/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230120.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, January 20, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 16

                            Headlines

22ND CENTURY: Bid to Dismiss Noto Securities Fraud Suit Denied
ABBOTT VASCULAR: Court Resets Class Cert Bid Briefing Schedule
AEY HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit in Michigan Over Unsolicited Texts
ALACER CORP: Daily Immune Support Misbranded, Scheibe Suit Says
APPLE INC: Unlawfully Records Consumers' App Activity, Serrano Says

ARMBRUST INC: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Genwright Claims
ASHLEY BLACK: Fifth Cir. Ruling in Class Cert. Bid Discussed
AYTU BIOPHARMA: Settlement Reached in Aponowicz Class Suit
BAY BRIDGE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Phillips Suit Alleges
BEDFORD STUYVESANT: Tenants File Class Action Over Rent Hike

C&W FACILITY: Settlement in Ramirez Suit Gets Initial Nod
CAPITAL PLUS: Leave to Refile Bid for Class Certification Filed
CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Moore Sues Over Illegal Background Check
CGS STORES: Seeks More Time to Respond to Willis Class Cert Bid
CHAPMAN SCOTTSDALE: Partially Wins Summary Judgment vs Jacksen

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended
CHATTEM INC: Faces Suit Over Dietary Supplements Deceptive Labels
COCA-COLA CO: Faces Jordan Suit Over Pina Colada Soda False Ads
CORE COMMUNITY: Faces Simpson Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
COSAN CONSTRUCTION: Amended Case Management Plan Entered in Sanchez

CREDIT CONTROL: Gandl Sues Over Deceptive & Unfair Debt Collection
DALLAS JONES: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in McClurg Suit
DARIOHEALTH CORP: Delaware Court Closes Chavakula Stockholder Suit
DERMALOGICA LLC: Reyes Sues Over Slack-Filled Skincare Products
DEXAFIT INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

DOLGEN MIDWEST: Court Sets Class Certification Deadlines in Husar
DRAFTKINGS INC: Averts Class Action Suit Over SBTech Acquisition
DRAFTKINGS INC: Turley Sues Over Cancellation of DFS Contests
EDWARD D. JONES: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Anderson Suit
ENOVIX CORPORATION: Twitchell Sues Over Decline of Stock Price

EQUAL EXCHANGE: Rodriguez Sues Over Undisclosed Unsafe Metals
ETHOS TECHNOLOGIES: Dibisceglia Files Suit in N.D. California
GARRETT LEIGHT: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
GEICO: Biscardi Bid for Conditional Certification OK'd
GENERAL MOTORS: Hurry, et al., File Bid for Class Certification

GERBER PRODUCTS: Court Narrows Claims in 1st Amended Norman Suit
GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Sued Over "No Artificial Sweeteners" Claim
GLOBAL MOTIVATION: Judge Tosses TCPA Class Action Lawsuit
GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: Harkavy Sues Over Undisclosed Levels of Lead
GRAND CANYON: Young Suit Dismissal Upheld in Part, Reversed in Part

GREYHOUND LINES: Mag. Judge Recommends Dismissal of Catanghal Suit
HELLO PRODUCTS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Russell Suit
HONDA MOTOR: Nock Suit Alleges Distribution of Defective Vehicles
INNOVATIVE STAFF: Faces Class Action Over Petrol Tanker Explosion
J&C AMBULANCE: Class certification Bid Must Be Filed by Sept. 29

JUMPSTART GAMES: Negrin Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info
KIPLINGER WASHINGTON: Strano's $6.85MM Class Deal Wins Prelim. Nod
KNIGHTSBRIDGE MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 10
LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Harkavy Sues Over Unsafe Levels of Heavy Metals
LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Rodriguez Sues Over Unsafe Levels of Heavy Metals

MADONNA FOOD: Cardoza Sues to Recover Unpaid, Overtime Wages
MAGNOLIA FLEET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Truong Suit Alleges
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Houck Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MARKET MY BUSINESS: Ulery Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
MARS INC: Sued Over Lead, Cadmium in Dark Dove Chocolate Bars

MDL 2773: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Antitrust Suit Granted in Part
MDL 2873: Three AFFF Litigation Suits Transferred to D.S.C.
MICHAELS STORES: Submission of Class Cert Bid Extended to May 17
MICHAELS STORES: White Files Suit in C.D. California
MONDELEZ INT'L: Klammer's 1st Amended Class Complaint Dismissed

MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Ovando Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Foley Putative Class Suit
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Robbins Stockholder Class Suit
NATIONAL REALTY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 13
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Suarez Suit Removed to S.D. Florida

NATIONWIDE INBOUND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Turnham Alleges
NEW YORK: DRNY File Class Certification Bid
NEXI SPA: First Hearing in Privacy Suit Scheduled in February 2023
NORTH MISSISSIPPI CLINICS: More Time to File Response OK'd
OAKBEND MEDICAL CENTER: Bryant Files Suit in S.D. Texas

ONIN STAFFING: Bid for Extension of Time Tossed w/o Prejudice
ONTARIO: Class Action v. MLTC Over COVID-19 Deaths/Illnesses OK'd
PACKED WITH PURPOSE: Hernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
PARETEUM CORP: $5.65MM Class Settlement Hearing Set April 25
PETERSON OIL: Must Face Class Action Over Fuel Oil, Judge Rules

PFIZER INC: Bleeker Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
PFIZER INC: Fish Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
PFIZER INC: LaMotte Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
PFIZER INC: Lima Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
PHILO INC: Bryant Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII

PORSCHE CARS: Parties Seek Initial Approval of Class Settlement
PRESTWICK GROUP: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Kitchens Says
PRINCIPAL NATIONAL LIFE: Varian Suit Removed to E.D. California
R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR: Chastain Sues Over False Representations
REALPAGE INC: Crook Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices

REALPAGE INC: Hardie Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices
RUE GILT GROUPE: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SAZERAC CO: Faces Class Suit Over Fireball Cinnamon Whisky Products
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Videoconference Hearing Set for Feb. 8
SCI FUNERAL: Faces Rogala Suit Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages

SEOUL SOONDAE: Contreras Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
SHOP-VAC CORP: Court Amends Case Management Deadlines in Gair
SHUFFLE 512: Arredondo Sues Over to Recover the Minimum Wage
SHUTTERFLY LLC: Faces Remus Class Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
SILVERGATE BANK: Faces Husary Class Suit Over FTX Customer Funds

SILVERGATE CAPITAL: Faces Thomas Suit Over Drop in Share Price
SONIC INDUSTRIES: Balasetti Sues Over Unsolicited Calls and Texts
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC: Eligible Customers Got Settlement Checks
SPARTAN CAPITAL: Court Denies Amendment to Scheduling Order
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Chen Suit Transferred to S.D. New York

STATOIL USA: Final Certification Granted in Rescigno Suit
STEEL RIVER SYSTEMS: Bower Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Sampson
TARGET CORPORATION: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Bayne Suit
TENANTREPORTS.COM LLC: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in McKey

TIKTOK INC: Tracks Users' External App Activity, Androshchuk Says
TOYOTA MOTOR: Velez Sues Over 2022 Lexus SUV's Deceptive Ads
TRADER JOE'S: Dark Chocolate Contains Heavy Metals, Bellinger Says
TRAEGER PELLET: Court Tosses Yates Bid to Certify Class
TRAVELEX INSURANCE: Haas Bid for Class Certification Partly Granted

TRUMP CORP: Court Denies McKoy's Letter Motion to Seal
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Kane Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII
USA SILO: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Knowlton
VERVENT INC: Bid for Class Cert Granted in Part in Turrey Suit
VINCENT K. MCMAHON: Fellows Sues Over Serial Abuses of Power

VOYAGER DIGITAL: Cuban Faces Suit Over Promotion of Ponzi Scheme
WALGREENS CO: Goodwin Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising
WEC ENERGY: Court Junks Bid to Reset Class Cert Briefing Schedule
WEST GARDEN INC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
WESTERN MANAGEMENT: McKee Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida

YDESIGN GROUP: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ZETRONIX CORP: Fontanez Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
[*] Class Action Settlements Reached $63-B Payments in 2022
[*] Increase in UK Class Actions Targeting Tech Giants Discussed
[*] UK Banks Facing at Least 109 Class Actions, Group Lawsuits


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honx Gets Ch.11 Stay to Resolve USVI Claims


                            *********

22ND CENTURY: Bid to Dismiss Noto Securities Fraud Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH NOTO, GARDEN STATE TIRE CORP., and STEPHENS
JOHNSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. 22ND CENTURY GROUP, INC., HENRY SICIGNANO,
III, and JOHN T. BRODFUEHRER, Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-1285 (JLS)
(W.D.N.Y.), Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr., of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of New York denies the Defendants' motion
to dismiss.

Buffalo-based biotechnology company 22nd Century is a publicly
traded company that engineers tobacco and cannabis plants to adjust
nicotine and cannabinoid levels. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer were
22nd Century's CEO and CFO, respectively, during the relevant time
period. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, were investors in 22nd Century.

Sometime before 2016, the SEC began an investigation into purported
material weaknesses in 22nd Century's internal accounting
practices. According to a confidential witness hired to address
22nd Century's accounting weaknesses, as of February 2019, no
notice was ever received indicating the SEC Investigation had
concluded.

22nd Century retained counsel to deal with the investigation, and
Brodfuehrer traveled to Washington, D.C. to meet with the SEC.
Brodfuehrer told a confidential witness he was worried the
investigation may cost him his CPA license or result in his
imprisonment. He also told this confidential witness, on multiple
occasions in 2017, that he was not comfortable signing 22nd
Century's SEC filings because of Sicignano's improper conduct as
CEO, stating that "people need to save Sicignano from himself."

Between Feb. 18, 2016, and July 31, 2019 (the "Class Period"), the
Defendants issued numerous public statements about the status of
22nd Century to influence public opinion about the company. In each
filing, the Defendants disclosed that issues existed with 22nd
Century's accounting practices, but did not mention the SEC
Investigation. The Plaintiffs argue that, because information
regarding the SEC Investigation was omitted from these statements,
the SEC Filings are each materially false or misleading. Also
during this time, 22nd Century executed multiple stock offerings to
raise cash for the company at the cost of diluting the interests of
existing shareholders.

On July 26, 2019, Sicignano resigned as CEO. When trading closed
after the next trading day, on July 29, 2019, the Company's stock
price had fallen $0.05 per share to $1.81 per share, a decline of
2.7%. 22nd Century's share price continued to fall until it
bottomed out at $1.36 per share on August 1, 2019, a decline of
26.9%

The Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint in November
2019. The Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for
failure to state a claim. The Court granted the motion in its
entirety. As relevant here, it dismissed the Plaintiffs' material
misrepresentation claims because the Defendants had no duty to
disclose the SEC Investigation and dismissed the Plaintiffs'
Section 20(a) claims for absence of a viable underlying claim.

The Plaintiffs appealed and the Second Circuit affirmed in part,
vacated in part, and remanded the remaining claims to this Court.
In particular, the Second Circuit concluded that the complaint
adequately alleged that defendants violated Rule 10b-5(b) both by
first omitting mention of the SEC investigation and then by
affirmatively denying its existence. It also vacated the dismissal
of the Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claim because Plaintiffs now had a
viable underlying claim. The Second Circuit left the Defendants'
additional arguments for this Court to address in the first
instance.

The Defendants now seek dismissal of the Plaintiffs' remaining
claims, arguing that: (1) the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal
of the Plaintiffs' claims based on Defendants' alleged affirmative
false statements; (2) the Plaintiffs do not meet the enhanced
securities fraud pleading requirements because they do not
sufficiently allege scienter and loss causation; and (3) the
Plaintiffs cannot establish control person liability under Section
20(a).

Judge Sinatra explains that to state a material misrepresentation
claim under 10b-5(b), a plaintiff must allege (1) a material
misrepresentation or omission; (2) made by the defendants with
scienter; (3) in connection with the purchase or sale of a
security; (4) on which the plaintiff justifiably relied; (5)
economic loss; and (6) a causal connection between the
misrepresentation or omission and the plaintiffs loss.

First, considering their allegations of each category as a whole,
he concludes that the Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to meet
the scienter requirement for their remaining 10b-5(b) claims. He
says (i) the Plaintiffs' claims based on the 2015 10-K filed on
Feb. 18, 2016, the Q1 2016 10-Q filed on May 10, 2016, and the Q2
2016 10-Q filed on Aug. 9, 2016 allege an improper motive; and (ii)
the Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that Defendants knew or had
access to information indicating that their statements regarding
the SEC Investigation were inaccurate.

