/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230106.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, January 6, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 6

                            Headlines

450 NORTH: More Time for Conditional Certification Response Sought
49ERS ENTERPRISES: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Sampson Alleges
7-ELEVEN INC: Mugnani Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Winer Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Debt
ACROSS THE BOARD: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

AMERICAN FIRST: Faces Dey Suit Over Collection Practices Act Breach
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Cervantes-Arnold Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
APHRIA INC: Prospectus Misrepresentation Securities Suit Dismissed
APPLE INC: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Racial Discrimination
APPLE INC: Steines Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising

ARLINGTON SPECIALTIES: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ATLANTIC MONTHLY: Discloses Subscribers' Data, Passariello Says
AUTO SQUARE: Vargas Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in Calif.
B&J CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Laborers' OT Wages Under FLSA, NCWHA
BED BATH: Smith Sues Over Pain Relief Patches' Misleading Labels

BEIERSDORF INC: Bangoura Seeks Final OK of Settlement
BETMGM LLC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Ringling Suit Alleges
BLUEGRASS LENDING: Gadke Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky
BOSTON COLLEGE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Sellers ERISA Suit
BPS DIRECT: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Moore Suit Claims

BRADFORD EXCHANGE: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CALIFORNIA: $9-M FCRA Class Action Settlement Receives Final OK
CANADA: First Nations Ineligible for Drinking Water Suit Settlement
CARNIVAL CORP: Wiretaps Website Visitors' Data, Oliver Suit Says
CASEYS GENERAL: Conditional Cert Response Extended to Jan. 11

CATAPULT HEALTH: Fails to Pay Technicians' OT Wages Under FLSA
CATASTROPHE RESPONSE: Collins Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Friedman Sues Over Illegal Collection Letters
CB HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Cooks' Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
CG CONSULTING: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Amended Class Cert Bid

CHEGG INC: Moyer Sues Over Deceptive Advertising Practices
CHILTON'S A-1 AUTO BODY: Guevarra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Vargas Sues Over Sale to Vista Equity, Elliot
CLARITY CARE: Blanks-Austin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
CLEARVIEW ELECTRIC: Makes Unsolicited Telephone Calls, Suit Says

CLOROX CO: Kossel Sues Over Contaminated Pine-Sol Cleaning Products
COAST PROFESSIONAL: Oakley Seeks More Time to File Response
COCA-COLA CO: Settles Milk False Labeling Class Action for $21-M
COMBE INC: Wise Sues Over Mislabeled Intimate Wash Products' Ads
CONNEXIN SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Sayers Suit Says

CREATIVE MIRROR: Muniz Sues Over Illegal Biometric Data Collection
DAKTRONICS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 21
DAKTRONICS INC: Faces Settles Suit Over 39.2% Share Price Drop
DALLAS GROUP: Durham Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
DEMERT BRANDS: Morgan Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.

ECONO-WEST: California Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
F&J PINE: Fails to Pay Workers' OT Wages Under FLSA, Reyes Alleges
FIVE GUYS: Faces Suit Over Biometric Privacy Law Violations
FIVE GUYS: Greenwood Sues Over Unlawful Biometrics' Collection
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Tate Sues for Breach of Trade Practices Act

GAIA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 21
GEMINI TRUST: Picha Sues Over Unregistered Securities
GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Renewed Class Cert. Bid
GOOP INC: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
H&K GROUP: Greene Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania

HAHASMART INC: Walton Sues Over Deceptive Solar Energy Products
HANDI-CRAFT COMPANY: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HEARTBREAKERS GENTLEMEN'S: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Garza Says
HEINEKEN USA: Pautz Sues Over Mislabeled "Ranch Water" Products
HI.Q INC: Quiles Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice

HOME DEPOT: Bermudez Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
HOMETRUST MORTGAGE: Faces Yuan Suit Over Unauthorized Info Access
HYATT HOTELS: Illegally Fixed Record Dates, Silverberg Suit Claims
INSIDER INC: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Lee Class Suit Alleges
INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL: Motion to Discontinue Class Action Granted

INTO THE AM: Chase Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
IRVINE COMPANY: Moore Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices
JELLYCAT INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JMP FOOD: Jiles Suit Seeks Delivery Drivers' Minimum & OT Wages
KEURIG GREEN: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Valenzuela Suit Alleges

KIA AMERICA: Vehicles Lack Engine Immobilizers, Murphy Claims
LITTLE CAESAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Managers, Horner Says
LIVE NATION: Sterioff Sues Over Ticketing Anticompetitive Scheme
LOS ALBERT'S MEXICAN: Morales Sues Over Unlawful Misclassification
LOS CORBATICAS: Quinones Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

M-I LLC: Certification of Class & Subclass in Last Suit Recommended
MATTRESS FIRM: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Licea Class Suit Alleges
MIDNIGHT COOKIES: Bilbao Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
MITEK INC: Second Shot at Avoiding BIPA Class Action Rejected
MORLEY COMPANIES: Agrees to Settle Breach Class Suit for $4.3-M

MOTIVATE LLC: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Alexander Suit Claims
NATIONAL GENERAL: Romero Suit Removed to S.D. California
NESTLE PURINA: Fontanez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
NOOM INC: Wiretaps Website Visitors' Communications, Oliver Alleges
NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Judge Approves $10M Class-Action Settlement

OHIO UNIVERSITY: Ohio App. Flips Class Certification in Duke Suit
OSMOSE UTILITIES: Corvin Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
OSMOSE UTILITIES: Davis-Harris Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
OSMOSE UTILITIES: Weaver Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
PEACEHEALTH: Zimmerman Sues Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Policy

PERLIER INC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PLDT INC: Aims to Nip Potential Suit Over Securities Violations
POINTSBET USA: Ct. Moots Bid to Deny Rule 23 Class Certification
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces Moore Suit Over Biometric Voice Prints
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Seeks to Exclude Experts' Testimony

RACKSPACE TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Lethe Alleges
RAMON LUNA: Almaraz Seeks Employees' Minimum & OT Wages
RC VISIONS LLC: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
REALPAGE INC: Augustson Sues Over Sherman Antitrust Act Violation
REDDIT INC: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action Suit

REMCO INSURANCE: Villarreal Sues Over Insurance Agents' Unpaid OT
RESORT LEGAL SERVICE: Grochowski Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
REVENEER INC: Wierman Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Sales Employees
SAMARITAN DAYTOP: Underpays Overnight House Managers, Swindell Says
SAN FRANCISCO BAR: Reed Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois

SAPUTO DAIRY FOODS: Vargas Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
SELECT MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Employees' OT Wages, Marcy Alleges
SESEN BIO: Keller Suit Alleges Board's Breach of Fiduciary Duties
SHAMROCK CABINET: Brandon, et al., Seek Class Settlement Approval
SNAP FINANCE: Fails to Secure Clients' PII, Sanchez Suit Alleges

SOLID POWER: Pomerantz LLP Investigates Securities Claims
SPORTSMANS MARKET: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPOTIFY USA: Discloses Subscribers' Data to Facebook, Saleh Says
STATE-LINE PRODUCTS: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Pagon Class Suit Claims
SUSHI BY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Lucius Suit Alleges

SUTTER VALLEY: Bid to Dismiss, Stay or Strike in Tinnin Suit Denied
SUTTER VALLEY: Ward Seeks Relief to Modify Scheduling Order
T-MOBILE USA: Faces Bennett Class Suit Over SIM Swap Fraud
TATTOOED CHEF: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 21
TIKTOK INC: Rahn Sues Over Interception of Private Communications

TOADSTOOL INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TODD GREINER: Suit Seeks to Certify Migrant Agro-Worker Class
TOPSTAR TECHNOLOGY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRADITION TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Drivers' Wages Under FLSA
TRANSDEV NORTH: Diaz Sues Over Parts Purchasers' Unpaid Wages

TRANSPORTATION SUPPORT: Isguerra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Peters Alleges Misleading Registration Statements
TWITTER INC: Urges Calif. Court to Dismiss Suit Over Mass Layoffs
UNITED STATES: Sequiera Sues Over Unlawful Surveillance Program
UNITEDHEALTH: Faces Popovchak ERISA Suit Over Self-Serving Scheme

UNIVERSAL STUDIOS: Class Action Over De Armas Trailer Can Proceed
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Wins Summary Judgment v. Dimitryuk
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Sued Over False Rankings' Ads
VIESTE SPE: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. Reply by Jan. 17
WASHINGTON: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Ralston Class Suit


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Approves NARCO Trust Buyout Agreement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Unit Accuses Doctor of Concealing Evidence


                            *********

450 NORTH: More Time for Conditional Certification Response Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OCTAVIO COLLADO, v. 450
NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC, D/B/A KIKI ON THE RIVER, RJ RIVER, LLC, AND
ROMAN JONES, Case No. 1:22-cv-23074-BB (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants
ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time for
them to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification
of a Collective Action, to January 23, 2023.

On December 19, 2022, the Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification of a collective action. Presently, a
response to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification of a
Collective Action is due to be served by January 2, 2023.

The Defendant's undersigned counsel has been out of the office
since December 7, 2022 due to Covid-19 and the holidays and
requires a twenty-one day extension up through and including
January 23, 2023.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 30, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z1xWip at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
          FAIRLAW FIRM
          135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770
          Coral Gables, FL 33146
          Telephone: (305) 230-4884
          E-mail:brian@fairlawattorney.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Allan S. Reiss, Esq.
          LEVINE & PARTNERS, P.A.
          3350 Mary Street
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 372-1350
          Facsimile: (305) 372-1352
          E-mail: Asr@Levinelawfirm.Com

                - and -

          Reynaldo Velazquez, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
          One Biscayne Tower
          2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 577-7600
          E-mail: rey.velazquez@jacksonlewis.com

49ERS ENTERPRISES: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Sampson Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES SAMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 49ERS ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a/ THE SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS,
Case No. 5:22-cv-09077-VKD (N.D. Cal., Dec. 22, 2022) alleges that
Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive and
confidential information - specifically, names, Social Security
numbers, payment card information, and information regarding
employees' dependents' PII and immigration statuses.

On February 6, 2022, the Defendant's servers were infected with
ransomware and cybercriminals were able to take control Defendant's
computer network for nearly five days, leading to the exposure of
the PII contained on that server.

The Defendant then failed to notify victims of the Data Breach for
over half of a year, until 13 August of 2022 that their PII had
been compromised, the Plaintiff claims.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injuries
as a result of Defendant's conduct. These injuries include:

     (i) lost or diminished value of PII;

    (ii) out-of-pocket expenses associated with the prevention,
         detection, and recovery from identity theft, tax fraud,
         and/or unauthorized use of their PII;

   (iii) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to
         mitigate the 8 actual consequences of the Data Breach,
         including but not limited to lost time, and

    (iv) the continued and certainly increased risk to their
         PII.

The Plaintiff and Class Members are or were consumers who bought
football tickets from the Defendant, consumers' dependents, and
employees of the organization and were required to provide said
PII, in addition to other sensitive information.

49Ers Enterprises is a National Football League franchise located
in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Nelson, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          401 W Broadway, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (858) 209-6941
          E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com

7-ELEVEN INC: Mugnani Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIANA MUGNANI, Individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-01007 (M.D. Tenn., Dec. 12, 2022) is brought against the
Defendant as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to
Plaintiff and members of the collective.

Plaintiff Adriana Mugnani was employed by Defendant as a full-time
hourly-paid employee within this district during all times material
to this collective action. She asserts that Defendant had a common
practice of failing to pay her and those similarly situated for all
hours worked over 40 per week within weekly pay periods at one and
one-half times their regular hourly rates of pay.

7-Eleven Inc. owns, operates, and manages 7-Eleven convenience
stores throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Winer Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Debt
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Winer, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE RESOURCES, INC. D/B/A AR RESOURCES,
INC., Case No. CACE-22-018875 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward
Cty., Dec. 27, 2022), is brought for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and Florida Consumer Collection Practices
Act as a result of the Defendant who attempted to collect the
consumer debt from the Plaintiff but cannot legally collect or
attempt to collect the consumer debt from without first registering
and thereafter maintaining a valid consumer collection agency
license.

On May 2022, the Defendant sent a collection letter to the
Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the Consumer Debt. The
collection letter is a communication from the Defendant to the
Plaintiff in connection with the collection of a debt. The
Defendant is an entity required to register as a consumer
collection agency with the Florida Office of Financial Regulation
to lawfully collect consumer debts from Florida consumers. The
Defendant was not lawfully licensed to collect consumer debts from
Florida consumers when it attempted to collect the consumer debt
from the Plaintiff, by and through the Collection Letter. The
defendant does not fall within any of the exceptions contained
within the FDCPA and the FCCPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, citizen of the State of
Florida.

The Defendant is a Pennsylvania corporation, with its principal
place of business located in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Patti, Esq.
          Victor Zabaleta, Esq.
          PATTIZABALETA LAW GROUP
          3323 Northwest 55th Street
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
          Phone: 561-542-8550
          Email: tom@pzlg.legal
                 victor@pzlg.legal


ACROSS THE BOARD: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Across The Board
Game, LLC. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Across The Board Game, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-10898 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 27, 2022).

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

Across the Board -- https://acrosstheboardgame.com/ -- is a St.
Louis family-owned and operated workshop specializing in high
quality, handcrafted, unique wooden board games.[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


AMERICAN FIRST: Faces Dey Suit Over Collection Practices Act Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT DEY, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN FIRST FINANCE LLC, Defendant, Case
No. CACE-22-018053 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., Dec. 9,
2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an electronic
communication to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the
consumer debt. The Communication was sent to Plaintiff between the
hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. in the time zone of Plaintiff. The
Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to communicate with
Plaintiff between the said hours. As such, by and through the
electronic communication, Defendant violated Section 559.72(17) of
the FCCPA, says the suit.

American First Finance LLC is a consumer financial technology
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  jen@jibraellaw.com

AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Cervantes-Arnold Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Javier Cervantes-Arnold, on behalf of himself and other
aggrieved employees v. AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1
to 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV40237 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., Dec. 27, 2022), is brought seeking civil penalties
associated with Defendants' violation of the Labor Code as a result
of unpaid compensations.

The Defendants violated the Labor Code based on Defendants'
declaratory relief; and applicable penalties for misclassification
of the Plaintiff and similarly situated insurance adjusters as
exempt employees; unpaid overtime wages for all overtime hours
worked; failure to provide legally required and/or compliant meal
periods or pay meal period premium wages; failure to provide
legally required and/or compliant rest periods or pay rest period
premium wages; indemnification for all necessary expenditures or
losses incurred by employees in direct consequence of discharging
their duties; statutory penalties for failure to timely pay earned
wages during employment; statutory penalties for failure to provide
accurate wage statements; statutory waiting time penalties in the
form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all
wages due upon separation of employment. Plaintiff seeks on a
representative basis, following notice to the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency, civil penalties, reasonable attorneys' fees
pursuant to Labor Code and costs brought on behalf of Plaintiff,
the State of California, and others aggrieved, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is and was domiciled and a resident and citizen of
California and was employed by Defendants in an hourly position at
Defendants' location in Los Angeles from May 9, 2022 until June 3,
2022.

AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. is authorized to do business
within the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Pooja V. Patel, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                 vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                 ppatel@lelawfirm.com
                 wht1@lelawfirm.com

APHRIA INC: Prospectus Misrepresentation Securities Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Splawski at mondaq.com reports that BLG has obtained a
dismissal of a securities class action alleging prospectus
misrepresentation against a group of underwriters in a decision
that confirms the principle that - at least in Ontario - there must
be a representative plaintiff with a claim against each proposed
defendant to a class action.

Vecchio Longo Consulting v. Aphria is a class action in which the
plaintiff investor alleges, among other things, misrepresentations
in the primary and secondary market. The plaintiff purchased Aphria
shares in the secondary market and commenced a securities class
action against Aphria, certain of its officers and directors, and a
syndicate of underwriters who underwrote an Aphria prospectus
offering. The plaintiff claimed against Aphria and the officers and
directors for secondary market misrepresentation and prospectus
misrepresentation, and against the underwriters for prospectus
misrepresentation.

The underwriters opposed certification on the basis that the
plaintiff had not purchased shares in the prospectus offering and
therefore did not have a cause of action against the underwriters.
The plaintiff argued that the Ontario jurisprudence based on
Ragoonanan v. Imperial Tobacco (which requires a representative
plaintiff to have a cause of action against each defendant) had
been displaced by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision inBank of
Montreal v. Marcotte, concerning a Québec class action. The court
found that Ragoonanan remained good law and the class action could
not be certified against the underwriters without a representative
plaintiff who purchased shares in the prospectus offering.

The Ragoonanan principle can play an important role when plaintiffs
bring a single class action against multiple defendants (often
companies that manufacture or sell a similar product, or are
engaged in a similar industry or business practice). Ragoonanan
states that there must be a representative plaintiff with an
individual claim against each defendant that is to be included in a
class action.

However, the court ordered the underwriters to produce a list of
all the purchasers in the prospectus offering to assist the
plaintiff to locate an appropriate representative plaintiff. There
was no precedent for the court making this order. The order was
stayed pending appeal, and the Divisional Court granted leave to
appeal. This led to the plaintiff agreeing to dismiss the action
without costs against the underwriters. The action has been
certified against Aphria and certain of the individual defendants,
and the secondary market misrepresentation claim has been granted
leave to proceed. [GN]

APPLE INC: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Racial Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Best at FOXBusiness reports that a New York man filed a
class-action lawsuit against Apple on Dec. 24, alleging that the
Apple Watch's blood oximeter has a "racial bias" against
individuals with darker skin tones.

The Blood Oxygen app is available on Apple Watch Series 6 and newer
and can "measure the oxygen level of your blood on-demand directly
from your wrist, providing you with insights into your overall
wellness," Apple explains.

New York resident Alex Morales alleges that he purchased an Apple
Watch between 2020 and 2021, and was aware that the watch
"purported to measure blood oxygen levels and he believed it did
this without regard to skin tone," according to the lawsuit, which
was filed in the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit further alleges that during the coronavirus pandemic,
researchers "confirmed the clinical significance of racial bias of
pulse oximetry" using patients' records.

"For decades, there have been reports that such devices were
significantly less accurate in measuring blood oxygen levels based
on skin color," the lawsuit reads.

"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."

Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The
tech company notes on its website that the Blood Oxygen app is
"only designed for general fitness and wellness purposes."

"Blood Oxygen app measurements are not intended for medical use,
including self-diagnosis or consultation with a doctor," Apple
writes. [GN]

APPLE INC: Steines Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Steines, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-03099-MAB (S.D.
Ill., Dec. 27, 2022), is brought seeking damages and an injunction
to stop the Defendant's false and misleading advertising practices
with regard to its the iPhone smartphone, pictured next to the box
it is sold in ("Product").

An iPhone purchaser previously received a charger with their phone
so they could supply it with energy and use it for its intended
purposes, whether email, browsing the internet, work, reading or
playing games. Beginning last year, Defendant no longer included
the power adapter, citing environmental benefits from forgoing the
mining of precious metals required for its production and a
reduction in waste, presumably by encouraging customers to use
their old chargers. This explanation fails to account for the
situation of a large percentage of iPhone purchasers for multiple
reasons.

First, not all iPhone purchasers previously had iPhones or other
Apple devices, which meant they did not have extra or any chargers
to use. Second, iPhone purchasers upgrading to a new model may (1)
no longer have the charger which came with their device, (2) not
have received a charger with their prior iPhone, (3) have a charger
which is no longer compatible with the iPhone they are buying
and/or (4) have a charger which has become non-functional due to
age and/or usage.

The Plaintiff and consumers were not aware they were purchasing an
incomplete Product, devoid of essential functionality, because this
was only disclosed on the back of the box, in small print, stating,
"Includes: iPhone 14 Pro Max and USB-C to Lightning Cable; power
adapter and headphones sold separately." By selling the Product
without a charger, it is not adequate for its intended use, which
was to function as a phone and mini-computer, because it requires
power or energy to operate. Where the utility of a good depends
upon another good which is not provided by the manufacturer, the
good is considered defective or at a minimum, diminished in value.
By not providing a charger, customers like Plaintiff are forced to
spend additional money on a charger.

When the Defendant removed the charger, not only was the price of
the Product not correspondingly reduced by the amount of the power
adapter, the price increased, unrelated to other added
functionality which could justify this increase. If a customer
realizes in the store that the iPhone they purchased does not come
with a charger, they will almost always want to go home with a
charger. Though lower-priced chargers are available online, the
stores where most purchases are made--operated by Apple and cell
phone companies--only sell costly chargers for not less than $30.

The Defendant could have taken other measures to promote
environmental sustainability, by adopting industry standard USB-C
chargers, instead rendering the Product non-functional unless an
additional purchase was made. The Defendant could have made
chargers available for free to iPhone purchasers who request them.
As a result of the false and misleading representations and
omissions, the Product is sold for a price premium, approximately
no less than $700 for the lowest price version, excluding tax and
sales, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased an iPhone at a T-Mobile Store between
December 2021 and May 2022.

The Defendant is a California corporation with a principal place of
business in 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


ARLINGTON SPECIALTIES: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arlington
Specialties, Inc. The case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. Arlington Specialties, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10915-AT
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 27, 2022).

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

Arlington Specialties, Inc. does business as Pinch Provisions --
https://www.pinchprovisions.com/ -- is the leading purveyor of
personal care kits and premium emergency essentials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ATLANTIC MONTHLY: Discloses Subscribers' Data, Passariello Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SALOMON PASSARIELLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY GROUP LLC
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-08993 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 12, 2022) is a
consumer privacy action against The Atlantic for disclosing its
digital subscribers' identities and video-viewing preferences to
Meta Platforms Inc., which owns the social networking website and
app Facebook, in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant collects and shares
users' personal information with Meta using a "Meta Pixel" or
"Pixel" -- a snippet of programming code that, once installed on a
webpage, sends information to Meta. The Meta Pixel sends
information to Meta in a data packet containing personally
identifiable information, such as the users' IP address, name,
email, or phone number. Meta then stores this data on its own
servers. The Defendant discloses the user's Facebook ID and viewing
content to Meta together in a single transmission. Because the
user's FID uniquely identifies an individual's Facebook account,
Meta -- and any other ordinary person -- can use the FID to quickly
and easily locate, access, and view the user's corresponding
Facebook profile. In simplest terms, the Pixel allows Meta to know
what video content one of its users viewed on The Atlantic's
website, says the suit.

On behalf of a Class of similarly situated The Atlantic users,
Plaintiff seeks appropriate relief through this action. Based on
the facts set forth in this Complaint, The Atlantic violated the
VPPA and is liable for unjust enrichment, the complaint asserts.

The Atlantic Monthly Group LLC provides publishing services. The
Company publishes magazine as well as books on politics, culture,
technology, science, business, health, and education. Atlantic
Monthly Group serves customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          Simon S. Grille, Esq.
          Kimberly Macey, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
                  sgrille@girardsharp.com
                  kmacey@girardsharp.com

               - and -

          Sean Greene, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          222 Pacific Coast Highway, Floor 10
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (415) 544-6453
          E-mail: sgreene@girardsharp.com
     
               - and -

          Christopher J. Cormier, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 577-3977
          E-mail: ccormier@burnscharest.com

               - and -

          Hannah Crowe, Esq.
          Lauren Cross, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP  
          900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (469) 904-4550
          E-mail: hcrowe@burnscharest.com
                  lcross@burnscharest.com

AUTO SQUARE: Vargas Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSY VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AUTO SQUARE AUTOS INC. and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22NWCV01696 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., December 22, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 including failure to provide
compliant meal and rest periods; failure to allow employees to take
duty-free meal and rest periods; failure to pay all minimum,
regular, and overtime wages; failure to correctly calculate the
regular rate of pay; failure to pay for all hours worked; failure
to maintain true and accurate records; failure to reimburse for
required business expenses; failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements; and failure to timely pay wages due during, and
upon termination of employment.

Auto Square Autos Inc. is an owner and operator of car dealerships
in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Kenneth A. Seligson, Esq.
         SELIGSON LAW
         4046 Wade Street, Unit 1
         Los Angeles, CA 90066
         Telephone: (845) 988-8548
         E-mail: Ken@SeligsonLaw.com

                 - and -
       
         Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
         JCL LAW FIRM, APC
         5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3600
         San Diego, CA 92121
         Telephone: (619) 599-8292
         E-mail: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com

                 - and -

         Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
         ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
         5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3600
         San Diego, CA 92121
         Telephone: (619) 255-9047
         E-mail: shani@zakaylaw.com

B&J CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Laborers' OT Wages Under FLSA, NCWHA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY PIESCO, individually and for others similarly situated v. B
& J Construction of NC, LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-00222 (E.D.N.C., Dec.
22, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

The Defendant employed workers such as the Plaintiff and the
Collective and Class Members as laborers to perform construction
work. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant intermittently
between 2019 and 2022. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's hourly rate was
$18.00 per hour. The Plaintiff and the Collective and Class Members
work(ed) over 50 hours per week. The Defendant allegedly failed to
pay them overtime compensation at a rate of time and a half their
regular hourly rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek,
says the suit.

B & J Construction-is a construction company that builds structures
including, but not limited to docks and piers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
          CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP
          2400 Freeman Mill Road, Suite 200
          Greensboro, NC 27406
          Telephone: (336) 333-9899
          Facsimile: (336) 333-9894
          E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com

                - and -

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                  scott@bohrerbrady.com

BED BATH: Smith Sues Over Pain Relief Patches' Misleading Labels
----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BED BATH & BEYOND INC., Defendant, Case No.
7:22-cv-10836 (S.D.N.Y., December 22, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for fraud, unjust enrichment, violations of
the New York General Business Law and State Consumer Fraud Acts,
and breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of
merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose, and Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its pain relief patches under the Core Values brand. Relevant front
label representations of the product include "Maximum Strength,"
"Pain Relief Lidocaine Patch," "Lidocaine 4%," "Desensitizes
aggravated nerves and relieves pain," by providing "Targeted pain
relief" for "Use on neck, back, shoulders, elbows and knees" in a
"Stay-put flexible patch" that is "Easy to apply & remove" which
"Lasts up to 12 hours," shown through an image of the product
applied to the lower back. When consumers see the promise of "up to
12 hours" of relief through the use of the "stay-put flexible
patch" that "desensitizes aggravated nerves and relieves pain,"
with "targeted pain relief" to their "neck, back, shoulders, elbows
and knees," they expect the product will adhere to their bodies for
no less than twelve hours, or at least approach that length of
time. However, the product cannot adhere for 12 hours, which
renders the directions misleading, because it assumes it will not
have detached by then. This inability to adhere for anywhere close
to 12 hours means the product cannot deliver the "Maximum Strength"
amount of lidocaine. As a result of the Defendant's false and
misleading representations, the product is sold at a premium price,
says the suit.

Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. is an operator of a chains of specialty
superstores, with a principal place of business in Union, New
Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
         SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, PC
         60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412
         Great Neck, NY 11021
         Telephone: (516) 268-7080
         E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

BEIERSDORF INC: Bangoura Seeks Final OK of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Almany Ismael Bangoura,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Beiersdorf, Inc. and Bayer Healthcare, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00291-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff Bangoura will move the
Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23 and the
Court's Preliminary Approval Order, for an entry of a Final Order
and Judgment,

   1. confirming his appointment as the class representative for
      the Class;

   2. confirming appointment of Class Counsel;

   3. confirming and making final the Court's certification of
      the Class for settlement purposes only; and

   4. granting final approval of the Settlement.

Beiersdorf is a German multinational company that manufactures and
retails personal-care products and pressure-sensitive adhesives.

