interacted with the website, mouse movements and clicks,
keystrokes, search items, information inputted into the website,
and pages and content viewed while visiting the website. Defendant
intentionally tapped and made unauthorized interceptions and
connections to Plaintiff and Class Members' electronic
communications to read and understand movement on the website, as
well as everything Plaintiff and Class Members did on those pages,
e.g., what Plaintiff and Class Members searched for, looked at, the
information inputted, and clicked on.

The Defendant made these unauthorized interceptions and connections
without the knowledge or prior consent of Plaintiff or Class
Members. The "session replay" spyware utilized by Defendant is a
sophisticated computer software that allows Defendant to
contemporaneously intercept, capture, read, observe, re-route,
forward, redirect, and receive Plaintiff's and Class Members'
electronic communications.

Unlike typical website analytics services that provide aggregate
statistics, the session replay technology utilized by Defendant is
intended to record and playback an individual browsing session, as
if someone is looking over Plaintiff's or a Class Member's shoulder
when visiting Defendant's website. The technology also permits
companies like Defendant to view the interactions of visitors on
Defendant's website in live, real-time.

The purported use of "session replay" technology is to monitor and
discover broken website features; however, the extent and detail
collected by users of the technology, like Defendant, far exceeds
the stated purpose and Plaintiff's and Class Members' expectations
when visiting websites like Defendant's. The technology not only
allows the tapping and unauthorized connection of a visitor's
electronic communication with a website, but also allows the user
to create a detailed profile for each visitor to the site.
Moreover, the collection and storage of page content may cause
sensitive information and other personal information displayed on a
page to lead to third parties. This may expose website visitors to
identity theft, online scams, and other unwanted behavior.

In sum, Defendant illegally tapped, made an unauthorized connection
to, and intercepted Plaintiff's and Class Members' electronic
communications through visits to Defendant's website, causing
injuries, including violations of Plaintiff's and Class Members'
substantive legal privacy rights under the Wiretap Act and CIPA,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website.

The Defendant owns and operates the following website:
www.hp.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: 866-219-3343
          Email: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: 619-222-7429
          Email: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com

               - and -

          Ben Travis Esq.
          BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC
          4660 La Jolla Village Dr, Ste 100
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Phone: 619-353-7966
          Email: Ben@BenTravisLaw.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Bissell Suit Transferred to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cobi Bissell, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Hyundai Motor America Corporation, Kia
Motors America Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-00548 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
Dec. 22, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02298-JVS-KES to
the proceeding.

The nature suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.

Hyundai Motor America --
https://www.hyundaiusa.com/us/en/our-company -- manufactures and
retails automobiles. The Company offers compacts, sedans, hybrids,
crossovers, passenger cars, spare parts, tools, and equipments,
including maintenance, repair, and auto finance.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew Lee Dameron, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: (816) 945-7110
          Fax: (816) 945-7118
          Email: matt@williamsdirks.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David M. Eisenberg, Esq.
          BAKER, STERCHI, COWDEN & RICE, LLC - KCMO
          2400 Pershing Road, Suite 500
          Kansas City, MO 64108-2504
          Phone: (816) 448-9343
          Fax: (816) 472-0288
          Email: eisenberg@bakersterchi.com


INDIANA FINISH LINE: Redick Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Indiana Finish
Line, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Crystal Redick,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Indiana Finish Line, Inc., Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:22-cv-08534-DMG-JEM (C.D. Cal., Nov. 22, 2022).

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

The Indiana Finish Line -- https://stores.finishline.com/in.html --
offers premium footwear, athletic apparel & accessories from top
brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Gutierrez Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rodolfo Gutierrez, as an individual on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
International Paper Company, Sylvamo North America, LLC, Does 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 22STCV33066 was removed from the Los Angeles
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on Nov. 18, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-08460-JFW-RAO to
the proceeding.

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

The International Paper Company --
http://www.internationalpaper.com/-- is an American pulp and paper
company, the largest such company in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chad A. Saunders, Esq.
          Zachary Crosner, Esq.
          Jamie K. Serb, Esq.
          Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL PC
          9440 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Phone: (310) 496-5818
          Fax: (818) 700-9973
          Email: chad@crosnerlegal.com
                 zach@crosnerlegal.com
                 jamie@crosnerlegal.com
                 mike@crosnerlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aaron F. Olsen
          Christopher M. Champine
          Danielle Hultenius Moore
          FISHER AND PHILLIPS LLP
          4747 Executive Drive Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Phone: (858) 597-9600
          Fax: (858) 597-9601
          Email: aolsen@fisherphillips.com
                 cchampine@fisherphillips.com
                 dmoore@fisherphillips.com


JEVO INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jevo, Inc. The case
is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Jevo, Inc. d/b/a Physique 57, Case No.
1:22-cv-07766 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2022).

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

Jevo, Inc. doing business as Physique 57 -- https://physique57.com/
-- is a global fitness and media company headquartered in New York
City offering a fitness experience in boutique studios and through
proprietary and third party digital platforms.[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


JLM VENTURE IV: Zayas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JLM Venture IV LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Edwin Zayas, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. JLM Venture IV LLC, 5
Brothers Gourmet Deli Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09872-VEC (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 18, 2022).

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

JLM Ventures -- https://www.jlmventures.com/ -- has a mission to be
the preferred Sponsor of transformative real estate developments
and strategic real estate acquisitions; and a stellar partner to
our financing sources, municipalities, and customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Bahamonde, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, PC
          2501 Jody Court
          North Bellmore, NY 11710
          Phone: (516) 783-9662
          Fax: (646) 435-4376
          Email: james@civilrightsny.com


JOSEPH F. ADA: GSOG Files Suit in D. Guam
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joseph F. Ada, et al.
The case is styled as Guam Society of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, Maria Doe, on behalf of herself and all other women
similarly situated, Guam Nurses Association, Milton Cole, Laurie
Konwith, Edmund A. Griley M.D., William S. Freeman M.D., John
Dunlop M.D., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Joseph F. Ada, Leticia Espaldon, George B. Palican,
Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson, personally and in their official
capacities, together with all others similarly situated, Case No.
1:90-cv-00013 (D. Guam, Dec. 22, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute for
the Organic Act of Guam.

Joseph Franklin Ada, better known as Joseph F. Ada, is an American
politician who served as the 5th Governor of Guam from 1987 to
1995.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anita Arriola, Esq.
          ARRIOLA LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box X
          Phone: (671) 477-9730
          Email: aarriola@arriolafirm.com


KANKAKEE HOSPITALITY: Karnes Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Erica Karnes, on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated individuals v. Kankakee Hospitality LLC, Case
No. 22-LA-73 was removed from the Kankakee County Circuit Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois on
Nov. 21, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02253-CSB-EIL to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute.

Kankakee Hospitality LLC doing business as The Hilton Garden Inn is
a 3-star hotel in Kankakee, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          1800 SE 10th Avenue, Suite 205
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Phone: (954) 871-0050
          Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas J. Nitschke, Esq.
          BLAISE & NITSCHKE PC
          145 S Wells Street, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 448-6602
          Fax: (312) 803-1940
          Email: tjnitschke@blaisenitschkelaw.com


KIA AMERICA: Day Suit Transferred to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rita Day, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc., Hyundai Motor America,
Hyundai Kia America Technical Center, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00202
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Dec. 22, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02296-JVS-KES to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability for
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Kia America, Inc. -- https://www.kia.com/us/en -- provides a wide
range of cars that meet costumers' lifestyle.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chelsea McClain Pierce, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Soper, Esq.
          Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
          Kevin D. Stanley, Esq.
          HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & MCCLAIN, P.C.
          221 W. Lexington, Ste. 400
          Independence, MO 64050-64051
          Phone: (816) 836-5050
          Fax: (816) 836-8966
          Email: cmp@hfmlegal.com
                 jms@hfmlegal.com
                 kbm@hfmlegal.com
                 kds@hfmlegal.com

               - and -

          David A. Futscher, Esq.
          FUTSCHER LAW PLLC
          913 North Oak Drive
          Villa Hills, KY 41017
          Phone: (859) 912-2394
          Email: david@futscherlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alice S. Kim, Esq.
          Kate Spelman, Esq.
          JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
          515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2246
          Phone: (213) 239-5100
          Fax: (213) 239-5199
          Email: akim@jenner.com
                 KSpelman@jenner.com

               - and -

          Donald C. Morgan, Esq.
          Morgan Todd Osterloh, Esq.
          STURGILL, TURNER, BARKER & MOLONEY PLLC
          333 W. Vine Street, Suite 1500
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Phone: (859) 255-8581
          Fax: (859) 231-0851
          Email: dmorgan@sturgillturner.com
                 tosterloh@sturgillturner.com

               - and -

          Michael T. Brody, Esq.
          Peter J. Brennan, Esq.
          JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
          One IBM Plaza
          353 North Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: (312) 222-9350
          Fax: (312) 527-0484
          Email: pbrennan@jenner.com


KIA AMERICA: Jones Suit Transferred to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Heather Jones, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc., Hyundai Motor
America, Hyundai Kia America Technical Center, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02123 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Dec. 22, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02291-JVS-KES to
the proceeding.

The nature suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.

Kia America, Inc. -- https://www.kia.com/us/en -- provides a wide
range of cars that meet costumers' lifestyle.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin D. Stanley, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Soper, Esq.
          HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & MCCLAIN, P.C.
          221 W. Lexington, Ste. 400
          Independence, MO 64050-64051
          Phone: (816) 836-5050
          Fax: (816) 836-8966
          Email: kds@hfmlegal.com
                 jms@hfmlegal.com


KIA AMERICA: Loburgio Suit Transferred to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Erica Loburgio, Anthony Loburgio, and Michael
Flannagan, Jessica Mitchell, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc., Hyundai Motor America,
Hyundai Kia America Technical Center, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04071
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Dec. 22, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02293-JVS-KES to
the proceeding.

The nature suit is stated as Prop. Damage Prod. Liability for the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Kia America, Inc. -- https://www.kia.com/us/en -- provides a wide
range of cars that meet customers' lifestyle.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chelsea McClain Pierce, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Soper, Esq.
          Kevin D. Stanley
          HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & MCCLAIN, P.C.
          221 W. Lexington, Ste. 400
          Independence, MO 64050-64051
          Phone: (816) 836-5050
          Fax: (816) 836-8966
          Email: cmp@hfmlegal.com
                 jms@hfmlegal.com
                 kds@hfmlegal.com

               - and -

          Toby Patrick Edwin Mulholland, Esq.
          RUBENS KRESS & MULHOLLAND
          77 W. Washington St., Ste. 701
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 201-9640
          Email: tpm@rkminjurylaw.com


KIA AMERICA: Marvin Suit Transferred to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Stefanie Marvin, Katherine Wargin, Chaid
Przybelski, Chad Just, Amy Flasch, Lydia Davis, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc.,
Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Kia America Technical Center, Inc.,
Fictitious Kia Defendants, A-C, Fictitious Hyundai Defendants A-C,
Case No. 2:21-cv-01146 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on Dec. 22, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02304-JVS-KES to
the proceeding.

The nature suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Kia America, Inc. -- https://www.kia.com/us/en -- provides a wide
range of cars that meet costumers' lifestyle.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James B. Barton, Esq.
          Joshua S Greenberg, Esq.
          BARTON LEGAL S.C.
          313 North Plankinton Avenue Suite 207
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Phone: (414) 488-1822
          Email: jbb@bartonlegalsc.com
                 jsg@bartonlegalsc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Peter J. Brennan, Esq.
          Vaughn E. Olson, Esq.
          Michael T. Brody, Esq.
          JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
          One IBM Plaza
          353 North Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: (312) 222-9350
          Fax: (312) 527-0484
          Email: pbrennan@jenner.com
                 volson@jenner.com
                 mbrody@jenner.com


KIA AMERICA: Moon Suit Transferred to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Stacie Moon, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Petitioner v. Kia America, Inc., Hyundai Motor
America, Hyundai Kia America Technical Center, Inc., Respondents,
Case No. 1:22-cv-07433 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on Dec. 22, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02300-JVS-KES to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated Other Personal Property for Property
Damage.

Kia America, Inc. -- https://www.kia.com/us/en -- provides a wide
range of cars that meet costumers' lifestyle.[BN]

The Petitioner is represented by:

          Joshua B. Katz, Esq.
          KENT, BEATTY & GORDON, LLP
          Eleven Times Square, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 421-4300
          Fax: (212) 421-4303
          Email: jbk@kbg-law.com

The Respondents are represented by:

          Peter J. Brennan, Esq.
          JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
          One IBM Plaza
          353 North Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: (312) 222-9350
          Fax: (312) 527-0484
          Email: pbrennan@jenner.com


KIA AMERICA: Pue Suit Transferred to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joanna Pue, Shannon Kozmic, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc., Hyundai
Motor America, Hyundai Kia America Technical Center, Inc., Case No.
6:22-cv-01440 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on Dec. 22, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02295-JVS-KES to
the proceeding.

The nature suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability for
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Kia America, Inc. -- https://www.kia.com/us/en -- provides a wide
range of cars that meet costumers' lifestyle.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bradford Rothwell Sohn, Esq.
          THE BRAD SOHN LAW FIRM PLLC
          1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard Suite 1205
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: (786) 708-9750
          Fax: (305) 397-0650
          Email: brad@bradsohnlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alice S. Kim, Esq.
          JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
          515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2246
          Phone: (213) 239-5100
          Fax: (213) 239-5199
          Email: akim@jenner.com

               - and -

          Joshua C. Webb, Esq.
          HILL WARD AND HENDERSON PA
          101 East Kennedy Boulevaard Suite 3700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 221-3900
          Fax: (813) 221-2900
          Email: jwebb@hwhlaw.com

               - and -

          Peter J. Brennan, Esq.
          JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
          One IBM Plaza
          353 North Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: (312) 222-9350
          Fax: (312) 527-0484
          Email: pbrennan@jenner.com


KIA AMERICA: Simmons Suit Transferred to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Charles W. Simmons, Dale Denney, Charles Cole,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Kia
America, Inc., Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Kia America Technical
Center, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02288 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 22, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02295-JVS-KES to
the proceeding.

The nature suit is stated as Prop. Damage Prod. Liability for Auto
Negligence.

Kia America, Inc. -- https://www.kia.com/us/en -- provides a wide
range of cars that meet costumers' lifestyle.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chelsea McClain Pierce, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Soper, Esq.
          Kevin D. Stanley, Esq.
          Paul D. Anderson, Esq.
          HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & MCCLAIN, P.C.
          221 W. Lexington, Ste. 400
          Independence, MO 64050-64051
          Phone: (816) 836-5050
          Fax: (816) 836-8966
          Email: cmp@hfmlegal.com
                 jms@hfmlegal.com
                 kds@hfmlegal.com
                 pda@hfmlegal.com


KIA AMERICA: Yeghiaian Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kia America, Inc. The
case is styled as Cynthia Yeghiaian, Jeff Plaza, Katelyn McNerney,
Sherry Mason, Camri Nelson, Cameron Cunningham, Allison Brown,
Mitchell Cohen, Pauline Ragsdale, Herbert Taylor, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc.,
Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Kia America Technical Center, Inc.,
Case No. 8:22-ml-03052-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal., Dec. 22, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability for
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Kia America, Inc. -- https://www.kia.com/us/en -- provides a wide
range of cars that meet customers' lifestyle.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tom Adams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS G. ADAMS
          21781 Ventura Boulevard Suite 10005
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Phone: (805) 229-1529
          Fax: (805) 258-7415
          Email: thomasgadams@gmail.com

               - and -

          Andrew K Smith, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Soper, Esq.
          Kenneth B McCain, Esq.
          HUMPHREY FARRINGTON AND MCCLAIN PC
          221 West Lexington Avenue, Suite 400
          Independence, MO 64051
          Phone: (816) 836-5050
          Email: aks@hfmlegal.com
                 jms@hfmlegal.com

               - and -

          Rhett Thomas Francisco, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RHETT FRANCISCO
          638 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 105
          Oak Park, CA 91377
          Phone: (818) 319-9879
          Email: rhett_francisco_law@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Christopher Pitoun, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Phone: (213) 330-7150
          Fax: (213) 330-7152
          Email: christopherp@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S Goldenberg, Esq.
          Todd B Naylor, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER LPA
          4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
          Cincinnati, OH 45242
          Phone: (513) 345-8291
          Fax: (513) 345-8294
          Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
                 tnaylor@gs-legal.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
          LYON FIRM
          2754 Erie Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Phone: (513) 381-2333
          Fax: (513) 766-9011
          Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com

               - and -

          Sean Matt, Esq.
          Steve W Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          Fax: (206) 623-0594
          Email: sean@hbsslaw.com
                 steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT LLC
          150 South Wacker Drive, 24th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 741-4019
          Fax: (312) 264-0100

               - and -

          Jennifer A. Lenze, Esq.
          LENZE LAWYERS PLC
          999 Corporate Drive, Suite 100
          Ladera Ranch, CA 92694
          Phone: (310) 322-8800
          Fax: (310) 322-8811
          Email: jlenze@lenzelawyers.com

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT LLC
          140 Broadway, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (332) 216-2101
          Fax: (312) 264-0100
          Email: jonathan@feganscott.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alice S. Kim, Esq.
          Kate Spelman, Esq.
          JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
          515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2246
          Phone: (213) 239-5100
          Fax: (213) 239-5199
          Email: akim@jenner.com
                 KSpelman@jenner.com

               - and -

          Peter J. Brennan, Esq.
          JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
          One IBM Plaza
          353 North Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: (312) 222-9350
          Fax: (312) 527-0484
          Email: pbrennan@jenner.com


KING COBRA: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against King Cobra Of
Florida, Inc. The case is styled as Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. King Cobra Of
Florida, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10839 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2022).

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

King Cobra -- https://www.kingcobraofflorida.com/ -- is a local
hobby shop serving Pensacola, Florida and customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


KODY KINSLEY: Timothy B Sues Over Ongoing Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------
Timothy B., by and through his Guardian ad Litem Robert Ward; Flora
P., by and through her Guardian ad Litem Robert Ward; ISABELLA A.,
by and through her Guardian ad Litem Jeffrey C. Holden; and STEPH
C., by and through his Guardian ad Litem Jeffrey C. Holden, for
themselves and for those similarly situated; DISABILITY RIGHTS
NORTH CAROLINA; and NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP v.
KODY KINSLEY, in his official capacity as Secretary of the NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ("DHHS"), Case No.
1:22-cv-01046-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C., Dec. 6, 2022), is brought seeking
to end ongoing discrimination by the North Carolina Department of
Health and Human Services ("DHHS") against children with
disabilities placed in child welfare custody ("foster care") who
are unnecessarily segregated from their home communities and
routinely isolated in heavily restrictive, and often clinically
inappropriate, institutional placements known as psychiatric
residential treatment facilities ("PRTFs").

PRTFs are designed to provide intensive, short-term, residential
psychiatric treatment for temporary stabilization. They are
generally unsuitable as a long-term "place to live," but that does
not stop DHHS from allowing children to languish there for extended
periods of time. Unsurprisingly, research shows that children with
disabilities confined to PRTFs suffer much worse outcomes than
non-institutionalized children. These outcomes include spending
longer periods of time in child welfare custody without a permanent
home; losing critical family connections with parents, siblings,
and extended family due to their confinement; and experiencing
higher rates of maltreatment while in child welfare custody.