Next, Judge Sinatra holds that the Plaintiffs sufficiently plead
loss causation for their 10b-5(b) claims based on the alleged
misrepresentations in their SEC Filings and 2018 and 2019 Press
Releases. Among other things, he says (i) the Plaintiffs'
allegations that the Defendants concealed the SEC investigation by
omitting it from their SEC filings and denying it in press releases
support their 10b-5(b) claims; and (ii) the Plaintiffs sufficiently
assert a materialization of the risk caused by the alleged
misstatements in Defendants' 2019 Press Release when Sicignano
resigned from 22nd Century.

Finally, Judge Sinatra holds that the Plaintiffs sufficiently
allege claims for control person liability against Defendants
Brodfuehrer and Sicignano. The Plaintiffs allege primary violations
of 10b-5(b), and allege evidence of conscious misbehavior by
Brodfuehrer and Sicignano. They, therefore, allege claims against
Brodfuehrer and Sicignano for control person liability.

For these reasons, Judge Sinatra denies the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2023 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yzbxman9 from Leagle.com.


ABBOTT VASCULAR: Court Resets Class Cert Bid Briefing Schedule
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Karen Elizabeth Gordon v.
Abbott Vascular Inc. et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-01438-MCS-SHK (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Shashi H. Kewalramani entered an order
resetting the class certification motion briefing schedule as
follows:

             Event                  Old Date         New Date

  Deadline to file motion for     Feb. 17, 2023    Mar. 27, 2023
  class certification

  Deadline to file opposition     Mar. 10, 2023    Apr. 17, 2023
  to motion for class
  certification

  Deadline to file reply in       Mar. 31, 2023    May 8, 2023
  support of motion for class
  certification

  Hearing on motion for class     Apr. 17, 2023    May 22, 2023
  certification

The Court warns that these deadlines are not likely to be extended
further absent an extraordinary showing of good cause, even in the
face of ongoing disputes over the sufficiency of the pleadings.

Without rendering an opinion on the pending motion to dismiss, the
Court directs the parties to litigate this case with the
assumption that all claims will proceed in some form to the class
certification motion stage.

Accordingly, assuming the truth of Gordon's counsel's assertion
that Axelon withheld substantive responses on the basis that a
motion to dismiss is pending, an assertion Axelon does not dispute,
Axelon's position is not well taken.

Notwithstanding, such admonitions are better left for the
Magistrate Judge to issue in the first instance.

Nevertheless, she delayed in taking action to confer about the
responses or raise discovery disputes with the Magistrate Judge
for weeks.

The Court concludes that good cause appears for a limited
continuance of the class certification briefing deadlines.
"District judges have broad discretion to manage discovery and to
control the course of litigation under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 16."

Abbott Vascular manufactures and distributes medical, surgical,
ophthalmic, and veterinary instruments and apparatus.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W6uaSd at no extra charge.[CC]

AEY HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit in Michigan Over Unsolicited Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Green Market Report's Adam Jackson, the suit is one of
many class actions pursued over unwanted text messaging ads by
cannabis companies.

Massachusetts-based Aey Holdings, which does business as Gage
Cannabis Co., is being sued by a Michigan woman who said the
company violated federal telemarketing laws when it sent
unsolicited texts about its products, Law360 first reported.

In the Jan. 6 case filed in the Western District of Michigan,
plaintiff Nicole Sapphire said she received several texts in
October regarding products and Halloween-themed bundle deals. She
alleges that the company ignored her "repeated opt-out demands and
continued to send plaintiff further text messages."

Screenshots included with the suit show the requests to stop the
telemarketing messages in compliance with the text's opt-out
language -- sent by more than six different numbers believed to be
owned and operated by the defendant. [GN]

ALACER CORP: Daily Immune Support Misbranded, Scheibe Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB SCHEIBE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. ALACER CORPORATION, a California corporation, Case No.
3:23-cv-00026-BTM-BLM (S.D. Cal., Jan. 6, 2023) alleges that
"Emergen-C Daily Immune Support" ("the Products"), a powdered
dietary supplement manufactured, packaged, labeled, advertised,
distributed, and sold by the Defendant, is misbranded and falsely
advertised, in violation of Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law.

These drink mix powders purport to contain 1,000 mg of Vitamin C.
They are marketed as providing immune system support,
anti-oxidants, and other nutrients that support health and
wellness. These dietary supplements come in eight different
flavors: Super Orange, Cranberry Pomegranate, Meyer Lemon, Pink
Lemonade, Raspberry, Strawberry Kiwi, Tangerine, and Tropical.
However, the Products differ only in flavoring. The base
formulation for each flavor is the same, and they are offered for
sale for an identical price.

The front label of all flavors of the Products prominently state
that they contain "Natural Flavors" and "Natural Fruit Flavors,"
using bolded type and graphical call-outs or insets to highlight
these claims. These natural flavoring claims are false. All flavors
of the Products state, on the back label, that they contain "malic
acid," says the suit.

The Defendant uses the petrochemical-derived DL malic acid in its
Products to create a sweet and tart flavor but pretends otherwise,
conflating natural and artificial flavorings, misbranding the
Products and deceiving consumers. The ingredients on the Products'
label are declared in a way that is misleading and contrary to law,
because Defendant designates the ingredient by its generic name,
"malic acid," instead of by its specific name, "DL malic acid."

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and as representative
of all those similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all consumers nationwide who purchased the
Products within four years prior to the filing of this Complaint,
as well as a subclass of California consumers who purchased the
Products within four years prior to the filing of this Complaint.

Alacer formulates, manufactures, and sells the dietary supplement
called "Emergen-C Daily Immune Support."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles C. Weller, Esq.
          CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
          11412 Corley Court
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Telephone: (858) 414-7465
          Facsimile: (858) 300-5137
          E-mail: legal@cweller.com

APPLE INC: Unlawfully Records Consumers' App Activity, Serrano Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOAQUIN SERRANO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00070 (E.D. Pa., January 6, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract,
unjust enrichment, and violations of Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and
Electronic Surveillance Act and Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful practice of
recording and using consumers' personal information and activity on
its consumer mobile devices and applications ("apps"), even after
consumers explicitly indicate through Apple's mobile device
settings that they do not want their data and information shared.
According to a recent test performed by two independent app
developers at the software company Mysk revealed that even when
consumers actively change their privacy settings and take Apple's
instructions to protect their privacy, Apple still records, tracks,
collects, and monetizes consumers' analytics data, including
browsing history and activity information, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks damages and equitable relief on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated Apple device users in
Pennsylvania, arising from Apple's knowing and unauthorized
copying, taking, use, and tracking of consumers' communications and
activity.

Apple Inc. is a technology company based in Cupertino, California.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Raphael Janove, Esq.
         POLLOCK COHEN LLP
         1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., 20th Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 667-8607
         E-mail: Rafi@PollockCohen.com

                 - and -
       
         Adam Pollock, Esq.
         Alison Borochoff-Porte, Esq.
         George Krebs, Esq.
         POLLOCK COHEN LLP
         111 Broadway, Suite 1804
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 337-5361
         E-mail: Adam@PollockCohen.com
                 Alison@PollockCohen.com
                 GKrebs@PollockCohen.com

                 - and -
       
         Andrew Ferich, Esq.
         AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
         201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (310) 474-9111
         E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com

                 - and -
       
         Jonathan Shub, Esq.
         Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
         SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
         134 Kings Highway E.
         Haddonfield, NJ 08033
         Telephone: (856) 772-7200
         E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
                 bjohns@shublawyers.com

ARMBRUST INC: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Genwright Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS GENWRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARMBRUST INC., Defendant, Case No.
150221/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., January 8, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York
State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and
the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
armbrustusa.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues include, but not limited to: (a)
the website includes empty links without text; (b) the screen
reader fails to work with the use of a computer mouse; (c) the
website's embedded and drop-down links are not compatible with the
screen reader; (d) the screen reader can only direct the user to
the same webpage regardless of the selected link; and (e) the
website's images and other non-text elements lack alternative-text,
says the suit.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.

Armbrust Inc. is an online retail company that sells surgical
masks, disposable masks, n95 masks and respirators. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         William J. Downes, Esq.
         MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
         225 Broadway, 39th Floor
         New York, NY 10007
         Telephone: (212) 595-6200
         Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
         E-mail: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com

ASHLEY BLACK: Fifth Cir. Ruling in Class Cert. Bid Discussed
------------------------------------------------------------
Wystan Ackerman, Esq., of Robinson+Cole Class Actions Insider, in
an article for JDSupra, reports that one of the first significant
class certification-related decisions of 2023 comes from the Fifth
Circuit. While some trial courts hesitate to strike class action
allegations on the pleadings, the district court here concluded
very early in the case that it was clearly inappropriate for class
certification. The Fifth Circuit agreed, in a published opinion
that will be helpful to defendants in that circuit and elsewhere.

A copy of the Opinion is available at
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-20349-CV0.pdf

Elson v. Black, - F.4th -, 2023 WL 111317 (5th Cir. Jan. 5, 2023)
was much like many putative class actions brought against product
manufacturers challenging representations about their products. The
plaintiffs alleged that the manufacturer of a massage device,
described in the opinion as "a two-foot stick with hard prongs,"
misrepresented its potential health benefits. The defendant
allegedly represented that the device could "'virtually eliminate
cellulite,' help with weight loss, and relieve pain." Most
prospective purchasers would probably take such statements with a
grain of salt (or many). But the plaintiffs here claimed they were
duped. They sued under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, various
state statutes and for unjust enrichment. They sought a nationwide
class and alternatively seven statewide subclasses.

The district court struck the class allegations in a single
paragraph, focusing on reliance being an individualized issue and
concluding that commonality was not satisfied. But the Fifth
Circuit wrote considerably more. It focused on predominance,
finding that common issues of law and fact did not predominate for
two reasons. First, there were differences in state law. Even at
the pleadings stage, the plaintiff was required to provide the
district court with "an extensive analysis of state law
variations," and failed to do so. Their appellate brief
demonstrated substantial variation in state law on reliance.

Second, it was clear that the plaintiffs and the putative class
members relied on different misrepresentations about different
potential health benefits of the product. "[T]he possibility of
class analysis disintegrates because the members did not rely on
the same alleged misrepresentations." Plaintiffs' proposal of
subclasses did not solve this problem because "'subclass' is not a
magic word that remedies defects of predominance"; "[t]he burden is
on Plaintiffs to demonstrate to the district court how certain
proposed subclasses would alleviate existing obstacles to
certification," which they failed to do.

Not every putative class action is appropriate for this type of
challenge on the pleadings. There are strategic reasons why
defendants often do not file a motion to strike. But the lesson
here is that, at least in some circuits, plaintiffs' class
allegations will not survive this type of motion, particularly if
they allege a nationwide or multistate class involving significant
differences in state law, or multiple alleged misrepresentations.
[GN]

AYTU BIOPHARMA: Settlement Reached in Aponowicz Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Aytu Biopharma, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report reported on
December 28, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 30, 2022, that a putative class action was
filed on February 9, 2022 in the Delaware Chancery Court by Rafal
Aponowicz derivatively and on behalf of all Aytu stockholders,
challenging the grant in 2021 of certain stock option awards to
directors and officers.

The stockholder contended that those awards were in amounts
exceeding the shares available under the company's 2015 equity
incentive plan and that the directors therefore breached their
fiduciary duties and breached a purported contract between them and
stockholders. The complaint sought rescission of the awards,
unspecified damages to stockholders as a result of the awards, and
attorneys' fees. A second such action was filed by Paul John M.
Paguia on March 7, 2022. Mr. Paguia asserted the same claims and
seeks the same relief.

The parties have agreed to settle these matters, subject to
approval by the court.

Aytu Biopharma, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in
Colorado.


BAY BRIDGE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Phillips Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
KURT PHILLIPS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BAY BRIDGE ADMINISTRATORS (BBA), LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00022 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 6, 2023) sues the Defendant over the
recent targeted cyberattack and data breach on BBA's network that
resulted in unauthorized access to the highly sensitive personally
identifying information and protected health information of the
Plaintiff and more than 251,000 Class Members.

On September 5, 2022, BBA experienced a network disruption
consistent with a ransomware attack on its network. Investigation
determined that files on BBA's network were accessed by an
unauthorized user sometime prior to August 25, 2022 and obtained
certain data from the network on September 3, 2022.