Bayer Healthcare discovers and manufactures healthcare and medical
products.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 30, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Vz4Nbn at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

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

BETMGM LLC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Ringling Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
HOLLY RINGLING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BetMGM, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-07462-JXN-CLW (D.N.J.,
Dec. 22, 2022) alleges that the Defendant fails to properly secure
and safeguard personal identifiable information for past and
current customers of Defendant, including their names, mailing
addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth,
portions of their Social Security Numbers, and BetMGM identifiers
including player ID and screen names.

On November 28, 2022, the Defendant learned of a data security
incident on its network and determined that an unknown actor
compromised and accessed the PII of the Defendant's past and
current customers, including the Plaintiff and Class Members.

Based on its own admissions in its December 21, 2022 Notice of Data
Breach sent to the Plaintiff and Class members, Defendant as of
December 21, 2022 believes the Data Breach occurred in May 2022.

The Plaintiff contends that the Plaintiff and Class Members have
suffered injury as a result of Defendant's conduct. These injuries
include:

      (i) lost or diminished value of PII;

     (ii) out-of-pocket expenses associated with the prevention,
          detection, and recovery from identity theft, tax fraud,
          and/or unauthorized use of their PII;

    (iii) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to
          mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach,
          including but not limited to lost time;

     (iv) the disclosure of their private information, and

      (v) the present, continued, and certainly increased risk to
          their PII.

The Plaintiff provided her PII to the Defendant sometime during
2020 when she visited the Defendant's website and signed up for an
account. At that time the Plaintiff provided her name, address,
date of birth, social security number, and certain financial
information to the Defendant.

BetMGM is the exclusive sports betting partner to MGM Resorts
nationwide, both online and in MGM's physical casinos.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Javier L. Merino, Esq.
          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          Brian D. Flick, Esq.
          THE DANN LAW FIRM , PC
          1520 U. S. Highway 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com

BLUEGRASS LENDING: Gadke Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bluegrass Lending
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Kyle Nicholas Gadke, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bluegrass Lending
Group, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00678-RGJ (W.D. Ky., Dec. 27, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Bluegrass Lending -- https://bluegrasslending.com/ -- facilitates
highly efficient low interest lending and is based out of the
Louisville Metro Area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

               - and -

          Jennifer R. Hall, Esq.
          HALL LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
          306 W. Dixie Avenue
          Elizabethtown, KY 42701
          Phone: (270) 360-0470
          Fax: (270) 982-3809
          Email: halllegalgroup@gmail.com


BOSTON COLLEGE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Sellers ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CONNIE SELLERS AND SEAN COOPER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
THE REPRESENTATIVES OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, AND
ON BEHALF OF THE BOSTON COLLEGE 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN I AND THE
BOSTON COLLEGE 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN II, Plaintiffs v. TRUSTEES OF
BOSTON COLLEGE; PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, AND JOHN AND JANE DOES
1-10, Defendant, Civil Action No. 22-10912-WGY (D. Mass.), Judge
William G. Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts denies Boston College's Motion to Dismiss.

In this ERISA litigation, two former employees of Boston College
who participate in two retirement plans administered by the college
bring a complaint on behalf of themselves, the retirement plans,
and a proposed class of all others similarly situated against the
trustees of Boston College, its investment committee, and ten John
and Jane Does (collectively, "Boston College"). The Plaintiffs,
individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons, and on behalf of the two Boston College 401(k)
retirement plans, filed a class action complaint against Boston
College on June 10, 2022.

The class action complaint alleges one count against all Boston
College Defendants (Count One: Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Prudence
and Fiduciary Duty to Comply with Plan Documents) and one count
against only the Trustees, for failing to monitor the Committee and
the ten John and Jane Does (Count Two: Failure to Monitor
Fiduciaries).

The putative class that Plan Participants seek to certify is
defined as follows: "all persons, except the Defendants and their
immediate family members, who were participants in, or
beneficiaries of the Plans, at any time between June 10, 2016
through the date of judgment."

The Trustees is the legal entity responsible for overseeing Boston
College -- a private, Catholic educational institution in Middlesex
and Suffolk Counties, Massachusetts. The Committee is charged with
oversight of the investment policies for the two retirement plans,
and the Investment Policy Statement acknowledges that members of
the Committee are 'fiduciaries' as defined by ERISA.

Unknown "John Doe" Defendants 1-10 include, but are not limited to,
Boston College officers, employees, board members, administrators,
and/or contractors who are/were fiduciaries of the Plans within the
meaning of ERISA Section 3(21)(A), 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(21)(A)
during the Class Period.

On Aug. 15, 2022, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), Boston College moved to dismiss both counts of Plan
Participants' complaint and the issues have been fully briefed.

Judge Young finds that under count one, the Plan Participants'
pleaded facts showing Boston College's alleged breach of their duty
of prudence fall into two main categories. First, the Participants
allege that the retirement plans were subject to excessive fees in
the form of higher-than-average recordkeeping fees and investment
management fees. Second, they allege that the investment options
offered within the funds -- offerings from TIAA, CREF, and Fidelity
specifically -- were themselves imprudent investments and that
Boston College should have removed them. The Plan Participants also
allege that Boston College failed to comply with documents and
instruments governing the Plans. As to count two, the Plan
Participants assert that the Trustees breached their duty to
monitor the investment committee and Jane and John Does 1-10.

Judge Young concludes that while each of the Plan Participants'
allegations taken individually are likely insufficient to survive a
motion to dismiss, the totality of the pleaded facts raise a
plausible -- not merely conceivable -- inference that Boston
College breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA: specifically
the duty of prudence, the duty to comply with plan documents, and
the duty to monitor fiduciaries. Boston College breached its duty
of prudence and duty to comply with plan documents by subjecting
the plans to excessive record keeping fees and by offering
imprudent investment offerings. The Trustees breached their duty to
monitor the Committee and the ten John and Jane Does.

Thus, for the reasons he articulated, Judge Young denies Boston
College's Motion to Dismiss and allows the Plan Participants to
proceed to discovery on both the breach of the duty of prudence and
the failure to monitor claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 27, 2022 Memorandum of
Decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/2c3xaukz from
Leagle.com.


BPS DIRECT: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Moore Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY MOORE, JR., individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BPS DIRECT, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-01951-TWR-NLS (S.D. Cal., Dec. 9, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Federal Wiretap Act and the
California Invasion of Privacy Act, in relation to the unauthorized
interception, collection, recording, and dissemination of
Plaintiff's and Class Members' communications and data.

According to the complaint, 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.
The 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, says the
suit.

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,
the suit asserts.

BPS Direct, LLC retails products online. The Company offers fishing
reels, rods, gears, boating, water sports, hunting, archery, bows,
clothing, footwear, camping gear, clothing, shoes, boots, home
decor, and other related products.[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
          Telephone: (866) 219-3343
          E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shaym Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222-7429
          E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com

BRADFORD EXCHANGE: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Bradford
Exchange, Ltd. The case is styled as Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. The Bradford
Exchange, Ltd., Case No. 1:22-cv-10926 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 27, 2022).

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

The Bradford Exchange -- https://www.bradfordexchange.com/ -- is an
American producer and seller of collectible goods, jewelry, sports
memorabilia and apparel.[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


CALIFORNIA: $9-M FCRA Class Action Settlement Receives Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
pre-employ.com reports that filed in 2012, the class action
complaint alleged that the defendant's inaccurate reporting
resulted in the lead plaintiff becoming ineligible to purchase a
vehicle. For example, the CRA incorrectly listed him in the U.S.
Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control
Terrorist Watch List.

Furthermore, the complaint accused the CRA of applying a partial
"name only" match when it supposedly found him on the list.
Allegedly, the plaintiff's attempt to contact the CRA to correct
this issue ended with a warning that he could not dispute the OFAC
alert. Instead, he learned the alert would not appear on his file,
though he requested confirmation from the CRA.

As a result, the complaint alleged that the CRA failed to ensure
the maximum possible accuracy, as required by the FCRA. The
plaintiff also complained that the CRA violated several other state
and federal laws. Such failures include not cross-checking names
with other identifiers, such as date of birth, when performing an
investigation.

This case initially made it to trial in 2017. This trial resulted
in a jury awarding $8.1 million in statutory damages and $52
million in punitive damages. However, a ruling from the U.S.
Supreme Court after the fact undid this verdict. This change
reduced the number of class members to 1,853 who alleged the CRA
had provided misleading data to third parties. Accordingly, this
misleading information created concrete reputational harm, thus
possessing Article III standing.

Following this ruling, the case remanded to the Northern District
of California earlier this year. As such, both parties entered
mediation. On February 3rd, the parties filed a notice of this
settlement, which only now has reached final approval.

Under this settlement, the CRA will pay $9 million. In order, $4.2
million will go to attorney's fees, $85,000 to administration
costs, $75,000 as a service award for Ramirez, and $299,276.10 in
costs. The rest of the settlement will go to the remaining class
members. These members anticipate payouts of approximately $2,200.

This decision ended one of the most discussed and influential FCRA
class actions over the last several years. This case clearly
illustrates the risks of inadequate investigation procedures and
the importance of accurate screening procedures.[GN]

CANADA: First Nations Ineligible for Drinking Water Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Logan Turner at CBC News reports that leaders from an Oji-Cree
First Nation in Treaty 9 in Ontario say they want the Canadian
government to take action to properly compensate all their
community members enduring a long-term boil-water advisory, after
learning most of them won't be eligible for a class action
settlement.

In December 2021, Canada's Federal Court and Manitoba's Court of
Queen's Bench jointly approved an $8-billion settlement for First
Nations living under drinking-water advisories lasting longer than
one year.

The class action included about 142,000 individuals from 258 First
Nations, along with 120 First Nations that could be compensated
under the settlement.

But Dean Cromarty, deputy chief of Wunnumin Lake, a fly-in First
Nation located some 500 kilometres north of Thunder Bay, said the
majority of community members are not eligible for compensation
because the statute of limitations has expired for most.

Only 84 people from Wunnumin Lake are eligible for individual
compensation, out of about 500 people who were living in the First
Nation during their boil-water advisory from 2001 to 2005, Cromarty
told CBC News.

It means the First Nation and its residents could miss out on some
$3 million to $4 million in compensation, Cromarty estimated.

"A lot of our people, they come to us asking why are we not
included. We were living here along with those 84 people at the
same time," said Cromarty.

Limitations period passed for many in the community
The $8-billion settlement is for First Nations and their members
who lived under a drinking-water advisory that lasted at least one
year, during the period of Nov. 20, 1995, and June 20, 2021.

It includes $6 billion to upgrade water infrastructure to help
resolve ongoing issues in First Nations, the creation of a
$400-million First Nation Economic and Cultural Restoration Fund,
and $50 million for people who experienced specific injuries due to
the poor drinking water.

There is also $1.8 billion in compensation to individuals and
impacted First Nations, but each First Nation needs to sign and
deliver a band council resolution declaring their intention to opt
in to the agreement, and that includes a list of all their members
eligible for compensation. The amount each individual will receive
depends on the length and severity of the water advisory, and the
remoteness of the First Nation.

Each First Nation that opts in will receive $500,000 plus 50 per
cent of the total compensation provided to the individual community
members, and there are no requirements for how the First Nation
uses that money.

But the age of claimants and how long ago the water advisory was in
effect will play a role in whether people are eligible for
compensation, said Michael Rosenberg, one of the lead lawyers
involved in the class action settlement.

People born before Nov. 20, 1995, are only eligible for
compensation for water advisories that were in effect between Nov.
20, 2013, and June 20, 2021, because of federal limitation periods
that place detail how long adults have to bring a lawsuit forward
after an event happens, Rosenberg said.

"It's a difficult principle of law, especially for plaintiffs who
are often frustrated when they're told that they did not take
action quickly enough," Rosenberg told CBC News.

Other First Nations could be in similar situation
Other First Nations with long-term boil-water advisories prior to
2013 would be in a similar position as Wunnumin Lake, with many
community members ineligible for compensation, Rosenberg said.

Those First Nations will still be compensated with the $500,000,
and will be able to "distribute communal damages as they see fit,"
he added.

The deadline for First Nations to decide whether to opt in was
recently extended to March 7, 2023, and more than 200 out of about
250 First Nations have already accepted the agreement, Rosenberg
said.

Cromarty said he still isn't sure whether Wunnumin Lake will sign
on to the settlement.

"We don't want to go back and open up the legal settlement or
anything like that. We want the government to make a political
decision to correct this problem facing our community here."

Cromarty added he wants the government to provide compensation to
others in the community who are not eligible under the settlement.

"I'm kind of frustrated by the government's refusal to correct the
situation," he added.

In a statement to CBC News, Indigenous Services Canada did not
answer whether it would provide additional compensation to people
whose limitation period had expired.

Instead, the statement said, the government "is firmly committed to
improving reliable access to safe drinking water within First
Nation communities." [GN]

CARNIVAL CORP: Wiretaps Website Visitors' Data, Oliver Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARIEL OLIVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, Case No. 2:22-cv-01855-DSC (W.D.
Pa., Dec. 22, 2022) alleges that Carnival wiretaps the electronic
communications of visitors to its website, www.carnival.com, in
violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic
Surveillance Control Act and constituting an invasion of the
privacy rights of website visitors.

The Plaintiff contends that Carnival procures third-party vendors,
such as Microsoft Corporation, to embed snippets of JavaScript
computer code on Carnival's website, which then deploys on each
website visitor's internet browser for intercepting and recording
the visitor's electronic communications, including their mouse
movements, clicks, keystrokes, URLs of web pages visited, and/or
other electronic communications in real-time. These third-party
vendors create and deploy the Session Replay Code at Carnival's
request.

Carnival's procurement of the Session Replay Providers to secretly
deploy the Session Replay Code results in the electronic equivalent
of “looking over the shoulder” of each visitor to the Carnival
website for the entire duration of their website interaction.

The Plaintiff and Class Members did not provide prior consent to
Carnival's interception of their Website Communications, nor could
they, as the interception begins immediately upon arriving at
www.carnival.com. The plaintiff has visited www.carnival.com and
certain of its subpages on her computer while in Pennsylvania prior
to the filing of this action.

Carnival is a cruise line that offers cruise vacations throughout
the United States and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
          Patrick D. Donathen, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
                  kelly@lcllp.com
                  jamisen@lcllp.com
                  elizabeth@lcllp.com
                  nickc@lcllp.com
                  patrick@lcllp.com

CASEYS GENERAL: Conditional Cert Response Extended to Jan. 11
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lewis v. Caseys General
Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01166 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Mag.
Judge Jon A. York entered an order extending the time to file
response/reply as to motion to Certify Class (FLSA Conditional
Certification) and for Court Supervised Notice to the Putative
Class, to Jan. 11, 2023.

The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act.

Casey's Retail is a chain of convenience stores in the Midwestern
and Southern United States.[CC]

CATAPULT HEALTH: Fails to Pay Technicians' OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH GURLIDES, individually and for others similarly situated v.
CATAPULT HEALTH PA, Case No. 3:22-cv-02847-L (N.D. Tex., Dec. 20,
2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Catapult allegedly failed to pay Mr. Gurlides and other similarly
situated workers for all compensable hours (including those in
excess of 40 in a workweek) and improperly reduced the number of
regular and overtime hours it paid them. Accordingly, Catapult
required Mr. Gurlides and the Putative Class Members to work off
the clock that went unpaid. Catapult excluded and mischaracterized
certain compensable hours Mr. Gurlides and the Putative Class
Members worked from the hours it used to calculate their pay,
improperly reducing the number of weekly regular and overtime hours
it paid them, says the suit.

Additionally, Catapult failed to pay Mr. Gurlides and the Putative
Class Members for all of the work they performed, specifically
for:

-- Overnight travel away from their home community;

-- Travelling to and from special one-day assignments in
    another city;

-- Travelling to, from, and between job locations;

-- Work performed while travelling;

-- Attending mandatory training and compliance sessions;

-- Shortened lunch breaks;

-- Shuttle time to a special one-day assignment;

-- Set up time before clinic opened; and

  --Waiting time before clinic opened.

Mr. Gurlides worked for Catapult as a Team Lead Travel Health
Technician from July 2017 until May 2022 throughout various states,
including Texas, Georgia, Alaska, and North Carolina. As a
travelling health technician, Mr. Gurlides was regularly required
"to report to work as early as 4 AM and end as late as 5 PM."

Catapult provides in-person and virtual healthcare services to
patients across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com

                - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

CATASTROPHE RESPONSE: Collins Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
C.M. Collins, N.J. Lundy, and R.C.L. Mays, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CATASTROPHE RESPONSE
UNIT, INC. and CATASTROPHE RESPONSE UNIT USA, INC., Case No.
4:22-cv-01073 (E.D. Tex., Dec. 27, 2022), is brought pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of the Defendants' willful
actions in failing to pay its Desk Adjusters overtime as required
by the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week but
were not paid lawfully for doing so because the Defendants
misclassified the Plaintiffs and other Desk Adjusters as
independent contractors and failed to pay them overtime
compensation as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiffs file this suit
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly-situated former and
current Desk Adjusters working for Defendants, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as Desk Adjusters whose
primary responsibility was to process first-party claims such as
theft, vandalism, and minor fire and water damage under personal
lines of coverage.

Catastrophe Response Unit USA, Inc. is a for-profit corporation
registered in Florida that does business in Texas and the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kerry V. O'Brien, Esq.
          O'BRIEN LAW FIRM
          1011 Westlake Drive
          Austin, TX 78746
          Phone: (512) 410-1960
          Fax: (512) 410-6171
          Email: ko@obrienlawpc.com

               - and -

          Travis Gasper, Esq.
          GASPER LAW, PLLC
          1408 N. Riverfront Blvd., Suite 323
          Dallas, TX 75207
          Phone: (972) 504-1420
          Fax: (833) 957-2957
          Email: travis@travisgasper.com


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Friedman Sues Over Illegal Collection Letters
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAAKOV E. FRIEDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
537067/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Dec. 20, 2022) alleges that the Defendant
falsely represents the character, amount, or legal status, and uses
a false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to
collect a debt in violation of the of Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Some time prior to April 29, 2022, the Plaintiff allegedly incurred
an obligation to nonparty original creditor Citibank, N.A. Citi
sold the debt to Cavalry SPV I, LLC. SPV assigned the account to
Cavalry to collect the alleged debt. Accordingly, Cavalry collects
and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been
incurred on behalf of creditors using the United States Postal
Services, telephone and internet.

On April 29, 2022, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection
letter. The collection Letter sets forth that it "IS AN ATTEMPT TO
COLLECT A DEBT." The collection Letter contains contradictory
messages concerning restarting the statute of limitations.
Specifically, the Letter states as follows:

  -- 1. "if you make a payment on a debt, admit to owing a
        debt, or promise to pay a debt, the time period in which
        the debt is enforceable in court may start again;"

  -- 2. "However, your creditor or debt collector believes that
        restarting the time period on this debt is prohibited by
        law, and whether or not you acknowledge, promise to pay,
        or make a payment on this debt, your creditor or debt
        collector will NOT sue you to collect this debt;" and

  -- 3. "If you waive the statute of limitations on a debt, the
        time period in which the debt is enforceable in court may
        start again."

The Plaintiff contends that Defendant misled the Plaintiff
concerning whether he could be sued on the debt following payment,
acknowledgment or promise to pay. The Plaintiff was therefore
unable to evaluate his options of how to handle this debt. The
Plaintiff cannot pay the alleged debt, trusting the Defendant, when
it appears that the information stated in the Defendant's Letter is
incorrect.

Cavalry collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged
to have been incurred for personal, family or household purposes on
behalf of creditors using the United States
Postal Services, telephone and internet.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Yusko, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com

CB HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Cooks' Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NEPTALI PERALTA and MARIA JOVITA TAPIA VILLANUEVA, on behalf of
themselves, and those similarly situated v. CB HOSPITALITY AND
EVENTS, LLC, CB HOSPITALITY AND EVENTS II, LLC, CB HOSPITALITY
VENTURES HOLDINGS CORP., (DBA ST. NED PIZZA), CHRIS BARRETT, and
RAUL AVILA, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:22-cv-10805
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and
overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and alleges
that the Defendant unlawfully withheld spread of hours premium and
statutory penalties for notice-and-record keeping violations
pursuant to the New York Labor Law, as well as damages for
violations of the New York City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have deprived him and
their co-workers of minimum wage and overtime pay and spread of
hours premium since at least on October 2020.

Accordingly, initially Mr. Peralta regularly worked 36 hours per
week over the course of three days per week and was paid by company
checks and through a payroll service. After Defendant Raul Avila
became his manager in July or August 2021, Mr. Peralta began to be
required to work four hours per week in excess of his scheduled 36
hours per week and he was entirely uncompensated for these four
hours per week time.

Further, the Defendant Raul Avila told Mr. Peralta that there were
changes of staff that needed to be done to bring "his people" whom
he referred to as "chilangos" meaning Mexicans from Mexico City to
work there. Mr. Peralta was replaced by a younger worker from
Mexico. Due to his wrongful termination, Plaintiff Peralta was
without employment from November 2021 to March 2022.

These named plaintiffs are hourly employees, prep cooks, who have
worked at Defendants' THC Pizza restaurants, CB HOSPITALITY AND
EVENTS, LLC, CB HOSPITALITY AND EVENTS II, LLC, and CB HOSPITALITY
VENTURES HOLDINGS CORP.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ria Julien, Esq.
          JULIEN MIRER & SINGLA, PLLC
          1 Whitehall St., 16th floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 231-2235
          E-mail: rjulien@workingpeopleslaw.com

CG CONSULTING: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Amended Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alicia Ousley, Michael
Starkey, and Josh Votaw, On behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, v. CG Consulting, LLC d/b/a Scores Columbus, et
al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01744-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs
asks the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file an
amended Motion to Certify Rule 23 Class and to file a second Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment consistent with the narrowly focused
issues, in light of the Court's December 16, 2022 Opinion and
Order.

The Named Plaintiffs anticipate they could file both motions within
seven days of the Court's Order under an expedited briefing
schedule since the Parties have completed the wage and hour
discovery in this case.

On March 16, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Certify a
Rule 23 Class of the following Ohio Rule 23 class:

   "All non-owner, non-employer current and former hourly,
   employees to whom a tip credit was applied and who worked for
   the CG Defendants in Ohio during any workweek from May 2,
   2016 to the present."

On December 16, 2022, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to
Certify Rule 23 Class and granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. In doing so with
respect to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Rule 23 Class, the Court
held that commonality and typicality of Rule 23(a)(2) and (3) were
not met.

CG Consulting provides strategic leadership career coaching and
business start-up consulting services.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laren E. Knoll, Esq.
          THE KNOLL LAW FIRM, LLC
          7240 Muirfield Drive, Suite 120
          Dublin, OH 43017
          Telephone: (614) 372-8890
          Facsimile: (614) 452-4850
          E-mail: lknoll@knolllaw.com

                - and -

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 704-0546
          Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
          E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

CHEGG INC: Moyer Sues Over Deceptive Advertising Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Moyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHEGG, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. 5:22-cv-09123 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 27, 2022), is
brought to challenge the Defendant deceptive advertising practices
with respect to its automatic renewal and continuous service offers
of "e-Textbooks" it provides to consumers.

Among other things, Chegg enrolls consumers in automatic renewal
and continuous service subscriptions without providing clear and
conspicuous disclosures about the program or the associated
charges; charges consumers' credit and debit cards without first
obtaining their "affirmative consent" to the charge; and fails to
provide a cost-effective, timely, and easy-to-use mechanism for
cancellation. In short, Chegg's automatic renewal and continuous
service offers violate California's Automatic Renewal Law, which
requires companies like Chegg to clearly and conspicuously explain
"automatic renewal offer terms." As a result of these ARL
violations, Chegg has violated the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

On August 29, 2022, the Plaintiff purchased an "eTextbook" from
Chegg's website (www.chegg.com) called "Introduction to Criminal
Justice" for $19.99, from her home in Stanislaus County,
California. After this initial transaction, however, Chegg enrolled
the Plaintiff into an automatic renewal subscription--automatically
charging her another $19.99 on October 17, 2022 as part of a "Study
Pack"--without providing the clear and conspicuous disclosures
required by California law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is both a resident of Stanislaus County, California
and a "consumer."

Chegg is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Santa Clara, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin J. Cole, Esq.
          KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
          9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Phone: (310) 861-7797
          Email: kevin@kjclawgroup.com

               - and -

          Robert Tauler, Esq.
          TAULER SMITH, LLP
          626 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 510
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (310) 590-3927
          Email: rtauler@taulersmith.com


CHILTON'S A-1 AUTO BODY: Guevarra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chilton's A-1 Auto
Body, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Christian Guevarra,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Chilton's A-1 Auto Body, Inc., Does 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case
No. CGC22603682 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 27,
2022).

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

Chilton's A-1 Auto Body, Inc. -- https://chiltonautobody.com/ -- is
an auto body shop in Rocky Point, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Phone: 213-232-3128
          Fax: 213-232-3125
          Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com


CITRIX SYSTEMS: Vargas Sues Over Sale to Vista Equity, Elliot
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN A. VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., ROBERT M. CALDERONI,
NANCI E. CALDWELL, MURRAY J. DEMO, THOMAS E. HOGAN, MOIRA A.
KILCOYNE, ROBERT E. KNOWLING, JR., PETER J. SACRIPANTI, and J.
DONALD SHERMAN, Defendants, Case No. 0:22-cv-62327-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
Dec. 12, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on
behalf of himself and other former shareholders of Citrix Systems,
Inc. against Citrix and the members of the board of directors for
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder.

The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Board's deliberate use of
false projections to conceal the true value of Citrix from Citrix
shareholders, and thereby secure the approval of such shareholders
to sell Citrix to Vista Equity Partners and Elliott Investment
Management L.P. for the inadequate and unfair price of $104.00 per
share in cash, pursuant to a merger under which Citrix became a
wholly-owned subsidiary of TIBCO Software, Inc., a portfolio
company of Vista.

On March 16, 2022, to solicit Citrix shareholders to vote in favor
of the Merger, the Board authorized the filing of a false and
misleading definitive proxy on Schedule 14A with the SEC, asserts
the complaint. The Proxy contained material misrepresentations and
omissions, including without limitation, false projections and the
false Fairness Opinion. These and other material misrepresentations
and omissions rendered the Proxy false and misleading in violation
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
thereunder. The false and misleading Proxy authorized by Defendants
caused the consummation of the Merger at an unfair price per share
that did not adequately value Citrix, and thus caused economic harm
to Citrix shareholders who were forced to sell their shares to
Elliott and Citrix at an unfair and inadequate price, says the
suit.

Citrix Systems sells digital workspace solutions designed to
provide an organization's employees with unified access to all of
their work resources.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          1625 N. Commerce Pkwy, Suite 320
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 903-3170
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jagoldstein@millershah.com

               - and -

          Emma Gilmore, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor  
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: egilmore@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq.
          WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
          25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G
          Monsey, NY 10952
          Telephone: (845) 290-6818
          Facsimile: (718) 504-3773
          E-mail: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com

CLARITY CARE: Blanks-Austin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Blanks-Austin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CLARITY CARE, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01553 (E.D. Wis.,
Dec. 27, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws, for
purposes of obtaining relief under the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed
upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory
and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court
may deem appropriate.

The Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that
deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current
and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked
and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of
pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by:
shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from Plaintiff's
and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets
for pre-shift and post-shift hours worked and/or work performed, to
the detriment of said employees and to the benefit of Defendant, in
violation of the FLSA and WWPCL; and failing to include all forms
of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses,
incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in said
employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes,
in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL.