Moreover, children with disabilities in foster care regularly face
trauma within PRTFs. They are often confined to prison-like
settings under the care of a poorly trained and understaffed
workforce, where they are subject to broken bones, sprains,
bruises, and dangerous physical and chemical restraints; withstand
sexual and physical abuse, bullying, and hate speech by both youth
and staff; and face mental health deterioration and cocktails of
strong psychotropic medications.

For instance, the Named Plaintiff children in this litigation,
referred to by the pseudonyms Timothy B., Flora P., Isabella A.,
and Steph C., are all receiving heavy cocktails of mind-altering
psychotropic medicationswhile at North Carolina PRTFs. Flora P.,
Isabella A., and Steph C. have been subject to physical restraints;
Timothy B. has faced bullying by staff; Isabella A. has been the
target of bullying and sexual harassment; and Steph C. has been
airlifted to a hospital after a physical attack knocked him
unconscious. Despite these known dangerous conditions, DHHS sent at
least 572 children in foster care to PRTFs in fiscal year 2020 to
2021.

DHHS's failure to provide community-based placement and treatment
options for children and youth with disabilities in foster care
fuels its overreliance on PRTFs. Despite a cost of $100 million per
year, DHHS has increased its reliance on psychiatric residential
treatment facilities since 2010 – instead of building up and
expanding appropriate community-based family placements (relative
or kinship families and non-relative foster families) and
supportive mental and behavioral health treatment services.

This civil rights action seeks only declarative and prospective
injunctive relief on behalf of Named Plaintiff children Timothy B.,
Flora P., Isabella A., and Steph C. through their Guardians ad
Litem Robert Ward, Esq. and Dr. Jeffrey C. Holden, Ph.D., and a
class of similarly situated North Carolina youth with mental
impairments in foster care, as well as Associational Plaintiffs
Disability Rights North Carolina and the North Carolina State
Conference of NAACP, for DHHS's violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the Rehabilitation Act, and their
implementing regulations.

The Plaintiffs challenge DHHS's systemic failures to ensure that
children with disabilities in foster care are cared for in the most
integrated community-based setting appropriate to their needs, and
that children in PRTFs are timely and appropriately discharged to
such settings, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are North Carolina children with disabilities in
foster care who have been removed from their families and
communities and are placed in, or at serious risk of placement in,
a PRTF.

Kody Kinsley is the current Secretary of the North Carolina
Department of Health and Human Services and is sued in his official
capacity only.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Holly Stiles, Esq.
          Lisa Nesbitt, Esq.
          Emma Kinyanjui, Esq.
          Joonu Coste, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS NORTH CAROLINA
          3724 National Drive Suite 100
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Phone: 919-856-2195
          Fax: 919-856-2244
          Email: holly.stiles@disabilityrightsnc.org
                 lisa.nesbitt@disabilityrightsnc.org
                 emma.kinyanjui@disabilityrightsnc.org
                 joonu.coste@disabilityrightsnc.org

               - and -

          Marissa C. Nardi, Esq.
          Ira Lustbader, Esq.
          Stephen Dixon, Esq.
          Lindsey Frye, Esq.
          Bianca Herlitz-Ferguson, Esq.
          Carolyn Hite, Esq.
          CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
          88 Pine Street, Suite 800
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 683-2210
          Email: mnardi@childrensrights.org
                 ilustbader@childrensrights.org
                 sdixon@childrensrights.org
                 lfrye@childrensrights.org
                 bherlitzferguson@childrensrights.org
                 chite@childrensrights.org

               - and -

          Professor Irving Joyner, Esq.
          NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP
          P.O. Box 374
          Cary, NC 27512
          Phone: (919) 318-8353
          Email: ijoyner@NCCU.EDU

               - and -

          Joshua Lanning, Esq.
          Kaitlin Price, Esq.
          Ben Shook, Esq.
          MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC
          100 North Tryon St., Suite 4700
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Phone: (704) 331-1000
          Email: joshlanning@mvalaw.com
                 kaitlinprice@mvalaw.com
                 benshook@mvalaw.com


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Kezdy Suit Transferred in W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Heather S. Kezdy, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC, PHILIPS R.S. NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-06445 was transferred from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 1,
2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00152-JFC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.

Koninklijke Philips N.V. -- https://www.philips.com/global -- is a
Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation that was founded in
Eindhoven.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan Steven Jambois, Esq.
          KRALOVEC JAMBOIS AND SCHWARTZ
          60 W. Randolph St. Fl. 4
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 782-2525
          Email: bjambois@kjs-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher M. Viapiano, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          1700 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 956-6985
          Email: viapianoc@sullcrom.com

               - and -

          Scott Schutte, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 324-1773
          Email: scott.schutte@morganlewis.com


LENOVO INC: Augustine Sues Over Unauthorized Interception of Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ophelia Augustine, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-02027-L-AHG (S.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2022), is brought for
damages and injunctive relief against the Defendant, and its
present, former, or future direct and indirect parent companies,
subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, related entities for violations
of the Federal Wiretap Act, (the "Wiretap Act") and the California
Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), in relation to the unauthorized
interception, collection, recording, and dissemination of
Plaintiff's and Class Members' communications and data.

This case stems from Defendant's unauthorized interception and
connection to Plaintiff's and Class Members' electronic
communications through the use of "session replay" spyware that
allowed Defendant to read, learn the contents of, and make reports
on Plaintiff's and Class Members' interactions on Defendant's
website. The Defendant utilized "session replay" spyware to
intercept the Plaintiff's and the Class Members' electronic
computer-to-computer data communications, including how Plaintiff
and Class Members interacted with the website, mouse movements and
clicks, keystrokes, search items, information inputted into the
website, and pages and content viewed while visiting the website.
The Defendant intentionally tapped and made unauthorized
interceptions and connections to the Plaintiff and Class Members'
electronic communications to read and understand movement on the
website, as well as everything Plaintiff and Class Members did on
those pages, e.g., what Plaintiff and Class Members searched for,
looked at, the information inputted, and clicked on. The Defendant
made these unauthorized interceptions and connections without the
knowledge or prior consent of the Plaintiff or Class Members.

In sum, the Defendant illegally tapped, made an unauthorized
connection to, and intercepted Plaintiff's and Class Members'
electronic communications through visits to Defendant's website,
causing injuries, including violations of Plaintiff's and Class
Members' substantive legal privacy rights under the Wiretap Act and
CIPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website over the last year
and beyond.

The Defendant owns and operates the following website:
www.lenovo.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          Spencer L. Pfeiff (SBN 343305)
          SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: 866-219-3343
          Email: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com
                 Spencer@SwigartLawGroup.com

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: 619-222-7429
          Email: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com

               - and -

          Ben Travis, Esq.
          BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC
          4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Phone: (619) 353-7966
          Email: ben@bentravislaw.com


LIBERTY ONE: More Time for Class Cert Response Sought in Ramirez
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ramirez v. Liberty One
Group LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-05892-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the
Defendants Liberty One Group LLC and Liberty One Brooklyn LLC ask
the Court to enter an order granting extension of time to respond
to Plaintiff Ivelisse Ramirez's Motion for Conditional Collective
Certification and for Court Facilitation of Notice Pursuant to 29
U.S.C. section 216(b), filed on December 22, 2022.

The Defendants' deadline to respond to the Motion is currently
January 5, 2023, and Defendants' request a 3-week extension,
through and including January 26, 2023.

The Defendants' Counsel said, "We seek this extension due to the
holidays and associated travel and office closures. Counsel for
Plaintiff has consented to this request. No prior extensions of
this deadline have been requested. Accordingly, Defendants
respectfully request that the Court grant their request for an
extension."

Liberty One Group is a fully integrated real estate investment
company.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 27, 2022 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I7iP12 at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lisia Leon, Esq.
          PADUANO & WEINTRAUB LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas, Ninth Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 785-9100
          Facsimile: (212) 785-9099

LIBERTY ONE: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Jan. 26
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ramirez v. Liberty One
Group LLC et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-05892-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order granting extension of
time to respond to Plaintiff Ivelisse Ramirez's Motion for
Conditional Collective Certification and for Court Facilitation of
Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), filed on December 22,
2022.

The Defendants shall file their opposition on or before January 26,
2023. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at
docket entry 28.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vlWgOo at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lisia Leon, Esq.
          PADUANO & WEINTRAUB LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas, Ninth Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 785-9100
          Facsimile: (212) 785-9099


LOOP TRANSPORTATION: Santana Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loop Transportation,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Alice Santana, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Loop Transportation,
Inc., Hallcon Corporation, Lux Bus America Co., Does 1-50,
Inclusive, Case No. CGC22603034 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., Nov. 18, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

Loop Transportation provides shuttle management and operations for
Bay Area businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (949) 387-7200
          Fax: (949) 387-6676
          Email: greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com


LULIFAMA.COM LLC: Pop Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alin Pop, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. LuliFama.com LLC, My LuliBabe, LLC,
Lourdes Hanimian also known as: Luli Hanimian, Taylor Mackenzie
Gallo also known as: Tequila Taylor, Alexa Collins, Allison
Martinez also known as: Alli Martinez, Cindy Prado, Gabrielle
Epstein, Haley Palve also known as: Haley Ferguson, Leidy Amelia
Labrador, Priscilla Ricart, Case No. 22-004923-CI was removed from
the Pinellas County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on Nov. 23, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02698-VMC-JSS to
the proceeding.

The nature suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Luli Fama -- https://www.lulifama.com/ -- is a Latin-owned women's
luxury swim and resort wear brand, globally recognized for its
universally flattering fit, immaculate designs and eclectic mix of
vibrant hues.[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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Keith L. Gibson, Esq.
          KEITH GIBSON LAW
          490 Pennsylvania Avenue
          Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
          Phone: (630) 677-6745
          Email: keith@keithgibsonlaw.com

               - and -

          Jared Edward Dwyer, Esq.
          Emiley Frances Pagrabs, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          333 SE 2nd Ave Ste 4400
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 579-0564
          Email: dwyerje@gtlaw.com
                 pagrabse@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Jorge A. Perez Santiago, Esq.
          STUMPHAUZER KOLAYA NADLER & SLOMAN, PLLC
          Two South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 614-1400
          Email: jperezsantiago@sknlaw.com

               - and -

          Roy Taub, Esq.
          Jeffrey Aaron Backman, Esq.
          Shane McGlashen, Esq.
          GREENSPOON MARDER, PA
          200 East Broward Blvd., Ste 1800
          Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 527-6231
          Fax: (954) 333-4231
          Email: roy.taub@gmlaw.com
                 jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com
                 shane.mcglashen@gmlaw.com

LYONS MAGNUS: Nakanishi Sues Over Contaminated Products
-------------------------------------------------------
Tomoko Nakanishi, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LYONS MAGNUS, LLC, and TRU ASEPTICS, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-06899 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 8, 2022), is brought
because of Defendants' negligent failure to ensure the quality and
safety of their products which were recalled due to bacterial
contamination concerns.

The Defendants' negligent failure led to the recall of Defendants'
protein beverages, liquid coffee, nutritional shakes, and other
supplements (hereinafter "Recalled Products"). These Recalled
Products were recalled due to bacterial contamination concerns.
Specifically, the bacteria species Cronobacter Sakazakii
(hereinafter "Bacteria") is believed to have contaminated
Defendants' Recalled Products. Recalled Products include Oatly,
Stumptown, Glucerna, Intelligentsia, Aloha, Kate Farms, and Premier
Protein brand products.

The Defendants' Recalled Products "support health", are
"nutritional", and are often marketed as "alternatives" to other
products, such as dairy. The Defendants' packaging and labeling
further emphasize quality and safe ingredients that are suitable
for consumption by physically vulnerable persons, young children,
those who have specific dietary restrictions, or those seeking a
healthier lifestyle.

Many of Defendants' products are marketed to vulnerable persons,
particularly those seeking a health supplement, children, elderly,
and the immunocompromised. Despite the known risks of Cronobacter
Sakazakii, Defendants have recklessly and/or knowingly sold the
Recalled Products without disclosing the possible contamination.
Additionally, Defendants knew or should have known that possible
consumers would ingest the Recalled Products daily, often multiple
times per day, thus compounding the possible exposures to
Cronobacter Sakazakii.

The Defendants' omissions are material, false, misleading, and
reasonably likely to deceive the public. This is especially true,
considering the long-standing campaign that markets the Recalled
Products as healthy, safe, and high quality, as to induce customers
to purchase the products, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff ingested Defendants' Recalled Products after regular
physical exercise.

The Defendants manufacture, market, advertise, label, distribute,
and vend protein shakes, protein powders, dairy alternatives,
nutritional shakes, coffee style drinks, and other nutritional
supplements throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
          Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
          Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
          POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Phone: (843) 614-8888
          Email: roy@akimlawfirm.com
                 blake@akimlawfirm.com
                 pauld@akimlawfirm.com


LYONS MAGNUS: Pereyra Sues Over Failure to Ensure Safety of Product
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Pereyra, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LYONS MAGNUS, LLC, and TRU ASEPTICS, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-06622 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 28, 2022), is brought
against the Defendants’ negligent failure to ensure the quality
and safety of their products which led to the recall of the
Defendants' protein beverages, liquid coffee, nutritional shakes,
and other supplements ("Recalled Products").

These Recalled Products were recalled due to bacterial
contamination concerns. Specifically, the bacteria species
Cronobacter Sakazakii (hereinafter "Bacteria") is believed to have
contaminated Defendants' Recalled Products. Recalled Products
include Oatly, Stumptown, Glucerna, Intelligentsia, Aloha, Kate
Farms, and Premier Protein brand products.

The Defendants knew or should have known that their Recalled
Products had a risk of containing harmful Bacteria or were not
sufficiently tested for the presence of Bacteria. During this time,
Defendants omitted any reference to the presence, or risk thereof,
of harmful Bacteria. The Defendants knew or should have known the
risks that Cronobacter Sakazakii poses, especially to the elderly,
very young, and immunocompromised. Defendants should have known
that the standards for food safety have become increasingly
stringent in recent years. Further, the Defendants should have
known of the dangers of Cronobacter Sakazakii due to recent powder
supplement and food contaminations. The Defendants knew or should
have known that they owed consumers a duty of care to fully
prevent, or at the very least, minimize the presence of harmful
Bacteria in their Recalled Products. The Defendants knew or should
have known that they owed a duty of care to consumers to adequately
test for harmful Bacteria in their Recalled Products.

Despite the known risks of Cronobacter Sakazakii, Defendants have
recklessly and/or knowingly sold the Recalled Products without
disclosing the possible contamination. Additionally, Defendants
knew or should have known that possible consumers would ingest the
Recalled Products daily, often multiple times per day, thus
compounding the possible exposures to Cronobacter Sakazakii. The
Defendants' omissions are material, false, misleading, and
reasonably likely to deceive the public. This is especially true,
considering the long-standing campaign that markets the Recalled
Products as healthy, safe, and high quality, as to induce customers
to purchase the products, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Chicago, Illinois and has ingested
the Defendants' Recalled Products.

The Defendants manufacture, market, advertise, label, distribute,
and vend protein shakes, protein powders, dairy alternatives,
nutritional shakes, coffee style drinks, and other nutritional
supplements throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
          Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
          Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
          POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Phone: (843) 614-8888
          Email: roy@akimlawfirm.com
                 blake@akimlawfirm.com
                 pauld@akimlawfirm.com


M-I LLC: Court Recommends Partial OK of Last Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONOVIN LAST, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. M-I, L.L.C., Case No. 1:20-cv-01205-ADA-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the
Court entered an order recommending that:

   -- The plaintiff's motion for class certification be granted
      in part and denied in part;

   -- The following class is certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)
      (3):

      a. All persons who at any time from May 20, 2016 to the
         date of certification worked as employees of M-I,
         L.L.C. or provided services on behalf of M-I, L.L.C. in
         California in job positions titled "Drilling Fluid
         Specialist" (mud man, Levels I-IV and mud man Senior),
         mud engineer," "mud man," "mud man Trainee," "mud man
         consultant" and/or equivalent job titles who have not
         released all claims asserted in this action and who are
         not subject to an arbitration agreement applicable to
         the services such person provided on behalf of M-I,
         L.LC in California during the class period.

      b. All members of Class 1 who at any time during the
         period beginning on May 20, 2017, and ending on the
         date of certification were either voluntarily or
         involuntarily separated from their employment with or
         stopped providing services on behalf of M-I, L.L.C.

   -- The Defendant's motion to strike be denied;

   -- The Defendant's objections be overruled; and

   -- The Defendant's objections be overruled, and defendant's
      motion to strike the deposition errata sheets of Michael
      A. Kaveler and Nathan William Gholz be denied.

The Plaintiff Donovin Last seeks class certification in this action
based on numerous California state labor claims. The Defendant
filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion. The Defendant also filed
a motion to strike the deposition errata sheets submitted by two of
Plaintiff's witnesses which Plaintiff opposed.

On July 29, 2020, the Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a
complaint in California state court. The Defendant filed a timely
notice of removal on August 26, 2020. The Defendant filed an
amended answer to Plaintiff's first amended complaint.

The Plaintiff's amended complaint alleges that the Defendant
misclassified its drilling fluid specialists as either exempt
employees or as independent contractors rather than classifying
drilling fluid specialists as non-exempt employees.

The Plaintiff also seeks to recover civil penalties under
California's Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VsvcYv at no extra charge.[CC]

MAD MUSHROOM: Guinnup FLSA Suit Transferred to N.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lyle Guinnup, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Mad Mushroom Franchise Group, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01954 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana on Dec. 22, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00397 to the
proceeding.

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

Mad Mushroom Franchise Group, LLC doing busiess as Mad Mushroom --
https://madmushroom.com/ -- offers mouth-watering pizza (and
M.O.R.E.) with fresh ingredients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          SIMON LAW CO.
          5000 Rockside Road
          Liberty Plaza – Suite 520
          Independence, Ohio
          Phone: (216) 816-8696
          Email: james@simonsayspay.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
          8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Phone: 847-644-3425
          Fax: 847-673-1228
          Email: mike@fradinlaw.com


MARIANI PACKING: Diesel Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kimberly Diesel, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. MARIANI PACKING COMPANY, INC.,
Case No. 22SL-CC04849 was removed from the Circuit Court of St.
Louis County, Missouri, to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri on Dec. 22, 2022, and assigned Case
No. 4:22-cv-01368-AGF.