The type of Private Information accessed by the unauthorized actor
in the Data Breach includes names, dates of birth, Social Security
Numbers, driver's license numbers or state identification numbers,
medical information, and health insurance information.

The Defendant also failed to provide timely and adequate notice to
the Plaintiff and other Class Members that their Private
Information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an
unknown third party, and identify precisely what specific type of
information was accessed, the Plaintiff claims.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant
seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for:


  --  (i) negligence,

  --  (ii) breach of implied contract,

  --  (iii) unjust enrichment; and

  --  (iv) breach of third-party beneficiary contract.

Plaintiff Kurt Phillips is a natural person, resident, and a
citizen of the State of Washington.

BBA oversees various employer-offered insurance products as a
third-party administrator, and assists employers with various
administrative functions, such as enrollment, invoicing,
record-keeping, and compliance.[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 -

          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          Justin C. Walker, Esq.
          Jonathan T. Deters, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          119 East Court Street, Suite 530
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
                  jwalker@msdlegal.com
                  jdeters@msdlegal.com

BEDFORD STUYVESANT: Tenants File Class Action Over Rent Hike
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Senzamici, writing for Patch, reports that a group of
Bed-Stuy tenants filed a class action lawsuit against the landlord
they accuse of hiking rents illegally despite receiving a hefty tax
break from an expired controversial state program, court records
show.

Residents of 27 Albany Ave. last month accused their landlord
Bedford Stuyvesant South One LLC of dodging rent stabilization laws
by offering low rents as concessions that were only temporary,
Manhattan Supreme Civil Court records show.

"[Owners] hoodwinked the Building's tenants," the lawsuit contends,
"by registering a legal regulated rent higher than the 'monthly
rent charged and paid by the tenant.'"

Neither the tenant's lawyer nor the building's registered head
officer replied to requests for comment.

The lawsuit focuses on 421-a, a tax program that expired last
spring, which offered massive breaks to buildings that pledged to
set aside a number of affordable units.

The building at 27 Albany Ave. received nearly $5 million in tax
breaks for the current tax year from the 421-a program, which the
city's Comptroller reports cost New York an estimated $1.7 billion
in revenue per year.

The Bed-Stuy tenants claim their landlords offered low rents as
concessions then registered higher rents with the state, thereby
meeting the rent requirements of the city but laying the groundwork
for future rent hikes.

As an example, one tenant signed a $1,777-per-month lease in March
2021 -- even though the registered rent was $2,369 -- then saw her
rent spike 33 percent when the lease expired in February, the suit
states.

"All subsequent increases, such as vacancy increases and Rent
Guidelines Board increases, were based off that higher,
impermissible figure," the suit contends.

The suit claims that the owners "engaged in similar misconduct at
many, if not all, of the apartments at the Building."

This isn't the first class action suit to be filed on behave of
tenants who claimed they were "hoodwinked" by owners who benefited
from the 421-a program.

Three other class-action lawsuits were filed by tenants across the
city this fall, according to City Limits, including a 443-unit
building in Bushwick, all with similar claims of preferential rents
being used to evade rent regulations. [GN]

C&W FACILITY: Settlement in Ramirez Suit Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ruth Ramirez v. C and W
Facility Services Inc. et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-11319-JVS-PVC (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge James V. Selna entered an order granting the
parties' motion for class certification and preliminary settlement
approval.

   -- The final approval hearing is hereby set for June 5, 2023
      at 1:30 p.m.

   -- The Court finds that no hearing is necessary on this
      matter. Fed R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.

This is a wage and hour class action on behalf of non-exempt
employees who worked for C & W Facility Services, Inc. from
November 3, 2016 through October 3, 2022.

The core issues alleged in this case are C & W's failure to provide
legally compliant meal periods and rest breaks, failure to
reimburse employees for business expenses, failure to compensate
employees for all time worked, and as a result, wage
statements failed to provide to employees accurate, final wages in
timely manner, and that the conduct violated the California Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") and California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL").

The Plaintiff Ramirez was employed by C & W as a maintenance worker
in California from September 2019 to June 2020.

The Plaintiff Quezada is employed by C & W in California as a
janitor since April 2020.

The Plaintiffs allege that C & W utilized a system of time rounding
in a manner that cumulatively resulted in a failure to properly
compensate Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for all the
time they actually worked.

The proposed settlement defines the class as:

   "all non-exempt employees of C & W who worked for C & W in
   California during the Class Period."

   The Class Period is defined as November 3, 2016 through
   October 3, 2022.

   The Settlement excludes from the Class non-exempt employees
   who worked at Amazon.com, Inc. locations and non-exempt
   employees who were unionized.

   The proposed Class is estimated to include 3,134 individual
   members who collectively worked 125,704 work weeks.

The Settlement Agreement states that C & W will pay a maximum of
$2,500,000 ("Gross Settlement Amount"), resulting in a gross
payment per individual Class Member of approximately $797.70.

The Settlement Fund will be used to pay attorneys' fees and costs,
all individual Settlement payments made to Class members,
employees' share of payroll taxes, the Service Payment to the named
Plaintiffs, costs of settlement administration, and the PAGA
Allocation.

About $200,000 from the Gross Settlement Amount will be allocated
to settle claims brought pursuant to the California
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). $175,000 of this amount
will be paid to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency
("LWDA").

C&W is an integrated facility services provider that helps clients
drive down facility operating expenses, and increase facility
efficiency.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w3dv7A at no extra charge.[CC]

CAPITAL PLUS: Leave to Refile Bid for Class Certification Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eric Greathouse, Ernesto
Covarrubias, Tiffany Sumrall, Barbara Myles, Cori Pericho, John
Pinkney, Joshua Smith and Alicia Mena, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. Capital Plus Financial, LLC,
Crossroads Impact Corp., Eric A. Donnelly and Robert H. Alpert,
Case No. 4:22-cv-00686-P (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs submit a
motion for leave to refile Plaintiffs' class certification motion.


The Plaintiffs are simultaneously filing and incorporate herewith
the attached certificate of conference; an accompanying brief; a
proposed order; and Plaintiffs' class certification motion and
accompanying brief and appendix which are identical to the motion
for class certification and brief and appendix Plaintiffs filed
December 22, 2022 except that Plaintiffs' accompanying motion for
class certification now includes a certificate of conference as
directed by the Court's January 9, 2023 Order and Local Rule
7.1(b), and Plaintiffs' accompanying motion for class certification
and brief have been re-dated to reflect that they are being filed
today.

Capital Plus is a real estate financial institution specializing in
residential mortgage lending.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 11, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H4e9bl at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq.
          Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
          Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 274-9420
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: llederer@baileyglasser.com
                  bcohen@baileyglasser.com
                  mmurphy@baileyglasser.com

                - and -

          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 -

          Justin A. Heller, Esq.
          Matthew M. Zapala, Esq.
          NOLAN HELLER KAUFFMAN LLP
          80 State Street, 11th Floor
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 449-3300
          Facsimile: (518) 432-3123
          E-mail:jheller@nhkllp.com
                 mzapala@nhkllp.com

                - and -

          Katherine C. Campbell, Esq.
          FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
          3350 S. Pinnacle Hills Pkwy, Suite 301
          Rogers, AR 72758
          Telephone: (479) 695-6049
          Facsimile: (501) 244-5389
          E-mail: kcampbell@fridayfirm.com

CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Moore Sues Over Illegal Background Check
------------------------------------------------------------
CHELESTE MOORE, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CARDINAL LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
Case No. CACE-23-000198 (Fla. Cir., Jan. 6, 2023) alleges that
Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 by failing
to provide the Plaintiff and other Pre-Adverse Action Class members
with a copy of the consumer report that was used to take adverse
employment action against the class.

Accordingly, the Defendant obtained the consumer reports from a
non-party reporting agency, "iiX" which is part of Verisk Analytics
Inc.

The Plaintiff applied on December 9, 2021 through the Defendant to
work for Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation. On December 9.
2021, the Plaintiff was informed iiX would conduct the background
check on behalf of the Defendant.

On December 10, 2021, the Plaintiff received the first of two
alleged Pre-Adverse Action Notices. The Plaintiff immediately
reached out to Ms. Figueroa to try and clear up some of the issues
in her report, as it had contained multiple inaccuracies. The
Defendant ignored the Plaintiff’s efforts.

On December 12, 2021, the Plaintiff received an email from Wanda
Figueroa stating that the Plaintiff was not selected to move
forward in the application process.

On December 26, 2021, the Plaintiff received from Defendant another
Pre-Adverse Action Notice. The very next day, the Plaintiff
received from Defendant an alleged Post-Adverse Action Notice.

In the Post-Adverse Action Notice, the Defendant informed the
Plaintiff that the information that they they had obtained for her
background check was used to make its hiring decision to not
proceed with the Plaintiff’s application. However, the Defendant
allegedly did not tell the Plaintiff what, if any, was the
discrepancy in the information in her background check.

By depriving the Plaintiff of all of this information, the
Defendant robbed the Plaintiff of the ability to review the adverse
information about her and explain to the Defendant any mitigating
factors. The Plaintiff was also deprived of the opportunity to
explain to the Defendant its interpretation of her report did not
warrant termination and/or a withdrawal of her employment
application, the lawsuit contends.

Cardinal Logistics is a transportation company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.corn
                  aheystek@wfclaw.com
                  gdesane@wfclaw.com

CGS STORES: Seeks More Time to Respond to Willis Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEVERLY WILLIS,
Individually, and on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated as a class, v. CGS STORES, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01166-JDB-jay (W.D. Tenn.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order for a one-week extension, through and including
January 18, 2023, of its deadline to respond to Plaintiff Beverly
Willis's Motion for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Conditional
Certification.

On August 4, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Collective Action
Complaint asserting claims for alleged violations of FLSA.

On November 17, 2022, the Court entered a Joint Scheduling Order,
which, among other things, provided for the completion of discovery
addressing issues related to the propriety of certification of the
collective action and established January 13, 2023, as the deadline
for Plaintiff to file a motion for conditional certification.

The Joint Scheduling Order provides that the Defendant's response
to the motion for conditional certification was due within 30 days
from the filing of Plaintiff’s motion.

On December 28, 2022, Defendant filed a motion for an extension of
time to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion, informing the court that
the parties had conferred regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for FLSA
Conditional Certification and anticipated entering an agreed order
reflecting their stipulation to the conditional certification of,
and issuance of notice to, a collective inclusive of certain
current and former employees of the Defendant.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 11, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3w8g6wRat no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT
          OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, Tennessee 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com


The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew G. Gallagher, Esq.
          Kaitlyn A. Hansen, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          3725 Champion Hills Drive, Suite 3000
          Memphis, TN 38125
          Telephone: (901) 795-6695
          Facsimile: (901) 881-4333
          E-mail: mgallagher@littler.com
                  khansen@littler.com

CHAPMAN SCOTTSDALE: Partially Wins Summary Judgment vs Jacksen
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Megan Jacksen, v. Chapman
Scottsdale Autoplex, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company,
d/b/a Chapman Volkswagen Scottsdale Arizona, Case No.
2:21-cv-00087-DGC (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge David G. Campbell
entered an order that:

   1. Chapman's motion for summary judgment is granted with
      respect to Counts 1 and 3, and denied with respect to
       Count 2.

   2. By January 20, 2023, the parties shall provide the Court
      with a jointly proposed schedule for the remaining
      discovery in this case and briefing of a motion for class
      certification.

The Plaintiff Jacksen alleges that the Defendant Chapman made phone
calls and sent a text message to her in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Zu7vSQ at no extra charge.[CC]


CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Williams, et al., v. The
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, Case No. 3:20-cv-00242
(W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer entered an
order on motion for extension of scheduling deadlines:

   -- Class certification/decertification     June 15, 2023
      motions due by:

   -- Dispositive motions due by:             Aug. 10, 2023

   -- Dispositive motions hearing by:         Sept. 22, 2023

   -- Jury Trial set for:                     Nov. 6, 2023.

The nature of suit  states Civil Rights -- Job Discrimination
(Age).

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, doing business as
Atrium Health, operates as a hospital. The Hospital offers home
health care.[CC]

CHATTEM INC: Faces Suit Over Dietary Supplements Deceptive Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK GONZALEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHATTEM, INC., SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, and SANOFI US
SERVICES INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00102-JCS (N.D. Cal., Jan. 9, 2023)
seeks redress for unlawful and deceptive practices in labeling and
marketing the line of "natural" dietary supplements called "Unisom
Simple Slumbers (tradename)" with the tagline "GET A GOOD NIGHT'S
SLEEP, NATURALLY."