The Defendant's failure to compensate its hourly paid, non-exempt
employees for compensable work performed each workweek, including
but not limited to at an overtime rate of pay, was intentional,
willful, and violated federal law as set forth in the FLSA and
state law as set forth in the WWPCL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant into the position of
Caregiver/Certified Nursing Assistant primarily working at
Defendant's Oshkosh, Wisconsin location in January 2022.

The Defendant owned, operated, and managed senior care facilities
and other locations in the State of Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CLEARVIEW ELECTRIC: Makes Unsolicited Telephone Calls, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that Clearview Electric made spam phone
calls in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), a new class action lawsuit alleges.

The plaintiff alleges that his phone number is registered on the
National Do-Not-Call Registry but that he received multiple phone
calls from Clearview soliciting his business.

In one instance, Reimer says he ignored a call from a number he did
not recognize, then returned the call and was greeted by an
automated menu that identified the called party as Clearview
Electric.

Four days later, Reimer claims he received another call. He
answered "hello" multiple times, only to be met with silence for
approximately 15 seconds. He hung up, called the number back, and
was greeted by "Jennifer," a Clearview Energy representative, who
claimed that Reimer or someone in this household sought information
about "price protecting" their electric bill. The representative
gave a sales pitch, even though the plaintiff said he was not
interested, the Clearview Electric class action claims.

Two days later, Reimer says Clearview called again, then again
another one to two days later, followed by two more calls on
back-to-back days. Reimer says he requested through the mail that
the defendant provide the company's Do-Not-Call policy, but that
Clearview did not respond to the request, according to the
Clearview Electric unsolicited calls class action.

Clearview Electric class action claims company violates do-not-call
registry rules
The Clearview Electric class action alleges the defendant violates
the TCPA, which states businesses may not call a "residential
telephone subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number
on the national do-not-call registry of persons, who do not wish to
receive telephone solicitations."

The lawsuit claims the defendant also violated the Virginia
Telephone Privacy Protection Act because the solicitors did not
identify themselves by first and last names and on whose behalf
they were calling.

The lawsuit seeks an award of up to $1,500 in damages to class
members for each "willful violation" of the TCPA.

TCPA lawsuits are not a new phenomenon. Consumers have accused many
popular companies, ranging from Subway to Shoe Carnival, Nissan and
the Tampay Bay Buccaneers, of violating TCPA.

Have you received an unsolicited phone call from Clearview
Electric? Let us know in the comments below!

The Clearview Electric unsolicited calls class action is Ruhi
Reimer, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Clearview Electric, Inc. d/b/a Clearview Energy, Case
No. 3:22-cv-02844, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division.[GN]

CLOROX CO: Kossel Sues Over Contaminated Pine-Sol Cleaning Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
OLIVIA KOSSEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE CLOROX COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-10450 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 9, 2022) seeks to remedy the alleged
deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant
regarding the manufacturing, marketing, and selling of its Pine-Sol
cleaning products in violation of New York General Business Law.

Clorox, in a statement, had disclosed that Pine-Sol had voluntarily
recalled certain scented Pine-Sol cleaners as it learned that some
products may contain bacteria. The recall covers 37 million bottles
of eight different types of Pine-Sol, which may contain a bacterial
called Pseudomonas aeruginosa, according to the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission. All of the recalled products were
manufactured between January 2021 and September 2022.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has improperly,
deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its products to
reasonable consumers like the Plaintiff, by omitting and not
disclosing to consumers on its packaging that the products were
contaminated with bacteria and that using the products may increase
the risk of contracting invasive infections and other injuries.

The Clorox Company is an American global manufacturer and marketer
of consumer and professional products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen J. Fearon, Jr.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          305 Broadway 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
          E-mail: Stephen@sfclasslaw.com

COAST PROFESSIONAL: Oakley Seeks More Time to File Response
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLA OAKLEY, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. COAST PROFESSIONAL,
INC., PERFORMANT FINANCIAL CORP. And PERFORMANT RECOVERY, INC.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00021 (S.D.W. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order, pursuant to the Federal and Local Rules of Civil
Procedure, allowing the Plaintiff an additional eight days to
respond to Coast's motion to strike.

On December 22, 2022, Coast filed a Motion to Strike portions of
Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Coast filed this Motion
to Strike on the same day Coast filed its Response in Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

The relief sought in the Motion to Strike overlaps significantly
with the arguments presented in the Motion for Class
Certification.

Pursuant to the pending Stipulated Motion for Defendants to file
their Response to the Class Certification Motion on December 23,
2022 and for Plaintiff to File her Reply on January 13, 2023,

The Plaintiff intends to file her Reply in support of her Class
Certification Motion no later than January 13, 2023. Because the
issues raised in Coast's Motion to Strike overlap significantly
with those in Defendants' Response in Opposition to the Class
Certification Motion, Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to file
her Response to Coast's Motion to Strike on or before January 13,
2023, as opposed to January 5, 2023, when it would otherwise fall
due under the Federal and Local Rules.

Coast Professional is a debt collection agency.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 30, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vst9sZ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          923 Haddonfield Road. Suite 300
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          E-mail: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com
                  jmarshall@baileyglasser.com

                - and -

          Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., Esq.
          HAMILTON, BURGESS, YOUNG
          & POLLARD , PLLC
          P.O. Box 959
          Fayetteville, WV 25840
          Telephone: (304) 574-2727
          Facsimile: (304) 574-3709
          E-mail: SBroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Albert C. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
          BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC
          P.O. Box 3710
          Charleston, WV 25337-3710
          E-mail: adunn@baileywyant.com

                - and -

          Dayle M. Van Hoose, Esq.
          Michael D. Alltmont, Esq.
          Spencer M. Schulz, Esq.
          SESSIONS ISRAEL & SHARTLE
          3350 Buschwood Park Drive
          Suite 195
          Tampla, FL 33618
          E-mail: dvanhoose@sessions.legal
                  malltmont@sessions-law.biz
                  sschulz@sessions.legal

                - and -

          Alex J. Zurbuch, Esq.
          Joseph M. Ward, Esq.
          Mary Claire Davis, Esq.
          FROST BROWN TODD, LLC
          United Bank, Suite 1100
          500 Virginia Street East
          Charleston, WV 25301
          E-mail: azurbuch@fbtlaw.com
                  jward@fbtlaw.com
                  mcdavis@fbtlaw.com

COCA-COLA CO: Settles Milk False Labeling Class Action for $21-M
----------------------------------------------------------------
OpenClassActions.com disclosed that a $21 Million Class Action
Settlement has been reached after a lawsuit was filed against
multiple milk manufacturers. The Defendants include:

   -- Coca-Cola Company ("TCCC"),
   -- Fairlife, LLC ("fairlife"),
   -- Fair Oaks Farms, LLC ("FOF"),
   -- Mike McCloskey and Sue McCloskey ("the McCloskeys"), and;
   -- Select Milk Producers, Inc. ("Select"), relating to Fairlife
and FOF Milk Products.

The massive milk class action lawsuit alleged that Fairlife and
Coca Cola falsely labeled and marketed dairy products as being
humane. The settlement settles allegations that the milk was
produced by cows that were not treated humanely. The class action
lawsuit argued that because marketing implied that cows were
treated ethically, consumers were willing to spend more on milk
purchases than they otherwise may have. The settlement fund of
$21,000,000 is aimed to provide relief on behalf of consumers as a
result of these deceptive practices of labeling and marketing.

How Do I Qualify?
You are a qualifying Class Action Settlement Class Member if you
are in the United States, and you purchased for personal use any
Covered Product on or before April 27, 2022. You can find a list of
the products included HERE.

What if I Don't Qualify for the Milk Class Action?
Other similar class actions have been filed and approved recently
which you can check a complete list that is kept updated here. You
can find other class actions you do qualify for and get notified of
new class action lawsuits as they are announced here:
https://openclassactions.us18.list-manage.com/subscribe/post?u=fc0f742f6d7f9cff4910809be&id=cfbdc646df

What Can I Get?
If you submit a valid Claim Form, you may receive 25% of the
average retail purchase price for your purchase of Fairlife Milk
Products and/or FOF Milk Products for a maximum Cash Award of $100
per household. If you do not have proof of purchase, you can
qualify for a smaller Cash Award:

   -- Claims without Valid Proof of Purchase: Claimants who submit
a Claim Form without Valid Proof of Purchase may be eligible to
receive a maximum of $20 as a Cash Award

   -- Claims with Valid Proof of Purchase: Claimants who submit a
Claim Form with Valid Proof of Purchase may be eligible to receive
a maximum of $80 as a Cash Award

   -- Claims with AND without Valid Proof of Purchase: Claim Forms
submitted with and without Valid Proof of Purchase are allowed, and
claimants who submit such Claim Forms may be eligible to receive a
maximum of $100 as a Cash Award. Note: if you submit Valid Proof of
Purchase for all claims, you are still eligible to receive a
maximum of $100 as a Cash Award.

How Do I File a Claim?
You can either file a claim form online or download it HERE and
send it by mail and send it postmarked by December 27, 2022 to:

In re fairlife Milk Products Litigation
P.O. Box 5569
Portland, OR 97208-5569

The Court held a Fairness Hearing at 10:00 a.m. on September 28,
2022 in Chicago, Illinois. [GN]

COMBE INC: Wise Sues Over Mislabeled Intimate Wash Products' Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSALIND WISE and MOONA CHOUDRY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. COMBE INCORPORATED, Case No.
7:22-cv-10787-PMH (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2022), is a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Defendant's Vagisil and OMV!
brand "daily intimate washes" in the United States for alleged
violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the New
York General Business Law, GBL section 350, and for breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment,
and fraud.

On the Products' label, Defendant represents that the Products are
suitable for vulvar use: the Products state they are each a "daily
intimate wash," are "gynecologist tested," and appropriate "for the
most intimate skin on your body." The Defendant makes an
"ingredients promise" to consumers on its website -- that the
ingredients "are proven gentle for use on vulvar skin" and the
Products only contain "[s]kin-friendly scents," which is why, as
Defendant purports, the Products are suitable for daily use on the
vulva. On whether women should use products that contain fragrance,
Defendant says: "Many gynecologists still do not recommend
fragrance-containing products. They may be unaware of our new
skin-friendly scents that are formulated with allergen-free scent
ingredients and are gentle enough for intimate skin and all over.
But we also offer fragrance-free products," the Plaintiff alleges.

The Plaintiff contends that Defendant markets its Products as "safe
and effective for sensitive intimate skin," suitable for "vulvar
use," and "pH balanced." These representations are false and
misleading. Gynecologists have stated that feminine hygiene
products like Defendant's are not only unsafe for vulvar use
because the ingredients in the Products can cause infections and
make women more susceptible to disease.

Ms. Wise purchased the Vagisil Scentsitive Scents Spring Lilac
Wash, Vagisil pH Balance, and Vagisil Healthy Detox Wash and Ms.
Choudhry purchased the Vagisil Scentsitive Scents Wash in Peach
Blossom, Rose All Day, Spring Lilac, White Jasmine, and Coconut
Hibiscus.

Combe manufactures and sells a variety of products for vulvar and
vaginal use. Products include vulvar washes, wipes, sprays, and
deodorant powders; vulvar anti-itch creams and wipes; vaginal yeast
infection creams; vulvar anti-leak creams, wipes, and washes; and,
vaginal moisturizing lubricant.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
          Emily A. Horne, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com
                  bscott@bursor.com
                  ehorne@bursor.com

CONNEXIN SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Sayers Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BROOKE SAYERS, as parent and general guardian of J.B., a minor,
KHANYE SUTTON, DOMINIONA WELLS, and DESTINI WILSON, v. CONNEXIN
SOFTWARE, INC. & GOLDSBORO PEDIATRICS, P.A., on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Case No. 2:22-cv-05099-JMY (E.D.
Pa., Dec. 21, 2022) alleges that Defendants fail to properly secure
and safeguard personal identifiable information and protected
health information of more than 2.2 million current and former
pediatric patients, including Plaintiffs and Nationwide Plaintiff
Class Members.

The unencrypted PII and PHI that may have been accessed and/or
acquired include:

(1) patient demographic information (such as patient name,
    guarantor name, parent/guardian name, address, email
    address, and date of birth);

(2) Social Security Numbers ("SSNs"),

(3) health insurance information (payer name, payer contract
    dates, policy information including type and deductible
    amount and subscriber number);

(4) medical and/or treatment information (dates of service,
    location, services requested or procedures performed,
    diagnosis, prescription information, physician names, and
    Medical Record Numbers); and

(5) billing and/or claims information (invoices, submitted
    claims and appeals, and patient account identifiers used by
    your provider).

On August 26, 2022, Connexin learned of a data breach on its
network. On December 6, 2022, Connexin began notifying various
states Attorneys General, the Plaintiffs and Nationwide Plaintiff
Class Members of the Data Breach. To date, the Defendants have
offered the Plaintiffs and Nationwide Plaintiff Class Members whose
Social Security numbers were impacted only one year of identity
monitoring services through Kroll. The offered service is
inadequate to protect Plaintiffs and Nationwide Plaintiff Class
Members from the threats they face for years to come, particularly
in light of the PII and PHI at issue here, the lawsuit claims.

Connexin is a provider of electronic medical records and practice
management software, billing services, and business analytic tools
to pediatric physician practice groups.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          K. Clancy Boylan, Esq.
          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
          BUSINESS DIVISION
          2005 Market Street, Suite 350
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 446-9795
          Facsimile: (215) 446-9799 (FAX)
          E-mail: cboylan@forthepeople.com
                  jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                  rmaxey@ForThePeople.com

CREATIVE MIRROR: Muniz Sues Over Illegal Biometric Data Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIN MUNIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CREATIVE MIRROR DESIGNS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2022LA001089 (Ill. Cir., 18th Judicial, Dupage Cty., Dec.
9, 2022) seeks to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use,
storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's and the proposed Class'
sensitive, private, and personal biometric data pursuant to the
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant disregards employees'
statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects,
stores, and uses employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA.
The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees may be aggrieved
because Defendant may have improperly disclosed employees'
biometrics to third-party vendors. Further, the Plaintiff and the
putative Class are aggrieved by Defendant's failure to destroy
their biometric data when the initial purpose for collecting or
obtaining such data has been satisfied or within three years of
employees' last interactions with the company, the suit says.

Creative Mirror Designs, Inc. specializes in shower
doors/enclosures, mirrors, framed mirrors, windows, custom cut
glass, and commercial projects.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Adam Florek, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP  
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: (314) 833-4825
          Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com
                 aflorek@peifferwolf.com

DAKTRONICS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 21
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Daktronics, Inc. ("Daktronics" or the "Company") in
the United States District Court of Southern New York on behalf of
all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Daktronics securities between March 10, 2022 and December 6, 2022,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
February 21, 2023 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On August 31, 2022, Daktronics issued a press release announcing
its first quarter 2023 results. Therein, the company reported that
it experienced "multiple material supply chain disruptions, labor
shortages, and a shutdown of our facilities in Shanghai, China for
a significant portion of the quarter." The Company also reported
that gross profit as a percentage of net sales was 15%, which was
lower compared to 22% a year earlier. Operating expenses were $31.3
million, compared to $26.5 million a year earlier. And operating
margin for the first quarter of fiscal 2023 was negative 3.2%,
compared to positive 3.9% for the first quarter of fiscal 2022.

On this news, Daktronics' share price fell $0.91, or 22.1%, to
close at $3.20 per share on August 31, 2022, thereby injuring
investors.

Then, on December 6, 2022, after the market closed, Daktronics
filed a Form 12b-25 with the SEC stating that it would be unable to
timely file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
October 29, 2022, and that there is "substantial doubt" about the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern. Daktronics also
disclosed that it recorded a valuation allowance of approximately
$13.0 million for deferred tax assets, which "created a covenant
violation under our line of credit agreement." As a result, the
Company "also expects to conclude that its disclosure controls and
procedures and internal control over financial reporting were not
effective as a result of material weaknesses."

On this news, Daktronics' share price fell $1.30, or 39.2%, to
close at $2.02 per share on December 7, 2022, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company was experiencing challenges that
increased costs, including supply chain disruptions, that impacted
Daktronics' ability to fund inventory levels and operations; (2)
that, as a result, it was probable that some portion of the
Company's deferred tax assets would not be realized; (3) that as a
result, Daktronics was reasonably likely to record a material
valuation allowance to its deferred tax assets; (4) that there were
material weaknesses in the Company's internal controls over
financial reporting related to income taxes; (5) that the foregoing
presented liquidity concerns and there was substantial doubt as to
the Company's ability to continue as a going concern; (6) as a
result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Daktronics shares and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa
Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212)
355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]

DAKTRONICS INC: Faces Settles Suit Over 39.2% Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE SETTLES, and DAWG INVESTMENT FUND LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. DAKTRONICS INC., REECE
A. KURTENBACH, and SHEILA M. ANDERSON, Case No. 1:22-cv-10793
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2022) is a class action on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Daktronics
securities between March 10, 2022 and December 6, 2022 inclusive,
pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On August 31, 2022, Daktronics issued a press release announcing
its first quarter 2023 results. Therein, the company reported that
it experienced "multiple material supply chain disruptions, labor
shortages, and a shutdown of our facilities in Shanghai, China for
a significant portion of the quarter." The Company also reported
that gross profit as a percentage of net sales was 15%, which was
lower compared to 22% a year earlier. Operating expenses were $31.3
million, compared to $26.5 million a year earlier. And operating
margin for the first quarter of fiscal 2023 was negative 3.2%,
compared to positive 3.9% for the first quarter of fiscal 2022.

On this news, Daktronics' share price fell $0.91, or 22.1% to close
at $3.20 per share on August 31, 2022, thereby injuring investors.

On September 2, 2022, the Company filed its Form 10-Q with the SEC
for the quarter ended July 30, 2022. The 1Q23 10-Q stated that the
that there were no changes to the Company's internal control over
financial reporting and affirmed that "as of July 30, 2022, our
disclosure controls and procedures were effective."

On December 6, 2022, after the market closed, Daktronics filed a
Form 12b-25 with the SEC stating that it would be unable to timely
file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended October
29, 2022, and that there is "substantial doubt" about the Company's
ability to continue as a going concern. Daktronics also disclosed
that it recorded a valuation allowance of approximately $13.0
million for deferred tax assets, which "created a covenant
violation under our line of credit agreement." As a result, the
Company "also expects to conclude that its disclosure controls and
procedures and internal control over financial reporting were not
effective as a result of material weaknesses."

On this news, Daktronics' share price fell $1.30, or 39.2%, to
close at $2.02 per share on December 7, 2022, thereby injuring
investors.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that the Company was experiencing challenges that
increased costs, including supply chain disruptions, that impacted
Daktronics' ability to fund inventory levels and operations, the
suit alleges.

Daktronics designs and manufactures electronic scoreboards,
programmable display systems, and large screen video displays for
sporting, commercial, and transportation applications.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory B. Linkh. Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 358
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com
                  clinehan@glancylaw.com
                  prajesh@glancylaw.com

DALLAS GROUP: Durham Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Durham, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THE DALLAS GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-07526 (D.N.J., Dec. 27, 2022), is brought challenging
policies and practices of the Defendant of failing to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, as full-time employees, regularly worked 40 or more
hours in a workweek in the three years preceding the filing of this
Action, including donning and doffing time and associated travel.
The Plaintiff was not paid for all of the time spent donning and
doffing their sanitary clothing and other protective equipment,
washing their hands, or for associated travel. As a result of the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees not being paid for
all hours worked, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees were not paid overtime compensation for all of the hours
they worked in excess of 40 each workweek. The Defendant knowingly
and willfully engaged in violations of the FLSA, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee who was paid on an hourly basis.

The Defendant manufactures, packages, and distributes, edible oil
filtration and adsorbent treatment solutions throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
          SATTIRAJU & THARNEY, LLP
          50 Millstone Rd.
          Building 300 Suite 202
          East Windsor, NJ 08520
          Phone: (609) 469-2110
          Facsimile: (609) 228-5649
          Email: rsattiraju@s-tlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7034 Braucher Street NW, Suite B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Phone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          1360 E 9th St, Suite 808
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: (216) 230-2955
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com


DEMERT BRANDS: Morgan Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALEXIS MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEMERT BRANDS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-03962, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Dec. 9,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:22-cv-62305 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of
herself, and all similarly situated consumers who purchased for
normal household use DeMert dry shampoo aerosol products that are
allegedly defective because they contain benzene, and which were
formulated, designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised,
distributed, and sold by DeMert.

DeMert Brands, LLC is a bath and beauty products company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul Doolittle, Esq.
          Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
          POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (843) 614-8888
          Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
          E-mail: pauld@akimlawfirm.com
                  blake@akimlawfirm.com

ECONO-WEST: California Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------
State Of California ex rel. Paul Vargas, as Private Attorney
General, on behalf of himself, and similarly situated current and
former aggrieved employees v. ECONO-WEST, INC.; and DOES 1-25,
inclusive, Case No. 22STCV40464 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 27, 2022),
is brought under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of
2004 as a result of unpaid overtime and reimbursement of business
expenses.

Although the Plaintiff performed work under the control and
director of the Defendant, and although performed work within the
usual course of the Defendant's business, the Defendant
misclassified the Plaintiff (and others similarly situated) as a
contractor. As a result, the Defendant failed to provide the
Plaintiff basic employment rights, including meal-and-rest breaks,
overtime, and reimbursement of business expenses. Although the
Defendant called the Plaintiff into work on his days off, the
Defendant did not pay for this time; the Defendant failed to pay
the Plaintiff for work performed "off the clock," outside of his
scheduled hours, which was required regularly. When the Plaintiff
pressed these issues with the the Defendant, the the Defendant
retaliated against the Plaintiff by terminating his employment,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a technician, installing
furnaces and water heaters from March 2, 2021, through November 29,
2021.

ECONO-WEST, INC. was and is a corporation with its principal place
of business in Los Angeles County, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ruben Escobedo, Esq.
          WORKWORLD LAW CORP.
          A Professional Corporation
          6907 El Camino Real, Suite A
          Atascadero, CA 93422
          Phone: (805) 335-2476
          Facsimile: (805) 892-6213
          Email: support@workworldlaw.com


F&J PINE: Fails to Pay Workers' OT Wages Under FLSA, Reyes Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. F & J PINE RESTAURANT LLC, 4A KIDS LLC d/b/a PINE
RESTAURANT, A & A RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a PINE RESTAURANT, and
ANTHONY BASTONE, as an individual,, Case No. 1:22-cv-10807
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid OT wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, unpaid spread of hour compensation
under New York Labor Law, and compensatory damages, liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and
equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate.

Mr. Reyes was regularly required to work approximately 80 hours
each week from December 2016 until December 2019; 40 hours each
week from April 2021 until December 2021 and approximately 80 hours
each week from January 2022 until October 2022.

The Defendants allegedly did not pay Mr. Reyes at a wage rate of
time and a half (1.5) for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours
in a work week. The Defendants also did not pay Mr. Reyes an extra
hour at the legally prescribed minimum wage for each day worked
over 10 hours, says the suit.

Mr. Reyes was employed as a cook, food preparer and cleaner while
performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants.

F & J Pine is a longtime Italian eatery featuring a raw bar &
classic entrees, including steak & seafood dishes.[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
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

FIVE GUYS: Faces Suit Over Biometric Privacy Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett at  topclassactions.com reports that Five Guys
Operations violates biometric privacy law with its fingerprint
scanner time clock system, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Jeremiah M. Greenwood claims Five Guys uses its
fingerprint scanner time clock system to unlawfully collect and
otherwise obtain the fingerprints or thumbprints of employees.

Greenwood, a former Five Guys shift manager, claims the company
violates the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by
failing to, among other things, obtain written consent before
capturing the biometric identifiers of its employees.

"Defendant's time clock system required it to obtain informed
written consent from Plaintiff and putative class members before
Defendant was able to acquire or otherwise capture the 'biometric
identifiers,'" the Five Guys class action states.

Greenwood wants to represent an Illinois class of current and
former Five Guys employees who had their biometric identifiers
collected, captured and otherwise obtained by Five Guys fingerprint
and/or thumbprint scanners.

Five Guys injured employees by failing to abide by BIPA policies,
class action says
Five Guys also allegedly failed to abide by BIPA regulations by not
informing employees their biometric data would be collected and
stored and why, as well as by not providing a publicly available
retention schedule for when the data would be permanently
destroyed, the Five Guys class action alleges.

"Defendant's failure to comply with BIPA's
retention-and-destruction policy results Article III injury," the
Five Guys class action states.

Plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory and
injunctive relief along with an award of liquidated damages for
himself and all class members.

A similar class action lawsuit was filed against Snap Inc. earlier
this year by a pair of consumers claiming the company violated
certain Snapchat users' biometric privacy rights by capturing their
biometric information without consent.

Have you used a fingerprint or thumbprint scanner when clocking in
and out at work? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiff is represented by James C. Vlahakis of Sulaiman Law
Group Ltd.

The Five Guys time clock class action lawsuit is Greenwood, et al.
v. Five Guys Operations LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07169, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN]

FIVE GUYS: Greenwood Sues Over Unlawful Biometrics' Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMIAH M. GREENWOOD, individually and on behalf of all other
Illinois citizens similarly situated v. FIVE GUYS OPERATIONS, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-07169 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 20, 2022) asserts that the
Defendant violated the privacy rights of the Plaintiff and class as
codified by the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Accordingly, the Defendant does not destroy a user's "biometric
identifiers" or "biometric information" "within 3 years of the
individual's last interaction with the private entity." Given the
length of the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, and number
of times the Plaintiff's biometric information was used by
Defendant's biometric time clock system, the Plaintiff could
recover more than $75,000.00 in statutory damages by merely
utilizing Defendant's Technology a minimum of 75 times, the suit
claims.

The Defendant's failure to comply with BIPA's
retention-and-destruction policy results Article III injury. "An
unlawful retention of biometric data inflicts a privacy injury in
the same sense that an unlawful collection does." The Defendant has
allegedly violated Section 15(a) of BIPA by failing to publicly
disclose data-retention schedules for the permanent destruction of
"biometric identifiers" and/or "biometric information" acquired
from its employees, says the suit.

The Plaintiff is a former shift manager worked at the Defendant's
Berwyn, Illinois restaurant as well as a restaurant located in
Wheaton, Illinois location. Prior to, during and after the
Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, the Defendant allegedly
utilized a time clock system that required the Plaintiff and other
employees to scan and input their fingerprints or thumbprints to
log in and out of Defendant's time clock system.

Five Guys Operations, LLC founded in 2012. The company's line of
business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for
on-premise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Ave. Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 581-5456
          Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
          E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com

FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Tate Sues for Breach of Trade Practices Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH A. TATE, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of
a Class of similarly situated persons v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, Case No. 6:22-cv-01922-AA (D. Ore., Dec. 12, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Oregon Unlawful Trade
Practices Act arising from its interest and pattern of unsafe and
unsound mortgage service practices above the remedial rights of
Plaintiff and other similarly situated homeowners and consumers.

According to the complaint, Freedom unfairly and deceptively
ignores its statutory and contractual duties including those which
were agreed to as part of their license to legally operate in the
State of Oregon. As a direct and proximate result of Freedom's
violations of 12 U.S.C.A. Section 2605(e)(3) and 12 C.F.R. Section
1024.35(i)(1), Plaintiff and the class members have been
proximately harmed by Freedom's publishing of derogatory
information to the credit reporting agencies subject to disputes
regarding the borrower's payments and sums claimed due, says the
suit.