The Defendant was served with the summons and Petition on November
22, 2022. In her Petition, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
violated the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel F. Harvath, Esq.
          75 W. Lockwood Ave. Ste 1
          Webster Groves, MO 63119
          Email: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd. Ste 412
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James C. Morris, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          211 North Broadway, Suite 2150
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Phone: (314) 961-6686
          Fax: (314) 338-3076
          Email: jmorris@grsm.com


MASSACHUSETTS: Wright Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Massachusetts
Department of Public Health, et al. The case is styled as Robert
Wright, Johnny Kula, Johnny Kula, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated others v. Massachusetts Department of Public
Health, Margret R. Cooke, Commissioner of the Massachusetts
Department of Public Health, in her official capacity, Case No.
3:22-cv-11936-MGM (D. Mass., Nov. 14, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Massachusetts Department of Public Health is to protect, preserve
and improve the health of all residents in Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Margaret A. Little, Esq.
          NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE
          1225 19th St. NW, Suite 450
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 869-5210

               - and -

          Sheng Tao Li, Esq.
          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
          1225 19th Street NW, Suite 450
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 918-6904
          Email: sheng.li@ncla.legal

               - and -

          Peter Antonelli, Esq.
          CURRAN ANTONELLI, LLP
          10 Post Office Square, Suite 800 South
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: (617) 207-8670
          Fax: (617) 850-9001
          Email: pantonelli@curranantonelli.com


MATCH GROUP: Baker Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Marcus Baker, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MATCH GROUP, INC., MATCH GROUP,
LLC, HINGE, INC., HUMOR RAINBOW, INC., PEOPLE MEDIA, INC., and
AFFINITY APPS, LLC, Case No. 2022CH10435 was removed from the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Dec. 9,
2022, and assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-06924.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of the Illinois
Biometric Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges that that he is a user
of the Defendants' online dating sites OkCupid and Tinder. The
Plaintiff claims that when he uploaded photos to these sites, the
Defendants collected his biometric facial identifiers without his
authorization, and without informing him of their data retention
policy.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel S. Saeedi, Esq.
          Rachel L. Schaller, Esq.
          TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
          111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 527-4000
          Email: dsaeedi@taftlaw.com
                 rschaller@taftlaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. Broome, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
          865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90405
          Phone: (213) 443-3000
          Email: stephenbroome@quinnemanuel.com


MATCH GROUP: Berger Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
------------------------------------------------------------
Katrina Berger, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. MATCH GROUP, LLC d/b/a MATCH.COM, Case
No. 2:22-cv-07319-LDH-ST (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2022), is brought
seeking statutory damages for each of the tens of thousands of
consumers (if not more) in New York who used one of Match's dating
applications which collect biometric identifiers (i.e. Tinder)
and/or PII, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief ending the
practices of collecting biometrics and sharing said biometrics
and/or PII on all of Match's dating applications both currently and
into the future, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The largest such dating application provider is called Match.com,
the Defendant in this Action, who maintains over 40 dating
applications--including "Tinder," which is the dating application
used by Plaintiff Berger. Tinder users put a substantial amount of
trust into Tinder, anticipating a reasonable expectation of privacy
in a highly private situation--dating. And yet, Tinder violates
this trust as Tinder collects a vast amount of consumer data,
including biometric information, which is highly personal and
sensitive. Tinder not only collects this data, but shares it with
third parties. As such, the Plaintiff Berger brings this action on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated to vindicate
their privacy rights under New York state statutes for the
collection of facial recognition data through Defendant Match's
dating application(s), says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a consumer that uses the Defendant Match's dating
application(s).

Match is a monopoly over the dating application market, with over
40 dating applications including the first most popular dating
application, Tinder, as well as other popular dating applications
including Hinge, Match, and OKCupid.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Israel David, Esq.
          Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
          ISRAEL DAVID LLC
          17 State Street, Suite 4010
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 739-0622
          Facsimile: (212) 739-0628
          Email: israel.david@davidllc.com
                 blake.yagman@davidllc.com


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Hamlin Sues Over Removed Activation
----------------------------------------------------------
John Hamlin MD PC, corporately and as class representative on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a
foreign corporation, Case No. 5:22-cv-01085-SLP (W.D. Okla., Dec.
21, 2022), is brought seeking an injunction to require defendant
Microsoft Corporation to reinstate its previously provided means
for purchasers of Microsoft Office 2003 software editions to
activate or reactivate its purchased Microsoft Office 2003 software
editions when defendant Microsoft Corporation intentionally removed
all methods of activation or reactivation.

Microsoft Corporation offered for sale licenses to the Microsoft
Office 2003 software editions. Microsoft Corporation sold licenses
to the public in the United States and its territories, either
directly or through retailers or bundled software for computers
sold by third party vendors to the public, for Microsoft Office
2003 editions including Basic, Student and Teacher, Standard, Small
Business, Professional and Small Business Management requiring
activation using a Product Key. The Plaintiff and others including
class members purchased licenses of Microsoft Corporation's
Microsoft Office 2003 software some of which have never been used
or activated using a Product Key with one Product Key:
VGJYM-6F4XW-7TTT8-RP4PR-8HFR6.

The Defendant Microsoft' Corporation's End User License Agreement,
EULA, grants purchasers a license to use the software, had no time
limit on the usage of Microsoft Office 2003 editions, for Microsoft
Office 2003 software editions had no expiring activation date. The
Defendant Microsoft Corporation's Microsoft Office 2003 software
editions will not operate without being activated using a Product
Key, will not function without being activated using a Product Key,
will not run without being activated using a Product Key, will not
work without being activated using a Product Key. The Defendant
Microsoft Corporation requires legally purchased licenses of all
Microsoft Office 2003 software editions to be activated or
reactivated in order to be used.

As of the date of filing this petition defendant Microsoft
Corporation has cancelled and removed its previously provided means
to activate or reactivate legally purchased licenses of Microsoft
Office 2003 software editions. Request has been made to defendant
Microsoft Corporation to reinstate its previously provided means to
activate or reactivate legally purchased licenses of Microsoft
Office 2003 software editions. Defendant Microsoft Corporation
refused and refuses to provide its previously provided means to
activate or reactivate legally purchased licenses of Microsoft
Office 2003 software editions. Plaintiff and class members allege
upon information and belief that during the time when all editions
of Microsoft Office 2003 software were marketed and sold, Defendant
Microsoft Corporation intended to remove the means to
activate/reactivate all Microsoft Office 2003 software editions via
Internet and telephone. None of defendant Microsoft Corporation's
Microsoft Office 2003 software editions licensing agreement
revealed that Microsoft Corporation intended to remove the means to
activate/reactivate Microsoft Office 2003 software editions via
Internet and telephone.

The Defendant failed to notify plaintiff and class members that it
intended to remove the means to activate/reactivate its Microsoft
Office 2003 software editions via Internet and telephone. The
Defendant refused to notify plaintiff and class members that it
intended to remove the means to activate/reactivate its Microsoft
2003 software editions via Internet and telephone. Defendant
Microsoft Corporation refuses to reinstate its previously provided
Internet and telephone activation systems for Microsoft Office 2003
software editions, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an Oklahoma Professional Corporation who purchased
a license to any edition of Microsoft Office 2003 software with an
End User License Agreement, EULA, without an expiring activation
date.

Microsoft Corporation is a foreign corporation doing business in
the State of Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Hamlin, Esq.
          PO Box 21478
          12717 Silver Lane
          Oklahoma City, OK 73156
          Phone: (405) 834-7172
          Email: jhhamlin@att.net


MIKOT CONSTRUCTION: Almonte Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Casimiro Gomez Almonte, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Mikot Construction Inc., Ekot Construction Inc., and
Miroslaw Kotlewski (a/k/a "Mike" Kotlewski), Case No. 1:22-cv-07771
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2022), is brought seeking injunctive and
declaratory relief and to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime
wages, unpaid spread-of-hours, liquidated and statutory damages,
pre- and post- judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and violations
of Articles 6 and 19 of the New York State Labor Law ("NYLL") and
their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations,
and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA").

The Plaintiff was required to work in excess of 40 hours per week,
but never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times
his regular rate of pay for those hours. The Defendants' conduct
extended beyond Plaintiff to all other similarly situated
employees. No notification, either in the form of posted notices,
or other means, was ever given to the Plaintiff regarding wages are
required under the FLSA or NYLL. The Defendants did not provide
Plaintiff a statement of wages, as required by the NYLL. The
Defendants did not give any notice to Plaintiff of his rate of pay,
employer's regular pay day, and such other information as required
by the NYLL.

The Defendant's failure to provide accurate wage notices and
accurate wage statements denied Plaintiff his statutory right to
receive true and accurate information about the nature of his
employment and related compensation policies. Moreover, the breach
of the obligations injured Plaintiff by denying him the right to
know the conditions of his compensation and resulted in the
underpayment of wages. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at the
rate of one and one-half times his hourly wage rate for hours
worked in excess of forty per workweek, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a manual laborer at Defendants'
construction company.

Mikot Construction Inc. is a domestic corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 792-0046
          Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com


MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Johnson FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jeffrey Johnson, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Monterey Financial Services LLC doing
business as: Monterey Collections, Case No. CPM-L-000417-22 was
removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Div., Cape May,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Nov.
30, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-06891-RMB-SAK to
the proceeding.

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

Monterey Financial Services -- https://www.montereyfinancial.com/
-- is a full service receivables management and finance company
that tailors to the specific needs of businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K Jones, Esq.
          Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Phone: (973) 227-5900
          Fax: (973) 244-0019
          Email: jkj@legaljones.com
                 bwolf@legaljones.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sean Michael O'brien, Esq.
          LIPPES MATHIAS LLP
          50 Fountain Plaza, Suite 1700
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Phone: (518) 669-0813
          Email: sobrien@lippes.com


MRO CORPORATION: Morton Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Peggy Morton, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MRO Corporation; CenterWell Senior
Primary Care (SC), P.C. doing business as: Kindred at Home, William
Lorenze, MD, Case No. 2022CP1300839 was removed from the
Chesterfield - Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina on Dec. 22, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-04643-BHH to the
proceeding.

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

MRO Corporation -- https://mrocorp.com/ -- empowers healthcare
organizations with proven, enterprise-wide solutions for the
secure, compliant and efficient Release of Information (ROI).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq.
          Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
          ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM (CHA)
          32 Ann Street, Unit B
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Phone: (843) 614-8888
          Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com
                 pauld@akimlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Molly Hood Craig, Esq.
          Virginia Rogers Floyd, Esq.
          HOOD LAW FIRM LLC
          172 Meeting Street
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Phone: (843) 577-4435
          Fax: (843) 722-1630
          Email: molly.craig@hoodlaw.com
                 virginia.floyd@hoodlaw.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: James Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Israel James, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, Case No.
1:22-cv-04984 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on Dec. 21, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-10743-LJL to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

The National Football League -- http://www.nfl.com/-- is a
professional American football league that consists of 32 teams,
divided equally between the American Football Conference and the
National Football Conference.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Adam Florek, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
          73 W. Monroe, 5th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: 312-444-0734
          Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com
                 aflorek@peifferwolf.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Melissa Anne Siebert, Esq.
          Erin Bolan Hines, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          111 South Wacker Dr., Suite 4700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 704-7700

               - and -

          Anna A. El-Zein, Esq.
          Jennifer Odell Hatcher, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          2555 Grand Blvd
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 474-6550

               - and -

          Michael Evan Rayfield, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          1325 Avenue of the Americas, Ste. 28th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 779-6110
          Email: mrayfield@shb.com


NELK USA INC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nelk USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Nelk USA, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10779
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2022).

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

Nelk (stylized as NELK), also referred to as the Nelk Boys, is a
Canadian-American YouTube channel and entertainment company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor 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

NELNET SERVICING: Kohrell Suit Transferred to D. Nebraska
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Garner J. Kohrell, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC, Edfinancial
Services, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00314 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska on Dec. 21, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-03267-JMG-CRZ to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

Nelnet -- https://nelnetinc.com/ -- is the largest operating
businesses engage in student loan servicing, tuition payment
processing and school information systems, and communications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 254-8801
          Fax: (615) 250-3937

               - and -

          Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
          Kate M Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          Maureen Kane Berg, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE, GRINDAL & NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          Fax: (612) 339-0981

               - and -

          Peter Jannace, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC (KY)
          515 Park Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40208

The Defendants are represented by:

          Claudia D. McCarron
          James Monagle, Esq.
          MULLEN, COUGHLIN LAW FIRM LLC
          426 West Lancaster Avenue, Suite 200
          Devon, PA 19087
          Phone: (267) 930-4770
          Fax: (267) 930-4771
          Email: cmccarron@mullen.law
                 anowell@mullen.law

               - and -

          Michael J King
          Thomas Howard Jarvis
          PAINE BICKERS LLP
          900 S. Gay Street, Suite 2200
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Phone: (865) 525-0880
          Fax: (865) 521-7441

               - and -

          Casie D. Collignon
          BAKER, HOSTETLER LAW FIRM - DENVER
          1801 California Street, Suite 4400
          Denver, CO 80202-2662
          Phone: (303) 861-0600
          Fax: (303) 861-7805
          Email: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Shayne R Clinton
          Bass, Berry & Sims, PLC (Knox)
          900 South Gay Street, Suite 1700
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Phone: (865) 521-6200
          Fax: (888) 526-6489


NEVADA: DeOtte Files Suit in U.S. Sup. Ct.
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nevada. The case is
styled as Richard W. DeOtte, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, et al., Applicants v. Nevada, Case No.
22A422 (U.S. Sup. Ct., Nov. 14, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

Nevada -- https://nv.gov/ -- is a state in the Western region of
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
          MITCHELL LAW PLLC
          111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: (512) 686-3940
          Fax: (512) 686-3941
          Email: jonathan@mitchell.law


NHK SPRING: Defendants Seek Sealing of Confidential Material
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Hard Disk Drive Suspension
Assemblies Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC (N.D.
Cal.), the Defendants submit an administrative motion to consider
whether another Party's Material Should Be Sealed.

The Defendants are required to file these documents under seal
pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order because materials
contained are derived from  documents and other information
designated "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential" by Reseller
Plaintiffs.

The Defendants have redacted the corresponding information derived
from these materials in their Opposition to Reseller Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification and accompanying materials. The
Defendants take no position on whether the material or information
should be sealed.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 24, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YV0WIP at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Counsel for the Defendants NHK Spring Co., Ltd., NHK
International Corporation, NHK Spring (Thailand) Co., Ltd., NAT
Peripheral (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd. And NAT Peripheral (H.K.) Co.,
Ltd., are:

          Mark. H. Hamer, Esq.
          Mark G. Weiss, Esq.
          BAKER McKENZIE LLP
          815 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 452-7000
          Facsimile: (202) 416-7177
          E-mail: mark.weiss@bakermckenzie.com
                  mark.hamer@bakermckenzie.com

The Counsel for the Defendants TDK Corporation, Magnecomp Precision
Technology Public Co. ., Magnecomp Corporation, Hutchinson
Technology Inc., and SAE Magnetics (H.K.) Ltd., are:

          J. Clayton Everett, Jr., Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1111 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 739-5860
          E-mail: clay.everett@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Michelle Park Chiu, Esq.
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          E-mail: michelle.chiu@morganlewis.com

OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Bid for Incentive in Bowles Suit Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TANYA BOWLES, et al., Plaintiffs v. ERIC R.
SABREE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-12838 (E.D. Mich.), Judge
Linda V. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying
in part and granting in part petition for incentive fee on behalf
of Andre Ohanessian.

Class member, Andre Ohanessian ("Petitioner"), lost his property
due to non-payment of approximately $6,282.24 in back taxes between
2011 and 2013. Defendant Oakland County subsequently auctioned his
property, which was sold for $82,000. In 2015, the Petitioner
became one of two original plaintiffs in Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland
County, Oakland County Circuit Court, Case No. 2015-147429-CZ,
which alleged due-process and equal-protection violations, as well
as unconstitutional taking through the sale of their real
properties by Oakland County in satisfaction of their tax debts and
retaining surplus proceeds from tax-foreclosure sale of their
properties.

The second plaintiff, Rafaeli, LLC, settled its claim against
Oakland County and received his property back as a result. Despite
having the opportunity to settle at the time, the Petitioner
decided to move forward with the litigation, which ultimately led
to a Michigan Supreme Court determination, that among other things,
aggrieved property owners had a vested right to the surplus
proceeds and the government's retention amounted to an
unconstitutional taking (Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County, 952 N.W.2d
434 (Mich. 2020)).

On Oct. 22, 2020, Plaintiff Tanya Bowles--who was later joined by
Plaintiff Bruce Taylor--filed this putative class action lawsuit on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals
against the following Defendants: (i) County of Wayne by its Board
of Commissioners, also sometimes known as Charter County of Wayne
by its Board of Commissioners; (ii) County of Oakland; (iii) Wayne
Treasurer, Eric Sabree; and (iv) Oakland Treasurer, Andrew Meisner.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants wrongfully
retained the sales proceeds exceeding the taxes they owed on the
properties and seek unpaid just compensation and other monetary
damages.

As an initial matter, Judge Parker notes that the Petitioner is not
a class representative, which is "typically" a threshold for
awarding incentive fees. However, in a proposed order for final
approval of the settlement pending before the Court, Oakland County
seeks to make the Petitioner a class representative. Because this
indicates that parties do not dispute this action, the Court will
consider the Petitioner to be a class representative for purposes
of this Order. The Settlement Agreement gives the Court the
authority to award incentive fees.

The Petitioner seeks an incentive fee in the amount of 2.5-5% of
the common fund, which amounts to approximately between $950,000 to
$1,900,000, or in the alternative, "a minimum of $113,382.24."

Courts have provided certain factors to consider when determining
whether to approve incentive fee awards: (1) the action taken by
the Class Representatives to protect the interests of Class Members
and others and whether these actions resulted in a substantial
benefit to Class Members; (2) whether the Class Representatives
assumed substantial direct and indirect financial risk; and (3) the
amount of time and effort spent by the Class Representatives in
pursuing the litigation.

Judge Parker holds that the first factor weighs heavily in support
of granting an incentive fee award. The Petitioner maintains that
his "willingness to sue on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated served to benefit hundreds if not thousands of individual
class participants." For example, Petitioner notes that the
pleadings and arguments in Rafaeli were novel to the state of
Michigan, which directly led to a favorable ruling in the Michigan
Supreme Court. The Court agrees. Had the Petitioner settled in
Rafaeli along with the second plaintiff, the present matter,
including the Oakland Class settlement, would not exist. The Court
acknowledges that the Petitioner did not participate much in this
litigation, but nevertheless, his contributions in Rafaeli paved
the way for subsequent litigation and recovery.

The second factor is neutral to providing an incentive fee to the
Petitioner as he admits that the attorneys were hired on a
contingency fee basis, Judge Parker says. As such, there is no
question that the Petitioner has not assumed a direct or indirect
financial risk in this litigation. However, the Petitioner
maintains that he bore a direct financial risk because the Oakland
County Circuit Court determined that the Michigan Supreme Court
ruling in Rafaeli was not retroactive, which meant that the
Petitioner would receive no recovery in that case. This fact alone
certainly qualifies as a substantial financial risk in Rafaeli, but
not assuming any financial risk in the current litigation balances
the risks involved.

The third factor--the amount of time and effort spent--weighs in
favor of the Petitioner, Judge Parker finds. Defendant Oakland
County maintains the Petitioner did not spent any time and effort
in this litigation, including the fact that he never sat for a
deposition and Oakland County can confidently say that they have
never met the Petitioner.

Conversely, the Petitioner maintains that time and effort was spent
litigating Rafaeli when he had the opportunity to settle the case.
Again, the Petitioner's role in Rafaeli cannot be understated,
including continuing to litigate the case through the original
dismissal of the Oakland County lawsuit in 2015, when the Michigan
Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in 2017, and once the
decision was reversed by the Michigan Supreme Court in 2020. As
such, this factor weighs in favor of granting the Petitioner an
incentive fee award.