As a consequence of Defendants' deceptive labeling of the Products,
the Plaintiff alleges Defendants have violated and are violating,
the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's False
Advertising Law and California's Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiff contends that Defendants' "naturally" advertising and
marketing is false, deceptive, and misleading because the Products
contain several artificial and synthetic ingredients, including
Citric Acid, Sodium Citrate, Vitamin B6 (Pyridoxine Hydrochloride),
and the primary ingredient in the Products, Melatonin. These
ingredients are not "natural," and thus, cannot "naturally" help a
consumer get a good night's sleep.

The Defendants allegedly use the "naturally" branding strategy and
labeling claim as the primary feature differentiating the Products
from other sleep-aid products in the marketplace. The Defendants
place the "naturally" advertising claim in bold, capitalized font
and surround the claim with a bright green background (a color
known to refer to nature) on the front and center of the label,
says the suit.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff relied on Defendants' representation
that their Products' ingredients, including the Products' primary
ingredients such as Melatonin, work "naturally" and are not
synthetic or artificial.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated consumers in the United States to halt the
dissemination of Defendants' false and misleading advertising
message, correct the false and misleading perception it has created
in the minds of consumers, and obtain redress for those who have
purchased the Products.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of and resides in California. On several
occasions including around April 2022, Mr. Gonzalez purchased
Defendants' Unisom Simple Slumbers 120 count Midnight Raspberry
"naturally" labeled Product at a CVS retail store in San Francisco,
California.

Chattem Inc. is an American, Chattanooga, Tennessee-based, producer
and marketer of over-the-counter healthcare products, toiletries,
dietary supplements, topical analgesics, and medicated skin care
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93 rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
                  ggranade@reesellp.com

COCA-COLA CO: Faces Jordan Suit Over Pina Colada Soda False Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Jordan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Coca-Cola Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-00028 (E.D.
Mo., Jan. 9, 2023) alleges that Defendant made false, deceptive,
and misleading representations of its pina colada flavored soda
purporting to have "100% Natural Flavors" under the Fanta brand
because the Product contains DL-Malic Acid, an artificial
ingredient which imparts the flavor of pineapple and coconut.

DL-Malic Acid is not a "natural flavor" as defined by federal and
state regulations, because it is not from a fruit, vegetable or
other natural source, nor is it made through a natural process.
Since the Product contains DL-Malic Acid that imparts the flavor of
a pina colada, pineapple and coconut, "100% Natural Flavors" is
false and misleading, says the suit.

Federal and identical state regulations require that instead of
"Piña Colada Flavored Soda With Other Natural Flavors," pina
colada must "be accompanied by the word(s) 'artificial' or
'artificially flavored,'" such as "Artificial Pina Colada Flavored
Soda" or "Artificially Flavored Pina Colada Soda."

As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$2.29 for 20 oz, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar
products, represented in a non-misleading way, the suit alleges.

The Plaintiff is part of the over 82% of Americans who believe
foods with artificial flavors are less healthy than those
containing natural flavors without artificial flavors.

Coca-Cola Company manufactures, packages, labels, markets, and
sells pina colada flavored soda under the Fanta brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel F. Harvath, Esq.
          HARVATH LAW GROUP, LLC
          75 W Lockwood Ave Ste 1
          Webster Groves MO 63119
          Telephone: (314) 550-3717
          E-mail: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com

CORE COMMUNITY: Faces Simpson Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROSCOE SIMPSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CORE COMMUNITY ORGANIZED RELIEF EFFORT and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV00412
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 9, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code
including failure to provide employment records, failure to pay
overtime and double time, failure to provide rest and meal periods,
failure to pay minimum wage, failure to keep accurate payroll
records and provide itemized wage statements, failure to pay
reporting time wages, failure to pay split shift wages, failure to
pay all wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon
discharge or resignation, failure to reimburse business-related
expenses, and failure to provide notice of paid sick time and
accrual.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a site manager from
November 21, 2020 until April 21, 2022.

Core Community Organized Relief Effort is a nonprofit corporation
doing business in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
         Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
         Raffi Tapanian, Esq.
         HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
         801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 696-2306
         Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
         E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
                 cathy@hbklawyers.com
                 raffi@hbklawyers.com

COSAN CONSTRUCTION: Amended Case Management Plan Entered in Sanchez
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURO SANCHEZ and JUAN
EUSEBIO SANTIAGO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. COSAN CONSTRUCTION CORP., AMCG INC., TRADE SOLUTIONS
INC., TERRENCE JAMES FERGUSON, and AARON KING, Case No.
1:21-cv-06744-JLR-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave
entered an amended case management plan as follows:

   1. All discovery shall be completed       March 17, 2023
      by:

   2. The parties shall file a joint         March 24, 2023
      letter certifying the completion
      of all discovery by:

   3. The briefing schedule for
      the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion
      for class certification under
      Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 is extended as
      follows:

      a. The Plaintiffs shall file the       February 17, 2023
         Class Motion in accordance with
         the Individual Practices of the
         Honorable Jennifer L. Rochon by:

      b. The Defendants shall file their     March 17, 2023
         opposition to the Class Motion
         by:

      c. The Plaintiff shall file their      April 7, 2023
         reply, if any, by:

   4. The telephone status conference scheduled for January 12,
      2023 is adjourned to Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 2:00 pm
      on the Court's conference line.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H0CgYu at no extra charge.[CC]

CREDIT CONTROL: Gandl Sues Over Deceptive & Unfair Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eva Gandl, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. CREDIT CONTROL, LLC DBA CREDIT CONTROL & COLLECTIONS, LLC, Case
No. 501100/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., Jan. 11, 2023), is
brought for damages brought by an individual consumer for
Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(the "FDCPA") which, inter alia, prohibits debt collectors from
engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair practices.

In its efforts to collect the alleged Debts, Defendant contacted
Plaintiff in writing, including by letter dated October 6, 2022.
The Letter was not the initial written communication Plaintiff
received from Defendant concerning the alleged Debts but upon
information and belief, the initial letter was formatted similarly,
if not identically, to the Letter. The Letter conveyed information
regarding the alleged Debts. The Letter advertises a "*** PAYMENT
PLAN OFFER ***" (as formatted in original) (internal quotations
omitted in original).

The Letter is confusing as it includes misleading representations
as to the time barred status of the alleged Debts. The Letter is
confusing as it includes misleading representations as to the legal
enforceability of the alleged Debts. As of the date Defendant sent
the Letter, the alleged Debts were time-barred debt, i.e., they
fell outside the applicable Statute of Limitations period for
Defendant and/or the Putative Creditor to commence an action at law
to collect the underlying debt. As of the date Plaintiff received
the Letter, the alleged Debts were time-barred debt, i.e., they
fell outside the applicable Statute of Limitations period for the
prosecution of a collection action of the underlying debt.

The Letter claims that Plaintiff owes the sum of $32, 085.41 (the
"Claimed Amount"). The Letter claims that Plaintiff owes the sum of
$19,981.00 in connection with the 932 alleged Debt (the
"932-Claimed Amount"). The Letter claims that Plaintiff oweds the
sum of $12,104.41 in connection with the 376 alleged Debt (the
"376-Claimed Amount"). The alleged Debts were in default by July
2019. The alleged Debts were "Charged-Off" on or before September
2019. Pursuant to the underlying Credit Agreement, the Plaintiff is
caused to "be in default under this Agreement if she failed to make
any payment when due."

That as a result, the Letter falsely represented the legal status
and character of the alleged Debts. The Letter materially
misrepresented the enforceability of the alleged Debts. The Letter
was materially deceptive as to the validity of the alleged Debts.
The least sophisticated consumer would be misled by Defendant's
actions, to the extent that s/he could read the Letter and be led
to believe that the alleged Debts are legally enforceable when, in
fact, they were not. The Letter was false and deceptive, to the
extent that they led Plaintiff to believe that there was a benefit
to making payment toward the alleged Debts when, in fact, such
payment would only inure to Plaintiff's detriment, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a
debt.

CREDIT CONTROL, LLC DBA CREDIT CONTROL & COLLECTIONS, LLC,
regularly collects or attempts to collect debts asserted to be owed
to others.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kara S. McCabe, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Cader, Esq.
          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW GROUP
          333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Suite 402
          Uniondale, New York 11553
          Phone: (516) 203-7624
          Fax: (516) 282-7878
          Email: kmccabe@sanderslaw.group


DALLAS JONES: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in McClurg Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNY MCCLURG, on behalf
of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. DALLAS JONES
ENTERPRISES, INC. doing business as Clay's Trucking; DANA PORTER;
BROCK PORTER and DALLAS JONES, Case No. 4:20-cv-00201-JHM-HBB (W.D.
Ky.), the Hon. Judge Brent Brennenstuhl entered an amended
scheduling order as follows:

   -- The parties shall complete all        June 21, 2023
      pretrial fact discovery no later
      than:

   -- Counsel for the Plaintiff shall       May 19, 2023
      disclose the identity of any
      person who may be used at trial
      to provide expert testimony under
      Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A) no
      later than:

   -- Counsel for the Defendant shall       June 19, 2023
      disclose the identity of any
      person who may be used at trial
      to provide expert testimony under
      Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A) no
      later than:

   -- The Plaintiff shall disclose the      July 19, 2023
      identity of any person who may be
      used at trial to provide rebuttal
      expert testimony with respect to
      Plaintiff's claims under Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A) no later than:

   -- The discovery depositions of all      August 21, 2023
      expert witnesses shall be completed
      no later:

   -- Counsel for the Defendants shall      October 31, 2023
      file any motion for
      "de-certification" of this action
      under the FLSA no later than:

   -- Counsel for the Plaintiff shall       October 31, 2023
      file any motion for class
      certification under Rule 23 with
      respect to the Plaintiff's claims
      under state law no later than:

   -- Counsel for the parties shall file    November 30, 2023
      all dispositive motions and motions
      related to the admissibility of
      expert testimony by:

Dallas Jones operates as an auto parts and accessories store.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w2ebtG at no extra charge.[CC]

DARIOHEALTH CORP: Delaware Court Closes Chavakula Stockholder Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
DarioHealth Corp. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 13, 2023, that the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware closed the Chavakula
putative stockholder class suit on January 9, 2022.

On January 12, 2021, plaintiff Anand Chavakula filed a putative
stockholder class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware (the "Court" against DarioHealth Corp. and the
then-members of DarioHealth's Board of Directors under the caption
Chavakula v. DarioHealth Corp. et al., C.A. No. 2021-0030-PAF (the
"Action") challenging a bylaw allowing DarioHealth's Board of
Directors to remove a director with or without cause (the "Removal
Provision").

The Company has entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff not to
use the Removal Provision to remove a director of the Company.

The Company also agreed to pay $75,000 in attorneys' fees and
expenses to plaintiff's counsel in full satisfaction of the claim
for attorneys' fees and expenses in the Action.

This payment includes a $500 service award to plaintiff Anand
Chavakula.

On January 9, 2022, the Court entered an order closing the case,
subject to DarioHealth filing an affidavit with the Court
confirming that this notice has been issued. In entering the order,
the Court was not asked to review, and did not pass judgment on,
the payment of the attorneys' fees and expenses or their
reasonableness.

DarioHealth Corp. designs and develops healthcare software
solutions. The Company offers blood sugar monitoring, clinical
trials, diabetes care, and other medical solutions. [BN]

DERMALOGICA LLC: Reyes Sues Over Slack-Filled Skincare Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DERMALOGICA, LLC and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2023-01300813-CU-MT-CXC (Cal.
Super., Orange Cty., January 9, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law,
Business and Professions Code, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
skincare products. The Defendants deceptively sell the products in
oversized packaging that does not reasonably inform consumers that
they are more than half empty. The front of the products' packaging
do not include any information that would reasonably apprise
consumers of the quantity of products relative to the size of the
container, such as a fill line. As a result of the Defendants'
misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and Class members purchased the
products at a premium price, says the suit.

Dermalogica, LLC is a manufacturer of skincare products,
headquartered in Carson, California. [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

DEXAFIT INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DexaFit, Inc. The
case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. DexaFit, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00190-EK-SJB (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2023).