Freedom Mortgage Corporation is a mortgage lender and mortgage
broker.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hope Del Carlo, Esq.
          ELEMENTAL LAW LLC
          7805 SW 40th Ave., #19025
          Portland, OR 97280
          Telephone: (503) 789-7372
          Facsimile: (503) 345-6655  
          E-mail: hope@elemental.law

               - and -

          Phillip Robinson, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW CENTER, LLC
          10125 Colesville Road, Suite 378
          Silver Spring, MD 20901
          Telephone: (301) 448-1304
          E-mail: phillip@marylandconsumer.com

               - and -

          Dale Pittman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF DALE W. PITTMAN, PC
          The Eliza Spotswood House
          112-A West Tabb Street
          Petersburg, VA 23803
          Telephone: (804) 861-6000
          Facsimile: (804) 861-3368
          E-mail: dale@pittmanlawoffice.com

GAIA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 25
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Gaia, Inc. (NASDAQ: GAIA) between
December 27, 2017 and November 7, 2022, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). A class action has already been filed. If you wish
to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
February 21, 2023.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Gaia class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9917 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 21, 2023.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) the
Company's first quarter 2019 subscriber count was overstated; (2)
the Company lacked adequate internal controls; (3) as a result,
defendants had a heightened risk of regularly scrutiny and
ultimately subject to an SEC investigation and action; and (4) as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
truth emerged, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

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

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

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

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

Contact Information:

        Laurence Rosen, Esq.
        Phillip Kim, Esq.
        The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
        275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
        New York, NY 10016
        Tel: (212) 686-1060
        Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
        Fax: (212) 202-3827
        lrosen@rosenlegal.com
        pkim@rosenlegal.com
        cases@rosenlegal.com
        www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

GEMINI TRUST: Picha Sues Over Unregistered Securities
-----------------------------------------------------
Brendan Picha and Max J. Hastings, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GEMINI TRUST COMPANY, LLC, TYLER
WINKLEVOSS and CAMERON WINKLEVOSS, Case No. 1:22-cv-10922
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 27, 2022), is brought under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") as a result of the Defendants
actionable misstatements and/or omissions of failing to register as
securities before selling to individual investors.

Gemini, a New York-based crypto asset exchange and lending
platform, offered and sold Gemini interest accounts ("GIAs") to
investors, through a program called "Gemini Earn," and through
which investors lent crypto assets to Gemini in exchange for
interest payments.

GIAs are securities under federal law, which Gemini failed to
register as securities before selling to individual investors.
Gemini marketed GIAs with repeated false and misleading statements,
including that GIAs were a secure method of collecting interest.
Gemini also omitted and concealed significant information
concerning the risks associated with Gemini Earn, including
information concerning its so-called partner and borrower in
connection with the program, Genesis Global Capital, LLC
("Genesis"), to which it gave all Gemini Earn investors' crypto
assets.

When Genesis encountered financial distress as a result of a series
of collapses in the crypto market in 2022, including FTX Trading
Ltd. ("FTX"), Genesis was unable to return the crypto assets it
borrowed from Gemini Earn investors. On November 16, 2022, Gemini
halted the Gemini Earn program and refused to honor any further
investor redemptions, effectively wiping out all investors who
still had holdings in the program, including Plaintiffs.

By promoting and touting GIAs as a safe and secure method for
storing crypto assets from February 2, 2021 through the present
(the "Class Period"), Gemini made actionable misstatements and/or
omissions under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 promulgated.
Gemini's actions have led to significant financial losses for its
investors.

Had GIAs and tokens been registered as required, Plaintiffs and the
Class would have received necessary and meaningful disclosures that
would have enabled them to reliably assess the representations
being made by Gemini and the issuers of other tokens traded on the
site and would have been able to assess the riskiness of their
investments. Without these disclosures, they were left to fend for
themselves as their purportedly safe investments experienced the
return characteristics of the unregistered and highly speculative
securities that they were.

In addition, during the Class Period, Gemini offered and sold
unregistered securities, including GIAs and other crypto assets on
Gemini, without registering as a national securities exchange or as
a broker-dealer, and without there being any registration
statements in effect for such securities, all in violation of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs made transactions in connection with Gemini Earn
beginning in February 2021 and incurred substantial losses in the
value of their GIAs.

Gemini is a New York business corporation duly registered with and
doing business in the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James R. Serritella, Esq.
          KIM & SERRITELLA LLP
          110 W. 40th Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: 212-960-8345
          Email: jserritella@kandslaw.com


GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Renewed Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re Google Assistant
Privacy Litigation, Case No. 5:19-cv-04286-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs submit an administrative motion for leave to file
renewed motion for class certification ("Renewed Certification
Motion").

The Renewed Certification Motion would seek to certify a revised
Privacy Class consisting of:

   "all Opted-In Users of Google Home Devices who have a
   recording resulting from a False Accept associated with their
   Google account," just as Plaintiffs' original class
   certification motion did."

However, the definition of "Opted-In Users" would be modified from
"Users who have enabled Voice & Audio Activity" to "Users who have
enabled Voice & Audio Activity and/or Web & App Activity."

Accordingly, the proposed modification is consistent with the
requirements of Rule 23 that class definitions track the evidence
in the case. In denying certification of the Privacy Class, the
Court left open the possibility that a privacy class with this
revised class could possibly be certified, but did not indicate
whether its ruling was with or without prejudice to Plaintiffs'
ability to seek certification of the revised Privacy 15 Class.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs hereby seek leave to file the Renewed
Certification Motion.

On July 18, 2022, Plaintiffs moved for Class Certification
("Certification Motion").The Plaintiffs defined the Privacy Class
to be limited to "Opted-In Users," meaning users who 19 have
enabled the "Voice & Audio Activity" ("VAA") setting on their
accounts. This definition was based on the deposition testimony of
Google witnesses, who confirmed that Google stores the audio and
associated metadata of users who have VAA enabled.

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company focusing
on search engine technology, online advertising, cloud computing,
computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, artificial
intelligence, and consumer electronics.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Margaret MacLean, Esq.
          Andrea Farah, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
                  clevis@lowey.com
                  mmaclean@lowey.com
                  afarah@lowey.com

                - and -

          Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
          Eric S. Somers, Esq.
          LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
          503 Divisadero Street
          San Francisco, CA 94117
          Telephone: (415) 913-7800
          Facsimile: (415) 759-4112
          E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com.

                - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169-1820
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  ecomite@scott-scott.com

                - and -

          John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com

GOOP INC: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goop Inc. The case is
styled as Jovan Campbell, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Goop Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10903 (S.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 27, 2022).

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

Goop -- https://goop.com/ -- is a wellness and lifestyle brand and
company founded by actress Gwyneth Paltrow.[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


H&K GROUP: Greene Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kevin Greene, individually and behalf of all
those similarly situated v. H&K GROUP, INC., Case No. 2022-23557
was removed from the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on Dec. 28, 2022, and assigned Case No.
2:22-cv-05183.

In the Plaintiff's Complaint, the Plaintiff purports to file this
lawsuit on behalf of a class of current or former employees of
Defendant who performed work which was subject to "other applicable
federal, prevailing wage laws, in any workweek since December 1,
2019." In addition, the Plaintiff avers that the Defendant's
construction projects on which Plaintiff worked were subject to
prevailing wage laws such as the federal Davis-Bacon Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Goodley, Esq.
          Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq.
          GOODLEY McCARTHY LLC
          1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Email: james@gmlaborlaw.com
                 ryan@gmlaborlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ronda K. O'donnell, Esq.
          Lee C. Durivage, Esq.
          MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
          2000 Market Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 575-2697 / (215) 575-2584
          Fax: (215) 575-0856
          Email: rkodonnell@mdwcg.com
                 lcdurivage@mdwcg.com


HAHASMART INC: Walton Sues Over Deceptive Solar Energy Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAN WALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HAHASMART INC.; AFFILIATE SOLAR, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01544-NAD (N.D. Ala., Dec. 9, 2022)
arises from the Defendants' violation of the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act due to alleged misconduct in the advertising,
sale, and installation of solar photovoltaic systems.

HahaSmart and Affiliate are solar energy companies who market,
advertise, and sell solar panels to homeowners throughout the
United States, including Alabama.

According to the complaint, in all phases of their business,
HahaSmart and Affiliate market and advertise to consumers that
their solar products will save the consumer money. In many
instances, however, the consumers, like the Plaintiffs in this
lawsuit, do not save money, and in fact lose money, says the suit.

The Plaintiff files this lawsuit on behalf of all consumers who
live in the State of Alabama and nationwide, who purchased solar
photovoltaic systems from the Defendants but did not "save money"
as a result of the installation of the solar photovoltaic
systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq.
          WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB LLC
          The Kress Building 301 Nineteenth Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0557
          Facsimile: (205) 314-0785
          E-mail: dgpjr@wigginschilds.com

HANDI-CRAFT COMPANY: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Handi-Craft Company.
The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Handi-Craft Company, Case No.
1:22-cv-10902 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 27, 2022).

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

Handi-Craft Company manufactures and distributes baby bottles and
accessories. The Company offers standard, wide-neck, and glass
bottles, as well as provides breatfeeding products, pacifiers,
teethers, and healthy wipes.[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


HEARTBREAKERS GENTLEMEN'S: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Garza Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SANDY GARZA, individually and on behalf of others, Plaintiff v.
MIKE ARMSTRONG, GEORGE "WHITEY" FORSTER, GARY WASEK, JEREMY
GOLDSBORO, DAMON JACKSON, CARL ARCENEAUX, and DOES 1-50,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00418 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 9, 2022)
alleges that the Defendants purposefully misclassify Plaintiff and
Putative Collective Members as "independent contractors" rather
than properly classifying them as employees so that Defendants do
not have to compensate them at the mandated minimum wage rates
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Texas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff worked on a regular basis for Defendants. She worked
for Defendants from approximately 2009 until March 2020, and then
from approximately September 2022 until October 2022.

The Defendants operate, manage, run, and/or supervise exotic
dancers who work at an adult entertainment club in Dickinson,
Texas, under the name of "Heartbreakers Gentlemen's Club."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William M. Hogg, Esq.
          David W. Hodges, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dhodges@hftrialfirm.com
                  whogg@hftrialfirm.com

HEINEKEN USA: Pautz Sues Over Mislabeled "Ranch Water" Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caleb Pautz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Heineken USA Incorporated, Defendant, Case
No. 3:22-cv-02911 (S.D. Ill., Dec. 12, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for breaches of express warranty, implied
warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose and
Magnuson Moss Warranty Act; negligent misrepresentation, fraud,
unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and State Consumer Fraud
Acts.

Heineken USA Incorporated manufactures, labels and sells "Ranch
Water" that it describes as "Hard Seltzer" and "Classic Lime" under
the Dos Equis brand. Other relevant representations include the
larger lime green x background, "Naturally Flavored With Other
Natural Flavors," and "4.5% Alc./Vol." ("ABV" or alcohol by
volume).  

According to the complaint, the representations are misleading
because though the product contains carbonated water, it does not
contain tequila or lime, shown through their absence from the
ingredient list on the side of the box and cans. That the front of
the labeling states "Naturally Flavored With Other Natural Flavors"
does not tell consumers the product does not contain lime, because
this statement does not say "Lime Flavored With Other Natural
Flavors." Further, the product's use of the term "Hard Seltzer" is
false, deceptive and misleading because it does not contain any
distilled spirits such as tequila, but is from a fermented sugar
base, says the suit.

As a result of the alleged false and misleading representations,
the product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$13.99 for a six-pack of 12 oz cans, excluding tax and sales.

Heineken USA Incorporated provides wholesales and distributes
alcoholic beverages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HI.Q INC: Quiles Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
KARYSSA QUILES, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HI.Q, INC. d/b/a HEALTH IQ, Case No.
5:22-cv-00669 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 20, 2022) is a class action for the
recovery by the Named Plaintiff, on her own behalf and on behalf of
700-1,000 other similarly situated former employees of the
Defendant, seeking to recover damages in the amount of 60 days'
compensation and benefits for each of them in violation of the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

On December 15, 2022, the Plaintiff -- who worked for remotely for
Defendant but reported to its headquarters -- and the Putative
Class Members learned for the first time that Defendant was
terminating them effective immediately.

The Defendant allegedly failed to provide the Plaintiffs with the
60 days advance written notice that is required by the WARN Act. In
fact, the Defendant provided the Plaintiffs with zero days advance
notice. The only written notice received by the Plaintiffs from
Defendant came in the form of a "Notice to Employee as to Change in
Relationship" document, which failed to comply with the WARN Act's
notice requirements, the suit claims.

As a result of the Defendant's violation of the WARN Act, each
Putative Class Members is entitled to recover an amount equal to
the sum of: (a) his/her respective wages, salaries, commissions,
bonuses and accrued pay for vacation and personal days for the work
days in the 60 calendar days prior to their respective terminations
and fringe benefits for 60 calendar days prior to their respective
terminations; and (b) his/her medical expenses incurred during the
60-day period following their respective terminations that would
have been covered and paid under the Defendant's health insurance
plan had that plan provided coverage for such period, the suit
says.

The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were employees of
Defendant who were terminated without cause on their part on
December 15, 2022, as part of or as the reasonably expected
consequence of a mass layoff or plant closing, which was
effectuated by the Defendant on or about that date.

Health IQ is an insurance company for seniors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Main No.: (813) 224-0431
          Direct No.: (813) 379-2565
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill @wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  aheystek@wfclaw.com
                  gdesane@wfclaw.com

HOME DEPOT: Bermudez Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as William Bermudez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT, INC., Case No.
221100617 was removed from the Philadelphia County Court of Common
Pleas, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania on Dec. 28, 2022, and assigned Case No.
2:22-cv-05180.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff claims Home Depot violated the
Philadelphia Fair Workweek Employment Standards ("Fair Workweek
Law"), by allegedly: failing to provide written good faith
estimates; failing to provide advance notice of work schedules;
failing to pay schedule change premiums ("Predictability Pay");
failing to provide sufficient rest between work shifts; and failing
to offer newly available shifts to existing employees before hiring
new ones.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael J. Puma, Esq.
          Caroline R. Robb, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS &BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 963-5000
          Email: michael.puma@morganlewis.com
                 caroline.robb@morganlewis.com


HOMETRUST MORTGAGE: Faces Yuan Suit Over Unauthorized Info Access
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONNIE YUAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOMETRUST MORTGAGE, CO., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-01355-LY (W.D. Tex., December 22, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract,
negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, intrusion upon
seclusion/invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to protect the
sensitive personal identifying information (PII) of its customers
following a ransomware attack on its network that stolen its stored
electronic data, including PII. As a result of HomeTrust's failure
to provide adequate data security, the Plaintiff's and the Class
members' PII has been exposed to those who should not have access
to it. The Plaintiff and the Class have suffered the damages and
are now at much higher risk of identity theft and cybercrimes of
all kinds, says the suit.

HomeTrust Mortgage Co. is a provider of residential mortgage loans,
with its business headquarters in Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Joe Kendall, Esq.
         KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
         3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
         Dallas, TX 75219
         Telephone: (214) 744-3000
         Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
         E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

                 - and -

         Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
         Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
         TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
         613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
         Madison, WI 53703
         Telephone: (608) 237-1775
         Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
         E-mail: raina@turkestrauss.com
                 sam@turkestrauss.com

                 - and -

         Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
         MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
         305 W. Nationwide Blvd
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Telephone: (614) 224-6000
         Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
         E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com

                 - and -

         Layne C. Hilton, Esq.
         MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
         900 Camp Street, Suite 337
         New Orleans, LA 70130
         Telephone: (614) 224-6000
         Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
         E-mail: lhilton@meyerwil.com

HYATT HOTELS: Illegally Fixed Record Dates, Silverberg Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN SILVERBERG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARK S. HOPLAMAZIAN, THOMAS J.
PRITZKER, PAUL D. BALLEW, CARY D. MCMILLAN, MICHAEL A. ROCCA, SUSAN
D. KRONICK, MACKEY J. MCDONALD, PAMELA M. NICHOLSON, JASON
PRITZKER, DION CAMP SANDERS, RICHARD C. TUTTLE, JAMES H. WOOTEN,
JR., JOAN BOTTARINI, ALEJANDRO REYNAL, H. CHARLES FLOYD, MARK R.
VONDRASEK, and HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
2022-1191 (Del. Ch., December 22, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for violation of Section 213(a) of the Delaware
General Corporation Law, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiff brings this class and derivative action on behalf of
himself and other Hyatt stockholders against Hyatt's board of
directors by fixing record dates to determine which stockholders
are entitled to receive notice of and vote at a meeting of
stockholders more than 60 days in violation of Section 213(a). The
Board fixed: (i) a March 20, 2020 record date for the annual
meeting held on May 20, 2020; (ii) a March 19, 2021 record date for
the annual meeting held on May 19, 2021; and (iii) a March 18, 2022
record date for the annual meeting held on May 18, 2022. Because
each of these meetings took place in contravention of the plain and
unambiguous terms of the DGCL, all of the actions taken at the
meetings are invalid. The Plaintiff therefore seeks a judicial
declaration that the last three meetings of Hyatt stockholders were
held in violation of Delaware law and that all actions taken at
these meetings are invalid. In addition, the Plaintiff seeks
disgorgement or cancellation of invalid stock issuances under the
Fourth Amended and Restated Hyatt Hotels Corporation Long-Term
Incentive Plan (LTIP) and invalid stock sales, if any, under the
Second Amended and Restated Hyatt Hotels Corporation Employee Stock
Purchase Plan (ESPP), says the Plaintiff.

Hyatt Hotels Corporation is a global hospitality company, with its
principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
         Craig J. Springer, Esq.
         David M. Sborz, Esq.
         Andrew J. Peach, Esq.
         Jackson E. Warren, Esq.
         ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
         4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250
         Wilmington, DE 19807
         Telephone: (302) 504-4957

                 - and -

         William J. Fields, Esq.
         Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
         Samir Shukurov, Esq.
         FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
         1441 Broadway, 6th Floor #6161
         New York, NY 10018
         Telephone: (212) 231-1500

                 - and -

         Shaye Fuchs, Esq.
         37 Arrowhead Lane
         Lawrence, NY 11559
         Telephone: (516) 509-8755

INSIDER INC: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Lee Class Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INSIDER, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-10771 (S.D.N.Y., Dec.
21, 2022) sues Defendant for allegedly intercepting the private
electronic communications of visitors to its websites without
consent in violation of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act.

The Plaintiff contends that Defendant knowingly directs third-party
vendors, such as Microsoft Corporation, to embed snippets of
JavaScript computer code ("Session Replay Code") on Defendant's
websites, which then deploys on each website visitor's internet
browser for the purpose intercepting and recording the website
visitor's private electronic communications with the Defendant's
websites, including their mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes (such
as text being entered into an information field or text box), URLs
of web pages visited, and/or other electronic communications in
real-time ("Website Communications"). The Defendant's directive to
the Session Replay Providers to secretly deploy the Session Replay
Code results in the electronic equivalent of "looking over the
shoulder" of each visitor to the Defendant website for the entire
duration of their website interaction, the Plaintiff claims.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
class of all Illinois citizens whose Website Communications were
intercepted at Defendant's direction and seeks all civil remedies
provided under the causes of action, including but not limited to
compensatory, statutory, and/or punitive damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Illinois.

Insider is an American online media company known for publishing
the financial news website Insider, Business Insider, and other
news and media websites.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason J. Kane, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE
          CONWAY & WISE LLP
          95 Allens Creek Road, Building 1, Suite 150
          Rochester, NY 14618
          Telephone: (585) 310-5140
          E-mail: jkane@peifferwolf.com

                - and -

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE
          CONWAY & WISE LLP
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2,
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: (314) 833-4825
          E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL: Motion to Discontinue Class Action Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eleanor A. Vaughan, Esq., of Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie
LLP, disclosed that this post relates to an important procedural
aspect of the class proceedings regime.

In Somani v. International Financial Group Ltd., the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice granted the plaintiffs' motion to
discontinue a proposed class action related to allegedly unpaid
overtime, vacation, public holiday and premium pay.

After commencing the claim, issues arose with the proposed
representative plaintiffs such that none were suited to move the
litigation forward. Class counsel determined that the proposed
class action as presently constituted was unlikely to be certified
and were unable to find a new representative plaintiff.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought to discontinue the action
without prejudice to alternative representative plaintiffs
commencing litigation in the best interest of the putative class.

Pursuant to section 29(1) of the Ontario Class Proceedings Act, a
proposed class action may only be discontinued or abandoned with
approval of the Court.

Justice Morgan, writing for the Court, concluded that neither party
nor the putative class would be prejudiced by the discontinuance.
Accordingly, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
discontinue the action without costs and without prejudice to its
being reconstituted with new plaintiffs. [GN]

INTO THE AM: Chase Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Derek Chase, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. INTO THE AM CLOTHING LLC, Case No.
22-CA-004749 was removed from the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court
in and for Lee County, Florida, to the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida on Dec. 28, 2022, and assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-00831-SPC-NPM.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

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


IRVINE COMPANY: Moore Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices
------------------------------------------------------------
Marybeth Moore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE IRVINE COMPANY, LLC; REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL
ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; LINCOLNPROPERTY CO.; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD,
INC.; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.; RPM LIVING, LLC; BH MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LLC; MID AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; MORGAN
PROPERTIES, LLC; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT
COMPANY; AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC.; HIGHMARK RESIDENTIAL, LLC;
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC; ZRS MANAGEMENT, LLC;
CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST; UDR, INC.; CONAM MANAGEMENT CORPORATION;
CORTLAND PARTNERS, LLC; THRIVE COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC;
SECURITY PROPERTIES INC.; CWS APARTMENT HOMES, LLC; PROMETHEUS REAL
ESTATE GROUP; SARES REGIS GROUP OPERATING, INC.; MISSION ROCK
RESIDENTIAL, LLC; and MORGAN GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01826
(W.D. Wash., Dec. 27, 2022), is brought challenging a cartel among
lessors of multifamily residential real estate leases ("Lessors")
to artificially inflate the prices of multifamily residential real
estate in the United States above competitive levels.

Until 2016, and potentially earlier, many of the nation's largest
Lessors priced their leases based upon their own assessments of how
to best compete against other Lessors. Lessors generally priced
their units competitively to maximize occupancy (that is,
maximizing output). Lessors had an incentive to lower their prices
to attract lessees away from their competitors, until all available
leases were sold. In this way, competition drove rent levels to
reflect available supply of rental units and lessee demand. Lessors
also independently determined when to put their leases on the
market, resulting in unpredictable supply levels—a natural
phenomenon in a competitive market. When supply exceeded demand,
Lessors cut prices.

Beginning in approximately 2016, and potentially earlier, Lessors
replaced their independent pricing and supply decisions with
collusion. Lessors agreed to use a common third party that
collected real-time pricing and supply levels, and then used that
data to make unit-specific pricing and supply recommendations.
Lessors also agreed to follow these recommendations, on the
expectation that competing Lessors would do the same.

That third party is RealPage, Inc. RealPage provides software and
data analytics to Lessors. RealPage also serves as the mechanism by
which Lessors collude and avoid competition, increasing lease
prices to Plaintiff and other members of the proposed Class.
RealPage openly boasts that its services "balance supply and demand
to maximize Lessors' revenue growth." And that is precisely what
RealPage has done, facilitating an agreement among participating
Lessors not to compete on price, and allowing Lessors to coordinate
both pricing and supply through two mutually reinforcing mechanisms
in furtherance of their agreed aim of suppressing price competition
for multifamily residential real estate leases.

First, Lessors "outsource daily pricing and ongoing revenue
oversight" to RealPage, replacing separate centers of independent
decision-making with one. While Lessors are able to reject the
RealPage pricing through an onerous process, RealPage emphasizes
the need for "discipline" among participating Lessors. To encourage
adherence to its common scheme, RealPage explains that for its
services to be most effective in increasing rents, Lessors must
accept the pricing at least eighty percent of the time.

Second, RealPage allows participating Lessors to coordinate supply
levels to avoid price competition. In a competitive market, there
are periods where supply exceeds demand, and that in turn puts
downward pressure on market prices as firms compete to attract
lessees. To avoid the consequences of lawful competition, RealPage
provides Lessors with information sufficient to stagger lease
renewals to avoid oversupply. By staggering lease renewals to
artificially smooth out natural imbalances of supply and demand,
RealPage and participating Lessors also eliminate any incentive to
undercut or cheat on the cartel (avoiding a race to the bottom, or
"prisoner's dilemma").

RealPage's and participating Lessors' coordinated efforts have been
effective at driving anticompetitive outcomes: higher prices and
lower physical occupancy levels (output). RealPage is proud of its
role in the exploding increase in the prices of residential leases.
In a marketing video used to attract additional Lessors to the
conspiracy, a RealPage Vice President discussed the recent and
never-before seen price increases for residential real estate
leases, as high as 14.5% in some markets.

If left unchecked, RealPage and its participating Lessors' cartel
stand to break the multifamily residential real estate lease market
and continue to exacerbate the affordable housing crisis facing
this Nation. The cartel Plaintiff challenges is unlawful under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiff brings this action to
recover her damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and other
appropriate relief, detailed infra, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff rented a multifamily residential unit in a property
managed by Lessor Defendant Lincoln Property Co. in West Plam
Beach, Florida.

RealPage, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Richardson, Texas who provides software and services to the
residential real estate industry, including the RMS.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Blythe H. Chandler, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Phone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                 bchandler@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          David B. Rochelson, Esq.
          Deborah Elman, Esq.
          GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP
          88 Pine Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 398-0055
          Email: drochelson@garwingerstein.com
                 delman@garwingerstein.com


JELLYCAT INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jellycat, Inc. The
case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Jellycat, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10884
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 27, 2022).

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

Jellycat.com -- https://www.jellycat.com/ -- is the official online
home of original soft toy creators Jellycat.[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


JMP FOOD: Jiles Suit Seeks Delivery Drivers' Minimum & OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANIE JILES, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. JMP FOOD LLC, and SYED AKHTAR ZAIDI, Case No.
2:22-cv-05068 (E.D. Pa., Dec. 20, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime hours owed to the Plaintiff and
similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at its
Domino's store, under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was paid $7.50 per hour while making deliveries
during her employment with Defendants, including a tip credit
applicable to the time she performed deliveries.

During the time the Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a delivery
driver, she was reimbursed just $1.25 per delivery and drove an
average of 5 or more miles per delivery. During her employment by
the Defendants, Plaintiff regularly made 6 or more deliveries per
hour. Thus using even a conservative under-estimate of Plaintiff's
actual expenses and damages, every hour on the job decreased
Plaintiff's net wages by at least $8.85 ($.295 x 5 miles/delivery x
6 deliveries/hour = $8.85), resulting in an hourly wage rate well
below the applicable minimum wage, the suit claims.