The Court finds that the Petitioner's request of 2.5-3% of the
common fund, or in the alternative, $113,382.24 to be extreme and
inconsistent with precedent in this Circuit.

The Court previously awarded incentive fees in this case to the
other two class representatives for $5,000 each. Because the Court
acknowledges the Petitioner's contribution to the overall lawsuit
and settlement, and because Oakland County requests that if the
Court does find the Petitioner to be subject to an award, that it
not exceed $5,000, Judge Parker holds that the Petitioner may
receive $5,000 as an incentive fee from the common fund.

The Court is denying the Petitioner's request for 2.5-3% of the
common fund, or in the alternative, $113,382.24. However, the Court
will grant an incentive fee award to the Petitioner of $5,000 for
his efforts in Rafaeli, which directly contributed to the current
lawsuit and settlement before the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Dec. 12,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/546fmhpt from
Leagle.com.


PA HIGHER EDUCATION: Beadle FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joshua Beadle, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. Pennsylvania Higher Education
Assistance Agency Parents' Association Incorporated doing business
as: Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, Case No.
2022-CA-004877-NC was removed from the 12th Judicial Circuit In and
For Sarasota County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on Nov. 30, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02729-SDM-JSS to
the proceeding.

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

Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency Parents'
Association Incorporated doing business as Pennsylvania Higher
Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) -- https://www.pheaa.org/ -- is
a national provider of financial aid services, serving millions of
students and thousands of schools through a variety of student aid
programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq.
          Jibrael Jarallah Said Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th St., 17th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 907-1136
          Email: jen@jibraellaw.com
                 jibrael@jibraellaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Steven Joseph Brotman, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD, LLP
          777 South Flagler Dr., Suite 215-East
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: (561) 820-0214
          Email: steven.brotman@lockelord.com


PACIFIC PAPER TUBE: Mason Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Paper Tube,
Inc. The case is styled as Thomas D. Mason, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Pacific Paper Tube, Inc., Case
No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-0011256 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty.,
Dec. 6, 2022).

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

Pacific Paper Tube, Inc. -- https://pacificpapertube.com/ -- is a
leading manufacturer of paper tubes and cores throughout the
west.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, PC
          1901 Avenue Of The Stars, Ste. 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006
          Phone: 310-975-1493
          Fax: 310-675-0861
          Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com


PAIGE LLC: Patterson Files Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paige LLC, et al. The
case is styled as Richard Patterson, Theodore Zywicki, Jr.,
Stephanie Ihlenfeld, Kim Olins, Kimberly Murrell, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Paige LLC, Nordstrom,
Inc., Case No. 9:22-cv-81973-AMC (S.D. Fla., Dec. 22, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Paige, LLC -- https://www.paige.com/ -- provides apparels. The
Company offers pants, tops, sweaters, shirts, tees, jumpsuits,
jackets, coats, belts, zippers, and other apparels.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey Clark Schneider, Esq.
          Victor Petrescu, Esq.
          LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER & GROSSMAN LLP
          Miami Center
          201 South Biscayne Blvd., 22nd Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 403-8788
          Fax: (305) 403-8789
          Email: jcs@lklsg.com
                 vp@lklsg.com

               - and -

          Marcus Wolf Corwin
          MARCUS W. CORWIN
          6001 Broken Sound Parkway, N.W., Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33487-2754
          Phone: (561) 482-3636
          Fax: (561) 482-5414
          Email: mcorwin@corwinlawfirm.com


PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT: Railey Files Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pentagon Federal
Credit Union. The case is styled as Krista Railey, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pentagon Federal
Credit Union, Case No. 5:22-cv-02166-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal., Dec. 5,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Truth in Lending.

Financial Asset Management Systems, Inc. -- http://fams.net/--
provides management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lauren Nicole Chaikin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LAUREN CHAIKIN
          4275 Executive Square, Suite 200
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Phone: (858) 366-7768
          Fax: (858) 300-5261
          Email: lauren@chaikinlegal.com

               - and -

          Manfred Patrick Muecke, Esq.
          MANFRED APC
          600 West Broadway Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 550-4005
          Fax: (619) 550-4006
          Email: mmuecke@manfredapc.com

PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES: Loughry Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Petco Animal Supplies
Inc. The case is styled as Maryann Loughry, individually, and on
behalf of all other similarly situated consumers v. Petco Animal
Supplies Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-04706-MSG (E.D. Pa., Nov. 23,
2022).

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

Petco Health and Wellness Company, Inc. --
http://corporate.petco.com/-- is an American pet retailer with
corporate offices in San Diego and San Antonio. Petco sells pet
food, products, and services, as well as certain types of live
small animals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          660 Broadway
          Paterson, NJ 07514
          Phone: (862) 227-3106
          Fax: (973) 525-2552
          Email: dz@zemellawllc.com


PFIZER INC: MSP Recovery Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC, and MSP
Recovery Claims, Series LLC, on behalf of a class of similarly
situated v. PFIZER, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-23676 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
Nov. 18, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-09837 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.

Pfizer Inc. -- https://www.pfizer.com/ -- is an American
multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology corporation
headquartered on 42nd Street in Manhattan, New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (619) 222-7429
          Fax: (866) 431-3292
          Email: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com

               - and -

          Joshua Brandon Swigart, Esq.
          SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (866) 219-3343
          Fax: (866) 219-8344
          Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jorge A. Mestre, Esq.
          Andres Rivero, Esq.
          Alan H Rolnick, Esq.
          David L Daponte, Esq.
          RIVERO MESTRE LLP
          2525 Ponce de León Blvd., Suite 1000
          Miami, Fl 33134
          Phone: (305) 445-2500
          Facsimile: (305) 445-2505
          Email: arivero@riveromestre.com
                 jmestre@riveromestre.com
                 arolnick@riveromestre.com
                 ddaponte@riveromestre.com
          Secondary: npuentes@riveromestre.com


PLAYMAKAR INC: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Playmakar, Inc. The
case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Playmakar, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-10843-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2022).

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

PlayMakar Inc. -- https://playmakar.com/ -- develops FDA cleared,
athlete-friendly muscle stimulators and accessories to optimize
performance and recovery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PNC BANK: Vandermarliere Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PNC Bank, National
Association. The case is styled as Michael E. Vandermarliere,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PNC
Bank, National Association, Case No. 2:22-cv-12862-SDK-KGA (E.D.
Mich., Nov. 23, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

PNC Bank -- https://www.pnc.com/en/personal-banking.html -- offers
a wide range of personal banking services including checking and
savings accounts, credit cards, mortgage loans, auto loans and much
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marwan R. Daher, Esq.
          Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
          Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Fax: (630) 575-8188
          Email: mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com
                 osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
                 mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Albright Sues Over Failure to Meet Requirements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Albright, individually on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; POLARIS SALES, INC., a Minnesota corporation; POLARIS
INDUSTRIES, INC., a Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 30-2022-01292667-CU-NP-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Orange Cty., Nov. 21, 2022), is brought against the Defendants on
behalf of all persons who purchased in California in the four years
preceding Albright's original Complaint Polaris Utility Terrain
Vehicles ("UTV") (they are also called side by sides) that Polaris
claimed/advertised/marked/certified that the vehicles' rollover
protection system ("ROPS") complied with the department of
Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA")
requirements/standards (which is for agricultural tractors).

Polaris includes stickers like the following to suggest that their
vehicles meet these OSHA requirements. The stickers are placed on
Class Vehicles and are visible at the point of sale where consumers
are also informed that Class Vehicles meet all applicable standards
and regulations, including self-adopted regulations, and meet OSHA
requirements when in fact, they do not.

None of the Class Vehicles sold by Polaris meet the OSHA
requirements. Polaris tells all of their customers that their ROPS
systems are safe because they meet this standard. They do not.
Polaris has also staved off federal regulations by the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") in part by causing the
adoption of newly created industry standards as part of the
self-regulation revolution. Even after adopting farm tractor
standards issued for worker safety on farms in the early 1970s,
Polaris cheats and does not even meet those standards.

Roof strength is a vital safety concern to consumers given the
strong likelihood of UTVs rolling over. The failure to meet all
applicable federal and state statutes, standards, regulations, and
self-adopted regulations, including OSHA requirements is material
information for consumers purchasing/leasing UTVs, such as the
Class Vehicles. This Complaint alleges violations of the statutes
cited in their entirety. Unless otherwise stated, Plaintiff alleges
that any violations by Polaris were knowing and intentional, and
that Polaris did not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to
avoid any such violation, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual who resides in the County of Orange,
State of California.

POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC. is a Minnesota Corporation with its
principal place of business located in Medina, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          Frank M. Mihalic, Jr., Esq.
          CARPENTER &ZUCKERMAN
          8827 W. Olympic Blvd.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 507-7924
          Email: kristensen@cz.law
                 fmihalic@cz.law

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340,
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Phone: 323-306-4234
          Fax: 866-633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher W. Wood, Esq.
          DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA WOOD CAMPORA, LLP
          20 Bicentennial Circle
          Sacramento, CA 95826
          Phone: (916) 379-3500
          Facsimile: (916) 379-3599
          Email: cwood@dbbwc.com


PRESIDIO INC: Final Approval and Judgment Issued in LaPrairie Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued a Final Approval Order and Judgment in
the lawsuit styled ERIC LAPRAIRIE, on behalf of himself and all
other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRESIDIO, INC.,
PRESIDIO HOLDINGS, INC., PRESIDIO, LLC, PRESIDIO NETWORKED
SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC, and PRESIDIO TECHNOLOGY CAPITAL, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-08795-ALC (S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiff, by his attorneys, Thomas & Solomon LLP, moved the
Court for an order granting final approval of class action
settlement. Presidio, through their attorneys, Gordon Rees Scully
Mansukhani, LLP, appeared at the hearing.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the parties' Settlement
Agreement in the action on Aug. 11, 2022.

Notice to the class members was sent in accordance with the
Preliminary Approval Order providing an opportunity for the Class
Members to receive benefits under the Settlement Agreement,
opt-out, or submit objections. No Class Members submitted
objections or Request for Exclusion.

The Court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement, and
finds and orders for purposes of settlement only.

The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action
and over all parties to the Action, including all Class Members
with respect to the following Class certified under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

     All individuals who were notified by Presidio that their
     personal information may have been compromised in the Data
     Incident that occurred in or about March 2020. The Class
     specifically excludes: (i) all Class Members who timely and
     validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class;
     (ii) the Judge assigned to evaluate the fairness of this
     settlement; and (iii) any other person found by a court of
     competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of
     initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal
     activity occurrence of the Data Incident or who pleads nolo
     contendere to any such charge.

The Court fully, finally and unconditionally approves the
Settlement embodied in the Settlement Agreement as being a fair,
reasonable and adequate settlement and compromise of the claims
asserted in the Action. The Class Members have been given proper
and adequate notice of the Settlement, fairness hearing, Class
Counsel's application for attorneys' fees, and the service award to
the Settlement Class Representative.

The Court orders that the Settlement Agreement will be implemented
in accordance with its terms and conditions pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement.

In accordance with Paragraph 38 of the Settlement Agreement, Class
Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees and costs in the total amount of
$400,000, to be paid as specified in the Settlement Agreement. In
accordance with Paragraph 39 of the Settlement Agreement, the
Settlement Class Representative is awarded $3,000, to be paid as
specified in the Settlement Agreement.

Upon the Effective Date, the Action will be, and is dismissed with
prejudice in its entirety as to the Defendants, with each party to
bear their own costs and attorneys' fees, except as provided in the
Settlement Agreement, and all of the claims of the Settlement Class
Members will be, and are, dismissed and released pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement.

Each Settlement Class Member is bound by this Judgment and Order,
including the release of certain claims as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.

As of the final date of the Opt-Out Period, no potential Class
Members have submitted a valid request to be excluded from the
Settlement.

Judge Cote notes that this Judgment and Order, and the Settlement
Agreement, and all papers related thereto, are not, and will not be
construed to be, an admission by the Defendant of any liability,
claim or wrongdoing in this Action or in any other proceeding.

In the event that the Settlement Agreement does not become
effective in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, then this
Judgment and Order will be rendered null and void to the extent
provided by and in accordance with the Settlement Agreement and
will be vacated, and in such event, all orders entered in
connection herewith will be null and void to the extent provided by
and in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.

Without affect the finality of this Judgment in any way, Judge Cote
holds that this Action will remain open and the Court retains
continuing jurisdiction over (a) implementation of this Settlement
Agreement; (b) disposition of the settlement funds; and (c) all
parties hereto for the purpose of construing, enforcing and
administering the Settlement Agreement and this Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Final Approval Order and Judgment
dated Dec. 12, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4z854c33
from Leagle.com.


PRESTIGE CONSUMER: Chaplin Sues Over Unlawful Sales and Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nikolas Chaplin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PRESTIGE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 22CV022517 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Nov. 22, 2022), is brought seeking to remedy the
unlawful, deceptive, and misleading business practices of the
Defendants with respect to the marketing and sales of its gripe
water products, including Little Remedies Gripe Water ("Little
Remedies" or "Products"), and to halt the Defendant's unlawful
sales and marketing of these products, in violations of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Unfair Competition
Law ("UCL"), False Advertising Law ("FAL"), breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular
purpose, and for unjust enrichment.

The Little Remedies advertising is unlawful because Defendant
intends that the product is for use as a drug which requires
premarket approval from federal authorities. Defendant has failed
to obtain this approval and is selling an illegal product. The Food
and Drug Administration has stated that these types of "colic
relief' advertising claims are unlawful.

Further, none of the ingredients in Little Remedies provide the
advertised benefits. Little Remedies is not "highly effective" at
treating the symptoms of colic as Defendant contends. Scientific
studies have found that gripe water is ineffective for treating
colic in newborns and may in fact, at higher doses, increase the
risk of vomiting and constipation. No respected medical
practitioner recommends the use of herbal remedies or gripe water
for use in colicky infants. Defendant is peddling snake oil at the
expense of desperate consumers.

Throughout the Class Period Defendant manufactured, sold, and
distributed Little Remedies using a marketing and advertising
campaign that is centered around claims that the Little Remedies
are "Everything newborns need. Nothing they don't," "A
highly-effective herbal supplement which eases stomach discomfort
often associatedwith colic and hiccups," and "provides fast and
gentle relief to your little one's gas/discomfort. This
highly-effective herbal supplement helps to ease stomach
distress."

The Defendant communicates the same substantive colic symptom
relief message throughout its advertising and marketing of Little
Remedies, including at point of sale and on the front of the Little
Remedies packaging. Accordingly, each consumer who has purchased
Little Remedies has been exposed to Defendant's unlawful and
misleading advertising. The Defendant's Little Remedies do not
provide effective relief for any colic symptoms. This is not
surprising, as Little Remedies' main ingredients are water and
vegetable glycerin-a common sugar alcohol.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful, false,
and misleading advertising claims and marketing practices,
Defendant has caused Plaintiff and the members of the Class to
purchase an illegal and falsely advertised product which does not,
and cannot, perform as represented. Plaintiff and other similarly
situated consumers have been harmed in the amount they paid for
Little Remedies, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Little Remedies Gripe Water products.

The Defendant distributes, markets, and sells Little Remedies as an
effective remedy for the symptoms associated with colic in newborn
babies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
          Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
          Chad A. Saunders, Esq.
          Craig W. Straub, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
          9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Phone: (310) 496-5818
          Fax: (310) 510-6429
          Email: mike@crosnerlegal.com
                 zach@crosnerlegal.com
                 chad@crosnerlegal.com
                 craig@crosnerlegal.com


PROMOTION PROS: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Promotion Pros LLC.
The case is styled as Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Promotion Pros LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-10796 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2022).

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

Promotion Pros -- https://www.promotionpros.com/ -- is an ecommerce
promotional products company specializing in unique advertising
products at competitive prices with first class service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


REDBUBBLE INC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RedBubble Inc. The
case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RedBubble Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10775
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2022).

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

Redbubble -- https://www.redbubble.com/ -- is a global online
marketplace for print-on-demand products based on user-submitted
artwork.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor 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


REJOICE DELIVERS: Webb Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ian Webb, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. REJOICE
DELIVERS LLC, a California limited liability company; AMAZON
LOGISTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive; Case No. 22CV401850 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on Nov. 16, 2022, and assigned Case No.
5:22-cv-07221-BLF.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: unpaid overtime; unpaid
meal period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; unpaid minimum
wages; final wages not timely paid; non-compliant wage statements;
unreimbursed business expenses; collection of due and unpaid wages;
violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Max Fischer, Esq.
          Brian D. Fahy, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Twenty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Phone: +1.213.612.2500
          Fax: +1.213.612.2501
          Email: max.fischer@morganlewis.com
                 brian.fahy@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Sarah Zenewicz, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market
          Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
          Phone: +1.415.442.1000
          Fax: +1.415.442.1001
          Email: sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com


REX VENTURE: Nationwide Substituted as Plaintiff in Bell v. Werts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned KENNETH D. BELL and NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT
RECOVERY, INC., Plaintiffs v. LARRY WERTS, Defendant, Case No.
6:21-mc-16-WWB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick of
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando
Division, grants Nationwide's Motion for Substitution of
Plaintiff.

In other related cases, the Court denied Nationwide Judgment
Recovery, Inc.'s motions for final judgment without prejudice
because Nationwide presented no evidence showing that it was an
assignee of the receiver. As such, the Court ordered that
Nationwide be struck as a plaintiff in some related cases, again,
because there was no evidence of any assignment.

In this case, Nationwide has moved for Substitution of Plaintiff.
Nationwide asserts, and provides evidence showing, that it is an
assignee of Matthew Orso (Orso); Orso having succeeded Kenneth D.
Bell (Bell) in Bell's capacity as court-appointed receiver for Rex
Venture Group, LLC. Nationwide seeks to substitute itself as the
named plaintiff in this matter.

The purpose of Rule 25(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
is to ensure that after litigation commences, the Court, at its
discretion, can proceed in an efficient manner with the real
parties in interest, Judge Irick notes, citing Tesseron, Ltd. v.
Oce N.V., 110 F.Supp.3d 1255, 1257 (M.D. Fla. 2015).

Bell obtained final judgments in a class action case against the
Defendant and others. Nationwide argues, and the Court agrees, that
since Orso succeeded Bell, and Orso made a complete transfer of
interest to Nationwide in the judgment against the Defendant,
Nationwide is the appropriate Plaintiff; thus, Judge Irick holds
the requested substitution is appropriate.

Nationwide asserts that Motion was served on the Defendant and
Garnishees. Therefore, the Court finds that the Motion was properly
served in accordance with Rule 25.

The Defendant has not filed a response to the Motion, so the Court
deems the Motion unopposed. As such, there is no dispute that
substitution is proper or that there is any genuine issue of
material fact, and the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is
not warranted in this case.

A court in this district recently found that the "miscellaneous
matter and the issuance of the writs of garnishment are a
continuation of the original litigation that produced the judgment.
Thus, under Rule 25(c), the litigation may be continued by
Nationwide (the party in interest) and against the Defendant (the
original party)," Judge Irick notes, citing Bell v. Woods, 2022 WL
428440, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2022), report and recommendation
adopted, 2022 WL 425719 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2022).