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

DexaFit -- https://www.dexafit.com/ -- provides body Composition
Scanning, Metabolic and Fitness Testing and offer state-of-the-art
body composition testing on GE equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DOLGEN MIDWEST: Court Sets Class Certification Deadlines in Husar
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORMAN HUSAR, v. DOLGEN
MIDWEST, LLC., Case No. 1:22-cv-02044-JG (N.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge James S. Gwin entered an order setting following class
certification deadlines:

   (1) Deadline to Add Parties or       January 11, 2023
       Amend Pleadings:

   (2) Deadline for Filing              May 22, 2023
       Dispositive Motions:

   (3) Deadline for Filing              June 5, 2023
       Opposition to Dispositive
       Motions:

   (4) Deadline for Filing              June 12, 2023
       Replies to Responses:

   (5) Deadline for All Discovery:      November 27, 2023

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CN7i3h at no extra charge.[CC]

DRAFTKINGS INC: Averts Class Action Suit Over SBTech Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martina Barash, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that investors
can't proceed with claims that DraftKings Inc. failed to disclose a
company it acquired had a history of illegal operations that
exposed it to liability, a federal court in New York ruled on Jan.
10.

The stockholders didn't supply sufficient facts about alleged legal
violations involving SBTech (Global) Ltd. or DraftKings
misstatements to support their would-be class suit, Judge Paul A.
Engelmayer said for the US District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

They also didn't show the necessary state of mind for the
securities fraud claims to proceed, Engelmayer said. He dismissed
the case with finality. [GN]


DRAFTKINGS INC: Turley Sues Over Cancellation of DFS Contests
-------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON G. TURLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DRAFTKINGS INC. and DRAFTKINGS
HOLDINGS INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-10054 (D. Mass.,
January 9, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the New
York General Business Law and the New York False Advertising Law.

The case arises from DraftKings's misrepresentations, omissions, or
failure to disclose material facts about the rules of its daily
fantasy sports (DFS) contests. DraftKings omitted, concealed, and
failed to disclose the fact that it, apparently, reserved a right
to cancel contests at its sole discretion, and could ignore the
governing rules applicable to the relevant DFS contests to refuse
to pay out winnings to which participants, including Plaintiff and
Class members, were entitled. Due to its misrepresentations and
omissions, DraftKings has knowingly and unjustly been enriched at
the expense of and to the detriment of the Plaintiff and Class
members by collecting excess profits to which it is not entitled,
says the suit.

DraftKings Inc. is a digital sports entertainment and gaming
company, with its headquarters located at 222 Berkeley Street, 5th
Floor, Boston, Massachusetts.

DraftKings Holdings Inc. is a digital sports entertainment and
gaming company, headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Alex R. Straus, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
         280 S. Beverly Drive, PH Suite
         Beverly Hills, CA 90212
         Telephone: (917) 471-1894
         Facsimile: (310) 496-3176
         E-mail: astraus@milberg.com

                - and -

         Adam E. Edwards, Esq.
         William A. Ladnier, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
         800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
         Knoxville, TN 37929
         Telephone: (865) 247-0080
         E-mail: aedwards@milberg.com
                 wladnier@milberg.com

                - and -

         Mitchell Breit, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
         405 East 50th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (347) 668-8445
         E-mail: mbreit@milberg.com

                - and -

         Luke P. Hudock, Esq.
         HUDOCK LAW GROUP, S.C.
         P.O. Box 83
         Muskego, WI 53150
         Telephone: (414) 526-4906
         E-mail: lphudock@law-hlg.com

EDWARD D. JONES: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Anderson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD ANDERSON, RAYMOND
KEITH CORUM, JESSE AND COLLEEN WORTHINGTON, and JANET GORAL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P., Case No. 2:18-cv-00714-TLN-AC (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered a pretrial scheduling
order as follows:

  -- All discovery in Phase I shall be        June 23, 2023
     limited to facts that are relevant
     to whether this action should be
     certified as a class action and
     shall be completed by:

  -- All counsel are to designate in           July 21, 2023
     writing, file with the Court, and
     serve upon all other parties the
     name, address, and area of
     expertise of each expert that
     they propose to tender at class
     certification not later than:

  -- The Motion for Class Certification        Sept. 22, 2023
     shall be filed by:

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w2i0PN at no extra charge.[CC]

ENOVIX CORPORATION: Twitchell Sues Over Decline of Stock Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
MAURICE L. TWITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff v. ENOVIX CORPORATION, HARROLD RUST,
STEFFEN PIETZKE, CAMERON DALES, and THURMAN J. RODGERS, Defendants,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00071 (N.D.N.C., January 6, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) to trade Enovix common stock (or Rodgers Silicon
Valley Acquisition Corp. ("RSVAC") common stock prior to July 15,
2021) at artificially inflated prices between February 22, 2021,
through January 3, 2023. Specifically, the Defendants failed to
disclose material adverse facts about Enovix's revenues and ability
to manufacture its proprietary battery technology.

When the truth emerged, Enovix fell from a close of $18.87 per
share on October 31, 2022, to $10.53 per share by the close of
trading on November 2, 2022, a 44% decline. Enovix's share price
continually dropped 41% from a close of $12.12 per share on January
3, 2023 to a close of $7.15 on January 4, 2023 after it was
revealed that the Company's second production facility and Gen2
lines would be delayed by several additional months because of the
equipment failures experienced in the Fab-1 lines, says the suit.

Enovix Corporation is a manufacturer of silicon-anode lithium-ion
batteries, headquartered in Fremont, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
         BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
         400 Concar Drive
         San Mateo, CA 94402
         Telephone: (650) 781-0025
         E-mail: jake@blockleviton.com

EQUAL EXCHANGE: Rodriguez Sues Over Undisclosed Unsafe Metals
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Rodriguez, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. EQUAL EXCHANGE, INC., Case No.
3:23-cv-00055-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal., Jan. 11, 2023), is brought to
enjoin Equal Exchange from deceptively marketing the Product, and
to recover compensation for the Defendant's failure to disclose to
consumers that the Organic 80% Cacao Panama Extra Dark Chocolate
bar (the "Product") contains unsafe levels of lead and cadmium.

A December 2022 report by Consumer Reports states that "research
has found that some dark chocolate bars contain cadmium and
lead--two heavy metals linked to a host of health problems in
children and adults," in amounts such that "eating just an ounce a
day would put an adult over a level that public health authorities
and Consumer Report's experts say may be harmful for at least one
of those heavy metals." Among those containing substantial levels
of cadmium and lead is the Product.

The Equal Exchange Product tested at 120% of California's maximum
allowable dose level (MADL) for cadmium and, while below
California's maximum allowable dose level for lead, there is no
safe level of lead in food products. Lead and cadmium are heavy
metals and their presence in food, alone or combined, poses a
serious safety risk to consumers because they can cause cancer and
serious and often irreversible damage to brain development, liver,
kidneys, bones, and other serious health problems. As Consumer
Reports noted, "both cadmium and lead pose serious health risks"
and, with respect to lead specifically, "no amount of it is
considered safe."

Consumers who purchased the Product were injured by Equal
Exchange's acts and omissions concerning the presence of lead and
cadmium. No reasonable consumer would know, or have reason to know,
that the Product contains heavy metals, including lead and cadmium.
Worse, as companies across the industry have adopted methods to
limit heavy metals in their dark chocolate products, Equal Exchange
has stood idly by with a reckless disregard for its consumers'
health and well-being.

Prior to purchasing the Product, Plaintiff and the Class members
were exposed to, saw, read, and understood the labels of the
Product, and relied upon the same in purchasing the Product, but
Equal Exchange failed to disclose the presence of heavy metals. As
a result of Equal Exchange's concealment of the fact that the
Product contained toxic heavy metals, including lead and cadmium,
Plaintiff and the Class members reasonably believed the Product
were free from substances that would negatively affect children's
development as well as their own health.

Had Plaintiff and the Class members known that the Product
contained toxic heavy metals, rendering them unsafe for
consumption, they would not have been willing to purchase the
Product or would have paid less for them. Therefore, as a direct
and proximate result of Equal Exchange's omissions concerning the
Product, Plaintiff and the Class Members purchased the Product and
paid more than they were worth, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Equal Exchange Product in reliance upon
Equal Exchange's labels that contained omissions.

Equal Exchange markets and sells the Organic 80% Cacao Panama Extra
Dark Chocolate bar throughout the United States, including in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
          Melanie Persinger, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn (Sbn 253362)
          Caroline S. Emhardt, Esq.
          FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP
          2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, California 92110
          Phone: (619) 215-1741
          Email: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                 paul@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                 melanie@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                 trevor@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                 caroline@fitzgeraldjoseph.com


ETHOS TECHNOLOGIES: Dibisceglia Files Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ethos Technologies,
Inc. The case is styled as Josephine Dibisceglia, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Ethos Technologies,
Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00133 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 11, 2023).

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

Ethos -- https://www.ethoslife.com/ -- is a technology company that
makes getting life insurance easier, faster, and better for
everyone.[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
          Phone: (858) 209-6941
          Email: jnelson@milberg.com


GARRETT LEIGHT: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Garrett Leight, LLC.
The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Garrett Leight, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00192 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2023).

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

Garrett Leight -- https://garrettleight.eu/ -- is an independent
eyewear brand committed to creating high quality, handmade eyewear
inspired by the people, places, and stories of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GEICO: Biscardi Bid for Conditional Certification OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIDGET BISCARDI, CRAIG
NEIDLINGER, and STEPHANIE KOONTZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE
COMPANY, d/b/a GEICO, a Maryland Corporation, Case No.
8:21-cv-02240-GJH (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge George J. Hazel entered
an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to withdraw as
      counsel;

   2. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for admission pro hac
      vice; and

   3. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
      certification;

      a. The Court conditionally certifies a Fair Labor
         Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action of all non-
         exempt Auto Claim and/or Damage Adjusters ("Adjusters")
         who work or worked for Defendant Government Employees
         Insurance Company throughout the United States (with
         the exception of those Adjusters who work or worked
         solely in California, Florida, Massachusetts, New
         Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and
         Pennsylvania) at any time from three years prior to the
         date on which the list of Opt-In Plaintiffs is due (the
         "FLSA Collective").

      b. Within 10 business days of this Order, Defendant is
         directed to produce to Plaintiffs' counsel a class list
         in electronic (i.e., Excel) format containing the FLSA
         Collective members' full names, addresses, telephone
         numbers, dates and locations of employment, and work
         and personal email addresses.

      c. The Court approves Plaintiffs' proposed notices which
         are attached as Exhibits O to T to Plaintiffs'
         Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for
         Conditional Certification.

      d. The Court approves Plaintiffs' proposed methods to
         disseminate notice via mail, text message, and e-mail.
         The Court also approves Plaintiffs' request to send
         reminder notices via mail and e-mail 30 days after the
         initial mailing of the notice to the FLSA Collective
         members.

GEICO is a private American auto insurance company with
headquarters in Chevy Chase, Maryland. It is the second largest
auto insurer in the United States, after State Farm.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ivtY1mat no extra charge.[CC]

GENERAL MOTORS: Hurry, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINGUEZ HURRY and TERRY
WASDIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00673-ECM-JTA
(M.D. Ala.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class defined as follows:

      "All current owners or lessees of a 2011-2014 Chevrolet
      Avalanche, 2011-2014 Chevrolet Silverado, 2011-2014
      Chevrolet Suburban, 2011-2014 Chevrolet Tahoe, 2011-2014
      GMC Sierra, 2011-2014 GMC Yukon, and 2011-2014 GMC Yukon
      XL manufactured on or after February 10, 2011 that was
      equipped with a Generation IV 5.3-liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9
      engine that was purchased or leased in the State of
      Alabama;"

   2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles,
      P.C. and DiCello Levitt LLC as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 11, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3XbUlbsat no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles III, Esq.
          J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
          Tyner D. Helms, Esq.
          Dylan T. Martin, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
          PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          272 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          E-mail: Dee.Miles@beasleyallen.com
                  Clay.Barnett@beasleyallen.com
                  Mitch.Williams@beasleyallen.com
                  Tyner.Helms@beasleyallen.com
                  Dylan.Martin@Beasleyallen.com

                - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          John E. Tangren, Esq.
          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                  jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
                  dferri@dicellolevitt.com

GERBER PRODUCTS: Court Narrows Claims in 1st Amended Norman Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FAITH NORMAN, Plaintiff v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-09940-JSW (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey S.
White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California grants in part and denies in part Gerber's motion to
dismiss Norman's First Amended Complaint.

The Defendant manufactures and sells baby food and infant formula
nationwide. In 2021, the Plaintiff purchased the Defendant's Gerber
Good Start Soy 2 Powder Infant & Toddler Formula from various
retail stores in San Jose.