Because the Defendants paid their drivers a gross hourly wage at
precisely, or at least very close to, the federal minimum wage, and
because the delivery drivers incurred unreimbursed automobile
expenses, the delivery drivers "kicked back" to the Defendants an
amount sufficient to cause minimum wage violations, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from September 2019 to
August 2020 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's store
located in Elkins Park, Pennsylvannia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI &
          BENDESKY, P.C.
          120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218
          Horsham, PA 19044
          Telephone: (215) 496-8282
          Facsimile: (215) 754-4443
          E-mail: phoward@smbb.com

KEURIG GREEN: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Valenzuela Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
SONYA VALENZUELA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC., a Delaware
corporation d/b/a KEURIG.COM; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Case No. 3:22-cv-09042-JCS (N.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2022) alleges that
the Defendant wiretaps the personal conversations of all visitors
who utilize the chat feature at www.keurig.com, and allows at least
one third party to eavesdrop on such communications during
transmission to harvest data for financial gain, in violation of
the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant did not inform the
Plaintiff or Class Members that the Defendant was secretly
recording their conversations or allowing, aiding, and abetting a
third party to intercept and eavesdrop on them in real time.
Accordingly, the Defendant did not obtain Class Members' express or
implied consent to wiretap or allow third parties to eavesdrop on
visitor conversations, nor did Class Members know at the time of
the conversations that Defendant was secretly wiretapping them and
allowing third parties to eavesdrop on them, says the Plaintiff.

Keurig is a publicly traded American beverage and coffeemaker
conglomerate with headquarters in Burlington, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
          4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com

KIA AMERICA: Vehicles Lack Engine Immobilizers, Murphy Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM MURPHY and JULIANNE SHAPIRO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KIA AMERICA, INC. and
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-04931 (E.D. Pa., Dec. 12, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability and for violations of the Magnuson Moss Warranty
Act, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Business
and Professions Code, and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

This class action is brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of Classes of similarly situated persons
or entities who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured and sold
by the Defendants which do not include an engine immobilizer. The
engine immobilizers are designed and used to prevent vehicle theft
when a vehicle is left unattended. Engine immobilizers work by
transmitting a code to the vehicle when the car's key is inserted
in the ignition switch or a key fob is inside the vehicle. Because
Defendants' Vehicles lack an immobilizer, thieves can easily start
the Vehicles through the steering column without a car's specific
smart key by using common objects like a screwdriver, knife, USB
charging cord, or other metal object, says the suit.

As a result of Defendants' unfair and deceptive business practices,
consumers of the Vehicles, including Plaintiffs, have suffered an
ascertainable loss, injury-in-fact, and otherwise have been harmed
by Defendants' conduct, the suit alleges.

Kia America, Inc. and Hyundai Motor America Corporation are
American automobile manufacturers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
          William E. Hoese, Esq.
          Elias A. Kohn, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
                  dabrahams@kohnswift.com
                  whoese@kohnswift.com
                  ekohn@kohnswift.com

LITTLE CAESAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Managers, Horner Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GORDON HORNER and ANN MARIE HUDSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Little Caesar
Enterprises, Inc., Phoenix Nexus LLC, Main St LC LLC, Salina St SY
LC LLC, Onondaga Blvd SY LC LLC, and Manlius St SY LC LLC, Primera
Holdings Corp., and ABC CORPORATIONS 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
5:22-cv-01324-TJM-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 9, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' practices and policies of misclassifying its Managers
as "exempt" employees and not paying them overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law, as well as failing to compensate all of its store employees
for the purchasing and laundering of uniforms in violation of the
NYLL, among other things.

Plaintiff Horner is a resident of New York State who was employed
by Defendants as a manager at its Little Caesar's restaurant
located in Syracuse, New York from approximately September 2019 to
August 2022. Plaintiff Hudson is also a resident of New York State
who has been employed as an assistant manager since approximately
April 2021.

Defendant Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. is a Michigan corporation
engaged in the business of operating and franchising Little Caesars
restaurants throughout the United States, including locations where
Named Plaintiffs performed work.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
          Michele A. Moreno, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: jmurphy@vandallp.com
                  mmoreno@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
          GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
          The White House 7030 E. Genesee Street
          Fayetteville, NY 13066
          Telephone: (315) 314-8000
          E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com

LIVE NATION: Sterioff Sues Over Ticketing Anticompetitive Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE STERIOFF, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and
TICKETMASTER, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-09230 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 20,
2022) alleges that the Defendants have effectuated an
anticompetitive scheme aimed at eliminating and/or substantially
minimizing all competition in markets for both primary ticketing
services and, more recently, secondary ticketing services.

According to the complaint, the Defendants eliminate competition in
the primary ticketing services market by coercing major concert
venue operators to enter into long-term exclusive contracts with
Ticketmaster. Because Ticketmaster has exclusive agreements with
virtually all venues capable of accommodating large concerts,
Taylor Swift and other popular musicians have no choice but to sell
their tickets through Ticketmaster.

The Defendants also allegedly attempt to eliminate competition in
the secondary ticketing services market by utilizing technology
that limits a primary (or secondary, etc.) purchaser from
transferring tickets, unless those tickets are resold through
Ticketmaster's secondary ticketing platform. As a result of this
scheme, over 70% of tickets for major concert venues in the United
States are sold through Ticketmaster's online platforms at
monopolistic prices, says the suit.

Ticketmaster controlled the registration and access to "The Eras"
Tour tickets. On November 1, 2022, Ticketmaster announced that
registration for the TaylorSwiftTix Presale would take place from
November 1-9, 2022. This presale would be powered by Ticketmaster's
"Verified Fan" program which promised to "level the playing field
so that more tickets go to fans who intend to go to the show - and
not to ticket bots."

On November 14, 2022, select "verified" fans of the TaylorSwiftTix
Presale were sent an access code, as well as a link via text to the
cell phone associated with the Ticketmaster registration. Each
access code allowed the purchase of up to  six tickets, and each
fan could receive up to three access codes. However, thousands of
"verified" fans were not sent access codes or were sent codes that
did not work. Because the Plaintiff was unable to secure any
tickets during the Ticketmaster presales, and because she
experienced significant technical issues while using Ticketmaster's
ticketing platforms, she was forced to purchase tickets through an
alternate secondary ticketing service provider after the
Ticketmaster General Public Sale was canceled. The "face  value"
price of these secondary tickets was based on the monopolistic
prices charged by Ticketmaster in the prior transaction (i.e., on
Ticketmaster's primary or secondary  ticketing platform), the
Plaintiff alleges.

The Defendants' alleged misrepresentations and omissions, and their
anticompetitive conduct, relating to their primary and secondary
ticketing services were and continue to be "unlawful" because they
violate the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and
the Cartwright Act.

Live Nation is the largest live entertainment company in the world,
connecting over half a billion fans across all its platforms in 29
countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lisa T. Omoto, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: lomoto@faruqilaw.com

                - and -

          Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH P.L.L.C.
          1561 Long Haul Road
          Grangeville, ID 83530
          Telephone: (541) 359-2827
          Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
          E-mail: Bonner@walshpllc.com

LOS ALBERT'S MEXICAN: Morales Sues Over Unlawful Misclassification
------------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Garcia Morales, and other similarly situated aggrieved
employees v. LOS ALBERT'S MEXICAN FOOD, LLC; HERLINDO ESTRADA
ARZOLA; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV40638
(Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 28, 2022), is brought against the
Defendant's violation of the Labor Code as a result of its unlawful
misclassification of the Plaintiff as an independent contractor.

The Plaintiff was supposed to be considered an hourly, non-exempt
employee, however, Plaintiff was misclassified as an independent
contractor and mostly received cash without any deductions. It is
the Plaintiff's position that over the course of his employment
tenure, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved
employees have been willfully misclassified as "independent
contractors" pursuant to California Labor Code, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired to work at LOS ALBERT'S as a cashier on
March 1, 2016.

LOS ALBERT'S's core business is being a restaurant and selling
food.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sevag Nigoghosian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SEVAG NIGOGHOSIAN
          500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: (818) 956-1111
          Facsimile: (818) 956-1983


LOS CORBATICAS: Quinones Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Quinones, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. LOS CORBATICAS DELI GROCERY II CORP. (D/B/A JVY DELI
GROCERY CORP.), VERONICA E. GULLE, and LUIS A. TEJEDA SANCHEZ, Case
No. 1:22-cv-10895 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 27, 2022), is brought for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread
of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of
Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff
the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to
work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond
the Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees. The
Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the
Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a deli worker and cashier at the
deli.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli grocery store,
located in Bronx, New York under the name "JVY Deli Grocery
Corp."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


M-I LLC: Certification of Class & Subclass in Last Suit Recommended
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONOVIN LAST, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M-I, L.L.C., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01205-ADA-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Erica
P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California recommends that:

   a. the Plaintiff's motion for class certification be granted
      in part and denied in part; and

   b. the Defendant's motion to strike the deposition errata
      sheets submitted by two of the Plaintiff's witnesses be
      denied.

Plaintiff Last seeks class certification in the action based on
numerous California state labor claims. On July 29, 2020, the
Plaintiff initiated the action by filing a complaint in California
state court. The Defendant filed a timely notice of removal on Aug.
26, 2020. It filed an amended answer to the 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. As a result of
this misclassification, he alleges that the Defendant failed to pay
overtime, to provide meal and rest periods, to pay meal and rest
period premiums, to pay waiting time wages, and to provide legally
sufficient wage statements as required by California law.

Based on the Defendant's violations of California labor law, the
Plaintiff asserts a claim for restitution and declaratory relief on
behalf of himself and proposed class members pursuant to California
Business and Professions Code Section 1700, et seq. He also seeks
to recover civil penalties under California's Private Attorney
General Act ("PAGA").

As set forth in the Plaintiff's amended complaint, the Plaintiff
seeks to represent a class that includes all drilling fluid
specialists who worked as employees of Defendant or provided
services on behalf of Defendant in California during the applicable
timeframe. He also seeks to represent two subclasses: a wage
statement subclass and a Section 203 subclass (i.e., waiting time
wages).

On Jan. 11, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. The Defendant filed an opposition to the Plaintiff's
class certification motion on May 20, 2022. It t also filed
objections to the Plaintiff's class certification motion. On June
17, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a reply to the Defendant's opposition
and a response to its objections. The Defendant was granted leave
to file a sur-reply.

On May 20, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to compel
arbitration. Its motion to compel argues that the Plaintiff's
claims against it are subject to an arbitration agreement between
the Plaintiff and SGF US LLC, the staffing company that provided
him to the Defendant. The motion to compel arbitration is currently
pending before District Judge Ana de Alba

On May 23, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to strike the
deposition errata sheets of Michael A. Kavelar and Nathan William
Gholz. The Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to strike on
June 6, 2022. The Defendant filed a reply on June 15, 2022.

A hearing on the motion for class certification and the motion to
strike was held on Aug. 12, 2022. After the hearing, the Court
directed the Plaintiff to file an amended statement regarding the
proposed class definitions and the estimated membership of each
class. The Plaintiff filed an amended statement on Aug. 18, 2022.
The Defendant filed objections to the Plaintiff's amended statement
on Aug. 25, 2022.

Judge Grosjean first examines the Defendant's motin to strike. The
Defendant argues the motion should be granted as the errata sheets
fail to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
30(e) because they do not provide reasons for the changes made.
Because the Defendant fails to explain how the changes contradict
or reverse Mr. Kaveler and Mr. Gholz's testimony, the Plaintiff
contends the motion to strike should be denied.

Upon review of the amended deposition errata sheets, Judge Grosjean
finds that the amended deposition errata are within the scope of
Rule 30(e). Accordingly, she recommends that the Defendant's motion
to strike be denied. As an initial matter, she does not find that
the deposition errata sheets should be stricken for failure to
comply with the technical requirements of Rule 30(e). Further, the
changes reflected in the deposition errata do not contradict the
original testimony.

Judge Grosjean then turns to the motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following proposed
classes:

     Class 1. 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.

     Class 2. Section 203 Subclass: 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.

     Class 3. Wage Statement Subclass: All members of Class 1 who
at any time during the period beginning on May 20, 2019 and ending
on the date of certification were either not provided with a wage
statement by M-I, L.L.C. or who were provided with a wage statement
that did not accurately reflect all of the information required by
Labor Code Section 226(a).

For class certification, the proposed class must satisfy the four
threshold requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a):
numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. In addition to
the requirements of Rule 23(a), the proposed class must satisfy at
least one of the requirements listed in Rule 23(b).Pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3), a court may certify a class only if it determines that
questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class
action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

Judge Grosjean finds that the Plaintiff has met his burden in
satisfying the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b) as to
Class 1. Therefore, she recommends that Class 1 be certified.

She finds that (i) the Plaintiff's proposed Class 1 includes 47
members; (ii) the Plaintiff has identified several common issues of
law and fact, including whether the putative class members were
exempt, and if so, on what basis; (iii) the Plaintiff's claims are
typical because they are reasonably coextensive with those of the
proposed Class 1 members; (iv) the Plaintiff's counsel is adequate;
(v) common issues predominate as to Class 1; and (vi) a class
action is the superior method for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the overtime, meal period, and rest period claims of
the Plaintiff and the proposed class.

Judge Grosjean also recommends that the Plaintiff's Section 203
subclass be certified. She holds that (i) Class 2 has 34 members;
(ii) exemption issue raised by the Plaintiff's overtime, meal
period, and rest period claims is sufficiently common as to the
proposed class; (iii) commonality factor is met as to the Section
203 subclass; (iv) the Plaintiff's Section 203 claims satisfy the
typicality and adequacy requirements; (v) the Plaintiff's
derivative Section 203 claims meet the requirements of Rule
23(b)(3).

Finally, Judge Grosjean recommends that class certification be
denied as to Class 3. She finds that (i) the class is not
sufficiently numerous; (ii) the wage statement subclass does not
share common issues; and (iii) the fact that the Plaintiff was
employed through the staffing company, who arguably, is liable for
his wage statements, is not typical to others in the class who
received wage statements from Defendant or who received wage
statements from other joint employers.

Based on the forgoing, Judge Grosjean recommends that the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification be granted in part and
that the Court certifies the following class 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.

Judge Grosjean recommends that the Defendant's motion to strike be
denied and its objections be overruled.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United
States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1). Within 21 days after
being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any
party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy
on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to
Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the
objections will be served and filed within 21 days after service of
the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of
rights on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 27, 2022 Findings &
Recommendations is available at https://tinyurl.com/mxvunvht from
Leagle.com.


MATTRESS FIRM: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Licea Class Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LICEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MATTRESS FIRM, INC., a Delaware Corporation d/b/a
MATTRESSFIRM.COM; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
3:22-cv-09002 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 20, 2022) alleges that the Defendant
covertly wiretaps the personal conversations of all visitors who
utilize the chat feature at www.mattressfirm.com and allows at
least one third party to eavesdrop on such communications during
transmission to harvest data for financial gain, in violation of
the California Invasion of Privacy Act  in numerous ways.

Accordingly, the Defendant intentionally caused the internet
communication between Plaintiff and Class Members with the
Defendant's Website to be recorded. Defendant also aided, abetted
at least one third party to eavesdrop upon such conversations
during transmission and in real time. The Defendant did not obtain
Class Members' express or implied consent to wiretap or allow third
parties to eavesdrop on visitor conversations, nor did Class
Members know at the time of the conversations that Defendant was
secretly wiretapping them and allowing third parties to eavesdrop
on them, the lawsuit claims.

The Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website and conducted a brief
conversation with an agent of Defendant through the website chat
feature.

Mattress Firm is an American mattress store chain founded on July
4, 1986 with headquarters in Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
          4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com

MIDNIGHT COOKIES: Bilbao Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
AXEL BILBAO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDNIGHT COOKIES HALLANDALE, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. CACE-22-017975 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty.,
Dec. 9, 2022) is a putative class action brought against the
Defendant pursuant to the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, brings this action against Defendant, alleging
that it violated the FTSA when it sent Plaintiff and the putative
class text messages for the purpose of soliciting a sale of
consumer goods or services, soliciting an extension of credit for
consumer goods or services, or obtaining information that will or
may be used for the direct solicitation of a sale of consumer goods
or services or an extension of credit for such purposes without
adhering to these requirements.

Specifically, the Defendant sent: (1) Text Message Advertisements
that promoted Midnight Cookies' services and products without
transmitting to the recipients' caller identification service a
telephone number that was capable of receiving telephone calls and
that connected to either the telephone solicitor or the Defendant;
and (2) Automated Midnight Cookies Text Message Advertisements
without obtaining Plaintiffs' prior express written consent, says
the suit.

MIDNIGHT COOKIES HALLANDALE, LLC is registered as a Florida Limited
Liability Company, which owns and operates Midnight Cookies, which
services people throughout Florida and the rest of the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          974 Howard Ave.
          Dunedin, FL 34698
          Telephone: (202) 709-5744
          Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
          E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
                  shawn@sjlawcollective.com

MITEK INC: Second Shot at Avoiding BIPA Class Action Rejected
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Nash at  biometricupdate.com reports that enterprise ID
verifier Mitek is running out of exits before it approaches the
Biometric Information Protection Act toll plaza.

A United States appeals court unanimously told Mitek it could not
avoid being sued under the state of Illinois' BIPA statutes by
hiding behind an arbitration agreement.

Mitek provides facial recognition service for car renter HyreCar.
It is accused of violating BIPA by not getting the express consent
of state residents to capture biometric identifiers like face
photos.

Named plaintiff Joshua Johnson claims to have uploaded a photo of
his driver's license and a selfie to be verified for HyreCar, the
Cook County Record reports. From this initial check, a biometric
template was stored for future identity verification, according to
the complaint.

The chance that it could lose a class-action BIPA lawsuit and have
to pay a significant amount of money prompted the company's
attorney to claim HyreCar's mandatory arbitration contract clause
covers Mitek, too.

A U.S. District Court judge had tossed that idea out and, now, so
has a three-judge panel in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The problem with the defense is that the contract, part of which
requires customers to settle disputes with the company through
arbitration, is only between HyreCar and the renter.

HyreCar is not named in the proposed class action.[GN]

MORLEY COMPANIES: Agrees to Settle Breach Class Suit for $4.3-M
---------------------------------------------------------------
hipaajournal.com reports that Morley Companies has agreed to settle
a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of individuals affected by a
major data breach that occurred on or around August 1, 2022. A fund
of $4.3 million has been created to cover claims from individuals
affected by the data breach.

On or around August 1, 2021, Morley Companies, a Saignaw, MI-based
provider of business services, suffered a cyberattack in which
hackers gained access to parts of its network. Morley Companies
said the attack prevented access to its information systems when
files were encrypted, with the investigation confirming that the
attackers exfiltrated files containing protected health
information.

Approximately 628,000 breach notification letters were mailed, and
the breach was reported to the HHS' Office for Civil Rights as
involving the protected health information of 521,046 individuals.
The breached information included names, addresses, Social Security
numbers, birthdates, client identification numbers, medical
diagnostic and treatment information, and health insurance
information. Morley Companies accepts no liability for the incident
and has admitted no wrongdoing but chose to settle the lawsuit to
avoid further legal costs and the uncertainty of trial.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members can submit a claim
to receive reimbursement of up to $2,500 for documented
out-of-pocket expenses that are reasonably traceable to the
cyberattack and data breach. These can include unreimbursed losses
relating to fraud or identity theft, professional fees including
attorneys' and accountants' fees, and fees for credit repair
services, costs associated with freezing or unfreezing credit with
any credit reporting agency, credit monitoring costs incurred on or
after August 1, 2021, and miscellaneous expenses such as notary,
data charges, fax, postage, copying, mileage, cell phone charges,
and long-distance telephone charges (conditions apply).

Class members can also claim up to four hours of lost time at a
rate of $20 per hour, and residents of California at the time of
the breach can claim a payment of $75. In addition, individuals who
did not previously claim the credit and identity monitoring
services provided by Morley Companies through IDX will be provided
with a new offer and activation code valid for 90 days to claim
3-bureau credit monitoring for a three-year period from the
effective date of the settlement. Class members will also be
provided with a one-year membership to the Dashlane password
management service.

Class members have until February 7, 2023, to object to or exclude
themselves from the settlement. Claims must be submitted by March
20, 2023. The final approval hearing for the settlement has been
scheduled for April 19, 2023. [GN]

MOTIVATE LLC: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Alexander Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
TREVOR M. ALEXANDER, LUIS DIAZ, and WELDON FINDLAY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
MOTIVATE LLC d/b/a MOTIVATE, Defendant, Case No. 537400/2022 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., December 22, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for failure to timely pay wages in violation of the
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as hourly-paid
station cleaning technicians in New York at any time between June
2020 and April 14, 2022.

Motivate LLC, doing business as Motivate, is a provider of services
bicycle sharing systems, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
         LIPSKY LOWE LLP
         420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (212) 392-4772
         E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com

NATIONAL GENERAL: Romero Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Louis Pachuca Romero, Anayeli Garcia, each
individually and together on behalf of all others similarly
situated as Plaintiff Class v. National General Insurance Company,
Integon National Insurance Company, Integon Indemnity Corporation,
National General Insurance Marketing, Inc., Fuerza Latina
Insurance, John Does Nos. 1-100, Case No. 2022-CP-08-2829 was
removed from the Court of Common Pleas for the Ninth Judicial
Circuit, Berkeley County, South Carolina, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina on Dec. 27, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04667-DCN to the
proceeding.

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

National General -- https://nationalgeneral.com/ -- an Allstate
company, offers coverage to help protect customers' home, vehicle,
and more.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James R. Davis, Esq.
          J. DAVIS LAW
          234 Seven Farms Drive, Mail Box 16, Suite 211B
          Charleston, SC 29692
          Phone: (843) 642-8333
          Fax: (843) 642-8784
          Email: jim@jdavispc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          G. Mark Phillips
          Merritt G. Abney
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH (CHAR SC)
          151 Meeting Street, Sixth Floor
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Phone: (843) 720-4383
          Fax: (843) 534-4392
          Email: mark.phillips@nelsonmullins.com
                 merritt.abney@nelsonmullins.com


NESTLE PURINA: Fontanez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Fontanez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LINTBELLS, INC., Case No. 161090/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
New York Cty., Dec. 27, 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
yumove.com ("Website" or "Defendant's Website"). Through the
Website, the Defendant sells calming and joint supplements for
dogs. 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. Plaintiff and the Class seek, inter alia, a
preliminary and permanent injunction, other declaratory relief,
statutory damages, actual and punitive damages, pre-judgment and
post judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expense,
says the complaint.

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

The Defendant owns and/or operates the Website: yumove.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


NOOM INC: Wiretaps Website Visitors' Communications, Oliver Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ARIEL OLIVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NOOM, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01857-WSS (W.D. Pa., Dec.
22, 2022) alleges that the Defendant wiretaps the electronic
communications of visitors to its website, www.noom.com, in
violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic
Surveillance Control Act, and constituting an invasion of the
privacy rights of visitors.

The Plaintiff contends that Noom procures third-party vendors,such
as FullStory, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code on
Noom's website, which then deploys on each website visitor's
internet browser for the purpose intercepting and recording the
website visitor's electronic communications, including their mouse
movements, clicks, keystrokes, URLs of web pages visited, and/or
other electronic communications in real-time. These third-party
vendors allegedly create and deploy the Session Replay Code at
Noom's request.

The Plaintiff and Class Members did not provide prior consent to
Noom's interception of their Website Communications, nor could
they, as the interception begins immediately upon arriving at
www.noom.com, the lawsuit claims.

The Plaintiff has visited www.noom.com and certain of its subpages
on her computer while in Pennsylvania prior to filing this action.

Noom is a digital health and wellness platform for individuals to
lose weight and lead healthier lives.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
          Patrick D. Donathen, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
                  kelly@lcllp.com
                  jamisen@lcllp.com
                  elizabeth@lcllp.com
                  nickc@lcllp.com
                  patrick@lcllp.com

NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Judge Approves $10M Class-Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Piper at justthenews.com reports that a federal judge has
approved a $10.3 million class-action settlement with a university
healthcare system and workers who were denied religious exemptions
from COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Chicago-based NorthShore University HealthSystem came to terms with
500 current and former healthcare workers this summer, but it was
only that U.S. District Judge John Kness approved the settlement
terms.

The class covers NorthShore team members who submitted religious
exemption requests between July 1, 2021 and January 1, 2022, were
denied exemptions and either took a vaccine to avoid termination or
were fired or resigned due to their religious objections.

The order says no class members "timely opted out" of the
settlement or filed a request for exclusion. The plaintiffs'
lawyers at Liberty Counsel will receive $2.06 million in attorney's
fees, and the 13 class representatives, $20,000 each.

Liberty Counsel said the settlement checks will be sent in 60 days.
Employees who were fired can apply for rehire within 90 days, "and
they will retain their previous seniority level," the law firm
said. Several have already been rehired, Liberty Counsel said.[GN]

OHIO UNIVERSITY: Ohio App. Flips Class Certification in Duke Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Gila Duke, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ohio University,
Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 22AP-184 (Ohio App.), the Court of
Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County, reverses the
decision and judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio granting
Duke's motion for class certification.

On Jan. 25, 2021, Gila Duke and her mother Yana Duke filed a class
action complaint against OU on behalf of themselves and all people
who paid tuition and fees for the spring 2020 academic semester,
and who, because of OU's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, lost
the benefit of the education for which they paid, and/or the
services for which their fees paid, without having their tuition
and fees refunded to them. The complaint alleged OU did not hold
any in-person classes during the spring semester after March 10,
2020, and the online learning options offered to OU students were
subpar as compared to in-person classes in practically every
aspect. A "vast difference" in OU's pricing structure for different
modalities of education is alleged as evidence that online and
in-person classes are not equivalent.

According to the complaint, Gila, an Ohio resident, was a student
in the undergraduate business program at OU's Athens campus in the
spring of 2020. Gila did not enroll in OU's offered online program,
but instead enrolled in classes she believed, based on the course
catalogue and website, would be taught in-person. The complaint
asserts Yana paid OU approximately $6,022.39 in tuition in fees for
the spring semester of 2020 and did not receive any refund despite
classes not being held in-person between March 10, 2020 and the
conclusion of the semester (on April 25, 2020 with finals held up
through May 1, 2020).

Based on these allegations, the Dukes brought claims of breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion against OU on behalf of
the class. Specific to the breach of contract claim, the Dukes
alleged, through the admission agreement and payment of tuition and
fees, they and each member of the Class entered into a binding
contract with OU and that, as a part of the contract, and in
exchange for the aforementioned consideration, OU promised to
provide certain in-person educational services. The injuries
sustained by the Dukes and members of the class included but are
not limited to being deprived of the education, experience, and
services to which they were promised and for which they have
already paid. As to the unjust enrichment claims, the complaint
states that the Dukes and the members of the class conferred a
benefit upon OU in the form of tuition and fees that entitled them
to in-person educational services through the end of the spring
semester but that OU retained this benefit after failing to provide
the in-person educational services.

OU filed an answer and affirmative defenses on March 8, 2021. In
it, OU denied the action is maintainable as a class action, denied
students paid more for in-person classes compared to online
classes, and, while admitting it entered into a contractual
relationship with Gila, denied the Dukes' framing of the terms of
the contract and that it entered a contractual relationship with
her mother. On July 21, 2021, Yana filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of all claims against OU pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a).

On Sept. 30, 2021, Gila filed a motion for class certification. OU
opposed Gila's motion for class certification on Nov. 8, 2021. OU
contended that a rigorous analysis of the requirements of Civ.R. 23
demonstrates a class should not be certified. Gila filed a reply on
Dec. 6, 2021.

A hearing on class certification took place remotely on Jan. 18,
2022. On Feb. 25, 2022, the trial court filed a decision and
judgment entry granting Gila's motion for class certification.

Accordingly, the trial court defined the class as "all
undergraduate students enrolled in classes at the Athens campus of
Ohio University during the Spring 2020 semester who paid tuition
and/or the general fee."

It held that Gila's proposed class, as defined in the decision,
satisfied the requirements for class certification by a
preponderance of the evidence. The trial court requested that Gila
inform the court concerning her preferences for the appointment of
class counsel and provide supporting evidence as to the adequacy of
the proposed class counsel. On March 9, 2022, the trial court filed
an entry appointing class counsel and certifying the class, as
defined.