Judge Irick says, a review of the evidence Nationwide has submitted
leaves no doubt that Nationwide is the proper party in interest,
and, therefore, Nationwide should be substituted as plaintiff in
this action.

Accordingly, Judge Irick grants Nationwide's Motion for
Substitution of Plaintiff. The Clerk is directed to amend the case
caption to substitute Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc., as the
named Plaintiff in this matter.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 12, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3thhdt3b from Leagle.com.


REX VENTURE: Nationwide Substituted as Plaintiff in Orso v. Chauvet
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, grants Nationwide's
Motion for Substitution of Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled MATTHEW
E. ORSO and NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY, INC., Plaintiffs v.
DULSON CHAUVET, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-mc-128-WWB-DCI (M.D.
Fla.).

In other related cases, the Court denied Nationwide's motions for
final judgment without prejudice because Nationwide presented no
evidence showing that it was an assignee of the receiver. As such,
the Court ordered that Nationwide be struck as a plaintiff in some
related cases, again, because there was no evidence of any
assignment.

In this case, Nationwide has moved for Substitution of Plaintiff.
Nationwide asserts, and provides evidence showing, that it is an
assignee of Matthew Orso (Orso); Orso having succeeded Kenneth D.
Bell (Bell) in Bell's capacity as court-appointed receiver for Rex
Venture Group, LLC. Nationwide seeks to substitute itself as the
named plaintiff in this matter.

The purpose of Rule 25(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
is to ensure that after litigation commences, the Court, at its
discretion, can proceed in an efficient manner with the real
parties in interest, Judge Irick notes, citing Tesseron, Ltd. v.
Oce N.V., 110 F.Supp.3d 1255, 1257 (M.D. Fla. 2015).

Here, Bell obtained final judgments in a class action case against
the Defendant and others. Nationwide argues, and the Court agrees,
that since Orso succeeded Bell, and Orso made a complete transfer
of interest to Nationwide in the judgment against the Defendant,
Nationwide is the appropriate Plaintiff; thus, the requested
substitution is appropriate, Judge Irick holds.

Nationwide asserts that Motion was served on the Defendant and
Garnishees. Therefore, the Court finds that the Motion was properly
served in accordance with Rule 25.

The Defendant has not filed a response to the Motion, so the Court
deems the Motion unopposed. As such, there is no dispute that
substitution is proper or that there is any genuine issue of
material fact, and the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is
not warranted in this case.

A court in this district recently found that the "miscellaneous
matter and the issuance of the writs of garnishment are a
continuation of the original litigation that produced the judgment.
Thus, under Rule 25(c), the litigation may be continued by
[Nationwide] (the party in interest) and against [Defendant] (the
original party)," Judge Irick notes, citing Bell v. Woods, 2022 WL
428440, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2022), report and recommendation
adopted, 2022 WL 425719 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2022).

Judge Irick says, a review of the evidence Nationwide has submitted
leaves no doubt that Nationwide is the proper party in interest,
and, therefore, Nationwide should be substituted as plaintiff in
this action.

Accordingly, Judge Irick grants Nationwide's Motion for
Substitution of Plaintiff. The Clerk is directed to amend the case
caption to substitute Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc., as the
named Plaintiff in this matter.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 12, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ftha6hvf from Leagle.com.


RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Sorey Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Sorey, Antonio Gerli, Giselle Rodriguez
Catalan, Spencer Jaeckel, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC, Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22CV02853 was removed from the
Santa Barbara Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on Nov. 28, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-08636-FMO-PVC to
the proceeding.

The nature suit is stated as Other Labor for Employment
Discrimination.

The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC -- https://www.ritzcarlton.com/
-- is an American multinational company that operates the luxury
hotel chain known as The Ritz-Carlton.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert A. Waller, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT A WALLER JR
          P O Box 999
          Cardiff by the Sea, CA 92007
          Phone: (760) 753-3118
          Fax: (760) 753-3206
          Email: robert@robertwallerlaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan Stygar, Esq.
          CENTURION TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
          8880 Rio San Diego Dr 8th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (858) 206-8833
          Fax: (760) 753-3206

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alexander L. Grodan, Esq.
          Kevin Jean Bohm, Jr., Esq.
          Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
          Phone: (714) 830-0600
          Fax: (714) 830-0700
          Email: alexander.grodan@morganlewis.com
                 kevin.bohm@morganlewis.com
                 barbara.miller@morganlewis.com


ROI NETWORK: Morales Files Suit in D. Connecticut
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ROI Network, LLC. The
case is styled as Kurt Morales, II, Brandon Callier, Lucas Horton,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROI
Network, LLC doing business as: Auto Defender, Respondent, Case No.
3:22-mc-00093-JCH (D. Conn., Nov. 28, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Motion
to Compel.

ROI Networks -- https://theroinetwork.com/ -- is the Developer of
unified communications as-a-service (UCaaS) platform.[BN]

The Movants are represented by:

          John J. Radshaw, III, Esq.
          65 Trumbull Street, 2d Fl.
          New Haven, CT 06510
          Phone: (203) 654-9695
          Fax: (203) 721-6182
          Email: jjr@jjr-esq.com


ROODLE LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roodle, LLC. The case
is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Roodle, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-10762-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2022).

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

Roodle, LLC doing business as Vanilla Bean Kings --
https://www.vanillabeankings.com/ -- offers premium vanilla beans
from around the world at the lowest prices online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAFE CLEAN: Hanslik Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Kaitlynn Hanslik and Samantha Johnson, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. SAFE CLEAN dba MECK MILLER CO.,
JAMES MECK, Case No. 5:22-cv-02304 (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 22, 2022), is
brought against Defendants to recover unpaid wages and unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, treble damages, and attorney's
fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the Ohio Constitution, Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act, ("the Ohio Wage Act"), and the Ohio Prompt
Pay Act ("the OPPA").

The Defendants required the Named Plaintiffs and Putative Class
Members to track their hours through an electronic application
called "Connect Teams" where they manually log in and out. The
Defendants controlled the hours the named Plaintiffs and Putative
Class Members' hours worked through "Connect Teams" by instructing
them when they were permitted to log in and when they had to log
out each day.

The Defendants willfully only recorded Named Plaintiffs' and
Putative Class Members' compensable time when they arrived at the
Defendants' customer's location by instructing them that they could
not log in Connect Teams for any time they worked prior to arriving
at the Defendants' customer's location. The Defendants willfully
only recorded Named Plaintiffs' and Putative Class Members'
compensable time until they left the Defendants' customer's
location by instructing them that they were required to log out of
Connect Teams when they finished working the location, drive to
their next job assignment and then log back into Connect Teams when
they arrived. The Defendants willfully did not pay for Named
Plaintiffs' and Putative Class Members' compensable drive time
between Defendants' customer's location which occurred all in a
day's work.

Pursuant to Defendants' pay policies, the cleaners, including,
Named Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members, were only paid for
hours worked at each cleaning job assignment. Notably, Named
Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members were not paid for any hours
worked outside of time spent cleaning at each job assignment. On
one occasion, Defendant Meck told cleaners they would not be paid
for their commute times traveling between cleaning sites or for the
time spent performing work at Defendants' principal place of
business prior to job assignments. Then, around approximately
mid-March or early April of 2022, Defendants changed their worktime
pay procedures to pay its cleaners for time spent traveling between
sites. However, Defendants' policies of failing to pay its
cleaners, including Named Plaintiff and Putative Class Members, for
all hours worked before and after their job assignments, such as
the time spent performing the necessary and indefensible tasks at
Defendants' principal place of business.

As a direct result of this failure to compensate Named Plaintiffs
and other Putative Plaintiffs for all hours worked, Named
Plaintiffs and other Putative Plaintiffs were not paid at least the
federal and Ohio minimum wage rate for all hours worked. As a
result of Defendants' misclassification, Named Plaintiff and
Putative Class Members were also not paid one and one-half their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours
in a workweek, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as residential and
commercial cleaners.

Safe Clean was an Ohio Corporation For-Profit, operating a place of
business in the City of New Philadelphia, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam L. Slone, Esq.
          BRIAN G. MILLER CO., L.P.A
          250 W. Old Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 270
          Worthington, OH 43085
          Phone: (614) 221-4035
          Facsimile: (614) 987-7841
          Email: als@bgmillerlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          Jacob Mikalov, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
          Columbus, Ohio 43219
          Phone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Saballos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City and County Of
San Francisco, et al. The case is styled as Gary D. Saballos,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. City
and County Of San Francisco, Does 1-15, Inclusive, Case No.
CGC22603276 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 2, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

San Francisco -- https://sf.gov/ -- officially the City and County
of San Francisco, is the commercial, financial, and cultural center
of Northern California in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent Alan Robinson, Esq.
          AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY
          7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1150
          Oakland, CA 94621


SASOL LIMITED: Parties Must Justify Claims Denial in Moshell Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CHAD LINDSEY MOSHELL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SASOL
LIMITED, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20 Civ. 1008 (JPC)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge John P. Cronan of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York ordered the parties to provide
supplemental briefing setting forth the justification for denying
claims.

On Nov. 30, 2022, Lead Plaintiff David Cohen and Additional
Plaintiff Representative Chad Lindsey Moshell (collectively, the
"Representative Plaintiffs") filed a motion for the distribution of
class action settlement funds. Accompanying that motion, the
Representative Plaintiffs filed a Declaration signed by Margery
Craig, a project manager for Strategic Claims Services ("SCS"), the
corporation appointed as Claims Administrator in connection with
this case. That Declaration explained the process SCS has employed
in adjudicating claims filed by putative class members.

In particular, the Declaration identified seven bases upon which
SCS deemed claims to be ineligible for compensation. Neither the
Representative Plaintiffs' motion nor the Craig Declaration
provides any legal justification for the denial of those claims,
however.

The parties are, therefore, ordered to provide supplemental
briefing setting forth the justification for denying claims falling
into two of the categories listed in the Craig Declaration--namely,
categories (ii) American Depository Receipts ('ADRs') of Sasol
Limited that were not purchased or otherwise acquired, but were
received, granted by gift, inheritance, or operation of law" and
(iv) claims with shares sold short.

Judge Cronan notes that that briefing should address, in
particular, (1) whether an ADR "received, granted by gift,
inheritance, or operation of law" counts as an ADR "otherwise
acquired" as used in the definition of the "Settlement Class" in
the Court's Order and Final Judgment; (2) what relationship must
exist between a filed claim and that claimant's short position in
Sasol Limited ADRs for the claim to be considered one "with shares
sold short"; and (3) whether it is appropriate to deny any recovery
to claimants "with shares sold short" when such claimants do not
appear to be excluded by the definition of the Settlement Class
and, therefore, have been deemed by the Order and Final Judgment to
have released any claims they may have against the Defendants that
were asserted in this case or that relate to the purchase or
acquisition of Sasol Limited ADRs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 12, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2uyu2jce from Leagle.com.


SCIENTIFIC MODELS: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scientific Models,
Inc. The case is styled as Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Scientific Models,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10797 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2022).

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

Scientific Models Incorporated was founded in 1969. The company's
line of business includes the manufacturing of miscellaneous
fabricated products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


SENSIO INC: S.D. New York Dismisses Gardner Products Liability Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit captioned CRISTEN GARDNER, Plaintiff v. SENSIO INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 22cv4666 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Cristen Gardner brings this products liability on behalf
of herself and a nationwide class against Sensio Inc., alleging
that pressure cookers sold by Sensio contained a dangerously
defective lid-locking mechanism. Sensio has moved to dismiss the
Plaintiff's first amended complaint ("FAC") or, in the alternative,
to strike the nationwide class allegations.

Sensio designs, manufactures, and distributes small home appliances
including table-top kitchen appliances. Sensio distributes some of
its products under the brand name "Bella," and this brand includes
a line of electric pressure cookers.

In the summer of 2018, the Plaintiff, a Florida resident with a
home in New York, purchased a Bella 8-Quart Electric Pressure
Cooker (the "Product") from a New York retailer. According to
representations made by Sensio in its advertising and packaging
when the Plaintiff purchased the Product, the Product was safe to
use because its lid-locking apparatus ensured that the lid opened
only when the internal pressure in the cooker was released.

On July 27, 2019, the Plaintiff's son and his girlfriend used the
Product as intended. While using the Product, the lid opened while
the contents were still under pressure, which resulted in severe
burns to the Plaintiff's son and his girlfriend. The Plaintiff was
not using the Product during this incident and was not physically
injured by it. Additionally, there are no allegations that this
incident caused damage to the plaintiff's property, beyond any
damage caused to the Product itself.

The FAC asserts that the Product's lid-locking mechanism contained
a defect in either design or manufacture. Sensio was aware of safer
designs that did not reduce the utility of the Product or,
alternatively, was aware of safer or more reliable methods of
manufacture. Nonetheless, Sensio failed to implement these designs
or methods. Additionally, Sensio failed to ensure that the Product
complied with industry standards and failed to inspect the Product
adequately. Finally, Sensio represented through packaging and
product manuals that the Product was safe. Had the Plaintiff known
that the Product was defective, she would not have purchased it,
would have paid less for it, or would have returned it.

The Plaintiff filed this action against Sensio on June 6, 2022,
bringing seven claims for breach of express and implied warranties,
violation of the Magnusson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
2301 (the "MMWA"), fraud, unjust enrichment, deceptive acts or
practices, and false advertising. The Plaintiff brought her claims
individually on behalf of a nationwide class and a New York
subclass.

The nationwide class was defined as:

     All persons in the United States who purchased a Sensio
     Pressure cooker after March 1, 2016 (the Nationwide Class).
     The class includes purchasers of the following Sensio
     Pressure Cooker products:

        a) the Bella 6-Quart 10 in 1 Multi Cooker;

        b) the Bella 10-Quart Digital Multi Cooker;

        c) the Bella 2-Quart Multicooker;

        d) the Bella 6-Quart 10 in 1 Programmable Multi Cooker,
           Stainless Steel;

        e) the Bella 8-Quart 10 in 1 Programmable Multi Cooker,
           Stainless Steel;

        f) the Bella Pro Series 8-Quart 10 in 1 Programmable
           Multi Cooker;

        g) the Bella Pro Series 6-Quart 10 in 1 Programmable
           Multi Cooker;

        h) the Bella 5-Quart Pressure Cooker; and

        i) the Bella 8-Quart 10 in 1 Multi Cooker.

The New York subclass was defined as: "All persons who reside in
the State of New York and who purchased a Sensio Pressure Cooker
after March 1, 2016."

On July 29, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
In its motion, the Defendant argued, inter alia, that because the
Plaintiff purchased only the Bella 8-Quart Electric Pressure
Cooker, it was undisputed that the Plaintiff did not purchase any
of the foregoing pressure cookers used to define the class and
subclass. After the Defendant moved to dismiss, the Plaintiff was
granted an opportunity to amend her complaint and was warned that
it was unlikely that she would have another opportunity to amend.

The Plaintiff filed the FAC on August 19, asserting the same seven
claims, plus an additional claim for strict liability. The
Plaintiff brings eight causes of action: (1) breach of express
warranty; (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability;
(3) strict liability; (4) violation of the MMWA; (5) fraud by
omission; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) deceptive acts or practices,
N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 479; and (8) false advertising, N.Y.
Gen. Bus. Law Section 350. The first six claims are brought on
behalf of a nationwide class, and the last two are brought on
behalf of a New York subclass.

The FAC defines the nationwide class and the New York subclass in
the same way as the original complaint. That is, as in the original
complaint, the Bella 8-Quart Electric Pressure Cooker is not one of
the products used to set the boundaries of the class or subclass.

The Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss the FAC or, in
the alternative, to strike the class allegations on August 31. The
motion was fully submitted on October 7.

Judge Cote notes that a threshold issue is whether Gardner's
allegations are sufficient at this stage to give her standing to
sue on behalf of a class. Sensio contends, among other things, that
the Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this class action because the
only product she purchased was the Bella 8-Quart Electric Pressure
Cooker. Judge Cote holds that each of the Plaintiff's claims is
dismissed.

The FAC alleges that the Plaintiff purchased the Product from a
third-party retailer, rather than from Sensio. Further, it does not
allege that Gardner was personally injured by the Product. As a
result, Judge Cote holds that the Plaintiff's claim for breach of
the implied warranty of merchantability is dismissed for lack of
privity.

The Plaintiff does not dispute that her MMWA claim rises and falls
with her state law breach of warranty claims. Because she fails to
state an underlying breach of warranty claim, Judge Cote holds that
the MMWA claim is also dismissed.

Judge Cote says there are no facts constituting strong
circumstantial evidence that, in the summer of 2018 when the
Plaintiff purchased the Product, Sensio acted recklessly in
representing that the Product was safe.

The Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim is based on the same
allegations as her breach of warranty and tort claims. Thus, the
claim is dismissed as duplicative. The Plaintiff argues that the
claim may survive because it is pleaded in the alternative to its
other claims. But styling the same unmeritorious claim as an unjust
enrichment claim "in the alternative" does not remedy the defect or
provide her a cause of action, Judge Cote opines. Accordingly, the
unjust enrichment claim is dismissed.

Judge Cote opines that the allegations in the FAC are inadequate to
show that the Defendant fraudulently concealed anything about the
safety of the Product's lid-locking mechanism. Moreover, the FAC
shows that the Plaintiff should have discovered the claim within
the limitations period because her son and his girlfriend were
allegedly injured by the Product on July 27, 2019. Relatedly, there
is no indication that the Plaintiff exercised due diligence in
bringing her GBL claims. The statute of limitations period for
these claims ended in the summer of 2021.

Thus, after the July 27, 2019 incident, the Plaintiff had roughly
two years to learn that she may have had a claim under the GBL and
to bring that claim in a timely manner. Nonetheless, she failed to
do so. As a result, there is no basis to toll the statute of
limitations here, Judge Cote points out.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Dec. 12,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc5brtw5 from
Leagle.com.

Jonathan M. Sedgh -- jsedgh@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan
Complex Litigation Group, in New York City, Michael Ram --
MRam@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group,
in San Francisco, California, George E. McLaughlin --
gem@w-mlawgroup.com -- McLaughlin Law Firm, P.C., in Denver,
Colorado, for Plaintiff Cristen Gardner.

Ryan Donald Saba -- rsaba@rosensaba.com -- Francesca Noel Dioguardi
Rosen Saba, LLP, in El Segundo, California, Niraj Jayant Parekh --
Nparekh@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg LLP, in New York City, for
Defendant Sensio Inc.


SHERRIE GLASSER: Barbara Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sherrie Glasser,
Physical Therapist, P.C. The case is styled as Gina Barbara,
individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Sherrie Glasser, Physical Therapist, P.C. doing business as: Metro
Physical & Aquatic Therapy, Case No. 2:22-cv-07037-ARR-ARL
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2022).

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

Sherrie Glasser, Physical Therapist, P.C. doing business as Metro
Physical & Aquatic Therapy -- https://www.metrophysicaltherapy.com/
-- has grown to become the largest family owned and operated
Rehabilitation practices on Long Island.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Bahamonde, Esq.
          JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, P.C.
          2501 Jody Court
          North Bellmore, NY 11710
          Phone: (516) 783-9662
          Fax: (646) 435-4376
          Email: james@civilrightsny.com


SHIR LAW GROUP: Camacho Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shir Law Group, P.A.
The case is styled as Molly Camacho, Gerald Camacho, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Shir Law Group,
P.A., Case No. 0:22-cv-62204-KMM (S.D. Fla., Nov. 22, 2022).