In addition to the product she purchased, the Plaintiff challenges
the labelling on a number of other products, which also include the
Image on the front of the packaging. On at least some of the
Products, the Defendant includes the following statement on the
rear of the packaging above the ingredients list: "NON GMO Not Made
With Genetically Engineered Ingredients." The Court refers to the
Image and the Statement collectively as the "Non GMO Claim."

The Plaintiff brings the putative class action to challenge the
Defendant's Non GMO Claim on its Products. She alleges that
although the Defendant uses the Non GMO Claim, the Products
actually contain ingredients derived from genetically modified food
sources and are, therefore, not non-GMO. She alleges she reviewed
the labeling, packaging, and marketing materials of her Products
and saw the claims that the Products are purportedly `Non-GMO'" in
deciding whether to purchase the Products. The Plaintiff believed
the Products did not contain genetically modified ingredients or
ingredients sourced from animals derived on GMO feed and alleges
she would not have purchased the Products if she had known the
truth.

The Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action against the Defendant:
(1) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"),
Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.; (2)
violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Business
and Professions Code sections 17500, et seq.; (3) violation of
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Civil Code
sections 1750, et seq.; (4) breach of express warranty; (5) breach
of the implied warranty of merchantability; (6) unjust
enrichment/restitution; (7) negligent misrepresentation; (8) fraud;
and (9) fraudulent misrepresentation.

Now before the Court for consideration is Gerber's motion to
dismiss the FAC.

First, the Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for
equitable restitution on the basis that she does not allege she
lacks an adequate remedy at law.

Judge White explains that it is well-established that claims for
relief under the FAL and the UCL are limited to restitution and
injunctive relief. In contrast, the CLRA provides for equitable
relief and for damages. In Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corporation,
the Ninth Circuit held "that the traditional principles governing
equitable remedies in federal courts, including the requisite
inadequacy of legal remedies, apply when a party requests
restitution under the UCL and CLRA in a diversity action."

The Plaintiff fails to allege that she lacks an adequate remedy at
law for her restitution claim. Judge White finds that the
Plaintiff's allegations do not show how restitution would go beyond
the damages available to her. The Plaintiff fails to allege any
specific facts showing that damages are inadequate or incomplete.
Her allegations are not enough to meet Sonner's rule because the
Plaintiff does not allege she lacks adequate legal remedies.

Accordingly, Judge White grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's claim for equitable restitution. Because it is
possible that the Plaintiff could plead that she lacks an adequate
remedy at law, Judge White grants her leave to amend.

In addition to seeking restitution, the Plaintiff seeks prospective
injunctive relief. She alleges that she lacks an adequate remedy at
law because absent an injunction, the Defendant will continue to
deceive consumers

Judge White concludes that the Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that
she lacks an adequate remedy at law for injunctive relief.
Accordingly, he denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief.

The Plaintiff alleges she purchased one of the Products listed in
the FAC, which did not contain animal byproducts. The Defendant
argues that she lacks standing to pursue claims based on Products
she did not purchase, which would include Products that are derived
from animals raised on GMO feed.

Judge White finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that
the Products she did not purchase are substantially similar to the
Product she did purchase. The differences between the Products
raised by the Defendant in the motion may impact class
certification or summary judgment, but the differences are not
enough to defeat substantial similarity for the purposes of
standing. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion on this basis is
denied.

The Defendant also argues the Plaintiff fails to meet Rule 9(b)'s
heightened pleading standard. More specifically, it argues that she
did not sufficiently allege "what" is false and "why" it is false.

Judge White concludes that the Plaintiff's allegations satisfy Rule
9(b)'s heightened pleading standard because she sufficiently
"identifies the circumstances constituting fraud so that the
Defendant can prepare an adequate answer from the allegations." The
Plaintiff has alleged the "who, what, when, where, and how" of the
challenged misconduct. Further, the facts are sufficient to allege
a reasonable consumer would be deceived. Therefore, the Plaintiff
sufficiently alleges why the Defendant's Non GMO Claim is false.
Accordingly, the Defendant's motion on this basis is denied.

Judge White grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss claims based
on the "Category 2" ingredients, but will grants the Plaintiff
leave to amend. He denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss claims
based on the "Category 3" ingredients. He finds that the Plaintiff
sufficiently alleges a reasonable consumer would have this
understanding of the term non-GMO because of the prevalence and
recognizability of the Non-GMO Project, the efforts of the federal
government, and market research into a reasonable consumer's
interpretation of the term non-GMO. Additionally, the Plaintiff's
definition of non-GMO for Category 3 ingredients do not require
allegations of how animals are genetically modified from consuming
GMO feed or how the resulting byproducts are also genetically
modified.

Accepting the Plaintiff's allegations as true, and drawing all
reasonable inferences in her favor, Judge White also concludes that
the Plaintiff has plausibly stated that a reasonable consumer would
be deceived by the Non GMO Claim on the Products' labels. The
Plaintiff alleges other facts that, when taken in combination with
the generalized statistics, plausibly state a claim for relief.
According, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied on this
basis.

The Plaintiff also sufficiently alleges the Non GMO Claim would
deceive a reasonable consumer. Accordingly, she has stated a claim
under the UCL's fraudulent prong and Judge White denies the
Defendant's motion to dismiss this claim. The Defendant may renew
its arguments about whether the Plaintiff is able to prevail under
each prong by way of a motion for summary judgment.

Finally, Judge White denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
claim for breach of warranty. The Defendant argues that the
Plaintiff fails to state a breach of warranty claim because she
does not plausibly allege the Non GMO Claim was false or
misleading. However, the Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that a
reasonable consumer could be deceived.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge White grants in part and denies in
part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff may file an
amended complaint by no later than Jan. 27, 2023, and the Defendant
will answer or otherwise respond by Feb. 17, 2023. The parties will
appear on March 17, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. for an initial case
management conference, and they will file a joint case management
conference statement by March 10, 2023.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mv7sk5hp from Leagle.com.


GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Sued Over "No Artificial Sweeteners" Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa P. Alsobrook, Esq., Melvin S. Drozen, Esq., Jill M. Mahoney,
Esq., Richard F. Mann, Esq., Paula S. Pastuskovas, Esq., and
Evangelia C. Pelonis, Esq., of Keller and Heckman LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, report that a class action was
filed on January 5, 2023, against Glanbia Performance Nutrition,
Inc. d/b/a THINK!, alleging that the company deceived consumers by
claiming that their protein bars contained no artificial sweeteners
despite being sweetened by maltitol syrup.

Maltitol is a sugar alcohol, and the complaint describes how
maltitol is produced to demonstrate that the ingredient is
artificial; namely, maltose is hydrogenated in the presence of
hydrogen gas and a metal catalyst.

Although FDA does not specifically define "artificial" or
"artificial sweetener" (it does, however, define "artificial" in
other contexts like artificial flavoring or artificial color), it
refers to many of the approved sweeteners as artificial sweeteners.
See e.g., 21 CFR 145.131 (Requiring canned figs that are sweetened
with saccharin and/or sodium saccharin to be labeled as
"artificially sweetened"). The complaint alleges that the
hydrogenation reaction chemically changes the natural starting
material (maltose), is not a naturally occurring chemical reaction,
and therefore renders the maltitol product artificial. We note that
while there is no GRAS or food additive regulation for maltitol, it
is marketed on the basis of a self-affirmed GRAS position and is
referenced in FDA's regulations as one of the sugar alcohols which
qualifies as a noncariogenic carbohydrate sweetener for which
certain health claims can be made.

We will continue to monitor and report on this case and other
litigation relating to natural and artificial (free) claims.

Lauren Haas, Nicholas Prust, Frederick Stearns, and Emily Thomas
also contributed to this article. [GN]

GLOBAL MOTIVATION: Judge Tosses TCPA Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
David Klein, Esq., of Klein Moyniha Turco LLP, disclosed that on
December 27, 2022, Judge Aileen Cannon of the Southern District of
Florida entered an order dismissing the First Amended Complaint in
Stephen Muccio v. Global Motivation, Inc. and Jordan Belfort. This
class action complaint alleged that Jordan Belfort a.k.a. "The Wolf
of Wall Street," and his company, Global Motivation, Inc ("GMI"),
had sent marketing communications in violation of both the TCPA and
the FTSA. The TCPA, or Telephone Consumer Protection Act, is a
federal statute designed to protect consumer privacy by restricting
certain types of telemarketing communications. The FTSA is
Florida's Mini-TCPA, or its state equivalent of the TCPA. Along
with California, Florida has been one of the most active
jurisdictions in protecting the privacy rights of consumers. In
some respects, the FTSA is even more restrictive than the TCPA. The
primary intent of both statutes is to have businesses only send
telemarketing communications to consumers who have provided their
express written consent to be contacted. Mr. Muccio's complaint
alleged that Mr. Belfort had overseen or authorized the unsolicited
commercial text messaging to at least 100 Florida consumers by
GMI.

The importance of the Court's dismissal cannot be overstated.
Although a variety of nuanced defenses were raised by Mr. Belfort
and GMI, Judge Cannon's order decided the matter on the threshold
issue of standing. Simply stated, Mr. Muccio had not demonstrated
injury sufficient to establish Article III standing. Thus, his TCPA
text message claims could not be heard in federal court and the
action was summarily dismissed.

Mr. Muccio's TCPA Text Message Claims Against Mr. Belfort
On November 3, 2022, Mr. Muccio filed a five-count First Amended
Complaint ("FAC") against Mr. Belfort and GMI. The FAC alleged that
Mr. Muccio, a Palm Beach County resident, received five unsolicited
commercial text messages from GMI. Chief among Mr. Muccio's class
action claims were that: (1) consumers did not provide prior
consent to receive the alleged telemarketing communications; (2)
GMI did not maintain an internal do-not-call list ("IDNC"); and (3)
GMI utilized an automated telephone dialing system to send the
subject text messages.

In his prayer for relief, Mr. Muccio asked for statutory damages
for each class member under the TCPA and FTSA. The TCPA allows for
recovery of $500-1500, per violation. The FTSA allows recovery of
$500-1500, per violation, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
Given the size of the proposed class, the ramifications of class
certification were enormous.

Mr. Belfort's Motion to Dismiss
On November 14, 2022, Mr. Belfort and GMI filed a Motion to Dismiss
Mr. Muccio's FAC. The Motion primarily sought dismissal for lack of
Article III standing and for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Before proceeding to Defendants' argument that Mr. Muccio had
failed to state a claim, Judge Cannon first examined whether Mr.
Muccio had Article III standing to bring a federal claim. By way of
background, in the context of unsolicited text messages, the
opinion in Salcedo v. Hanna is binding precedent for the Eleventh
Circuit. In Salcedo, the plaintiff alleged violations of the TCPA
after the receipt of a single unsolicited commercial text message.
The court decided that pleading generalized intrusions on privacy
does not qualify as an injury in fact under Article III. Using the
Salcedo decision as a framework, Judge Cannon determined that this
injury analysis does not change even if Mr. Muccio alleged that he
received five text messages, as opposed to one: he still failed to
plead any peculiarized or concrete harm. In fact, Mr. Muccio
employed the same general injury language that most, if not all,
TCPA text message plaintiffs use: "inconvenience, invasion of
privacy, aggravation, annoyance, and violation of their statutory
privacy rights." Accordingly, Mr. Muccio failed to establish the
requirements of standing and, as such, the Court ruled that it did
not have jurisdiction over his claims, dismissing same without
prejudice.

Why is the Muccio Decision Important to your Business?
Judge Cannon's decision is an important reminder that successful
TCPA text lawsuit defense work can take effect at any stage of a
litigation proceeding, even at the pleading stages. While the team
at Klein Moynihan Turco presented succinct arguments for why Mr.
Muccio had failed to state a claim, the Court decided the matter
based on the initial discussion of standing. This favorable
decision is one in a long line of victories that the attorneys at
Klein Moynihan Turco have achieved for their clients at various
stages in defending TCPA class action matters. Whether early or
late in litigation, we are constantly evaluating all avenues to
dispose of actions and provide our clients with closure.

If you require assistance with telemarketing law compliance or
related litigation defense, please email us at
info@kleinmoynihan.com or call us at (212) 246-0900. [GN]

GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: Harkavy Sues Over Undisclosed Levels of Lead
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kamila Harkavy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GODIVA CHOCOLATIER, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00120 (N.D.
Cal., Jan. 10, 2023), is brought seeking to recover damages and
injunctive relief for the Defendant's continuing failure to
disclose to consumers that certain the Godiva Signature Dark
Chocolate 72% Cacao bar (the "Product") contains unsafe levels of
lead.