OU filed a timely notice of appeal. It sets forth six assignments
of error for review:

      1. The trial court erred in concluding there is an
identifiable class and that Plaintiff's claims are typical of the
class.

      2. The trial court erred in concluding individualized issues
do not predominate over any purported common questions regarding
the existence of an implied contract for in-person classes during a
pandemic.

      3. The trial court erred in concluding individualized issues
do not predominate over any purported common questions regarding
whether online classes provided during the Spring 2020 semester
were materially deficient.

      4. The trial court erred in concluding individualized issues
do not predominate over any purported common questions with respect
to Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment.

      5. The trial court erred in concluding Plaintiff can
establish class-wide damages.

      6. The trial court erred in concluding that Plaintiff is an
adequate class representative.

The Court of Appeals finds that OU has demonstrated the trial court
abused its discretion in failing to conduct a rigorous analysis on
class certification, particularly as to whether Gila met her burden
of proving through common evidence that all the class members were
in fact injured by OU's actions and whether the proposed model is
capable of determining damages on a class-wide basis. Specifically,
the trial court did not undertake a rigorous analysis with respect
to the number and nature of individualized inquires that might be
necessary to establish liability. The Court of Appeals concludes
that OU's fifth assignment of error challenging the trial court's
determination of injury and damages to have merit. It further finds
that the error renders the remaining assignments of error moot at
this juncture.

Having sustained assignment of error five, and determined
assignments of error one, two, three, four, and six to be moot, the
Court of Appeals reverses the judgment of the Court of Claims of
Ohio. The cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with
its Decision.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 27, 2022 Decision is available
at https://tinyurl.com/m7jdyphd from Leagle.com.

On brief: Carpenter Lipps and Leland LLP, and Michael H. Carpenter
-- carpenter@carpenterlipps.com -- Timothy R. Bricker --
bricker@carpenterlipps.com -- and Michael N. Beekhuizen, for the
Appellant. Argued: Michael N. Beekhuizen.

On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Lynch Carpenter, LLP,
and Kathleen P. Lally, for the Appellee. Argued: Eddie Jae K. Kim.


OSMOSE UTILITIES: Corvin Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Timothy Corvin, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. OSMOSE UTILITIES SERVICES,
INC., Case No. 2022-00742 was removed from the Court of Common
Pleas of Mifflin County, to the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 29, 2022, and assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-02060-JPW.

The Plaintiff alleges to have worked as a Crew Member for Osmose in
Pennsylvania from January 2022 through March 2022 (approximately
12.71 weeks). During that time period, Plaintiff earned $18.15 per
hour and averaged approximately 37.52 hours worked each week.  The
Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that Crew Members worked up to 7
days per week and up to 10 hours per day, or up to 70 hours per
week, but were not clocked in and paid for certain tasks, such as
travel time, trash removal, cleaning the truck, and unloading
equipment. The Plaintiff accordingly purports to have worked
approximately 31.52 unpaid straight time hours and 381.3 unpaid
overtime hours. As such, the Plaintiff alleges to be owed up to
$572.01 in unpaid straight time (calculated by multiplying $18.15
by purported unpaid straight time hours) and $10,382.80 in overtime
(calculated by multiplying $27.23 by purported overtime
hours).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                 nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Heather Steele, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          Two Logan Square, 12th Floor
          100 N 18th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (610) 230-2134
          Email: hsteele@fisherphillips.com

               - and -

          Matthew R. Simpson, Esq.
          JonVieve D. Hill, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
          1230 Peachtree Street NE, Ste., 3300
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (404) 231-1400
          Facsimile: (404) 240-4249
          Email: msimpson@fisherphillips.com
                 jhill@fisherphillips.com


OSMOSE UTILITIES: Davis-Harris Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Halif Davis-Harris and Aaron Tutt,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
OSMOSE UTILITIES SERVICES, INC., Case No. UNN-L-2915-22 was removed
from the New Jersey Superior Court, Union County, Law Division, to
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
Dec. 28, 2022, and assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-07551-BRM-JSA.

The nature of suit is Other Labor for Labor Litigation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                 nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Heather Steele, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          Two Logan Square, 12th Floor
          100 N 18th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (610) 230-2134
          Email: hsteele@fisherphillips.com


OSMOSE UTILITIES: Weaver Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gregory Weaver, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. OSMOSE UTILITIES SERVICES,
INC., Case No. 2022LA37 was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Fourth Judicial Circuit in Marion County, Illinois, to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Dec.
28, 2022, and assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-03108.

The Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that Crew Members worked up
to 7 days per week and up to 10 hours per day, or up to 70 hours
per week, but were not clocked in and paid for certain tasks, such
as travel time, trash removal, cleaning the truck, and unloading
equipment. The Plaintiff accordingly purports to have worked
approximately 175.53 unpaid straight time hours and 1,427.1 unpaid
overtime hours. As such, Plaintiff alleges to be owed up to
$2,720.72 in unpaid straight time (calculated by multiplying $15.50
by purported unpaid straight time hours) and $33,180.08 in overtime
(calculated by multiplying $23.25 by purported unpaid overtime
hours).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                 nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jason D Keck, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          10 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3450
          Chicago, Illinois 60606
          Phone: (312) 346-8061
          Email: jkeck@fisherphillips.com

               - and -

          Matthew R. Simpson, Esq.
          JonVieve D. Hill, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
          1230 Peachtree Street NE, Ste., 3300
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (404) 231-1400
          Facsimile: (404) 240-4249
          Email: msimpson@fisherphillips.com
                 jhill@fisherphillips.com


PEACEHEALTH: Zimmerman Sues Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE ZIMMERMAN, an individual; and CHRISTINA AST, an individual;
and CYNTHIA HAEHNEL, an individual; and MARGARET SMARR, an
individual; and AMBER SCHAEFFER, an individual; and MICAH BURR, an
individual; and SARAH BEAM, an individual; and JUSTIN SYRING, an
individual; and REBECCA LAUGHLIN, an individual; and LILIYA DUDIK,
an individual; and GEORGE ALLEN, an individual; and VICTORIA
FISHER, an individual; and MELLISSA KOLB, an individual; and ALIVIA
VEGA, an individual; and KAREN F. WICKEN, an individual; and AMY
MAKARENKO, an individual; and AMY ELIZABETH REED, an individual;
and KAREN BRANCH, an individual; and ANNA MEADOWS, an individual;
and MICHAEL ROGEN, an individual; MARIA O'NEILL, an individual; E
ISHA MORENO, an individual; JOHN DOES 1-400; and JANE DOES 1-400,
Plaintiffs v. PEACEHEALTH, a non-profit corporation, LIZ DUNNE,
President and Chief Executive Officer at PeaceHealth, RICHARD
DeCARLO, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer at
PeaceHealth, STEVE GLENN, Executive Vice President and Chief
Administrative Officer, SARAH NESS, Executive Vice President,
People and Culture of PeaceHealth, SCOTT FOSTER, Chief Executive,
PeaceHealth Medical Group, MICHELLE JAMES, RN, Senior Vice
President for Patient Care Services and Chief Nursing Officer, DOUG
KOEKKOEK, MD, Chief Physician and Clinical Executive, CHARLES
PROSPER, MSPT, MBA, Chief Executive, Northwest Network, Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-05960 (W.D. Wash., Dec. 12, 2022) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiffs claiming religious discrimination
at the Defendants' hands through the implementation and enforcement
of COVID-19 vaccine mandate policy which mandated a COVID-19
vaccine as a condition of employment.

According to the complaint, while the policy on its face allowed
individuals to claim religious exemptions and receive
accommodations, PeaceHealth denied all of these requests from
Plaintiffs. Moreover, the Policy required Plaintiffs to receive a
drug that is in clinical investigation stages in the COVID-19
vaccines. Through the Policy, Defendants mandated a vaccine that
was, and remains authorized through an Emergency Use Authorization
granted by the by the United States Federal Drug Administration
under the Food Drugs and Cosmetics Act, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent the following class: All
PeaceHealth employees who are or will be placed on administrative
leave without pay or terminated by PeaceHealth as an accommodation
to a request for a seeking a religious or medical exemption and
accommodation to PeaceHealth's COVID-19 vaccine requirement.

PEACEHEALTH is a not-for-profit healthcare system headquartered in
Clark County, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Simon Peter Serrano, Esq.
          SILENT MAJORITY FOUNDATION
          5238 Outlet Dr.
          Pasco, WA 99301
          Telephone: (530) 906-9666
          E-mail: pete@silentmajorityfoundation.org

PERLIER INC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Perlier, Inc. The
case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Perlier,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10917-CM (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 27, 2022).

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

Perlier, Inc. -- https://perlier.com/ -- offers skin care
cosmetics, hand & body lotions, creams, anti-aging beauty products,
bath or shower creams & gels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PLDT INC: Aims to Nip Potential Suit Over Securities Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Inquirer.net reports that PLDT Inc. aims to nip a potential class
action suit in the bud by reaching out to US-based law firms that
had expressed intent to probe if the telco giant violated federal
securities law in relation to its P48-billion budget overrun.

Manuel V. Pangilinan, chair of the telco giant, said during their
recent special briefing they were aware of the possible legal
battle the company was facing after it disclosed its overspending
on capital outlays in the past four years.

"We have received reports that there's a law firm . . . threatening
to launch a class action suit against the company because of our US
listings," Pangilinan said.

"But we are now in conversation with these lawyers in respect to
this potential threat to the company," he added.

Inquirer reported recently that several US law firms -- Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, The Schall Law Firm, Johnson Fistel LLP and
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith -- were keen to investigate PLDT for
possible federal securities law violations on behalf of investors.

Price drop
These law firms are reaching out to investors for a potential class
action suit after PLDT American Depositary Receipts dropped by more
than 23 percent on Dec. 19 following the budget overrun
disclosure.

The Schall Law Firm said the probe would focus on "whether the
company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose information pertinent to investors."

The Pangilinan-led company is investigating the budget mess but
assured investors that it had so far found no fraudulent
activities. It attributed the additional spending on "over orders"
of key network gear as it builds up 5G infrastructure.

PLDT had to store some of the 5G assets in the warehouses as it
slowed down on deployment given the low market penetration.

The telco player is also negotiating with vendors to slash their
obligations, in addition to seeking payment deferral, to mitigate
the impact of the overspending on their bottom line.

Beginning next year, PLDT president and CEO Alfredo Panlilio also
said they would cut their capital outlays.

"Thereafter, we expect capex to reduce steadily. 2023 will be a
year of consolidation as we continue to strengthen and grow the
business," he earlier said.

PLDT also announced plans to borrow about P35 to P45 billion in the
next two years to fund its capex, dividends and general corporate
matters.

On Dec. 23, PLDT shares fell by 1.52 percent, or P19, to close at
P1,230 each. [GN]

POINTSBET USA: Ct. Moots Bid to Deny Rule 23 Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gutman v. PointsBet USA
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02137 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge S.
Kato Crews entered an order mooting:

   -- motion to dismiss order on motion for extension of time
      file P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); and

   -- motion to deny class certification under Rule 23.

The nature of suit states torts -- personal property --
diversity-fraud.

PointsBet offers sports and racing betting markets.[CC]

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces Moore Suit Over Biometric Voice Prints
------------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY MOORE, JR., individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
3:22-cv-02023-L-MSB (S.D. Cal., Dec. 20, 2022) alleges that
Defendant unlawfully uses, examines, and records the Plaintiff's
and putative Class members' biometric voice prints in violation
California Invasion of Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff contends that Defendant utilizes a system that
enables it to examine the voice of anyone that calls it to
determine the truth or falsity of the callers' statements. The
software combines audio, voice, and artificial intelligence
technologies to compare the callers' voices to a comprehensive
database of recordings and metrics.
The system Defendant uses allegedly allows it to authenticate or
refute the true identity of callers, among other things. The system
contains voice recognition software that creates a biometric voice
print of each caller. The system then allows Defendant to analyze
the callers' voice prints to determine the truth or falsity of
their statements.

Accordingly, the Defendant recognizes consumers' identities by (1)
making a recording of the initial call with the consumer (2)
examining that recording to identify specific stress patterns and
other characteristics to create a "voice print" which is entered
into a database then (3) examining all subsequent calls from that
consumer and comparing the voice prints to those already on file
for that consumer. The Defendant did not obtain prior express
written consent from Plaintiff or Class members to examine their
voices or record their unique voice prints to determine the truth
or falsity of their statements, in violation of Cal. Penal Code
Section 637.3, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and equitable relief as is necessary
to protect the interests of Plaintiff and the Class by requiring
Defendant to comply with CIPA's requirements for the use,
recording, and  examination of voice prints or other voice stress
patterns, and damages of $1,000 for each violation of CIPA pursuant
to Cal. Penal Code section 637.3(c).

Progressive Casualty is an insurance company.[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
          Telephone: (866) 219-3343
          E-mail: 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
          Telephone: (619) 222-7429
          E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Seeks to Exclude Experts' Testimony
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINICK VOLINO, ET AL.,
v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., Case No.
1:21-cv-06243-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter
an order granting their motion to Exclude the Testimony of
Plaintiffs' Experts Jason Merritt, Kenneth Volz, and Thomas Gibbs,
for purposes of class certification.

Progressive Casualty is an insurance company.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
          Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
          J. Matthew Brigman, Esq.
          Allison Hill White, Esq.
          Julia C. Barrett, Esq.
          Laura E. Harris, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
          E-mail: jcashdan@kslaw.com
                  zmcentyre@kslaw.com
                  mbrigman@kslaw.com
                  awhite@kslaw.com
                  jbarrett@kslaw.com
                  lharris@kslaw.com

RACKSPACE TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Lethe Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lethe, Jake Vinson, VOIP Citadel LLC, and Richard Ackerman,
individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v.
Rackspace Technology, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-01378 (W.D. Tex., Dec.
22, 2022) alleges that Defendant breached its duties, and was
negligent, by failing to use reasonable measures to protect
Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII.

The specific negligent acts and omissions committed by the
Defendant include:

  --  a. Failing to adopt, implement, and maintain adequate
         security measures to safeguard Plaintiffs' and Class
         Members' PII;

  --  b. Failing to adequately monitor the security of its networks
       
         and systems;

  --  c. Failing to periodically ensure that its systems had plans
         in place to maintain reasonable data security safeguards;

  --  d. Allowing unauthorized access to Plaintiffs' and Class
         Members' PII; and

  --  e. Failing to detect in a timely manner that Plaintiffs' and

         Class Members'PII had been compromised.

Starting on December 2, 2022, Rackspace determined that its network
was subject to a security incident. Rackspace later determined that
the incident was the result of a ransomware event, through which
cybercriminals had infiltrated, at least, part of its
system, compromising customers' email accounts. The files stolen
from Rackspace contained the following information of Plaintiffs
and Class Members: first names, last names, dates of birth, and
Social Security numbers, among other sensitive data. The Plaintiffs
and Class Members are entitled to compensatory and consequential
damages suffered as a result of the Data Breach.

The Plaintiffs and Class Members are also entitled to injunctive
relief requiring Defendant to, e.g., (i) strengthen its data
security systems and monitoring procedures; (ii) submit to future
annual audits of those systems and monitoring procedures; and (iii)
continue to provide adequate credit monitoring to all the
Plaintiffs and Class Members.

Mr. David Lethe is a resident and citizen of the State of Texas,
and his Personal Information as well as business information was
compromised in the data breach.

Rackspace offers managed email and cloud services to customers
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Debbie Branscum, Esq.
          P.O. Box 394
          Bedford, TX 76095
          Telephone: (214) 206-1975
          E-mail: dbranscum@tx.rr.com

RAMON LUNA: Almaraz Seeks Employees' Minimum & OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
LISANDRO MONJARAZ ALMARAZ, individually, and on behalf 0f all
others similarly situated, v. RAMON LUNA COMPANY, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22CV408856
(Cal. Super., Dec. 22, 2022) seeks to recover wages and penalties
from unpaid wages earned and due in violations of the California
wage and hour laws.

The Defendant allegedly failed to provide legally compliant meal
and rest breaks and failed to provide proper compensation for
missed and unlawful meal and rest breaks, unpaid and illegally
calculated regular and overtime compensation, failed to pay minimum
wages, failed to pay all wages earned, failed to pay all wages due
to discharged or quitting non-exempt employees, failed to maintain
required records, failed to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failed to comply With California Labor Code section
246, failed to provide California COVID-19 supplemental paid sick
leave, and failed to provide suitable resting facilities, and
failed to provide suitable seating.

The Defendant has implemented an unlawful rounding practice, which
in conjunction with its strict attendance policy, results in the
systematic underpayment of both regular and overtime wages to the
Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees.

The Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees similarly do not
receive reimbursements for the expenses they incur in the discharge
f their job duties. These expenses include cellular phone usage and
personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic, says
the suit.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant in the produce
department, a non-exempt position, at Defendant's market located in
Mountain View, California.

Ramon Luna owns and manages one or more grocery stores and a
warehouse located throughout Northern California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Ernest Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT ERNEST WHEELER
          250 West First Street, Suite 216
          Claremont, CA 91711
          Telephone: (909) 621-4988
          Facsimile: (909) 621-4622
          E-mail: sew@scottwheelerlawoffice.com

                - and -

          Aubry Wand, Esq.
          THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (310) 590-4503
          E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com

RC VISIONS LLC: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RC Visions LLC. The
case is styled as Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. RC Visions LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-10924 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 27, 2022).

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

RC Visions -- https://rcvisions.com/ -- carry a full line of
Cars/Trucks, Boats, Airplanes, Crawlers and Drones..[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


REALPAGE INC: Augustson Sues Over Sherman Antitrust Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mia IronEyes Augustson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RealPage, Inc., Greystar Worldwide, LLC; FPI
Management, Northland Investment Corporation, RPM Living, Monarch
Investment and Management Group, NALS Apartment Homes, and Landmark
Realty; Case No. 1:22-cv-00976-LF (D.N.M., Dec. 27, 2022), is
brought against the Defendants' violation of the Sherman Antitrust
Act, and the Clayton Antitrust Act seeking a Federal ban on
RealPage from administering or controlling any projects or
properties receiving Federal funds.

RealPage is used by the vast majority of major multifamily property
investment firms, and even controls many senior housing, student
housing and "Section 8" housing developments nationwide. The other
listed Defendants are major multifamily housing Lessor corporations
("Lessors"). Between them, they control millions of apartment
housing units nationwide. All these Lessors, and many others
besides, use RealPage.

In October 2022, an investigation by ProPublica into the causes of
nationwide surges in rental costs--forty percent in the last two
years--revealed the following: That RealPage's YieldStar software
has been "suggesting" rental values fo all its client Lessors,
using the collective data from all. That RealPage has been
pressuring Lessors to accept the suggested values unaltered, and
openly credits itself with pushing unprecedented increases in
rental values, increases far beyond what the market would normally
bear. This results in a strategic, constant turnover, the pricing
of lessees out of their homes, to be replaced by new ones who can
afford the new rate. That YieldStar co-creator Jeffrey Roper was
called before the Department of Justice on price-fixing charges,
for using nearly the same strategy in influencing airfares between
1988 and 1992, with the same resulting harm to consumers.

Upon ProPublica's release of the article, calls were sounded in
both houses of Congress for a Justice Department investigation into
antitrust activities on the part of RealPage and its Lessor
clients. In their letters to the Justice Department and the Federal
Trade Commission, RealPage and its clients are accused of acting in
collusion, using inside information in the manner of a cartel, in
violation of Federal antitrust law. The requested investigation has
reportedly been opened.

From 2020 to 2021, The Plaintiff's rent increased $200 per month,
over 20 percent. In order to make rent, it was necessary to
liquidate $3,500 in savings, and a vehicle on which $9,000 is still
owed; all to make rental payments. In late 2022, the Plaintiff lost
the apartment anyway, to "renovation" which is another strategy
endorsed by RealPage and commonly used by Lessors to force a unit
turnover when nonpayment of rent cannot be cited as a cause. This
left the Plaintiff with no home, no place to go and no resources to
get there, as was attested before City 78 Council, Albuquerque, New
Mexico. The stress of a serious threat of homelessness resulted in
the hospitalization of the Plaintiff's spouse. The Plaintiff had to
borrow from relatives a total of $2,400 in deposits, another $660
in mover's fees, and was met with another $200/month rent hike at
the new apartment, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New
Mexico.

RealPage, Inc. ("RealPage"), provides software and services to the
multifamily housing industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


REDDIT INC: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco employment law attorneys, at Blumenthal
Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action lawsuit
against Reddit, Inc., alleging the company violated the California
Labor Code. The lawsuit against Reddit, Inc. is currently pending
in the San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-22-603466.
To read a copy of the Complaint, please click here.

Reddit, Inc. allegedly failed to reimburse employees for required
business expenses. California Labor Code Sec. 2802 expressly states
that "an employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all
necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct
consequence of the discharge of his or her duties . . . " During
employment, Plaintiff and other California Class Members were
allegedly required to use their personal cellular phones and home
offices as a result of and in furtherance of their job duties.

Additionally, Reddit, Inc. allegedly administered a uniform
practice of rounding the actual time worked and recorded by
Plaintiff and California Class Members. As a result, Plaintiff and
California Class Members were allegedly paid for less hours than
the actual amount worked. This, allegedly, includes the time
employees had to submit to mandatory COVID-19 questionnaires and
temperature checks prior to clocking in for the day. To the extent
that the time worked off the clock did not qualify for overtime
premium payment, Defendant allegedly failed to pay minimum and
overtime wages for the time worked off-the-clock.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against Reddit,
Inc., call (800) 568-8020 to speak to an experienced California
employment attorney today.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is a labor law firm with
law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los
Angeles County, Sacramento County, Santa Clara County, Orange
County, and San Francisco County. The firm has a statewide practice
of representing employees on a contingency basis for violations
involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrimination, harassment,
wrongful termination, and other types of illegal workplace conduct.
[GN]

REMCO INSURANCE: Villarreal Sues Over Insurance Agents' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA VILLARREAL, individually and for others similarly situated
v. REMCO INSURANCE AGENCIES, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-04272 (S.D.
Tex., Dec. 12, 2022) seeks to recover Plaintiff's unpaid overtime
wages and other damages from Remco Insurance Agencies, Inc. under
the Fair Labor Standards Act

Ms. Villarreal worked for Remco as an insurance agent from April
2020 to October 2022. She asserts that she regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours a week without receiving overtime pay from the
Defendant.

Remco Insurance provides various forms of insurance to its client
throughout Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


RESORT LEGAL SERVICE: Grochowski Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alan Grochowski, Sr., individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated v. Resort Legal Service, LLC, Case
No. 2:22-cv-14321 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri on Dec. 27, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-01378-SEP to the
proceeding.

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

Resort Legal Service, L.L.C -- https://resortlegalservice.com/ --
is a commercial real estate and business company in Eureka,
Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Rachel E Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Arthur D. Goldman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ARTHUR GOLDMAN LLC
          1800 E Lancaster Ave Suite M
          Po Box 115
          Paoli, PA 19301
          Email: arthurdgoldman@hotmail.com

               - and -

          Daniel Alexander Drazen, Esq.
          THE INJURY FIRM
          1608 E. Commercial Blvd.
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
          Phone: (954) 951-0000
          Email: dan@flinjuryfirm.com


REVENEER INC: Wierman Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Sales Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
CASEY WIERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REVENEER, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-12187 (D. Mass., December 22, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated sales employees overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the
Massachusetts Overtime Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a sales employee in and
around Lexington, Massachusetts, from approximately October 2021
until February 2022.

Reveneer, Inc. is a sales enablement company, with its principal
place of business located at 10 Maguire Road, Lexington,
Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Matthew W. Thomson, Esq.
         Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
         LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, PC
         729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
         Boston, MA 02116
         Telephone: (617) 994–5800
         E-mail: mthomson@llrlaw.com
                 ssb@llrlaw.com

                 - and -

         Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
         WERMAN SALAS PC
         77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 419-1008
         E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com

                 - and -

         Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
         WERMAN SALAS PC
         35 18th Pl NE
         Washington, DC 20002
         Telephone: (202) 830-2016
         E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com

SAMARITAN DAYTOP: Underpays Overnight House Managers, Swindell Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DION SWINDELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAMARITAN DAYTOP VILLAGE, INC. and MITCHELL
NETBURN, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-07825 (E.D.N.Y., December 22,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid wages,
including overtime, due to time shaving and unpaid spread of hours
premium in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an overnight house
manager at a Samaritan Village center located at 88 Fox Hollow Rd.,
Rhinebeck, New York from August 8, 2017 until his termination in
January 2021.

Samaritan Daytop Village, Inc. is an owner and operator of programs
and residential treatment centers, headquartered in New York, New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         C.K. Lee, Esq.
         Anne Seelig, Esq.
         LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
         148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
         New York, NY 10011
         Telephone: (212) 465-1188
         Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

SAN FRANCISCO BAR: Reed Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Raymond Reed, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. THE SAN FRANCISCO BAR PILOTS
BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. CGC-22-601736 was removed from the San
Francisco County Superior Court, to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Dec. 28, 2022, and
assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-09136.

The Complaint contains nine causes of action, alleging: Failure to
Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to
Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks;
Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to
Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay All Wages
to Piece-Rate Workers; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at
Termination; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gregory G. Iskander, Esq.
          Cristina L. Piechocki, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Treat Towers
          1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Phone: 925.932.2468
          Fax: 925.946.9809
          Email: giskander@littler.com
                 cpiechocki@littler.com


SAPUTO DAIRY FOODS: Vargas Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Nataly Lopez Vargas, an individual, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. SAPUTO DAIRY FOODS
USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. CV-22-005385 was removed from the
San Francisco County Superior Court, to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Dec. 28, 2022, and
assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-01645-ADA-BAM.

The Complaint alleges causes of action for Failure to Provide
Required Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods;
Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;
Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees;
Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to
Maintain Required Records; and Failure to Indemnify Employees for
Necessary Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of Duties; Unfair and
Unlawful Business Practices.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          S. Brett Sutton, Esq.
          Jared Hague, Esq.
          Jonathan W. Black, Esq.
          SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION, P.C.
          5200 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 203
          Fresno, CA 93704
          Phone: (559) 325-0500
          Facsimile: (559) 981-1217


SELECT MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Employees' OT Wages, Marcy Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN MARCY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION, SELECT EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC,
Case No. 2:22-cv-04451-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 21, 2022) seeks to
recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
the Ohio Wage Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

The Plaintiff contends that during their employment with the
Defendants, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated direct care
employees were not fully and properly paid for all overtime wages
because the Defendants required a 30-minute meal break to be
deducted from their compensable hours worked, even when they were
unable to take a full, uninterrupted 30-minute meal break. The
Defendants' facilities were understaffed, and, as a result of the
same, they were often too busy with substantive work to take a
full, uninterrupted 30-minute meal break, the Plaintiff claims.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly
worked more than 40 hours per workweek, or they would have worked
more than 40 hours per workweek if their hours were not reduced by
the meal break deduction, but they were not paid one-and-one-half
times (1.5x) their regular rates of pay for all of hours worked
over 40 as a result of Defendants' daily deduction of 30 minutes
for meal breaks that were not taken or that were otherwise
interrupted or shortened by work.

The Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt "employee" of the
Defendants in the position of Respiratory Therapist from June 2021
to the present.