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

Shir Law Group, P.A. -- https://shirlawgroup.com/ -- is a
full-service firm in Boca Raton, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Phone: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


SIERRACIN/SYLMAR CORP: Castro Appeals Class Decertification Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROGELIO CASTRO is taking an appeal from a court order granting
defendants' motion for class decertification in the lawsuit
entitled Rogelio Castro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sierracin/Sylmar Corporation, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02110-PA-MRW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, is brought by the Plaintiff
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and minimum
wages in violation of California Labor Code.

On July 27, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class,
which the Defendants opposed on Aug. 10, 2020.

On Nov. 7, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion for class
decertification, which the Court granted through an Order entered
by Judge Percy Anderson on Dec. 8, 2022.

The appellate case is captioned Rogelio Castro v. Sierracin/Sylmar
Corporation, et al., Case No. 22-80146, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 23, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner ROGELIO CASTRO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Tyler C. Anderson, Esq.
            Melissa Grant, Esq.
            Ryan Wu, Esq.
            CAPSTONE LAW, APC
            1875 Century Park, E., Suite 1000
            Los Angeles, CA 90067
            Telephone: (435) 901-8678
                       (310) 566-4811
                       (310) 556-4177

Defendants-Respondents SIERRACIN/SYLMAR CORPORATION, et al., are
represented by:

            Anthony G. Ly, Esq.
            LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
            2049 Century Park, E.
            Los Angeles, CA 90067
            Telephone: (310) 553-0308

                    - and -

            Everett Clifton Martin, IV, Esq.
            LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
            633 W. 5th Street, 63rd Floor
            Los Angeles, CA 90071
            Telephone: (213) 443-4300

SING FOR SERVICE: Appeals Suit Dismissal Bid Rulings to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
SING FOR SERVICE, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from court
orders in the lawsuit entitled Dean Webb, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sing for
Service, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-00699-CJC-ADS,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from Superior Court, County of Orange, is brought
against the Defendants for placing telephone calls to consumers,
including the Plaintiffs, in an attempt to promote and sell
services, without obtaining prior consent in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

On Sept. 19, 2022, Defendants Sing for Service, LLC d/b/a Mepco,
Guy Renny, The Fortegra Group LLC, Dealer Loyalty Protection, Inc.,
Auto Knight Motor Club, Inc., and Tiptree, Inc. filed motions to
dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint. On the same day, the
Defendants filed a joint motion to stay case pending arbitration.

On Nov. 10, 2022, the Court denied the Defendants' motion to stay
proceedings pending arbitration and Defendant Mepco's motion to
dismiss. The Court also granted in part and denied in part The
Fortegra Defendants' motion to dismiss and granted Defendant Guy
Renny's motion to dismiss. The Order was entered by Judge Cormac J.
Carney.

The appellate case is captioned Dean Webb, et al. v. Sing for
Service, LLC, et al., Case No. 22-56193, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 21, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Sing for Service, LLC Mediation Questionnaire was
due on December 28, 2022;

   -- Appellant Sing for Service, LLC opening brief is due on
February 21, 2023;

   -- Appellees Edgar Garcia and Dean Webb answering brief is due
on March 23, 2023; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees DEAN WEBB, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:

            Gene Joseph Stonebarger, Esq.
            STONEBARGER LAW APC
            101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
            Folsom, CA 95630
            Telephone: (916) 235-7140

                    - and -

            Michael E. Vinding, Esq.
            BRADY & VINDING
            455 Capitol Mall, Suite 220
            Sacramento, CA 95814
            Telephone: (916) 446-3400

Defendants-Appellants SING FOR SERVICE, LLC, et al., are
represented by:

            Benjamin King, Esq.
            LOEB & LOEB, LLP
            10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 2200
            Los Angeles, CA 90067
            Telephone: (310) 282-2000

SPOKEO INC: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Extended to Jan. 3
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVIVA KELLMAN, JASON FRY,
and NICHOLAS NEWELL, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. SPOKEO, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-08976-WHO
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick III entered an order
setting briefing schedule on plaintiffs' motion for extension of
time to file for class certification due on or before January 3,
2023.

On December 23, 2022, the Plaintiffs moved for a 30-day extension
of their time to file their motion for class certification, and
Spokeo intends to oppose that motion.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YR5S1g at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Marie N. Appel, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 358-6913
          Facsimile: (415) 358-6293
          E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
                  mappel@forthepeople.com

                - and -

          Brittany Resch, Esq.
          Sam Strauss, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson St., Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775
          Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
          E-mail: brittanyr@turkestrauss.com
                  sam@turkestrauss.com
                  raina@turkestrauss.com

                - and -

          Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN R. OSBORN
          102 Bergen St.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (347) 645-0464
          E-mail: ben@benosbornlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John Nadolenco, Esq.
          Daniel D. Queen, Esq.
          Jennifer M. Chang, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue 47th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
          E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com
                  dqueen@mayerbrown.com
                  jchang@mayerbrown.com

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Appeals Ruling in Giron BIPA Suit to 7th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order in
the lawsuit entitled Renee Giron, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Subaru of America, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00075, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
County Department - Chancery Division to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, is brought against the
Defendant for alleged violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA) through the DriverFocus Distraction
Mitigation system installed on certain cars Subaru distributes
through authorized retailers.

On November 21, 2022, the Court denied a motion to compel
arbitration filed in the case.

The appellate case is captioned Renee Giron v. Subaru of America,
Inc., Case No. 22-3249, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit, filed on December 21, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Subaru of America, Incorporated Docketing Statement
was due on December 27, 2022;

   -- Transcript information sheet is due on January 4, 2023;

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before January 30, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee RENEE GIRON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
            CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
            135 S. LaSalle Street
            Chicago, IL 60603
            Telephone: (312) 782-4880

Defendant-Appellant SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. is represented by:

            Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq.
            KING & SPALDING LLP
            110 N. Wacker Drive
            Chicago, IL 60606
            Telephone: (312) 995-6333

SYNCREON TECHNOLOGY: Galeas Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Frank Galeas, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Syncreon
Technology USA LLC, Does 1-100, Case No. 22STCV31292 was removed
from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on Nov. 28, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-08629-GW-JPR to
the proceeding.

The nature suit is stated as Other Labor for Employment
Discrimination.

Syncreon Technology (USA) LLC -- https://www.syncreon.com/ --
provides logistics services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Thomas Mara, Esq.
          Jill Marie Vecchi, Esq.
          MARA LAW FIRM PC
          2650 Camino Del Rio North Suite 302
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (619) 234-2833
          Fax: (619) 234-4048
          Email: dmara@maralawfirm.com
                 jvecchi@maralawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric J Gitig, Esq.
          Sevada Hakopian, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS PC
          725 South Figueroa Street Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 689-0404
          Fax: (213) 689-0430
          Email: eric.gitig@jacksonlewis.com
                 sevada.hakopian@jacksonlewis.com


SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION: King Sues Over Anticompetitive Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt King d/b/a King Farms, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated persons and entities v. SYNGENTA CROP
PROTECTION, AG, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, SYNGENTA CORP., and
CORTEVA, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01117 (M.D.N.C., Dec. 21, 2022), is
brought to seek treble damages and injunctive relief, demanding a
trial by jury of all issues so triable, under Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Act, and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act as a
result of the Defendants' anticompetitive scheme.

This is a class action for violations of the United States
antitrust laws. Defendants manufacture several crop protection
products ("CPPs;" specifically, herbicides, insecticides, and
fungicides) used by numerous American farmers, including Plaintiff.
Defendants' CPPs and the active ingredients contained in them enjoy
a period of patent protection and regulatory protection under which
they are lawfully protected from competition. Once these protection
periods expire, competing generic manufacturers are allowed to
produce their own versions of the CPPs, which typically drastically
reduces the price of the CPPs.

Here, to maintain their market dominance after their patent and
regulatory protection of their CPPs expired, Defendants, from
January 1, 2017 to the present (the "Relevant Period" or "Class
Period") have used (and continue to use) restrictive agreements
disguised as "loyalty programs" with large agricultural products
distributors and retailers (i.e., the unnamed co-conspirators) to
block the availability of CPPs to farmers containing lower-priced
generic versions of the following active ingredients ("AIs"):
Syngenta's MESOTRIONE, AZOXYSTROBIN, and METOLACHLOR, and Corteva's
OXAMYL, RIMSULFURON, and ACETOCHLOR (collectively, the "Relevant
AIs"). Under these "loyalty programs," Defendants made substantial
payments to distributors, and in certain cases, retailers, in
exchange for the distributors and retailers' agreement to strictly
limit their purchases of--and thereby prevent widespread
distribution of—generic versions of Defendants' CPPs containing
the Relevant AIs, ensuring that the Defendants' far more expensive
brand-name CPPs would be the vast majority of what the distributors
and retailers purchased and sold to their customers.

Since a small number of major distributors control a very large
share of the CPP sales to retailers that, in turn, sell the CPPs to
farmers, and since some of the distributors also own their own
retail outlets, when there is a loyalty program in effect for a
certain CPP manufactured by the Defendants containing the Relevant
AIs, the generic CPP manufacturers are foreclosed from nearly all
the retail market for such CPP. When there is a loyalty program in
place for a particular CPP manufactured by Defendants containing
the Relevant AIs, the generic CPP manufacturers can typically only
sell much smaller volumes of such CPP, or often cannot sell it
profitably at all— forcing them to exit the market or refrain
from entering the market in the first place. The unnamed
co-conspirator distributors and retailers listed below participated
in these loyalty programs.

The Defendants' loyalty programs have negatively impacted the CPP
market in the following ways (and continue to do so): (i)
Defendants are able to maintain a near-monopoly for the sales of
each of their CPPs containing the Relevant AIs even though patent
and regulatory protection have expired and there should be open
competition from generic CPP manufacturers, (ii) Defendants are
able to continue to charge much higher prices for their CPPs
containing the Relevant AIs as a result of excluding most generic
competition, generating supra competitive profits, (iii) Defendants
share a portion of their supra competitive profits with their
unnamed distributor and retailer co-conspirators to ensure their
cooperation with this scheme, (iv) farmers pay much higher prices
for CPPs containing the Relevant Ais than they otherwise would pay
if there was free and open competition but for Defendants' wrongful
conduct, and (v) generic CPPs containing the Relevant AIs are also
priced higher than they would be priced if there was free and open
competition but for Defendants' wrongful conduct

The Defendants' anticompetitive scheme has reduced competition in
the market for the CPPs containing the Relevant AIs, thereby
artificially inflating the prices of such CPPs and of the CPPs
manufactured by Defendants' generic competitors. Plaintiff and the
Class member farmers who purchased CPPs containing the Relevant AIs
have been (and continue to be) injured by paying artificially
inflated prices for such CPPs--for which they are entitled to
compensation, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a farming operation that purchased CPPs containing
one or more of the Relevant AIs from an unnamed co-conspirator
distributor and/or retailer and/or their affiliates or agents
during the Relevant Period.

Syngenta Crop Protection AG is a Swiss public limited company based
in Basel, Switzerland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin G. Williams, Esq.
          Alan M. Ruley, Esq.
          BELL, DAVIS & PITT, P.A.
          P.O. Box 21029
          Winston-Salem, NC 27120-1029
          Phone: (336) 722-3700
          Email: kwilliams@belldavispitt.com
                 aruley@belldavispitt.com

               - and -

          Eric R. Lifvendahl, Esq.
          LIFVENDAHL LAW, LLC
          265 Latrobe Ave.
          Northfield, IL 60093
          Phone: (847) 830-7002
          Email: eric@liflaw.com


SYNGENTA CROP: Bohrer Farms Sues Over Supra-Competitive Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bohrer Farms, Inc., and all others similarly situated v. SYNGENTA
CROP PROTECTION AG; SYNGENTA CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION,
LLC; CORTEVA, INC.; BASF SE; BASF CORPORATION; BASF AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS GROUP; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC., and HELENA
AGRI-ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02447-JPH-MG (S.D. Ind.,
Dec. 21, 2022), is brought for violation of Clayton Act as a result
of the Defendants' excessive, supra-competitive prices for their
brand crop-protection products.

United States farmers pay more than they should for these products
because of the exclusive dealing arrangements between certain
manufacturers and distributors in contravention of Section 3 of the
Clayton Act. These farmers have paid and continue to pay inflated
prices for crop protection products due to the unlawful conduct of
certain manufacturers: Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Syngenta
Corporation, and Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC (collectively,
"Syngenta"); BASF SE, BASF Corporation, and BASF Agricultural
Products Group (collectively, "BASF"); and Corteva, Inc.
("Corteva"; collectively with Syngenta and BASF, the "Manufacturer
Defendants"); along with Co-conspirator Distributors, including
Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc. and Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC
("Helena"; together with Nutrien, the "Co-conspirator Distributors"
or "Co-conspirator Defendants").

The Manufacturer Defendants have designed loyalty programs
specifically for the purpose of excluding and marginalizing
competitive generic crop protection products, which enables the
Manufacturer Defendants to maintain excessive, supra-competitive
prices for their brand crop-protection products. The Manufacturer
Defendants conspired with the Co-conspirator Distributors to
execute these programs. This conspiracy caused and continues to
cause farmers to overpay for these crucial inputs.

"Basic" manufacturers like the Manufacturer Defendants initially
develop, patent, and register the active ingredients ("AI") of crop
protection products. They can then extend the commercial potential
of their innovations through lawfully obtained exclusive rights for
a period of years. After those patent and regulatory exclusivity
periods expire, generic manufacturers can enter the market with
equivalent products containing the same AI, relying upon the same
toxicology and environmental impact data first developed by those
basic manufacturers. Once generic penetration is initiated, such
competition from generic products predictably leads to dramatic
price reductions, which benefits not only generic manufacturers,
but also United States farmers and consumers.

The Defendants systematically undermined and frustrated the goals
of this system. When patent exclusivity periods for their crop
protection products expired and generic manufacturers threatened to
launch lower priced competing products, the Manufacturer Defendants
used their loyalty programs to unlawfully boycott and or exclude
generic manufacturers from the traditional distribution channel--a
critical link between manufacturers and farmers.

Under their respective programs, theManufacturer Defendants offered
each Co-conspirator Distributor--collectively comprising over 80%
of all sales at the wholesale level--substantial payments
conditioned on each Co-conspirator Distributor's sales of branded
crop protection products and their agreement to limit sales by
Co-conspirator Distributors of comparable generic products to a set
low percentage share. These written loyalty program agreements
explicitly identify these sales thresholds.

The Manufacturer Defendants labeled these payments "rebates" or
"incentives" for "loyalty." Indeed, these payments were rewards for
excluding or limiting competition by the Manufacturer Defendants'
generic competitors. This exclusion or limitation of generic
competition predictably resulted in, among other things, higher
prices for the Plaintiff and other United States farmers than would
have otherwise prevailed. Co-conspirator Distributors participated
in the loyalty programs, both because the Manufacturer Defendants
offered rewards for participation, and because these Co-conspirator
Distributors profited more highly than they otherwise would have by
selling lower-priced generic products.

The Co-conspirator Distributors dominate the sale of crop
protection products in the United States. Thus, the scheme among
the respective Defendants has substantially foreclosed generic
competitors from efficient distribution of their products. The
Manufacturer Defendants expressly designed their programs to
maintain their respective ability to price their respective
products at issue above competitive levels while still unlawfully
retaining large market shares. The Manufacturer Defendants thus
enjoyed outsized profits at the expense of farmers, including
Plaintiff, during the "post-patent" period--when prices for farmers
would otherwise fall substantially, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Bohrer Farms is headquartered in and has its
principal place of business is in Northern Indiana, where it owns
and operates farmland and farming operations.

Syngenta Crop Protection AG, is a company headquartered in Basel,
Switzerland with its North American headquarters in Greensboro,
North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sarah L. Fowler, Esq.
          Jason R. Burke, Esq.
          BLACKWELL, BURKE & RAMSEY P.C.
          101 W. Ohio St., Suite 1700
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: (317) 635-5005
          Email: sfowler@bbrlawpc.com
                 jburke@bbrlawpc.com


TAILORED BRANDS: Barbieri Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tailored Brands, Inc.
The case is styled as John Barbieri, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Tailored Brands, Inc., Case No.
616696/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Nov. 30, 2022).

The case type is stated as "OM-Other."

Tailored Brands, Inc. -- https://www.tailoredbrands.com/ -- is an
American retail holding company for various men's apparel stores,
including the Men's Wearhouse and Jos. A. Bank brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7127
          Fax: (212) 989-9163
          Email: ykopel@bursor.com


TAKEDA PHARMA: Value Drug's Bid for Leave to File Docs Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALUE DRUG COMPANY v.
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS, U.S.A., INC. (TPUSA), et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-03500-MAK (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge J. Kearney entered an
order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion
for leave to file documents.

   1. The motion is granted to the extent consistent with our
      earlier orders on the exact same data; and

   2. The Motion is otherwise denied with leave to any party or
      third party seeking to preclude public access for
      information not subject to an earlier finding allowing the
      parties to preclude public access to show cause in
      Memoranda not exceeding five pages filed no later than
      January 4, 2023 as to why we should preclude public access
      as to each line of information sought to be precluded from
      public access not already subject of an earlier Order and
      shall email the underlying documents (along with the
      proposed redactions) to Chambers contemporaneous with
      filing the show cause Memorandum.

TPUSA is is a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical
Company Limited, Japan's largest pharmaceutical company and one
with a 230-year heritage.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Gx8s5z at no extra charge.[CC]


TIKTOK INC: Sued Over Interception of Electronic Communications
---------------------------------------------------------------
Candace Arroyo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TIKTOK INC., a California corporation, and BYTEDANCE
INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-09300 (C.D. Cal.,
Dec. 22, 2022), is brought against the California-based
corporations Tik Tok and ByteDance (which were and are controlled
and largely owned by the same individual in China, Yiming Zhang),
for intercepting the electronic communications of users of the
TikTok app when they link to third-party websites in the TikTok
app, in violation of, inter alia, the Federal Wiretap Act.

The Defendants employ JavaScript computer code ("Session Replay
Code") to track users' every move as they browse the Internet from
within the TikTok app. As users browse a third-party website from
within the TikTok app, they do so via TikTok's in-app web browser
(with no option to use the mobile phone's default web browser), and
the Session Replay Code intercepts and records the user's
electronic communications. These communications encompass their
keystrokes, clicks, scrolling and swiping finger movements, text
being entered into an information field or text box (even when
never sent to the website), and/or other electronic communications
as they occur in real time ("Website Communications").

Moreover, the third-party websites did not consent in any way that
private communications from visitors to those websites be
intercepted by TikTok, just because the visitor happens to link to
the website from within the TikTok app. The use of Session Replay
Code is not tolerated by some of the largest tech companies. In
2019, Apple warned app developers using Session Replay Code that
they were required to disclose this type of tracking and recording
to their users, or they would be immediately removed from the Apple
Store. "Protecting user privacy is paramount in the Apple
ecosystem. Our App Store Review Guidelines require that apps
request explicit user consent and provide a clear visual indication
when recording, logging, or otherwise making a record of user
activity."