Dark chocolate is often touted as being a healthier alternative to
milk chocolate, however, a December 2022 report by Consumer Reports
revealed that certain dark chocolate bars, including the Product,
had high enough levels of lead and cadmium that "eating just an
ounce a day would put an adult over a level that public health
authorities and Consumer Reports' experts say may be harmful." Lead
in food poses a significant safety risk to consumers because it can
cause cancer and often irreversible damage to brain development as
well as other serious health problems.

Consumers who purchase the Product are injured by Defendant's acts
and omissions concerning the presence (or risk) of lead. No
reasonable consumer would know, or have reason to know, that the
Product contains (or risked containing) lead. Worse, as companies
across the industry have adopted methods to limit lead in their
dark chocolates, the Defendant has stood idly by with a reckless
disregard for its consumers' health and well-being. As such, the
Plaintiff seeks relief in this action individually and as a class
action on behalf of all purchasers of the Product.

The Plaintiff believed she was purchasing quality and safe dark
chocolate that did not contain (or risk containing) lead. Had
Defendant disclosed on the label that the Product contained (or
risked containing) unsafe toxic lead, the Plaintiff would have been
aware of that fact and would not have purchased the Product or
would have paid less for it, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has purchased Defendant's Product and has consumed
the Product numerous times.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells dark chocolate,
including the Product, throughout California and the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Sean L. Litteral, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
                 slitteral@bursor.com

               - and -

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


GRAND CANYON: Young Suit Dismissal Upheld in Part, Reversed in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONRICH YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant v. GRAND CANYON
UNIVERSITY, INC., GRAND CANYON EDUCATION, INC., d.b.a. Grand Canyon
University, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-12564 (11th Cir.),
the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirms in part and
reverses in part the district court's order dismissing the
complaint in its entirety with prejudice.

In January of 2015, Young enrolled in a Doctor of Education degree
program at Grand Canyon University. Mr. Mr. Young claims that he
did not complete his degree because, despite representing that
students can finish the program in 60 credit hours, Grand Canyon
makes that goal impossible with the aim of requiring students to
take and pay for additional courses. He also claims that he was not
provided with the faculty support promised by Grand Canyon
necessary to complete his required dissertation. According to him,
Grand Canyon's failure to provide dissertation support is designed
to require students to take and pay for additional courses that
would allow them to complete the dissertation.

Mr. Young first appeared in the case in 2019 as one of the
plaintiffs in an amended complaint filed in an ongoing putative
class action against Grand Canyon. The complaint sought recovery
for breach of contract, violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud
Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Section 44-1522 (ACFA), intentional
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The complaint also sought
a declaratory judgment regarding certain arbitration provisions in
the enrollment agreement.

Grand Canyon filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and a motion
to compel arbitration. The district court granted the motion to
compel arbitration, but the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded
as to several of Mr. Young's claims -- Young v. Grand Canyon Univ.,
Inc., 980 F.3d 814, 821 (11th Cir. 2020) (Young I). After adopting
the decision in Young I as its own, the district court denied Mr.
Young's motion for default judgment and granted Grand Canyon's
motion to dismiss all of the remaining claims with prejudice under
Rule 12(b)(6). Mr. Young timely filed his appeal.

Mr. Young challenges the district court's dismissal of two breach
of contract claims. The first claim is that Grand Canyon designed
its doctoral program such that students cannot complete the program
and obtain their degree in 60 credit hours, despite contractual
promises to the contrary. The second claim is that Grand Canyon
failed to provide doctoral candidates with the faculty support
necessary to complete a dissertation, as promised. Grand Canyon
argues, as it did below, that Mr. Young's breach of contract claims
fail because he cannot point to any specific contractual provisions
making either promise.

The question is whether Mr. Young has plausibly pled that Grand
Canyon breached any promises made to him. With respect to the claim
relating to the completion of the doctoral degree in 60 credit
hours, the Eleventh Circuit holds that he has not. But as to the
claim relating to the failure to provide faculty support for his
dissertation, he has.

Applying Arizona law, and with the benefit of oral argument, the
Eleventh Circuit affirms in part and reverses in part. It explains
that though Grand Canyon did not contractually promise Mr. Young
that he would earn a doctoral degree within 60 credit hours, he has
plausibly alleged that it did agree to provide him with the faculty
resources and guidance he needed to complete his dissertation -- a
prerequisite to receiving the degree. Insofar as he asserts that
Grand Canyon promised and failed to meaningfully provide him with
the faculty support necessary to complete his dissertation, the
Eleventh Circuit finds that Mr. Young has sufficiently alleged
breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing.

As for Mr. Young's other claims, the Eleventh Circuit affirms the
district court's dismissal. Mr. Young argues that the district
court erred by applying a heightened pleading standard to, and then
dismissing, his claims for intentional misrepresentation and
violations of the ACFA.

The Eleventh Circuit disagrees. Mr. Young's ACFA claim is based on
allegations that he relied on Grand Canyon's intentional
misrepresentations to his own detriment. Like the district courts
which have addressed the matter, the Eleventh Circuit holds that
Rule 9(b) applies to an ACFA claim because such a claim sounds in
fraud. Mr. Young's generalized assertions are also not enough to
satisfy the who, what, when, where, and how required by Rule 9(b).

Moreover, there is no indication that Grand Canyon failed to
preserve its arguments, adequately prosecute the case, or comply
with any orders. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Mr. Young's request for entry of default
judgment. Finally, Mr. Young's unjust enrichment claim remains
subject to the district court's order on Grand Canyon's motion to
compel arbitration. The district court properly dismissed that
claim.

For these reasons, the Eleventh Circuit affirms the district
court's dismissal of Mr. Young's claims for violations of the ACFA,
intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. It reverses
in part the dismissal of Mr. Young's claims for breach of contract
and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and
remands for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2rejaxnd from Leagle.com.


GREYHOUND LINES: Mag. Judge Recommends Dismissal of Catanghal Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERALD DE LEON CATANGHAL, Plaintiff v. GREYHOUND
LINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00961-EPG (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California recommends that the action be
dismissed.

Catanghal, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the
action on Aug. 2, 2022, under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), 42 U.S.C. Section 12112 et seq., and alleges that the
Defendant has engaged in discriminatory employment practices. He
further alleges that the Defendant has engaged in unfair labor
practices pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 7116.

The Plaintiff alleges as follows in his complaint that on Nov. 19,
2021, he sought to resume working for Defendant after being deemed
physically fit by his physician and receiving a three-month DOT
license from the Department of Motor Vehicles. He submitted
paperwork to that effect to supervisor Nancy Pinedo. Ms. Pinedo
forwarded the documents to manager Kathy Hartman.

Three weeks later, the Plaintiff was informed by Ms. Pinedo that he
had to repeat his physical examination because he went to the wrong
medical facility. He was unable to secure an appointment with the
approved medical facility until Jan. 5, 2022, at which time he
underwent another physical examination and passed all medical
tests. The Plaintiff received a medical certification and a
one-year DOT license from the DMV.

The Plaintiff submitted the paperwork regarding his medical
clearance and DOT license to Ms. Pinedo. Several weeks later, Ms.
Hartman instructed Ms. Pinedo to inform the Plaintiff that certain
medical documents were missing. Ms. Hartman requested that the
Plaintiff undergo the physical examination for a third time. The
Plaintiff filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and received a Notice of Right to Sue on May 2, 2022.
The Plaintiff has been unemployed since Nov. 21, 2021.

The Plaintiff generally alleges that he was subject to unfair and
discriminatory treatment by the Defendant because of medical
conditions, such as unstable blood pressure. He further alleges
that the Defendant subjected him to unequal terms and conditions of
his employment and that it failed to accommodate his disability.
Lastly, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant engaged in unfair labor
practices.

The Court previously screened the complaint and found that the
Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims. It gave him leave
to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in
the screening order. Alternatively, the Court gave the Plaintiff
the option of standing on his complaint, subject to the Court
issuing findings and recommendations to a district judge consistent
with the screening order.

On Dec. 8, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a notice, stating that he
wished to stand on his complaint.

First, Judge Grosjean finds that the Plaintiff has not set forth a
cognizable claim of discrimination under the ADA. She says the
facts alleged, even if true, would not establish a violation of the
ADA. The Plaintiff alleges that the examination results were
rejected because they were not complete, either because they were
conducted by the wrong professional or without the correct
paperwork. Such administrative requirements alone do not violate
the ADA. The facts alleged also do not establish that the Plaintiff
met the physical requirements of the job.

Judge Grosjean also finds that the Plaintiff's complaint fails to
state a cognizable claim for failure to accommodate his disability.
The only reference to an accommodation in the Plaintiff's complaint
is where he checked the "failure to accommodate my disability" box
on Form - Pro Se 7. A conclusion without factual support is
insufficient. The Plaintiff sets forth no facts about an
accommodation that was requested, denied, or otherwise not
accommodated.

Judge Grosjean further finds that the Plaintiff has not set forth a
cognizable claim of unequal terms and conditions of his employment.
She says the only reference in the Plaintiff's complaint to unequal
terms and conditions of employment is where he checked the box
titled "unequal terms and conditions of my employment" on Form -
Pro Se 7. However, the Plaintiff has not stated sufficient facts to
show that he was discriminated against regarding the terms,
conditions, and privileges of his employment.

Finally, Judge Grosjean holds that an employer requiring a medical
examination for an employee seeking to drive commercial motor
vehicles is not itself a violation of labor practices. Accordingly,
the Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim of unfair labor
practices.

Judge Grosjean concludes that the Plaintiff's complaint fails to
state any cognizable claims. The Court previously provided the
Plaintiff with the applicable legal standards, explained why his
complaint failed to state any claims, and gave him leave to file an
amended complaint. However, the Plaintiff chose to stand on his
complaint. Accordingly, Judge Grosjean finds that granting further
leave to amend would be futile.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Grosjean recommends that the action
be dismissed. She further recommends that the Clerk of Court be
directed to close the case.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United
States district judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1). Within 14 days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, the
Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document
should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendations." He is advised that failure to file objections
within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on
appeal.

Additionally, the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district
judge to the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2023 Findings &
Recommendations is available at https://tinyurl.com/5bpv8v4d from
Leagle.com.


HELLO PRODUCTS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Russell Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON RUSSELL AGUIRRE
EDWARD BLOTNICKI III, SANDRA BURNS, JOHN BRILEY, BENJAMIN CARTER,
TINA CASH, DANIEL DURGIN, STEFANIE EMERICK, TAWANA HUSTON, ERIC
FISHON, ERICA PARKS, SARAH PATELLOS, ROMONA REED, CHRIS SMITH,
KRISTIN STELEA, PEGGY TATUM, TIMOTHY THOMAS, CHRISTINA VAIN, and
TIA WINSTON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
v. HELLO PRODUCTS, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-09577-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Stewart D. Aaron entered an order:

   1. certifying the action as a class action on behalf of the
      following Settlement Class pursuant to Rule 23 of the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for purposes of, and
      solely in connection with, the Settlement:

      "All purchasers of the Products at the time the Products
      launched until the date the Court enter[ed] an order
      preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement [i.e.,
      June  15, 2022];" and

   2. certifying the Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives,
      and certifying William B. Federman of F&S and David Pastor
      of Pastor Law are certified as Class Counsel.

The Court finds that there are no exclusions from the Settlement
Class. There was one individual, named Andrew McClarty, who sent an
email requesting exclusion from the Class. However, Mr. McClarty's
exclusion request was deficient because he did not provide his
address or telephone number and he did not sign a request for
exclusion.

During the Fairness Hearing, the Court was advised that Mr.
McClarty did not respond to a deficiency notice sent to him. In
these circumstances, the Court finds that Mr. McClarty's request
for exclusion is invalid.

The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is procedurally fair
because it was reached through vigorous, arm's-length negotiations
and after experienced counsel had evaluatedthe merits of
Plaintiffs' claims through factual and legal investigation.

The Court also awards Class Counsel reimbursement of their
litigation expenses in the amount of $21,300.90, which are expenses
the Court finds were necessarily and reasonably incurred by Class
Counsel in prosecuting this action. The Plaintiffs' Motion for
Service Awards to Class Representatives is granted.