Select Medical is a healthcare company based in Pennsylvania. It
owns long term acute care and inpatient rehabilitation hospitals,
as well as occupational health and physical therapy clinics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
          Tristan T. Akers, Esq.
          1550 Old Henderson Rd, Suite #126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  takers@mcoffmanlegal.com

SESEN BIO: Keller Suit Alleges Board's Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHOLOM D. KELLER, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. SESEN BIO, INC., THOMAS R. CANNELL, JAY S. DUKER,
CARRIE L. BOURDOW, PETER K. HONIG, MICHAEL A.S. JEWETT, and JASON
A. KEYES, Case No. 2022-1186 (Del. Ch., Dec. 21, 2022) is a class
action arising from breaches of fiduciary duty by the Board in
connection with solicitation of Sesen public stockholders to vote
in favor of a proposal to issue shares of Sesen common stock to
stockholders of CARISMA Therapeutics in connection with a reverse
merger pursuant to which each share of Carisma stock outstanding
prior to the       Merger will be converted into the right to
receive 24.5844 shares of Sesen common stock ("Exchange Ratio") and
Carisma will survive as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sesen.

According to the complaint, the Exchange Ratio is subject to
adjustments prior to the closing of the Merger based on (i) Sesen's
net cash at the closing of the Merger, and (ii) the aggregate
proceeds from the sale of Carisma common stock in connection with a
pre-closing financing by Carisma ("Pre-Closing Financing"). On
September 21, 2022, Sesen announced that the Board had approved the
Merger with Carisma.

On December 14, 2022, the Defendants authorized the filing of a
Form S-4 second amended registration statement with the SEC also
constituting, inter alia, a proxy statement ("Proxy") with respect
to Sesen under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act to solicit Sesen
stockholders to vote in favor of the Share Issuance Proposal at a
special meeting of Sesen stockholders. The Proxy includes the
unanimous recommendation of the Board that Sesen stockholders vote
to approve the Share Issuance Proposal. Without Sesen stockholder
approval of the Share Issuance Proposal, the Merger cannot proceed,
the Plaintiff claims.

The Proxy, however, omits certain material facts that must be
disclosed to Sesen stockholders before the Stockholder Vote to
enable them to cast fully informed votes with respect to the Share
Issuance Proposal, the Plaintiff adds.

Accordingly, the Proxy provides provides conflicting explanations
to Sesen stockholders concerning whether or not the additional
Carisma shares issued in connection with the Concurrent
Transactions are included in or excluded from the Pre-Merger
Carisma Share Count for purposes of calculating the division of
ownership in the Combined Entity between Sesen and Carisma
stockholders. Given these contradictory explanations concerning how
Carisma shares issued in connection with the two Concurrent
Transactions impact the percentage ownership of Sesen and Carisma
stockholders in the Combined Entity, the Proxy fails to provide
Sesen stockholders with adequate information concerning how to
accurately calculate their percentage ownership in the Combined
Entity after taking the Concurrent Transactions into account, the
suit further alleges.

The Plaintiff is a stockholder of Sesen.

Sesen is a late-stage clinical company that focuses on targeted
fusion protein therapeutics for the treatment of patients with
cancer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          Andrew Ralli, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3889
          Facsimile: (302) 984-3939
          E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com
                  aralli@coochtaylor.com

                - and -

          Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq.
          WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
          25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G
          Monsey, NY 10952
          Telephone: (845) 290-6818
          E-mail: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com

SHAMROCK CABINET: Brandon, et al., Seek Class Settlement Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL BRANDON MILLETT,
WILLIAM MORGAN, and BRANDON MENDOZA, on behalf of themselves
individually and all other similarly situated employees, v.
SHAMROCK CABINET & FIXTURE CORPORATION, Case No. (W.D. Mo.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. approving the Settlement Agreement that will be provided
      in supplemental briefing;

   2. certifying and approving the Rule 23 Class;

   3. certifying and approving the Fair Labor Standards Act
      (FLSA) Class; and

   4. approving the notices of settlement that will be provided
      in supplemental briefing in advance of the April 27, 2023
      hearing.

The Plaintiffs seek a service payment, or award, for their service
contributions to the Class in the amount of $10,000.00 for
Plaintiff Brandon Millett and $5,000 for Plaintiffs Brandon Mendoza
and William Morgan.

The total requested service award constitutes 1.6% of the total
settlement funding. Through the course of this litigation,
Plaintiffs -- primarily Millett, who attended both mediations and
who has provided significant factual information to class counsel
-- have provided information to and otherwise assisted class
counsel with prosecution of the litigation in service of
the rest of the class.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs took a risk by putting their names on
the litigation. By lending their names to employment litigation,
they have risked damage of their reputation to current and future
employers.

In the underlying action, which the Plaintiffs initiated on
September 2, 2021, Plaintiffs allege, in part, that Defendant
violated the FLSA and Missouri's Minimum Wage Law ("MMWL") by
failing to properly compensate its hourly, non-exempt employees for
their hours worked, by failing to pay them minimum wage, and by
failing to properly pay them overtime wages.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend that Defendant: (a) improperly
rounded their time worked in a manner that systematically
under-counted the employees' actual time worked; and (b) improperly
deducted a 30-minute meal break from each shift, regardless of
whether the break in question lasted for 30 minutes, and even when
the employee did not take a meal break.

The Rule 23 Class and FLSA Collective include Defendants'
nonexempt employees employed by Defendant between
September 2, 2018 and October 4, 2022.

The main terms of the Settlement Agreement are as follows:

   -- Gross Settlement Amount of $1,250,000.00 for 214 class
      members

   -- Net Settlement Fund (to distribute to class members) of
      $875,000.00

   -- Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, including the costs of
      administration, of $375,000.00

   -- $125.00 will be paid automatically to each of the Rule 23
      Class members (214 individuals) without the need to file a
      claim or opt-into participation in the settlement in
      exchange for a release of the Plaintiffs' claim under the
      Missouri Minimum Wage Law.

In recognition of the service contributions of Plaintiffs, they
seek service awards of $10,000 for Plaintiff Brandon Millett and
$5,000 each for Plaintiffs Brandon Mendoza and William Morgan.

The remaining funds in the Net Settlement Fund ($828,250) will be
distributed in two payments, six months apart, to the class members
who opt to file a straightforward claim to effectuate a release of
FLSA claims. Only such claimants will release FLSA claims.

Shamrock manufactures wooden home and commercial furniture.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 30, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ci3y9X at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

SNAP FINANCE: Fails to Secure Clients' PII, Sanchez Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SNAP FINANCE LLC and SNAP RTO LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-00791-JCB (D. Utah, Dec. 21, 2022) alleges that Defendants
betrayed the trust of their clients, Plaintiff and Class members by
failing to properly safeguard and protect their PIIs, thus enabling
cybercriminals to steal and misuse it.

On June 23, 2022, cybercriminals foreseeably accessed files on
Defendants' network containing the PII of Plaintiff and thousands
of other Class Members. This unauthorized and relatively unfettered
access by cybercriminals lasted for more than two months, ending
only on September 8, 2022.

On October 28, 2022, Snap determined through their investigation
into the Data Breach that the PII of 61,302 customers was
affected.

On December 2022, the Plaintiff received a letter from Snap,
advising him that his PII, including his name and Social Security
number, was potentially accessed or acquired by cybercriminals in
the Data Breach.

As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class members
have already suffered damages. The Plaintiff and Class members are
at imminent and impending risk of identity theft. This risk will
continue for the rest of their lives, as the Plaintiff and Class
members are now forced to deal with the danger of identity thieves
possessing and fraudulently using their PII. The Plaintiff and
Class members have lost time and money responding to and attempting
to mitigate the impact of the Data Breach, the lawsuit claims.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the
Class and seeks actual damages, statutory damages, treble damages,
restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief (including
significant improvements to Defendants' data security protocols and
employee training practices), reasonable attorney's fees, costs,
and expenses incurred in bringing this action, and all other
remedies this Court deems just and proper.

Snap Finance provide financing services, including "lease to own"
contracts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles H. Thronson, Esq.
          PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
          201 S. Main Street, Suite 1800
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532-1234
          Facsmile: (801) 536-6111
          E-mail: cthronson@parsonsbehle.com

                - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

                - and -

          A. Brooke Murphy, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW FIRM
          4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 389-4989
          E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com

SOLID POWER: Pomerantz LLP Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Solid Power, Inc. ("Solid Power" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SLDP).
Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

The investigation concerns whether Solid Power and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.

On November 29, 2022, Solid Power abruptly announced the
resignation of Douglas Campbell as Chief Executive Officer and from
the Company's board, effective immediately. On news of Campbell's
resignation, DA Davidson analyst Michael Shlisky downgraded Solid
Power's stock to Neutral from Buy.

On this news, Solid Power's stock price fell $0.62 per share, or
14.45%, to close at $3.67 per share on November 30, 2022.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the
Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting
for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class
members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com.

CONTACT:

Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

SPORTSMANS MARKET: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sportsmans Market,
Inc. The case is styled as Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Sportsmans Market,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10925 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 27, 2022).

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

Sportsman's Market, Inc. supplies diversified products. The Company
offers aviation, home, lawn, and garage products.[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


SPOTIFY USA: Discloses Subscribers' Data to Facebook, Saleh Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMED SALEH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPOTIFY USA INC., Defendant, Case No.
BER-L-006625-22 (N.J. Super., Bergen Cty., Dec. 12, 2022) is an
action for damages arising from Defendant's violations of the Video
Privacy Protection Act arising from Defendant's practice of
knowingly disclosing to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc.
("Facebook"), data containing Plaintiff's and other
digital-subscribers Class Members' personally identifiable
information or Facebook ID and the computer file containing video
and its corresponding URL viewed.

According to the complaint, the information shared with Facebook,
through the Facebook Pixel, a snippet of programming code, includes
the title of the prerecorded video the subscriber watched, and most
notably, the subscribers' Facebook ID. The Pixel allows Facebook to
build detailed profiles about a website's users as those users
browse the Internet, so that targeted advertisements can be served
on them. This transmission of consumer data through tracking tools
such as the Facebook Pixel violates the Wiretap Act, says the
suit.

Spotify USA Inc. provides an entertainment software. The Company
offers platform that enables users to find music on their phones,
computers, and tablets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW, LLC
          660 Broadway
          Paterson, NJ 07514
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          Facsimile: (973) 282-8603
          E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com

STATE-LINE PRODUCTS: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Pagon Class Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Pagon, Victor Valentin, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated individuals v. State-Line Products of South
Florida, Inc, Case No. 0:22-cv-62389 (S.D. Fla., Dec. 21, 2022)
seek to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under
Fair Labor Standards Act as well as retaliation under United States
laws.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs worked five and six days per week. From
Monday to Friday, the Plaintiffs arrived at the Jobsite at 6:30 AM,
and they worked until 3:30 PM (9 hours daily). From Monday to
Friday, the Plaintiff completed 45 hours. The Defendant paid the
Plaintiffs just 45 hours. However, the Plaintiffs allege that when
they were assigned projects located at least one and a half or two
hours far away from home, the Defendant did not recognize the time
spent driving as compensable time. For example, to be able to show
up for work at 6:30 AM at the project, the Plaintiffs had to leave
home at 5:00 AM. Then to return home, Plaintiffs had to drive a
minimum of two hours back home to Haines City, Florida, says the
suit.

The Plaintiffs claim a minimum of five unpaid travel hours per
week. These five unpaid hours of travel time constitute five unpaid
overtime hours per week. In addition, the Defendant deducted from
Plaintiffs' compensable time, 2.5, as lunchtime weekly, even though
Plaintiffs were unable to take bonafide lunch a minimum of twice
per week. Thus, Plaintiffs claim 1 additional unpaid overtime hour,
the suit asserts.

State-Line Products is a commercial distributor and installer of
fireproofing and fire-stopping products. It specializes in all
types of thermal and acoustical spray installation for industrial,
commercial, healthcare, public, and residential project.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          ZANDRO E. PALMA, Esq.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

SUSHI BY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Lucius Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
WINDY LUCIUS v. SUSHI BY BOU GLOBAL LLC, d/b/a Sushi by Bou, Case
No. 1:22-cv-24118-BB (S.D. Fla., Dec. 20, 2022) alleges that
Defendant has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
by failing to interface its mobile website with VoiceOver screen
reader software utilized by Plaintiff and similarly situated
visually impaired individuals.

The Defendant's violations have resulted in Defendant denying the
Plaintiff accommodation on the basis of her disability:

  -- by depriving Plaintiff of the full and equal enjoyment
     of the goods, services,  facilities, privileges,
     advantages, or accommodations of its place of public
     accommodation; and

  -- in the denial of providing Plaintiff the opportunity to
     participate in or benefit from the goods, services,
     facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations;

The Plaintiff attempted but was unable to access and/or utilize the
mobile website https://sushibybou.com/. The Plaintiff continues to
be unable to enjoy full and equal access to the mobile website
and/or understand the content therein because numerous portions of
the mobile website do not interface with VoiceOver screen reader
software, the lawsuit claims.

SUSHI BY BOU GLOBAL LLC, d/b/a Sushi by Bou, is a Sushi
restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.
          J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC
          8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 351-2014
          E-mail: cc@cunninghampllc.com
                  legal@cunninghampllc.com

SUTTER VALLEY: Bid to Dismiss, Stay or Strike in Tinnin Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KRISTEENA TINNIN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUTTER VALLEY MEDICAL FOUNDATION,
and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00482-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss, stay and/or strike.

Tinnin alleges her former employer committed wage and hour
violations under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, various
provisions of the California Labor Code, and California's Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.

In the instant motion to dismiss, the Defendant argues that the
FLSA cause of action should be dismissed for failure to state a
claim; and that the California class action claims should be
dismissed or stayed, or, failing this, that the class allegations
should be stricken.

The Plaintiff's first claim for relief arises under the FLSA, which
regulates the minimum wages paid to employees, including wages for
"overtime" work. In moving to dismiss, the Defendant relies
principally on Landers v. Quality Commc'ns, Inc., in which the
Ninth Circuit addressed for the first time the degree of
specificity required to state a claim for failure to pay minimum
wages or overtime wages under the FLSA" following the Supreme
Court's decisions in Twombly and Iqbal. The Ninth Circuit
determined that to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff
asserting a claim to overtime payments must allege that she worked
more than forty hours in a given workweek without being compensated
for the overtime hours worked during that workweek.

The SAC contains the following substantive FLSA overtime
allegations: On an average given work week, the Plaintiff was
scheduled to work from about 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. However, she
was required to arrive at work 30-minutes early because she would
be marked late otherwise. The Plaintiff would wait at the workplace
before clocking in five minutes before her shift. Similarly, on an
average given work week, she was also required to work during break
periods without compensation. This time worked in an average work
week exceeded the forty hours of work she was scheduled for and
resulted in overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff was never
compensated for these overtime hours worked while in the employ of
the Defendant.

Judge Thurston holds that these allegations "nudge" the FLSA claim
"across the line from conceivable to plausible. The SAC explains
what kinds of activities Plaintiff claims were uncompensated and
indicates that this uncompensated time pushed the Plaintiff's
workweek beyond forty hours. It further alleges that such weeks --
weeks in which the Plaintiff was required to work uncompensated
time beyond forty hours -- were indeed her "average" workweeks.
This allegation plausibly suggests that uncompensated work was the
"norm" for the Plaintiff. Therefore, the SAC's FLSA allegations are
sufficient for pleading purposes. The Defendant's motion to dismiss
the FLSA claim is denied.

The Defendant next moves to dismiss or stay the California Class
claims based upon the first-to-file doctrine and Colorado River
abstention. Alternatively, it request a discretionary Landis stay.

The Defendant first argues that the so called "first-to-file"
doctrine warrants a stay of the California Class Claims because
similar claims were pending in two state court actions prior to the
Plaintiff amending her complaint to include California class claims
in this case.

Judge Thurston need not be labor an analysis of the content and
timing of the state court actions vis-a-vis this case because
regardless of their similarity or timing, the first-to-file
doctrine does not apply to cases brought before a different
sovereign. Thus, the Defendant's request for a stay based upon the
first-to-file rule is denied.

In its original motion, filed March 10, 2021, the Defendant also
argued that a stay of the California Class claims is warranted
under the abstention doctrine set forth in Colorado River Water
Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). At
that time, it did not request that the Court stays the FLSA claims
pursuant to Colorado River. However, on Feb. 24, 2021, several
weeks before the Defendant filed its motion to dismiss, the Ninth
Circuit issue a ruling that explicitly prohibits partial Colorado
River stays. The Defendant acknowledged this holding in their
reply, and sought a complete stay of all the claims, including the
FLSA claim.

This change of course required an entire new line of argument
addressing whether the state overtime claims may render the FLSA
claims moot. These arguments, raised for the first time in reply,
need not be considered by the Court. Hence, the Defendant's motion
for a partial stay pursuant to Colorado River is in conflict with
binding caselaw and is therefore denied; the alternative motion for
a complete stay is likewise denied because that argument was raised
for the first time in reply.

The Defendant next argues that a stay of the California class
claims is warranted under Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S.
248, 254 (1936).

Assuming purely for purposes of argument that a Landis stay is
appropriate where the competing action arises in state court, Judge
Thurston holds that the present record does not justify such an
action at this time. She denies without prejudice the request. As
to the "immense burden" argument, it is notable that the
Defendant's initial motion sought only to stay the California class
claims, not the Plaintiff's FLSA claims, under Landis. Moreover,
the Court is confident that the counsel can work to avoid
duplicative burdens through coordinated discovery agreements.

Finally, the Defendant moves to strike the Plaintiff's class
definition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) on the
ground that the SAC advances an "improper fail-safe class
definition."

The SAC proposes the following California class: All persons who
are employed or have been employed by Sutter Valley Medical Center
in the State of California who, within four (4) years of the filing
of the Complaint in this case, who have worked as non-exempt hourly
employees and were not paid all lawful wages or not paid statutory
penalties.

Judge Thurston denies as premature the motion to strike the class
allegations. She holds that the procedural mechanism of a motion to
strike is not the appropriate means for addressing a fail-safe
problem.

In light of the foregoing, the Defendant's motion to dismiss, stay,
and/or strike is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 27, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p824n6y from Leagle.com.


SUTTER VALLEY: Ward Seeks Relief to Modify Scheduling Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER WARD, an
individual; and SACORA BESABE, an individual; on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. SUTTER VALLEY
HOSPITALS, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-00581-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion for
administrative relief to modify the scheduling order to allow
hearing on renewed motions for class and conditional
certification.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 30, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z1mp2G at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq.
          Jeffrey T. Green, Esq.
          QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
          Lake Forest, CA 92630
          Telephone: (949) 458-9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458-9679
          E-mail: req@quintlaw.com
                  jtg@quintlaw.com

                - and -

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          Maggie Realin, Esq.
          Lisa R. Brevard, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          888 Prospect Street, Suite 200
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (619) 399-3995
          Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
          E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
                  mrealin@markham-law.com
                  lbrevard@markham-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas E. Geidt, Esq.
          GBG LLP
          601 Montgomery St., Ste. 1150
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 603-5003
          Facsimile: (415) 840-7210
          E-mail: tomgeidt@gbgllp.com

T-MOBILE USA: Faces Bennett Class Suit Over SIM Swap Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------
Tara Bennett, David Garcia, and Edward Polhill, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case
No. 2:22-cv-01805 (W.D. Wash., Dec. 21, 2022) is a class action
brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of all T-Mobile customers arising
from T-Mobile's alleged systemic and repeated failures to protect
and safeguard its customers' sensitive personal and financial
information against common, widely reported, and foreseeable
attempts to illegally obtain such information.

According to the complaint, T-Mobile abjectly failed to protect Ms.
Bennett's personal and financial information contrary to its
representations and in violation of the law. T-Mobile failed to
implement and/or practice policies and procedures to sufficiently
protect the Ms. Bennett's sensitive information and it failed to
adequately train and supervise its employees, who repeatedly
provide unauthorized access to illegal actors. T-Mobile's actions
and/or failure to act demonstrate reckless disregard for the rights
of Ms. Bennett and T-Mobile's obligations and duties under the law,
the lawsuit claims.

As a result of T-Mobile's breaches of security, the Plaintiffs lost
millions of dollars and have been subjected to repeated attacks on
their accounts that deprived them of access to their cell phones
and exposed their personal and financial information to thieves.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable relief on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, as well as
declaratory relief that:

  -- T-Mobile's onerous arbitration provisions, including any
     delegation clause purportedly determining the scope of the
     arbitrator's authority, are procedurally and substantively
     unconscionable and unenforceable as against the Plaintiffs;
     and

  -- T-Mobile's class action waiver and jury trial waiver are
     unenforceable as a matter of law.

The Plaintiffs also seek actual damages, statutory damages,
punitive damages, restitution, and all applicable interest thereon,
along with attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses; as well as
injunctive relief, including significant improvements to T-Mobile's
security systems and protocols, future annual audits,
T-Mobile-funded long-term credit monitoring services, and any other
remedies the Court deems necessary and proper, up to and including
the appointment of a corporate monitor.

T-Mobile provided Ms. Bennett wireless services, including a
telephone number, for Ms. Bennett's mobile device.

T-Mobile markets and sells wireless cellular phone service through
standardized wireless service plans via various retail locations,
online sales, and over the telephone.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory F. Wesner, Esq.
          John C. Herman, Esq.
          Peter M. Jones, Esq.
          Serina M. Vash, Esq.
          HERMAN JONES LLP
          15113 Washington Ave NE
          Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
          Telephone: (206) 819-0821
          E-mail: gwesner@hermanjones.com
                  jherman@hermanjones.com
                  pjones@hermanjones.com
                  svash@hermanjones.com

TATTOOED CHEF: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 21
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Tattooed Chef,
Inc. ("Tattooed Chef" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: TTCF) violations
of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 20,
2021 and October 12, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before February 21, 2023.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at bschall@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Tattooed Chef misled the market with
regards to the severity of its failure to maintain appropriate
internal controls. The Company's financial statements from March
21, 2021 onwards contain "certain errors" such as overstating
revenue. These errors would force the Company to restate its
earnings for various periods. Based on these facts, the Company's
public statements were false and materially misleading throughout
the class period. When the market learned the truth about Tattooed
Chef, investors suffered losses.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

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

TIKTOK INC: Rahn Sues Over Interception of Private Communications
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Rahn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TIKTOK, INC., a California corporation, and BYTEDANCE
INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-07256 (N.D. Ill.,
Dec. 27, 2022), is brought against the Defendants for
surreptitiously intercepting the private electronic communications
of users of TikTok's social media application (the "TikTok app")
and its integrated website browser (the "in-app browser") without
their consent.

The Defendants intercept these private electronic communications in
violation of the Federal Wire Tap Act by embedding JavaScript code
into the third-party websites that are accessed using TikTok's
in-app browser, which enables Defendants to track users' mouse
movements, clicks, keystrokes (e.g., text being entered into an
information field or text box), URLs of web pages visited, and
other electronic communications in real time (collectively,
"Website Communications").

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
class of all natural persons in the United States whose Website
Communications were intercepted by Defendants while using the
TikTok in-app browser to visit third-party websites, and seeks all
civil remedies provided under the Federal Wire Tap Act, including
but not limited to appropriate equitable and/or declaratory relief,
damages in an amount to be determined at trial (assessed as the
greater of the sum of actual damages suffered by Plaintiff and the
proposed Class and any profits made by Defendants as a result of
the violation, or statutory damages of $100 per day per violation
or $10,000, whichever is greater), and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Illinois, resided and
was domiciled in Cook County, Illinois.

TikTok, Inc. f/k/a Musical.ly, Inc. is a California corporation
with its principal place of business in Culver City,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Phone: 610.234.6486
          Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          111 W. Washington St., Suite 1240
          Chicago IL 60602
          Phone: 312.750.1265
          Email: katrina@lcllp.com

               - and -

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


TOADSTOOL INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Toadstool, Inc.
The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. The Toadstool, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-10885 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 27, 2022).

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

The Toadstool, Inc. is a bookstore in Peterborough, New
Hampshire.[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


TODD GREINER: Suit Seeks to Certify Migrant Agro-Worker Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIA LOPEZ, et al., v.
TODD GREINER FARMS PACKING, LLC (D/B/A TODD GREINER FARM S ), and
SARAH GREINER, Case No. 1:21-cv-00227-JMB-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for certification of a class action on
Count I of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

The Plaintiffs seek Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 23 certification of the
claims in Count I of their Second Amended Complaint, which are
brought under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers
Protection Act (AWPA).

Count I of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, alleges AWPA
violations by:

    a. Violating the terms of the working arrangement; and

    b. Providing false and misleading information concerning the
       terms and conditions of employment.

The class that Plaintiffs seek to certify is composed of:

   "All migrant agricultural workers, as defined by the AWPA, 29
   U.S.C. sections 1802(8), who were employed to inspect,
   package, weigh, bundle and/or bag on the asparagus lines for
   the Defendants in Hart County, Michigan from May 1, 2019,
   through June 28, 2019."

The Plaintiffs also move to the Court for an order:

    -- Appointing Valeria Lopez, Juana Saavedra, and Angelica
       Saavedra as Class Representatives;

    -- Appointing the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center and the
       Sugar Law Center for Economic & Social Justice as Class
       Counsel;

    -- Approving the form and manner of Notice of Class Action;
       and
    -- For Such Other and Further Relief as this Court may deem
       proper.

Todd Greiner is a Michigan asparagus grower/packer/shipper.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 30, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3G6Zo5P at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anna Hill Galendez, Esq.
          MICHIGAN IMMIGRANT RIGHTS CENTER
          15 S. Washington St.
          Ypsilanti, MI 48197-8408
          Telephone: (734) 794-9546
          E-mail: dmarin@michiganimmigrant.org

                - and -

          John C. Philo, Esq.
          MAURICE & JANE SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR
          ECONOMIC & SOCIAL JUSTICE
          4605 Cass Ave.
          Detroit, MI 48201-1256
          Telephone: (313) 993-4505
          E-mail: jphilo@sugarlaw.org


TOPSTAR TECHNOLOGY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Topstar Technology,
LLC. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Topstar
Technology, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10914 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 27, 2022).

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

TopStar Technology is a professional manufacturer and exporter of
plastic & mould.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRADITION TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Drivers' Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY TARASOFF, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TRADITION TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, LLC; and TRADITION
LEASING SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02441-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind.,
Dec. 21, 2022) alleges that Tradition Transportation failed to pay
him and other drivers all the wages they were entitled to receive,
in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and Indiana
state wage laws.

The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants violated 49 U.S.C.
section 14102 and the Truth-in-Leasing regulations, and subjected
him and other drivers to unfair and deceptive business practices in
violation of the Indiana Business Opportunity Transactions Act.

The Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of himself and other drivers
arising from Defendants' unlawful practices, including, without
limitation, all unpaid wages, liquidated damages, civil penalties
as appropriate, appropriate ancillary relief, injunctive relief,
interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief to which
they are entitled.

Mr. Anthony Tarasoff brings this action on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated individuals who have worked for
Tradition Transportation as truck drivers and/or who leased
equipment from Tradition Leasing and used it to work as a truck
driver for Tradition Transportation.

Tradition Transportation offers nationwide over-the-road, regional,
and local hauling and transportation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Brook S. Lane, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607-3260
          E-mail: www.fairworklaw.com
                  hillary@fairworklaw.com
                  brook@fairworklaw.com

TRANSDEV NORTH: Diaz Sues Over Parts Purchasers' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR DIAZ, on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff v. TRANSDEV
NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California Corporation and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 22STCV38405 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Dec. 9, 2022) is a representative action under the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 to recover civil penalties and
address Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code.