The Defendants' conduct directly violates both the Federal Wiretap
Act, and the Florida Security of Communications Act, which statutes
bar the interception and recording of private communications
without prior consent of all parties to the conversation.
Defendants are also unjustly enriched by their recording the
Website Communications, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff used the TikTok app almost every day, and regularly
uses it two or more times in a single day.

TikTok is a corporation organized and validly existing under the
laws of California with its principal place of business in Culver
City, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOM BROWN'S RESTAURANT: Celeski Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Celeski, Ashton Murdock, and Rachel Markum, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. TOM BROWN'S RESTAURANT
AT MADISON, LLC; TOM EUGENE BROWN (individually); and ASHLEY WALKER
BROWN (individually); Case No. 5:22-cv-01600-HNJ (N.D. Ala., Dec.
23, 2022), is brought Seeking to recover unpaid compensation in the
form of unpaid wages and overtime, for damages caused by the
Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and
to recover damages for their state law claims plead herein
concerning the Defendant's Breach Of Contract, Unjust Enrichment,
Conversion.

The Plaintiffs were required to arrive at least 30 to 45 minutes
before their shift began and before any customers arrived. Despite
this, the Plaintiffs were not paid for this time. If the defendants
paid the plaintiffs during this time, the defendant paid $2.13 per
hour and claimed a $5.13 per hour tip credit even though no tips
were being generated during the pre-customer/pre-shift time.

The Defendants have and had a uniform policy and practice of
requiring employees to participate in an invalid tip share. The
Defendants required the Plaintiffs and all similarity situated
servers to participate in a tip share scheme, including other
employees who did not and do not customarily receive tips from
customers. The Defendants required the Plaintiff to contribute a
portion of their tip earnings to its hourly paid employees/staff
such as bussers, kitchen cooks and hostesses. Kitchen staff,
bussers, and hostesses did not regularly receive tips directly from
customers, nor do they provide service to customers in a way that
warranted a share of their gratuity left by customers, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as servers.

Tom Brown's Restaurant At Madison, LLC is an Alabama Limited
Liability Company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Patrick Evans, Esq.
          THE EVANS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1736 Oxmoor Road, Suite 101
          Birmingham, Alabama 35209
          Phone: (205) 870-1970
          Fax: (205) 870-7763
          Email: dpevans@evanslawpc.com


TONAL SYSTEMS: Willis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tonal Systems, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Jermaine Willis, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tonal Systems, Inc.,
Does 1 through 10, inclusive and each of them, Case No. CGC22603025
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Nov. 18, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

Tonal Systems, Inc. -- https://www.tonal.com/ -- produces, designs,
and distributes fitness equipment. The Company offers handles,
ropes, bars, benches, rollers, and workout mats.[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


TROPIC WATER SPORTS: Davis Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tropic Water Sports
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Gannon Davis, Dawna Godwin, and
other similarly situated individuals v. Tropic Water Sports LLC,
Florida Jet Ski Rentals, LLC also known as: Wolfeboro Jet Ski
Rentals, Victor N. Drouin, individually, Case No. 4:22-cv-10104-RKA
(S.D. Fla., Nov. 15, 2022).

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

Tropic Water Sports LLC -- https://tropicwatersports.com/ -- is a
water sports equipment rental service in Key Largo, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Phone: (305) 446-1500
          Fax: (305) 446-1502
          Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com


TRUGREEN INC: Elsy Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging
-------------------------------------------------------
Laura Elsy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRUGREEN, INC., Case No. 0:22-cv-62186-WPD (S.D. Fla.,
Nov. 21, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act as a
result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messaging and telephonic
sales call.

To promote its lawn care plans and services, Defendant engages in
unsolicited text messaging, including to individuals who have
registered their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call
Registry, and to those who have not provided Defendant with their
prior express written consent as required by the FTSA. The
Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the requisite
policies and procedures and training required under the TCPA and
its implementing regulations. The Defendant's telephonic sales
calls have caused the Plaintiff and the Class members harm,
including violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages,
annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy. Through this
action, Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory damages on
behalf of Plaintiff and the Class members and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of
Defendant, says the complaint.

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

The Defendant is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
business located in Memphis, Tennessee, and a "telephone
solicitor."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: 305-610-5223
          Email: rachel@dapeer.com

               - and -

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


U.S. VISION INC: Odell Files Suit in D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Vision, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Bonita Odell, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. U.S. Vision, Inc., USV Optical,
Inc., Nationwide Optometry, P.C., Case No. 1:22-cv-06753-CPO-SAK
(D.N.J., Nov. 23, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

U.S. Vision -- https://www.usvision.com/ -- a wholly owned
subsidiary of Refac Optical Group, is an international optometric
dispensary chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janine L Pollack, Esq.
          CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP
          1140 Avenue Of The Americas, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 899-1760
          Fax: (332) 206-2073
          Email: jpollack@calcaterrapollack.com


UCOR LLC: Speer Sues to Remedy Illegal Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------
Carlton Speer, Malena Dennis, and Zachariah Duncan, on their own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UCOR LLC,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00426-TRM-JEM (E.D. Tenn., Nov. 29, 2022), is
brought against the Defendant to remedy the illegal discrimination
to which its employees who have requested religious accommodations
from its COVID-19 vaccine mandate have had to endure.

The Defendant decided that unvaccinated employees--even those who
UCOR admits have sincerely held religious objections to the
vaccine--were to be terminated from their employment despite UCOR's
offering the exact accommodations to other protected groups as the
Plaintiffs requested here. The Defendant's discriminatory actions
left the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated with the
formidable task of choosing between their faith and their jobs. In
so doing, the Defendant has violated Title VII by discriminating
against Plaintiffs based on their religious beliefs and failing to
provide reasonable accommodations to Plaintiffs' sincerely held
religious beliefs. In the alternative, the Defendant's
discriminatory actions constitute a violation of the Religious
Freedom and Restoration Act, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs submitted requests for a religious accommodation
through UCOR's designated COVID-19 vaccine exemption system.

UCOR is a contractor for the United States Department of Energy
("DOE") and provides environmental cleanup services at the East
Tennessee Technology Park, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and
the Y-12 National Security Complex.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse D. Nelson, Esq.
          Clint J. Coleman, Esq.
          Gina M. Modica, Esq.
          NELSON LAW GROUP, PLLC
          10263 Kingston Pike
          Knoxville, TN 37922
          Phone: (865) 383-1053
          Email: jesse@nlgattorneys.com
                 clint@nlgattorneys.com
                 gina@nlgattorneys.com


UNILEVER: Rullo Suit Transferred in D. Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Robert Rullo, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Unilever United States, Inc., Case No.
2:22-cv-06422 was transferred from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, to the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut on Dec. 6, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01618-JBA to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Unilever United States, Inc. -- https://www.unileverusa.com/ --
manufactures personal care products. The Company offers, laundry
detergents, shampoos, soaps, fragrances, and body washes.[BN]




UNILEVER: Schriver Sues Over Defective Dry Shampoo Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Schriver, Carolina Gonzalez, Achorea Tisdale, and Tracy
Allison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-01617-RNC (S.D. Fla., Nov. 11, 2022), is brought against
the Defendant's dry shampoo products that are defective because
they contain benzene, a known human carcinogen, and which were
formulated, designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised,
distributed, and sold by Defendant.

The Defendant distributes, markets, and sells to consumers across
the United States, both in retail establishments and online,
including in Florida, certain dry shampoo products under its
various brands, including Suave, TIGI, TRESemmé, Dove, Nexxus, and
Living Proof (the "Products").

The presence of benzene in the Products renders them adulterated,
misbranded, and illegal to sell under federal and state law. Given
the highly dangerous levels of benzene recently found in some of
its
competitors' aerosol products, as well as Unilever's need to recall
certain of its own aerosol spray deodorant products due to the
presence of benzene, Unilever knew or should have known of the
dangerous and carcinogenic effects of benzene and should have known
that it was producing products that contained, or had a material
risk of containing, benzene.

Instead of disclosing this fact to consumers, Defendant represented
that its Products are safe and effective for their intended use,
touting its "strict quality controls" to "limit the presence of
benzene" in its products. Nevertheless, Unilever has produced,
marketed, labeled, distributed, and sold millions of dry shampoo
Products that contained, or had a material risk of containing,
benzene.

The presence of benzene in Defendant's Products was not disclosed
to consumers in the Products' labeling, advertising or otherwise,
in violation of state and federal law. 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, says the complaint.

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

The Defendant sells dry shampoo Products throughout the United
States, including in the state of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com
                 ostrow@kolawyers.com
                 streisfeld@kolawyers.com


UNITED COLLECTION: Rubashkin FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Yissacher Rubashkin, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers v. UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU,
INC., Case No. 2022-019384-CA-01 was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida on Nov. 14, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-23731-JEM to the
proceeding.

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

United Collection Bureau Inc. -- https://ucbinc.com/ -- provides
debt collection and accounts receivable management services to
creditors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ely Robert Levy, Esq.
          LEVY & PARTNERS, PLLC
          3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Email: elevy@lawlp.com

               - and -

          Omar Mauricio Salazar, II, Esq.
          MILITZOK, LEVY, P.A.
          3230 Stirling Road
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Phone: (954) 727-8570
          Fax: (954) 241-6857
          Email: omar@lawlp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robin Taylor Symons, Esq.
          GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
          100 S.E. Second Street, Suite 3900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 428-5300
          Fax: (877) 644-6209
          Email: rsymons@gordonrees.com


UNITED FURNITURE: Alomari Sues Over WARN Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Frances Denise Alomari, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. UNITED FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-00176-GHD-RP (D. Miss., Nov. 23, 2022), is brought against
Defendant for its violation and anticipated further violation of
the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the
"WARN Act").

On the evening hours of November 21, 2022, UFI suddenly and without
any notice terminated all its employees with an electronically
transmitted notice to all its employees, in violation of the
federal WARN Act, which requires 60 days' advance written notice of
a mass termination. The Plaintiff files this action seeking to
insure that UFI complies with the law and provides the requisite
severance payments to its terminated employees to insure that it
not solicit releases of claims of any employees without informing
them of the pendency of this action and their right to pursue their
claims under the WARN Act, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant until she was terminated
on November 21, 2022.

United Furniture Industries, Inc. is a Delaware corporation,
headquartered in Tupelo, Mississippi.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. ("Don") Barrett, Esq.
          Katherine B. Riley, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          404 Court Square
          Lexington, Mississippi 39095
          Phone: (662) 834-2488
          Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
                 kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Richard Barrett, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC
          2086 Old Taylor Rd, Suite 1011
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Phone: 662-380-5018
          Fax: 866-430-5459
          Email: rrb@rrblawfirm.net

               - and -

          Jerry Abdalla, Esq.
          ABDALLA LAW, PLLC
          602 Steed Rd #200
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Phone: (601) 487-4590
          Email: gmabdall@hotmail.com


UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: Evans Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Evans, individually, and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-06596
(N.D. Ill., Nov. 23, 2022), is brought against the Defendant's
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Around 2020, the Plaintiff suspected that UPS was not paying him
correctly. Upon further investigation, the Plaintiff discovered
that UPS did not pay him at the correct rate after the first hour
of picking up ground packages. Additionally, the Plaintiff
discovered that whenever he picked up ground packages and worked
more than eight hours in a 24-hour period or more than 40 hours in
work week, UPS failed to pay him overtime at the correct higher
rate that the Union Agreements call for, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been employed by UPS in various roles.

United Parcel Service, Inc ("UPS") is a multinational package
delivery and supply chain management company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric Onyango
          PRIME LEGAL, LLC
          222 North Columbus Drive #1507
          Chicago, IL 60601


UPPER PENINSULA POWER: Roll Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Upper Peninsula Power
Company. The case is styled as Danny Roll, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Upper Peninsula Power
Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-00224-JMB-MV (W.D. Mich., Nov. 30,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

The Upper Peninsula Power Company -- http://www.uppco.com/-- is an
electrical power utility provider headquartered in Marquette,
Michigan with service centers in Escanaba, Houghton, Iron River,
Ishpeming, Munising and Ontonagon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Phone: (720) 213-0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
          Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
                 ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com


UPSTART HOLDINGS: Oconnor and Chung Suits Consolidated and Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants the
Parties' Joint Motion to Consolidate Cases, Appoint Co-Lead
Counsel, and Stay the Consolidated Action in the lawsuits entitled
WILLIAM OCONNOR, Plaintiff v. JEFF HUBER, et al., Defendants,
UPSTART HOLDINGS, INC., Nominal Defendant. KIMBERLY CHUNG,
Plaintiff v. JEFF HUBER, et al., Defendants, UPSTART HOLDINGS,
INC., Nominal Defendant, Case Nos. 2:22-cv-02961, 2:22-cv-03620
(S.D. Ohio).

OConnor filed a derivative action on behalf of nominal defendant
Upstart Holdings, Inc., on July 28, 2022 (the "OConnor Derivative
Action"). Chung filed a separate derivative action on behalf of
nominal defendant Upstart in the Court two months later (the "Chung
Derivative Action"). Both derivative suits are related to a class
action filed in this Court on July 26, 2022, which alleged
violations of federal securities laws and regulations (the
"Securities Class Action," Crain v. Upstart Holdings, Inc., Case
No. 2:22-cv-02935). Plaintiffs OConnor and Chung now seek to
consolidate their respective derivative actions pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 42(a)(2), appoint co-lead counsel, and stay the
consolidated action pending the resolution of the Securities Class
Action.

Judge Marbley notes that the OConnor Derivative Action and the
Chung Derivative Action involve the same nominal defendants and the
same individual defendants (with one exception: Robert Schwartz is
named as Defendant in the OConnor Derivative Action but not the
Chung Derivative Action), share overlapping factual allegations,
and challenge substantially the same alleged conduct by the same
Company directors and executive officers. To allow the cases to
proceed separately would result in a significant waste of judicial
resources, as well as burdening the parties and witnesses with
excessive litigation.

Thus, the Court, without dispute from the parties, consolidates the
OConnor and Chung Derivative Actions in the interests of judicial
consistency and the conservation of judicial resources.

The Plaintiffs jointly seek to appoint their respective counsel as
Co-Lead Counsel. The Defendants do not object. Additionally, the
Parties have provided the Court with the resumes and profiles of
the counsel that the Plaintiffs seek to appoint. Given the
unanimity in the Plaintiffs' desires, the Court appoints Rigrodsky
Law, P.A., and The Brown Law Firm, P.C., as Co-Lead Counsel in the
consolidated action.

Judge Marbley opines that the consolidated case is in its early
stages, the parties have moved jointly indicating neither will be
prejudiced, and a stay will conserve judicial resources while the
Court adjudicates the related class action suit.

For these reasons, the Court grants the parties' Joint Motion to
Consolidate, Appoint Co-Lead Counsel, and Stay.

Judge Marbley rules that the Defendants accept service of the
complaints in the OConnor Derivative Action and the Chung
Derivative Action to the extent that service has not yet been
perfected on any Defendant.

Judge Marbley consolidates the OConnor Derivative Action and the
Chung Derivative Action for all purposes, including pre-trial
proceedings, trial, and appeal, under Case No. 2:22-cv-02961 (the
Consolidated Action)..

Every pleading filed in the Consolidated Action, or in any separate
action included herein, will refer to the case name as: In re
Upstart Holdings, Inc., Derivative Litigation; will refer to the
case number: Lead Case No. 2:22-cv-02961; and will state that This
Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS.

All papers filed in connection with the Consolidated Action will be
maintained in one file under Lead Case No. 2:22-cv-02961.

The Co-Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs for the conduct of the
Consolidated Action will be: RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A. Timothy J.
MacFall, Vincent A. Licata, 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
Garden City, NY 11530, Telephone: (516) 683-3516, Email:
tjm@rl-legal.com, Email: vl@rl-legal.com. Trial Attorney Daniel R.
Mordarski, Law Offices of Daniel R. Mordarski LLC, 5 E. Long St.,
Suite 1100, Columbus, Ohio 43026, Telephone: (614) 221-3200,
Facsimile: (614) 221-3201, Email: dan@mordarskilaw.com. THE BROWN
LAW FIRM, P.C., Timothy Brown, 767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501, New
York, NY 10017, Telephone: (516) 922-5427, Facsimile: (516)
344-6204, Email: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net. Trial Attorney Stuart
G. Storch, Employment Law Partners, LLC, 4700 Rockside Road, Suite
530, Independence, Ohio 44131, Telephone: (216) 382-2500,
Facsimile: (216) 381-0250, Email: stuart@employmentlawpartners.com

The Co-Lead Counsel will have the sole authority to speak for the
Plaintiffs in all matters regarding pre-trial procedure, trial, and
settlement negotiations and will make all work assignments in such
manner as to facilitate the orderly and efficient prosecution of
this litigation and to avoid duplicative or unproductive effort.
The Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for coordinating all
activities and appearances on behalf of the Plaintiffs. No motion,
request for discovery, or other pre-trial or trial proceedings will
be initiated or filed by any Plaintiffs except through the Co-Lead
Counsel.

During the stay, the Plaintiff may file consolidated and amended
consolidated complaints, but the Defendants need not answer, move,
or otherwise respond thereto during the pendency of the stay.

The Defendants will promptly notify the Plaintiffs of any related
derivative actions that they become aware of. The Plaintiffs may
lift the stay upon thirty (30) days' notice to the Defendants'
counsel.

During the pendency of the stay, the Defendants will promptly
produce to the Plaintiffs any documents produced in any related
derivative actions.

The Plaintiffs will be included in any mediation and in any formal
settlement talks between the parties in the Securities Class
Action, and in any mediation and in any formal settlement talks
between the parties in any related derivative actions or related
threatened derivative matters that involve any of the Defendants
named in this Consolidated Action.

Upon termination of the stay, the Defendants will not move to stay
the Consolidated Action in deference to another derivative action.

Within twenty (20) days after the termination of the stay, the
Parties will meet and confer and submit a proposed scheduling order
governing further proceedings in the Consolidated Action.

All papers and documents previously filed and/or served in the
OConnor Derivative Actions or Chung Derivative Action will be
deemed a part of the record in the Consolidated Action.

Nothing in this Motion will be construed as a waiver of, or
prejudice to, any claim, defense, argument, motion, or any other
request for relief that would otherwise be available to the Parties
in the Related Derivative Actions or the Consolidated Action,
including a motion to dismiss based on Upstart's forum selection
provision or similar motion.

Additionally, Plaintiff OConnor's First Motion to Stay is denied as
moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 12, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4ty982xv from Leagle.com.


UTILITY TREE SERVICE: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Luis Hernandez, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. UTILITY TREE SERVICE, LLC; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 56-2022-00571736-CU-OE-VTA
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Ventura, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on Dec. 22, 2022, and assigned Case
No. 2:22-cv-09283.