In this case, Defendant allegedly violated various provisions of
the California Labor Code. The Defendant implemented policies and
practices which led to unpaid wages resulting from Defendants': (a)
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, (b) failure to provide
meal periods, (c) failure to provide rest periods, (d) failure to
pay all wages earned and owed upon separation from Defendants'
employ, (e) failure to pay wages timely during employment, (f)
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and (g)
failure to issue payment of wages in the form of a Labor
Code-compliant instrument. As a result, Plaintiff seeks penalties
under the Labor Code on behalf of the general public as private
attorney general and all other aggrieved employees.

Plaintiff Diaz, was at all times relevant to this action, a
resident of California. He was employed by Defendant in March of
2020 as a Non-Exempt Employee with the title of Parts Purchaser and
worked during the liability period for Defendant, at Defendants'
Lancaster location until Plaintiff's separation from Defendants'
employ in approximately November 2021. Plaintiff's duties included
but were not limited to buying parts for the mechanics who repaired
city busses.

Transdev North America, Inc. provides transportation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          Michael Calvo, Esq.
          Lauren Falk, Esq.
          Ava Issary, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com

TRANSPORTATION SUPPORT: Isguerra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transportation
Support Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jesus
Isguerra, and on behalf of all others similarly situated and
aggrieved v. Transportation Support Services, Inc., Transportation
Load Services, Inc., T&S Intermodal Maintenance, Inc., Sammy Cox,
Does 1-20, Case No. 34-2022-00331924-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Dec. 27, 2022).

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

Transportation Support Services LLC is a licensed and DOT registred
trucking company running freight hauling business from Tampa,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Kirk Donnelly, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF J KIRK DONNELLY, APC
          4370 La Jolla Village Dr., #800
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Phone: (858) 260-6170


TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Peters Alleges Misleading Registration Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY JOSEPH PETERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TWIST BIOSCIENCE CORPORATION,
EMILY M. LEPROUST, and JAMES M. THORBURN, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-08168-TSH (N.D. Cal., Dec. 12, 2022) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of
all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Twist
common stock between December 13, 2019, and November 14, 2022,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants repeatedly assured investors that the Company possessed
innovative proprietary technology relating to its synthetic DNA
products that positioned Twist for significant future growth.
Indeed, Defendants claimed that the Company had already achieved
substantial growth during the Class Period, growing from a customer
base of approximately 1,300 diagnostic companies, hospitals,
research institutions, and others at the end of fiscal year 2019,
to approximately 2,900 customers at the end of fiscal year 2021.

However, the Plaintiff and other members of the class learned the
truth about the Company's actual financial health on November 15,
2022, when Scorpion Capital published a lengthy report alleging
that Twist is "a cash-burning inferno that is not a going concern."
Specifically, Scorpion alleged that, among other things, Twist's
purported DNA chip technology is a "farce" comparable to Theranos
Inc.'s now infamous non-existent blood-testing technology, and that
the Company's growth and revenues are unsustainable, among other
issues, says the suit.

This Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, about the
Company's business and operations. Specifically, as alleged in the
Scorpion Report, the Defendants overstated the commercial viability
of Twist's synthetic DNA manufacturing technology while engaging in
accounting fraud and using unsustainable pricing to inflate the
Company's true financial condition and prospects. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant
decline in the market value of the Company's common stock,
Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered significant
damages, the suit further asserts.

Twist Bioscience Corporation manufactures synthetic DNA and DNA
products for use by customers including diagnostic companies,
hospitals, and research institutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 400-3000
          Facsimile: (415) 400-3001
          E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com

TWITTER INC: Urges Calif. Court to Dismiss Suit Over Mass Layoffs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bhagyasree Sengupta at republicworld.com reports that Twitter has
urged the California federal court to dismiss the class action
lawsuit filed by former Twitter employees against the social media
networking site. The class action lawsuit was filed by more than
100 former Twitter employees against the mass layoffs conducted by
new Twitter owner Elon Musk. In the December 23 court filing, the
Twitter attorneys argued that the employees filing the lawsuits
"don't have anything in common" for it to be considered a
"class-action suit".

The attorneys then went on to call the allegations hurled at
Twitter "vague and imprecise". According to the New York Post, one
of the attorneys representing the social media networking site told
the California Federal court that the "plaintiffs do not even
attempt to define a class, making only passing reference to
'thousands of other Twitter employees". Lawyers of the Tesla CEO,
Elon Musk either wants this case to be dismissed or moved to the
Delaware court. The Delaware court is already handling disputes
related to Musk's $44 billion Twitter takeover deal that formally
came through in October this year.

Lawyer of the Plaintiffs call on Musk to show 'holiday spirit'
The plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit include former Twitter
employees who have already been laid off and others who won't be
terminated until January or February next year. Speaking further
about the class action lawsuit, Shannon Liss-Riordan, the attorney
representing the former Twitter employee told Insider that the
plaintiffs are "confident" in their claims. According to CNN, the
former employees are demanding arbitration against the company.

"We call on Elon Musk to show some holiday spirit and honor the law
and promises made to Twitter employees," Liss-Riordan said. She
then went on to add, "If not, we are ready to take him on in
2023."

Earlier this, Liss-Riordan made it clear that the former employees
are ready to fight the new Twitter chief. She took to Twitter and
wrote, "We are ready to fight them one by one, on behalf of
potentially thousands of employees if that becomes necessary.
@elonmusk is not above the law". The 100-plaintiff class action
lawsuit also includes the suit in which two former employees claim
that Twitter has "unfairly" laid off more women than men. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Sequiera Sues Over Unlawful Surveillance Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
NELSON SEQUIERA, ORSAY ALEGRIA, ISMAEL CORDERO, and RAUL LOPEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S.
IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; THE WESTERN UNION COMPANY, a
Delaware corporation; CONTINENTAL EXCHANGE SOLUTIONS, INC., a
Kansas corporation, d/b/a RIA FINANCIAL SERVICES and AFEX MONEY
EXPRESS; VIAMERICAS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOLEX
DOLLAR EXPRESS, INC., a Texas corporation, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-07996 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 12, 2022) challenges Defendants'
unlawful dragnet surveillance program targeting Plaintiffs and
other immigrants and communities of color and violating the
financial privacy rights of hundreds of thousands of people. The
lawsuit seeks damages, restitution, an injunction, and other
appropriate relief from Defendants' unlawful sharing and accessing
of private financial information and personal records, in violation
of the Right to Financial Privacy Act and the California Unfair
Competition Law.

According to the complaint, the Federal Government and Money
Transfer Business (MTB) Defendants have violated the financial
privacy rights of hundreds of thousands of people, by secretly
collecting and sharing intimate details of millions of financial
transactions for nearly a decade. This mass surveillance program
was coordinated by the Transaction Record Analysis Center (TRAC), a
collaboration of law enforcement agencies, including several
federal government agencies like Defendant ICE. Until press reports
exposed the program earlier this year, consumers had no idea that
money transfer companies were indiscriminately sharing their
private financial information with the federal government. Worse,
public records obtained by Plaintiffs' counsel suggest that the
program's primary purpose is to target immigrants and communities
of color, says the suit.

TRAC gathers, stores, and shares private financial records in its
database even when there is no link to any particularized suspicion
of criminal activity. Instead, money transfer companies like the
MTB Defendants disclose, and the government and Federal Government
Defendants have access to, information about any transfer by any
consumer of $500 or more in the Watchlist States, at the very
least, the suit added.

U.S. Department Of Homeland Security is a United States federal
executive department responsible for public security.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is an agency within DHS
responsible for enforcing federal immigration laws.

The Western Union Company, Continental Exchange Solutions, Inc.,
Viamericas Corporation, and DolEx Dollar Express, Inc. are
financial services companies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rafey Balabanian, Esq.
          Yaman Salahi, Esq.
          P. Solange Hilfinger-Pardo, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          150 California St., 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  ysalahi@edelson.com
                  shilfingerpardo@edelson.com

               - and -

          Sejal Zota, Esq.
          Dinesh McCoy, Esq.
          Daniel Werner, Esq
          JUST FUTURES LAW
          95 Washington Street, Suite 104-149
          Canton, MA 02021
          Telephone: (617) 812-2822
          E-mail: sejal@justfutureslaw.org
                  dinesh@justfutureslaw.org
                  daniel@justfutureslaw.org

UNITEDHEALTH: Faces Popovchak ERISA Suit Over Self-Serving Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA POPOVCHAK and OSCAR GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP
INCORPORATED, UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED
HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., and UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICE LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-10756 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2022) challenges a
self-serving scheme devised by United to fuel its own profits at
the expense of the members of the employer-sponsored health benefit
plans United administers.

According to the complaint, United and the repricers on which it
relies have allegedly raked in billions from this scheme. In doing
so, however, United has allegedly violated the terms of the
Plaintiffs' plans and breached the fiduciary duties it owes to the
Plaintiffs and to their plans, all in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. section
1001-1461.

Accordingly, the scheme starts with a violation of the plans'
written terms. Whereas the plans' written terms require United to
determine the amount of benefits due for covered services from
out-of-network providers based on "competitive fees" in the
provider's geographic area, United deliberately ignores the
readily-available data on such fees and instead bases its
determinations on "repricer" data, which is based on the deeply
discounted rates insurance companies have paid for the service.
Using the repricer data, United deems just a fraction of the
out-of-network provider's billed charge as eligible for
reimbursement under the plan. United does not -- and cannot --
force the out-of-network providers to accept the discounted rate as
full payment, says the suit.

As a result, the plan member (i.e., the patient) remains
financially and legally liable for the unpaid portion of the
provider's bill. Nevertheless, United collects from the plan a
"savings fee" calculated as a percentage of the phantom "savings"
United "obtained" for the plan member -- that is, United takes for
itself as much as one-third of the difference between the
provider's billed charge and the discounted rate United determined
to be "eligible" for payment under the plan. The lower United can
push the eligible expense, the greater this difference, and the
greater United's "savings" fee --
even though the "savings" never exist at all for the plan member,
the suit further alleges.

Ms. Popovchak is a beneficiary of a self-funded health benefit
plan, the Morgan Stanley Health Benefits and Insurance Plan,
sponsored by her father's employer, Morgan Stanley.

UnitedHealth is a diversified health care company, which operates
nationwide through its direct and indirect wholly-owned and
controlled subsidiaries.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
          Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          485 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 704-9600
          E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com
                  jcowart@zuckerman.com

                - and -

          Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq.
          Trillium Chang, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          1800 M Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 778-1800
          E-mail: creynolds@zuckerman.com
                  tchang@zuckerman.com

                - and -

          Leslie Howard, Esq.
          COHEN HOWARD, LLP
          766 Shrewsbury Avenue, Suite 200
          Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
          Telephone: (732) 747-5202
          Email: lhoward@cohenhoward.com

UNIVERSAL STUDIOS: Class Action Over De Armas Trailer Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reigle, writing for Outkick, reports that just when you
thought we had reached the peak of frivolous lawsuits, there's
more. A judge has ruled that moviegoers can sue over a trailer that
promised Ana de Armas.

The move in question is 2019s Yesterday. I didn't see it, and I
would bet considerable sums of money that you didn't see it
either.

On the off chance that you did, you were either drawn in by the
timeless music of the Beatles or the timeless beauty of actress Ana
de Armas. Both of those things are highlighted in the film's
trailer.

While the film succeeded in licensing songs from the Beatles'
catalog, De Armas was nowhere to be found.

Her scene, in which she appears as a guest on restaurant worker
tyrant James Corden's show, hit the cutting room floor.

Can you imagine paying $13 for a ticket to see Yesterday, $9 for
popcorn, another $9 for a Diet Coke, and $5 for a box of Lemonheads
only to learn Ana de Armas' scene had been cut? Most of us would
see this as a minor inconvenience, but some hardcore de Armas fans
found this litigation worthy.

Two Fans Have Filed A $5 Million Class-Action Suit Against
Universal
The two plaintiffs in the case, Conor Woulfe and Peter Michael
Rosza, didn't even pony up all that money to catch the movie in
theaters. Instead, they rented it for $4 a pop on Amazon Video.

Still, they were very unhappy to be left de Armas-less.

They filed a $5 million class-action suit on behalf of other de
Armas fans against Universal Studios.

Why? Because they feel like the studio took them for a ride with
some good ol' fashioned false advertising.

As frivolous as that sounds, US district judge Stephen Wilson has
ruled that it can proceed.

It was ruled that trailers are subject to California's California
False Adverting Law and Unfair Competition Law.

"Universal is correct that trailers involve some creativity and
editorial discretion, but this creativity does not outweigh the
commercial nature of a trailer," Wilson's ruling read.

"At its core, a trailer is an advertisement designed to sell a
movie by providing consumers with a preview of the movie."

According to the BBC, de Armas' scenes were cut out of the movie
after test audiences responded to them poorly. [GN]

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Wins Summary Judgment v. Dimitryuk
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dimitryuk v. University Of
Miami, Case No. 0:20-cv-60851-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Raag
Singhal entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), a Final Judgment will be entered
in favor the University of Miami in each of the consolidated
actions. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case and deny
as moot any pending motions. In conclusion, the Plaintiffs have
failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact that would
defeat UM's Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court says.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover a pro rata refund of fees paid for
student facilities and services that were unavailable while the
University was in remote-learning mode. These claims are made on
behalf of themselves and the putative class (Counts IV, V, and VI)
and individually (Counts VII and VIII). UM is entitled to summary
judgment because the undisputed facts establish that UM made a pro
rata refund of the fees.

The refund of fees was for the 42 days remaining in the 115-day
semester after the government mandated that the University shut
down. The Plaintiffs argue the pro rata amount should have been 48%
instead of 36.5%, but neither the Plaintiffs nor their expert
provide factual support for that percentage. A conclusory statement
unsupported by underlying facts upon which the inference is based
is insufficient to defeat summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs' claims arise from a situation that never occurred
before: in response to a pandemic, public health measures forced
the temporary closure of institutions, including institutions of
higher learning, but technology allowed schools and universities to
continue to educate their students through online/remote/distance
learning environments.

The Plaintiffs filed suit because they expected to attend classes
at the University of Miami in person but, due to the pandemic
public health requirements, attended classes online from March 25,
2020, to the end of the semester.

The Dimitryuk case is consoldited in RE: UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
COVID-19 TUITION AND FEE REFUND LITIGATION.

The University of Miami is a private research university in Coral
Gables, Florida.

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



UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Sued Over False Rankings' Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
IOLA FAVELL, SUE ZARNOWSKI, and MARIAH CUMMINGS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (USC) and 2U, INC., Case No. (Cal. Super., Dec.
20, 2022) sues over aggressive advertisement of USC Rossier's
fraudulent rankings to grow enrollment in the school's online
programs.

According to the complaint, the rankings fraud is allegedly in
concert with its partner and for-profit, publicly-traded
corporation, Defendant 2U. The Defendant 2U offers technology
platforms for the provision of online programs and uses the name
and branding of schools like USC, which can charge students top
dollar. USC hired 2U not only to provide technical support, but to
run the advertising and recruiting for those online programs. The
two agreed to split the profits, with 2U, the recruiter, receiving
an estimated 60% of all tuition revenues, while USC, the ostensible
educator, received only 40%. This arrangement may be illegal; under
most circumstances, federal regulations prohibit institutions from
compensating recruiters based on enrollment, in recognition of the
fraud that often occurs when financial motivations are introduced,
says the suit.

In March 2022, USC made headlines for its decision to withdraw its
Rossier School of  Education from the U.S. News & World Report's
ranking of graduate  schools of education. The US News annual
ranking of educational institutions is the single most referenced
source of school prestige and academic standing that prospective
students consult when selecting a school.

The Plaintiffs and the class were injured by reason of Defendants'
false and deceptive  advertising, as all paid tuition and fees
and/or paid a price premium on those tuition and fees, as a result
of the Defendants' false advertising. As a result of Defendants'
untrue or misleading representations and omissions,  the Plaintiffs
and the members of the Class are entitled to an order, pursuant to
Business and Professions Code section 17535, enjoining such future
conduct by the Defendants and such other orders and judgments that
may be necessary to provide restitutionary disgorgement of
Defendants' ill-gotten gains and to restore to any Class member all
monies paid as a result of Defendants' false or misleading
statements, added the suit.

USC is a private non-profit university which offered in-person
graduate and undergraduate degree programs, including through its
school of education, USC Rossier.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq.
          Anna Haac, Esq.
          Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
          Cameron R. Partovi, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, Suite 1010
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 919-5852
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: ksimplicio@tzlegal.com
                  ahaac@tzlegal.com
                  ssoneji@tzlegal.com
                  cpartovi@tzlegal.com

                - and -

          Eric Rothschild, Esq.
          NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL
          DEFENSE NETWORK
          1701 Rhode Island Avenue Northwest
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 734-7495
          E-mail: eric@defendstudents.org

VIESTE SPE: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. Reply by Jan. 17
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crossfirst Bank, et al.,
v. Vieste SPE LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01637 (D. Ariz.), the
Hon. Judge Douglas L. Rayes entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to extend time to file reply in
support of Class Certification.

  -- The deadline for Plaintiffs to reply in support of their
     motion for class certification is extended to and including
     Jan. 17, 2023.

The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other
fraud.[CC]


WASHINGTON: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Ralston Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, affirms the trial
court's dismissal of the case, JENNIFER RALSTON, CALEB McNAMARA AND
THE ESTATE OF McNAMARA; BRAEDEN SIMON, ABIE EKENEZER, JESSE HUGHEY,
TIM KAUCHUK, JORDAN PICKETT, DANIEL PIERCE, SEAN SWANSON, JOEY
WIESER, QUINN ZOSCHKE, JEFF CUSHMAN, Appellants v. STATE OF
WASHINGTON, a governmental entity, Respondent, Case No. 84142-4-I
(Wash. App.), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.

Several Plaintiffs bring the putative class action lawsuit against
the State. They claim that it has underfunded the Washington courts
in violation of its constitutional duties, that the ensuing court
congestion has delayed their civil cases and thereby caused them
harm, and that they represent a class of plaintiffs similarly
harmed.

The case is a putative class action brought by a number of
Plaintiffs. Each is also Plaintiff in a separate civil action. They
claim that those underlying civil lawsuits have seen their trials
delayed because of systemic court underfunding. They bring the
action against the State in an attempt to compel greater funding
for the judiciary.

The underlying actions are varied and their trial dates have been
postponed for a number of reasons. Jennifer Ralston and Caleb
McNamara filed their case in 2015. That case still awaited trial as
of the filing of the complaint in this putative class action
because the court granted a defense motion to continue brought on
account of claimed complications in discovery. The order allowed
the parties to file a motion for expedited trial, though it is
unclear from the record whether they did.

Braeden Simon commenced his case in September, 2020. After a
judicial reassignment, trial was rescheduled by the court from
Sept. 7, 2021 to Feb. 16, 2022, the next available jury trial date,
because of a "scheduling conflict."

Abie Ekenezer, Jessey Hughey, Tim Kauchak, Jordan Pickett, Daniel
Pierce, Sean Swanson, Joey Wieser, and Quinn Zoschke, along with
around 45 other individuals, are plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed in
September, 2020 and amended in April, 2021. Trial was moved forward
a year and a half, from Sept. 27, 2021 to Feb. 21, 2023, after the
Defendants asked for a three-year continuance because of the
complexity of the case, which involves voluminous discovery and
more than 500 disclosed witnesses.

Jeff Cushman initiated his underlying lawsuit in October 2020. The
matter was consolidated with other similar cases and a third
amended complaint was filed in August 2021. The court moved the
trial date to March 2022.

Together, these Plaintiffs sue the State on behalf of a larger
putative class of plaintiffs suffering the impact of delays in
their civil trials. They do so because the State plays a role in
funding the courts and, they allege, it is failing to fulfil that
role. They contend that their trials' continuances harmed them and
were ultimately caused by the State's failure to adequately fund
the courts. They seek a declaration of their rights and injunctive
relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA), ch. 7.24
RCW, requesting that the judiciary compel greater court funding
from the legislature.

The trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss the action
with prejudice. The Plaintiffs sought direct review from the
Washington Supreme Court, which declined review by a June 8, 2022
order.

s a threshold procedural matter, the State contends that the action
constitutes a collateral attack by the Plaintiffs on their
underlying cases and therefore improperly asks one court to
interfere in proceedings not before it.

The Court of Appeals disagrees. It says there is no identity of
subject matter, requested relief, or parties between the actions.
The Plaintiffs do not ask the court to decide the issues of fact or
law that are the subject of their underlying cases or directly
interfere in those proceedings in any way. What relief they do
request is systemic in nature, rather than targeted at their
preexisting cases. Furthermore, the parties among the cases are
also not identical; the State is the only named defendant in the
case. The priority of action rule therefore does not bar this
lawsuit.

The Court of Appeals is then asked whether private litigants who
assert that their trials have been delayed because of an
underfinanced court system's lack of capacity may sue the State in
order to compel the judiciary's more ample funding by the
legislature. It concludes that it may not. The judiciary possesses
the inherent power to compel the legislature to better fund the
courts. But exercise of this power is necessarily limited by the
careful balance of powers between the branches. These limitations
express themselves in part by allowing only one entity to bring
this sort of lawsuit: the judiciary. More generally, no other right
or power permits the Plaintiffs' requested remedy. A lawsuit
brought by members of the public to compel specific legislative
exercise of its power over funding may only be sustained under our
state constitution's public education mandate, not under the
provisions relied on by the Plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeals concludes that the Plaintiffs' counsel stated
at the beginning of oral argument that individuals are "at the
mercy of the legislature" if an underfunded judiciary proves unable
to resolve disputes. While this may be true, it is hardly a state
of affairs unique to court funding; the legislature is given the
power to tax and spend, and with it the responsibility to
deliberate carefully and apportion funds appropriately. It, not the
courts, is the proper forum for debates about the expenditure of
limited public resources. Where it errs, voters are not left
without recourse, but instead have the power to correct it through
the democratic political process. Where it errs by underfunding the
courts, the judiciary is empowered to defend its institutional
purpose. But that the judiciary exists to serve public interests
does not mean that the public may compel it to use its inherent
power to order the legislature to act.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 27, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4586dwrj from Leagle.com.

Karen Kathryn Koehler -- karenk@stritmatter.com -- Stritmatter
Kessler Whelan Koehler Moore, 3600 15th Ave W Ste 300, Seattle, WA,
98119-1330. Garth L. Jones -- garth@stritmatter.com -- Stritmatter
Kessler Koehler Moore, 413 8th St., Hoquiam, WA, 98550-3607. Robert
S. Peck -- robert.peck@cclfirm.com -- Center for Constitutional
Litigation PC, 2117 Leroy Place Nw, Washington, DC, 20008. Counsel
for the Appellant(s).

Kristin Beneski, Attorney at Law, 800 Fifth Ave Ste 2000, Seattle,
WA, 98104-3188, Harry H Schneider Jr. -- hschneider@perkinscoie.com
-- Perkins Coie LLP, 1201 3rd Ave Ste 4900, Seattle, WA,
98101-3095, Lia Elise Pernell, Office of the Attorney General, 800
Fifth Ave Ste 2000, Seattle, WA, 98104-3188, Counsel for the
Respondent(s).


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Approves NARCO Trust Buyout Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the adversary case styled In Re All Matters Related to North
American Refractories Company, et al. in Case No. 02-20198, as
affected by the May 24, 2013 Order Entering Final decree entered at
Doc. No. 7940, Debtors. Honeywell International, Inc., Plaintiff,
v. North American Refractories Company Personal Injury Settlement
Trust, Defendant, Misc. Case No. 15-204-TPA, Adv. No. 21-2097-TPA,
(Bankr. W.D. Pa.), Bankruptcy Judge Thomas P. Agresti for the
Western District of Pennsylvania

It has been more than 20 years since the North American
Refractories Company ("NARCO") filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy
petition in this Court, primarily to deal with thousands of pending
and anticipated asbestos-related personal injury claims against the
company. It has been almost 15 years since a plan was confirmed in
the case calling for the creation of a trust and the issuance of a
channeling injunction to direct all of those claims to the trust
for resolution. It has been more than 9 years since a final decree
was entered and the case closed on the basis that the confirmed
plan was substantially consummated.

While the asbestos settlement trust that was thus created has been
functioning and paying claims for a number of years now, it is fair
to say that its existence has not been a tranquil one. Rather, from
almost the very inception of the trust there have been ongoing
disputes between the trustees and the party responsible for funding
the trust over how the trust should be operating and evaluating
claims.

An extensive trial was conducted in late May 2022, with numerous
exhibits admitted and numerous witnesses presented by the Parties.
The usual post-trial briefing and argument occurred thereafter, but
the Court delayed in issuing its decision at the request of the
Parties because they reported that they were engaging in settlement
discussions (as encouraged by the Court) that could potentially
resolve the matter on amicable terms. The Court was willing to go
along with this delay because it believed a negotiated settlement
would be in the best interest of all concerned, though as the
post-trial months dragged on without a settlement the Court
indicated to the Parties that it would not wait much longer before
rendering a decision. The Court therefore recently gave the Parties
an informal final deadline for proposing a settlement.

This forbearance has finally borne fruit, with the Parties having
filed a Motion for Entry of an Order (i) Approving the NARCO
Asbestos Trust Amended Buyout Agreement and Amended Agreements,
(II) Declaring the Amended Buyout Agreement is Consistent with the
Plan and Does Not Affect the NARCO Channeling Injunction, and (III)
Approving the Form and Manner of Notice of the Amended Buyout
Agreement.

The main Parties in the case are Honeywell International, Inc. and
the North American Refractories Company Personal Injury Settlement
Trust. The Trust is an asbestos settlement trust that was created
pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 524(g), and Honeywell is the entity
that is obliged to fund the Trust on an ongoing basis. Also
permitted to intervene in the case were the NARCO Trust Advisory
Committee and Lawrence Fitzpatrick, Future Claimants'
Representative. The TAC and the FCR represent, respectively,
current and potential future claimants against the Trust.

The proposed settlement in its basic form is much like the
"buy-out" being explored by Honeywell prior to the inception of the
current litigation. Its centerpiece is a conversion of the Trust
from its present evergreen funding structure, with the accompanying
obligation of Honeywell to make annual payments to the Trust for
its operations and claims payments and its ongoing audit and
oversight rights, to one of the more traditional fully-funded
variety, in exchange for a one-time buy-out payment by Honeywell.
The "base" amount of that payment, would be $1.325 billion.

The Court finds that an approval of the settlement would benefit
the claimants in a number of ways. The termination of the present
litigation, with a good chance of avoiding any future litigation as
well, would free-up the Trustees to concentrate solely on the
operation of the Trust. Honeywell's exit from the picture would
also mean the elimination of the one-way mirror and the Honeywell
audit/oversight rights, current features that require time and
attention from the Trustees and other Trust personnel even during
times when there is no active ongoing litigation.

A full-text copy of the Order dated Dec. 8, 2022, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/h8mfhezm from Leagle.com.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Unit Accuses Doctor of Concealing Evidence
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wolf of Bloomberg Law reports that a bankrupt Johnson &
Johnson unit has accused a prominent doctor of concealing asbestos
exposure evidence and knowingly using false claims to disparage
Johnson & Johnson's baby powder and Shower to Shower talc
products.

Jacqueline Moline, a medical expert and witness in over 200 cases
alleging J&J products caused mesothelioma, has concealed or
disregarded "substantial evidence" that plaintiffs suing the health
product giant were exposed to other potential sources of asbestos,
bankrupt unit LTL Management LLC said in a Dec. 16, 2022
complaint.



                            *********

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 ***