The Complaint asserts the following seven causes of action: Failure
to Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages; Failure to Provide Meal
Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure to
Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate
Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Indemnify Employees for
Expenditures; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Shiva Shirazi Davoudian, Esq.
          Meri Dichigrikian, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
          Phone: 310.553.0308
          Fax: 310.553.5583
          Email: sdavoudian@littler.com
                 mdichigrikian@littler.com


VENTURA FOODS: Gramstad Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Gramstad, individually and as a representative of a Putative
Class of Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of the VENTURA
FOODS, LLC PROFIT SHARING 401(K) PLAN v. VENTURA FOODS, LLC and
DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 8:22-cv-02290 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 21,
2022), is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), on behalf of the Plan against
current Plan sponsor, VENTURA FOODS, LLC and John Does 1-10
(collectively the "Defendants"), for breaching their fiduciary
duties in the management, operation and administration of the
Plan.

The Defendants chose to accept the benefits of federal and state
tax deferrals for their employees via a 401(k) plan, and the owners
and executives of Defendant organizations have benefitted
financially for years from the same tax benefits. However,
Defendants have not followed ERISA's standard of care. This lawsuit
is filed after careful consultation with experts and review of
publicly available documents to return benefits taken from Plan
participants by the Defendants. ERISA imposes strict fiduciary
duties of prudence and loyalty on covered retirement plan
fiduciaries. An ERISA fiduciary must discharge his responsibility
"with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence" that a prudent
person "acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters"
would use.

Specifically, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of
prudence and loyalty to the Plan by: Overpaying for Covered Service
Providers by paying variable direct and indirect compensation fees
through revenue sharing arrangements with the funds offered as
investment options under the Plan, which exceeded costs incurred by
plans of similar size with similar services and which were in
excess of and not tethered to the services provided; Offering and
maintaining funds with higher-cost share classes when identical
lower cost class shares were available and could have been offered
to participants resulting in participants/beneficiaries paying
unnecessary costs for services that provided no value to them and
resulted in a reduction of compounded return gains; Retaining and
Offering poorly performing funds within the Plan which failed to
meet or exceed industry standard benchmarks including Morningstar
category indices and best fit indices as determined by Morningstar;
Deprived participants of compounded returns through the excessive
costs and investment in expensive underperforming funds; and
Failing to maintain and restore trust assets.

The Plaintiff was injured during the Relevant Time Period by the
Defendants' flawed processes in breach of their fiduciary duties.
As a result of Defendant's actions, participants invested in subpar
investment vehicles and paid additional unnecessary operating
expenses and fees with no value to the participants and resulting
in a loss of compounded returns. The Plaintiff brings this action
on behalf of the Plan under the ERISA to enforce Defendants'
liability under the ERISA, to make good to the Plan all losses
resulting from their breaches of fiduciary duties, and to restore
to the Plan any lost profits, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff resides in Fullerton, CA and is an employee of
Ventura Foods, LLC and worked for Ventura Foods, LLC in this
district.

Ventura Foods, LLC is the current sponsor of the Plan and maintains
its principal place of business in Brea, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
          Robert N. Fisher, Esq.
          CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C.
          1117 State Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Phone: (805) 618-2924
          Facsimile: (805) 618-2939
          Email: christina@chumphreylaw.com
                 rob@chumphreylaw.com

               - and -

          James A. Clark, Esq.
          Renee P. Ortega, Esq.
          TOWER LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
          11335 Gold Express Drive, Ste. 105
          Sacramento, CA 95670
          Phone: (916) 361-6009
          Facsimile: (916) 361-6019
          Email: james.clark@towerlegalgroup.com
                 renee.ortega@towerlegalgroup.com


VERITABLE VEGETABLE: Zhang Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Veritable Vegetable,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Eddie Zhang, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Veritable Vegetable,
Inc., Does 1 through 20, Case No. CGC22603150 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Nov. 23, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

Veritable Vegetable -- https://veritablevegetable.com/ -- provides
full service distribution of the highest quality organic fresh
fruits and vegetables to retailers, restaurants, schools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM
          9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: 949-379-6250


VIVATERRA INTERNATIONAL: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vivaterra
International, LLC. The case is styled as Mykayla Fagnani, on
behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v.
Vivaterra International, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10841 (S.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 22, 2022).

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

Vivaterra International -- https://www.vivaterra.com/ -- offers
home decor, furniture, art and accessories with designs that blend
global inspiration with sustainable, modern design.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal

WALMART INC: Appeals Remand Order in Brunts Suit to 8th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
WALMART INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting a
plaintiff's motion to remand the lawsuit entitled Nicholas Brunts,
Plaintiff, v. Walmart Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-01043, to
the Circuit Court for St. Louis County in Missouri.

The Plaintiff brought this complaint against the Defendant for
alleged mislabeling of certain products.

Walmart removed the case from the Circuit Court for St. Louis
County to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on Sept. 29, 2022, asserting that federal jurisdiction
exists under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

On Oct. 3, 2022, the Plaintiff moved to remand the case to state
court, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge
Rodney W. Sippel on Dec. 12, 2022. The Court refused to give
Walmart's testimony any weight, holding it was no better than
"conjecture and speculation," because it did not provide details of
the calculation such as the number of products sold or the prices
charged to support its statement that total sales of products
during the class period exceeded $5 million.

The appellate case is captioned Nicholas Brunts v. Walmart, Inc.,
Case No. 22-8020, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit, filed on December 22, 2022. [BN]

Defendant-Petitioner WALMART INC. is represented by:

            Kevin Underhill, Esq.
            SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
            555 Mission Street, Suite 2300
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 544-1900
            Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
            E-mail: kunderhill@shb.com

WALMART INC: Morris Suit Transferred to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kaylan Morris, Tammy Devane, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. WALMART INC. f/k/a
WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00650 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on Dec.
21, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00709-MHT-SMD to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Product Liability.

Walmart Inc. -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- is an American
multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from
the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Stuart McAtee, Esq.
          ALEXANDER SHUNNARAH PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEYS
          3626 Clairmont Avenue S
          Birmingham, AL 35222
          Office: (205) 983-8116
          Fax: (205) 983-8416
          Email: smcatee@asilpc.com

               - and -

          Taylor Akers Pruett, Esq.
          CORY WATSON PC
          2131 Magnolia Ave S
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: (205) 328-2200
          Fax: (205) 324-7896
          Email: tpruett@corywatson.com

               - and -

          William Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
          Christopher Boyce Hood, Esq.
          Taylor Christopher Bartlett, Esq.
          Travis Edward Lynch, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          2224 First Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: 205-326-3336
          Facsimile: 205-326-3332
          Email: lewis@hgdlawfirm.com
                 chood@hgdlawfirm.com
                 taylor@hgdlawfirm.com
                 tlynch@hgdlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cole Robinson Gresham, Esq.
          Michael Rowden Lasserre, Esq.
          STARNES DAVIS FLORIE LLP
          100 Brookwood Place-7th Floor
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Phone: (205) 868-6042
          Fax: (205) 868-6099
          Email: cgresham@starneslaw.com
                 mrl@starneslaw.com

               - and -

          Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
          LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE
          400 20th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 581-0735
          Fax: (205) 581-0799
          Email: wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com


WASTE PRO USA: Broady FCRA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Deonte Broady, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Waste Pro USA, Inc.,
Case No. 22-CA-11719-CIDL was removed from the Volusia County
Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida on Dec. 6, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:22-cv-02254-RBD-EJK to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Waste Pro USA, Inc. -- https://www.wasteprousa.com/ -- provides
waste removal services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Phone: (813) 224-0431
          Fax: (813) 229-8712
          Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
                 aheystek@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew Justin Pearce, Esq.
          Amy S. Shay, Esq.
          Lance D. King, Esq.
          STOVASH, CASE & TINGLEY, PA
          220 N Rosalind Ave
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Phone: (407) 316-0393
          Email: mpearce@sctlaw.com
                 ashay@sctlaw.com
                 lking@sctlaw.com


WOODENBOAT PUBLICATIONS: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Woodenboat
Publications, Inc. The case is styled as Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf
of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Woodenboat
Publications, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10798 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21,
2022).

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

WoodenBoat -- http://www.woodenboat.com/-- publishes magazine for
wooden boat owners and builders, focusing on materials, design, and
construction techniques and repair solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


WOW RESTAURANT: Chen Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yanhong Chen and Lutong Yang, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. WOW RESTAURANT TH LLC d/b/a Yaki Sushi Grill
BBQ and TRINH HUYNH, Case No. 8:22-cv-02774-VMC-MRM (M.D. Fla.,
Dec. 7, 2022), is brought against the Defendants for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and of the Florida Minimum
Wage Act ("FMWA"), arising from Defendants' various willful,
malicious, and unlawful employment policies, patterns, and/or
practices, and to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages or prejudgment
interest, post judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs.

At no point during their employment did the Plaintiffs' pay,
promised or actual, include pay at time-and-a-half for their
overtime hours. The Defendants did not keep any records of the
Plaintiffs' working time. The Defendants did not post a notice of
employees' rights under the federal and state wage-and-hour laws on
the premises of Yaki Sushi Grill BBQ, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants to work in various
positions at Yaki Sushi Grill BBQ.

The Defendants operated a restaurant known as "Yaki Sushi Grill
BBQ."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Locksley O. Wade, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LOCKSLEY O. WADE
          11 Broadway, Suite 615
          New York, NY 10004

               - and -

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355


WRIGHT & FILIPPIS: Cullin Sues Over Exposure of PII and PHI
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Cullin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. WRIGHT & FILIPPIS, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-12917-MFL-JJCG
(E.D. Mich., Dec. 1, 2022), is brought arising because it is
foreseeable that the exposure of personally identifying information
("PII") or protected health information ("PHI") to unauthorized
persons--and especially hackers with nefarious intentions--will
result in harm to the affected individuals, including, but not
limited to, the invasion of their private health matters.

As a healthcare provider, the Defendant knowingly obtains sensitive
patient PII and PHI and has a resulting duty to securely maintain
such information in confidence. On November 18, 2022, Wright &
Filippis notified its patients that their PII and PHI stored on its
systems had been compromised by an unknown cybercriminal (the "Data
Breach"). Despite that Wright & Filippis became aware of the Data
Breach on January 26, 2022, it failed to notify the Plaintiff and
the putative Class Members within 60 days as required by law.
Notably, the Defendant failed to notify the Plaintiff and putative
Class Members for approximately eleven months from its discovery of
the Data Breach.

Based on the public statements of the Defendant to date, a wide
variety of PII and PHI was implicated in the breach, including but
not limited to names, dates of birth, patient numbers, social
security numbers, financial account numbers, and/or health
insurance information. As a direct and proximate result of the
Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security
procedures, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI is now
in the hands of cybercriminals.

The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly
increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft,
misappropriation of health insurance benefits, intrusion of their
health privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which
may last for the rest of their lives. Consequently, the Plaintiff
and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and
energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these
crimes, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a patient of the Defendant from 2011 to 2017.

Wright & Filippis is a well-known provider of prosthetics,
orthotics, and accessibility solutions based in Rochester Hills,
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Stoops, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Phone: (248) 784-6613
          Fax: (248) 936-2143
          Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Fax: (412) 231-0246
          Email: gary@lcllp.com
                 jamisen@lcllp.com


YUSEN LOGISTICS: Metcalf Seeks to Certify Class, Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL JOSEPH METCALF, an
individual on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
employees v. YUSEN LOGISTICS (AMERICAS) INC., a New Work
Corporation, YUSEN LOGISTICS CO., LTD, dba YUSEN LOGISTICS GROUP, a
California Company; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-05912-GW-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. Determining that a class action is proper as to all causes
      of action on the operative complaint (except for Claim
      Number 2 for Failure to Provide Required Rest Breaks,
      Claim 5 for Failure to maintain Required Records, and
      Claim Number 7 for Failure to Indemnify) on the grounds
      that:

      (1) the class is ascertainable and sufficiently numerous,
      (2) common questions of law and fact 13 over individual
      issues, (3) the class representative's claims are typical
      of the class, (4) the class representative will adequately
      represent the interests of the class, and (5) class
      treatment is superior; and

   2. All current and former nonexempt employees of Defendant
      Yusen 17 (Americas) Inc. who worked at any locations in
      the State of California at any time within the period of
      June 1, 2017, to the present.

The Plaintiff further requests that the court certify the following
subclasses:

    A. Rounding Subclass

       "All non-exempt employees who worked in the State of
       California who Defendant Yusen Logistics (Americas) Inc.
       paid based on their rounded rather than actual hours
       worked."

    B. Pre-Shift Unpaid Wages Subclasses.

       "All non-exempt employees who worked at one of the
       Defendant Yusen Logistics (Americas) Inc.'s warehouses in
       the State of California and accessed the secure warehouse
       properties by security keycard but were not paid for the
       time they were under Defendant's control before clocking
       in.

       1. Warehouse workers at the Carson 1 Warehouse;

       2. Warehouse workers at the Carson 3 Warehouse;

       3. Warehouse workers at the Dominguez Warehouse;

       4. Warehouse workers at the Torrance Warehouse;

       5. Warehouse workers at the Mira Loma Warehouse;

       6. Warehouse workers at the Reyes Warehouse.

    C. Post-Shift Unpaid Wages Subclasses

       "All non-exempt employees who worked at one of Defendant
       Yusen Logistics (Americas) Inc.'s warehouses in the State
       of California and were still under Defendant's control
       after clocking out until they exited the secure warehouse
       properties by security keycard and were not paid for that
       time.

       1. Warehouse workers at the Carson 1 Warehouse;

       2. Warehouse workers at the Carson 3 Warehouse;

       3. Warehouse workers at the Dominguez Warehouse;

       4. Warehouse workers at the Torrance Warehouse;

       5. Warehouse workers at the Mira Loma Warehouse;

       6. Warehouse workers at the Reyes Warehouse.

    D. Recorded Short, Late, or Missed Meal Period Subclass

       "All non-exempt employees who worked in the State of
       California who recorded a meal period that was short or
       late, or who did not get a meal period during a shift
       where one was required, and who Defendant Yusen
       Logistics (Americas) Inc. did not pay a meal period
       premium.

    E. Interrupted / On Duty Meal Period Subclasses

       "All non-exempt employees who worked at one of Defendant
       Yusen Logistics (Americas) Inc.'s warehouses in the State
       of California and were still under Defendant's control r
       were on duty/working during their meal period and who
       were not paid a meal period premium."

       1. Warehouse workers at the Carson 1 Warehouse;

       2. Warehouse workers at the Carson 3 Warehouse;

       3. Warehouse workers at the Dominguez Warehouse;

       4. Warehouse workers at the Torrance Warehouse;

       5. Warehouse workers at the Mira Loma Warehouse;

       6. Warehouse workers at the Reyes Warehouse.

    F. Derivative Wage Statement Subclass

       "All hourly employees who worked for the Defendant Yusen
       Logistics (Americas) Inc. during the class period and
       received an itemized wage statement during the class
       period."

    G. Terminated Employee Waiting Time Subclass

       "All employees from Subclasses A, B, C, D, and/or E who
       suffered damages as a result of any of those specific
       claims and as a result of that were not properly paid all
       wages due upon separation from employment from
       Defendant."

    H. Unfair Competition Subclass

       "All employees from Subclasses A, B, C, D, E, F, and/or G
       who suffered damage as a result of any of those specific
       claims.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 27, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VuhofS at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq.
          Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
          SOLOUKI | SAVOY, LLP
          316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 814-4940
          Facsimile: (213) 814-2550

                - and -

          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          James Hawkins, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS, APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA. 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 james@jameshawkinsaplc.com

ZILLOW GROUP: Conlisk Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mark Conlisk, Michael Dekhtyar, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zillow Group Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-05082-JFK was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington on Nov. 22, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01698-JLR to the
proceeding.

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

Zillow Group, Inc. -- https://www.zillowgroup.com/ -- or simply
Zillow, is an American tech real-estate marketplace company that
was founded in 2006.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP - CHICAGO, IL
          227 W Monroe St., Ste. 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David T. Cellitti, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 2400
          Tampa, FL 33602-5236
          Phone: (813) 222-1137
          Email: david.cellitti@bipc.com

               - and -

          James P. Savitt, Esq.
          SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
          1425 Fourth Ave., Ste. 800
          Seattle, WA 98101-2272
          Phone: (206) 749-0500
          Fax: 749-0600
          Email: jsavitt@sbwllp.com


ZILLOW GROUP: Huber Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jamie Huber, individually and, on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Zillow Group Inc., Case No.
2:22-cv-03572-GJP was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington on Nov. 22, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01699 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for
Wiretapping.

Zillow Group, Inc. -- https://www.zillowgroup.com/ -- or simply
Zillow, is an American tech real-estate marketplace company that
was founded in 2006.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          Email: Ari@marcuszelman.com


ZILLOW GROUP: Kauffman Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as David Kauffman, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Zillow Group Inc., Case No.
3:22-cv-01398-LL-AGS was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington on Nov. 18, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01694-JLR to the
proceeding.

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

Zillow Group, Inc. -- https://www.zillowgroup.com/ -- or simply
Zillow, is an American tech real-estate marketplace company that
was founded in 2006.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (619) 222-7429
          Fax: (866) 431-3292
          Email: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com

               - and -

          Joshua Brandon Swigart, Esq.
          SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (866) 219-3343
          Fax: (866) 219-8344
          Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James P Savitt, Esq.
          SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
          1425 Fourth Ave., Ste. 800
          Seattle, WA 98101-2272
          Phone: (206) 749-0500
          Fax: 749-0600
          Email: jsavitt@sbwllp.com

               - and -

          Natalie Nola Peled, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 1100
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 239-8700
          Fax: (619) 702-3898
          Email: natalie.peled@bipc.com


ZILLOW GROUP: Popa Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ashley Popa, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Zillow Group Inc., Case No.
2:22-cv-01287-WSS was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington on Nov. 21, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01696-JLR to the
proceeding.

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

Zillow Group, Inc. -- https://www.zillowgroup.com/ -- or simply
Zillow, is an American tech real-estate marketplace company that
was founded in 2006.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
          1133 Penn Ave., 5th FL
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Email: Elizabeth@lcllp.com
                 Gary@lcllp.com

               - and -

          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1200 Fifth Ave Ste 1700
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 682-5600
          Email: kstephens@tousley.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Samantha Southall, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          Two Liberty Place
          50 S. 16th Street, Ste. 3200
          Philadelphia, PA 19063
          Phone: (215) 665-8700
          Fax: (215) 665-8760
          Email: samantha.southall@bipc.com


ZILLOW GROUP: Strelzin Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jill Strelzin, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. Zillow Group Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05644-SCS was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington on Nov. 21, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01695-JLR to the
proceeding.

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

Zillow Group, Inc. -- https://www.zillowgroup.com/ -- or simply
Zillow, is an American tech real-estate marketplace company that
was founded in 2006.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
          111 W. Washington St., Ste. 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 750-1265
          Email: katrina@lcllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David T Cellitti, Esq.
          Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
          401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 2400
          Tampa, FL 33602-5236
          Phone: (813) 222-1137
          Email: david.cellitti@bipc.com

               - and -

          James P Savitt, Esq.
          SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
          1425 Fourth Ave., Ste. 800
          Seattle, WA 98101-2272
          Phone: (206) 749-0500
          Fax: (206) 749-0600
          Email: jsavitt@sbwllp.com




                            *********

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

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

Copyright 2023. 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 ***