  -- Consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the
     Plaintiffs Patellos and Fishon shall be paid Service Awards
     in the amount of $3,500.00 each, and each Other Claimant
     shall be paid $350.00 each, in recognition of the services
     they each rendered on behalf of the Class.

Hello Products provides personal care products.

In June 2022, the Parties entered into a Class Action Settlement
Agreement. On June 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the class settlement, which the Defendant
did not oppose.

On June 15, 2022, the Court entered an Order preliminarily
approving the settlement on behalf of the Rule 23 class.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Zu71fk at no extra charge.[CC]


HONDA MOTOR: Nock Suit Alleges Distribution of Defective Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DENEEN NOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HONDA MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED and AMERICAN
HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00109-RGK-MAA
(C.D. Cal., January 9, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, fraudulent concealment, negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' manufacturing, distribution,
and selling of 2016-2020 Honda Pilot, and 2015-2020 Honda Odyssey,
Acura TLX, and Acura MDX vehicles with defective auto-idle stop
(AIS) system. The defect causes the AIS system to fail to trigger
an automatic engine restart when the driver releases the brake
pedal. When this occurs, the Class vehicles will, suddenly and
without warning, become inoperable and immobile. The defect poses
significant safety risks to the Plaintiff and members of the
Classes when the AIS fails to restart the engine, and the Class
vehicles become inoperable and immobile, often in hazardous
locations. Despite having longstanding knowledge of the AIS defect,
the Defendants continued selling defective vehicles, have failed to
disclose the existence of the defect to the Plaintiff and members
of the Classes, have not issued a recall addressing the defect, and
have not remedied the issue and/or compensated Class vehicle owners
for the material defect, says the suit.

Honda Motor Company Limited is an automobile company, headquartered
in Japan.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. is an automobile company, with its
principal place of business in Torrance, California. [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

INNOVATIVE STAFF: Faces Class Action Over Petrol Tanker Explosion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keely Goodall, writing for 702, reports that a Johannesburg firm is
helping families file a class action lawsuit after the explosion of
a petrol tanker in Boksburg, which claimed 37 lives.

Thabo Mdluli spoke to Zain Lundell, class action litigation
expert.

According to Lundell this case is not as straightforward as one may
assume and there are various possible people in the wrong.

Some of the possible wrong doers are Innovative Staff Solutions who
placed the driver in the position to drive the tanker and Infinite
Fleet Transport, who owned the vehicle, as well as the Passenger
Rail Agency of South Africa and the Ekurhuleni municipality.

While the independent road transport safety system auditor has
released a report clearing Infinite Fleet of any wrongdoing,
Lundell says this does seem a bit premature.

"That is not to say they have not done a proper job of what they
were supposed to do, but I think our position right now is that
there are still a lot of unknowns and investigations of this nature
take time and require careful work to be done."

Zain Lundell, class action litigation expert
He adds that his firm, RH Lawyers Incorporated, have started
investigating the explosion as they have been instructed by about
25 people who have various claims.

The claims range from those who were seriously injured, had damage
to their property and those who lost family members as a result of
the explosion. [GN]

J&C AMBULANCE: Class certification Bid Must Be Filed by Sept. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARA FIRST, et al., v. J&C
AMBULANCE SERVICES, INC., et al.,Case No. 2:22-cv-03296-MHW-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered memorandum
of first pretrial conference as follows:

  -- The parties shall exchange initial disclosures by February
     3, 2023.

  -- Any motion to amend the pleadings or to join additional
     parties shall be filed by May 31, 2023.

  -- The motion for class certification shall be filed by
     September 29, 2023.

  -- All discovery shall be completed by January 31, 2024.

  -- Any dispositive motions shall be filed by February 29,
     2024.

  -- Primary expert reports must be produced by September 29,
     2023.

  -- Rebuttal expert reports must be produced by November 30,
     2023.

  -- The Plaintiff will make a settlement demand by September
     29, 2023.

  -- The Defendants will respond by October 31, 2023.

The parties agree to make a good faith effort to settle this case.
The parties understand that this case will be referred to an
attorney mediator for a settlement conference in November 2023.

Defendants are considering Plaintiffs' proposal. The parties shall
notify the Court by January 20, 2023, of their respective
positions.

This matter is an employment discrimination and retaliation case
with a class action component for systemic violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), as amended by
the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act ("COBRA").

The Plaintiff Kara First contends that Defendants terminated her
employment and/or failed to hire her in violation of the Family and
Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and/or Ohio
Revised Code Chapter 4112.

Additionally, the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with
notice of their right under COBRA to continue their health
insurance benefits. Finally, because the COBRA violation occurred
in the context of the sale of a business where many employees and
their dependents were affected, Plaintiffs allege a putative class
action on the COBRA claims for all similarly situated employees and
dependents who were likewise denied their COBRA benefits.

For Defendant J&C Ambulance Services, Inc.: J&C denies all
liability under the cited statutes and denies that class
certification is proper.

For Fortune-HR, LLC: Defendant Alloy denies all liability regarding
Plaintiffs claims and denies that a class action is proper in this
case.

Further Defendant Alloy did not provide health insurance  or other
benefits to any employees named in the complaint or contemplated by
the class action.

J&C Ambulance offers emergency and scheduled medical
transportation, ventilating, and managed patient care services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CIzjcf at no extra charge.[CC]


JUMPSTART GAMES: Negrin Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BIANKHA NEGRIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JUMPSTART GAMES, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00089 (C.D.
Cal., Jan. 6, 2023) alleges that Defendant fails to properly secure
and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members'
personally identifiable information (PII) stored within
Defendant’s information network.

The information includes names, email addresses, usernames, dates
of birth, genders, IP addresses, Neopets PINs, hashed passwords,
data about a player's pet, game play, and other information
provided to Neopets.

The Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendant
responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause the
Representative Plaintiff and, at least, 69 million other similarly
situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack
purportedly occurring from January 3, 2021 to July 19, 2022.
Accordingly, the Defendant notified the Representative Plaintiff of
the Data Breach via a letter on August 29, 2022, says the suit.

As a result, the PII of the Representative Plaintiff and Class
Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and
unauthorized third party -- an undoubtedly nefarious third party
that seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding the
Representative Plaintiff and Class Members in the future. The
Representative Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing
interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe,
and they are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, the
suit contends.

Jumpstart Games produces and sells children’s games that "are
uniquely designed by early education experts to help your child to
learn, grow, and have fun." Among the games it produces is Neopets,
a "Virtual Pet Game" in which users care for digital pets by
feeding them, caring for them when they are ill, etc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
          Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq.
          COLE & VAN NOTE
          555 12 th Street, Suite 1725
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
          E-mail: sec@colevannote.com
                  lvn@colevannote.com
                  cab@colevannote.com
          Web: www.colevannote.com

                - and -

          Daniel Srourian, Esq.
          SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard , Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 474-3800
          Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
          E-mail: daniel@slfla.com
          Web: www.slfla.com

KIPLINGER WASHINGTON: Strano's $6.85MM Class Deal Wins Prelim. Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RALPH STRANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIPLINGER WASHINGTON EDITORS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-12987 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Thomas
L. Ludington of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Northern Division grants the Lead Plaintiff's Unopposed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, as
amended by the Lead Plaintiff's Revised Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

In the class-action suit brought under Michigan's Preservation of
Personal Privacy Act (PPPA), Lead Plaintiff Strano alleges the
Defendant improperly disclosed "detailed information" about his
subscription to Kiplinger's Personal Finance, leading to "a barrage
of unwanted junk mail."

In December 2021, former Lead Plaintiff Jay Ketover sued the
Defendant for violating Michigan's PPPA, alleging that, on July 30,
2016, the Defendant disclosed information about its subscribers'
personal reading history and habits without their consent. In
February 2022, Lead Plaintiff Strano replaced Ketover in a First
Amended Complaint making the same allegations.

After successful mediation in May 2022, the Parties finalized the
Settlement Agreement and the Lead Plaintiff filed an unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of it under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(e).

But the motion and the Agreement were denied without prejudice
because the proposed incentive award misaligned the interests of
the Lead Plaintiff and the unnamed members of the Class, raising
concerns about the adequacy of the Lead Plaintiff's representation
and the adequacy of the relief. .

Six days later, the Lead Plaintiff filed a "Revised Unopposed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement." In
sum, his $5,000 service award will be reduced to $1,000, and the
$4,000 difference will be distributed pro rata among Settlement
Class Members. And the remainder of his originally filed Motion for
Preliminary Approval is incorporated by reference.

The Agreement provides payments to the members of the proposed
Settlement Class, release of claims, class-notice procedures,
settlement administration, attorney's fees, service awards, and
termination of the Agreement.

Under the terms of the Agreement, the Defendant would deposit
$6,845,670 into the Settlement Fund and each member of the
Settlement Class would automatically receive approximately $248.

The Lead Plaintiff's proposed Settlement Class includes: All people
who purchased a subscription directly from the publisher of
Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine, The Kiplinger Letter,
Kiplinger's Investing for Income, The Kiplinger Tax Letter, or
Kiplinger's Retirement Report for delivery to a Michigan street
address, and who subscribed to such a publication between Dec. 24,
2015, and July 30, 2016.

Judge Ludington finds that the Class satisfies the Rule 23(a) and
Rule 23(b) requirements; the Agreement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate; and the proposed notice plan is most practicable way
under the circumstances to provide individual notice to the Class.
Accordingly, he grants the Lead Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, as amended by his
Revised Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement.

The Class is certified for settlement purposes only. It is defined
as "All people who purchased a subscription directly from the
publisher of Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine, The Kiplinger
Letter, Kiplinger's Investing for Income, The Kiplinger Tax Letter,
or Kiplinger's Retirement Report for delivery to a Michigan street
address, and who subscribed to such a publication between Dec. 24,
2015, and July 30, 2016."

For settlement purposes only, Lead Plaintiff Strano is appointed as
the Class Representative; the law firm of Bursor & Fisher, P.A., as
the Class Counsel; and JND Legal Administration as the Claims
Administrator.

The Proposed Settlement Agreement, as amended by ECF No. 25 at
PageID.1412-15 (reducing the Lead Plaintiff incentive award from
$5,000 to $1,000) is preliminarily approved.

The Proposed Settlement Notice Plan, including the Notice Forms and
Claim Form, is approved.

Judge Ludington directs the Claim Administrator to publish notice
according to the Proposed Settlement Notice Plan. Any member of the
Class who wishes to opt out of the Agreement must send a written
request to the designated post-office box established by the Claims
Administrator, postmarked on or before April 24, 2023. Any member
of the Class who does not properly and timely opt out of the
Agreement is, upon entry of a final order and judgment approving
the Agreement, BOUND by all it terms and provisions.

Further, Judge Ludington adopts the following schedule:

      Defendant to provide contact information of Settlement Class
Members to Claim Administrator on or before: Jan. 20, 2023

      Notice Program Commences on or before: Feb. 21, 2023

      Notice Program Concludes on or before: March 10, 2023

      Compliance with CAFA Waiting Period under 28 U.S.C. Section
1715(d): 90 days after appropriate government officials are served
with CAFA notice

      Postmark deadline for request for exclusion (opt-out) or
objections: April 24, 2023

      Deadline to file Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval
of the Settlement Agreement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Expenses, and Service Awards: May 22, 2023

      Postmark/Filing deadline for unidentified members of the
Class to file claims: June 6, 2023

      Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file any Response to
Objections or Supplement to Motion for Final Approval: June 13,
2023

      Deadline for Claims Administrator to file or cause to be
filed, if necessary, a supplemental declaration with the Court:
June 22, 2023

      Final Approval Hearing: June 28, 2023 at 3:00 p.m. (EDT)

Judge Ludington's Opinion & Order is not a final order and does not
close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3jz9v56d from Leagle.com.


KNIGHTSBRIDGE MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 10
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOLLY, et al., v.
KNIGHTSBRIDGE MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02163
(D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Trevor N. Mcfadden entered an order
setting class certification deadlines:

   -- Motion for Class Certification       Feb. 10, 2023
      due by:

   -- Opposition due by:                   Feb. 27, 2023

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Knightsbridge manages individual portfolios for private clients and
institutions.[CC]

LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Harkavy Sues Over Unsafe Levels of Heavy Metals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kamila Harkavy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LINDT & SPRUNGLI (NORTH AMERICA), INC., Case
3:23-cv-00121 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 10, 2023), is brought seeking to
recover damages and injunctive relief for Defendant's continuing
failure to disclose to consumers that certain Lindt dark chocolate
products (the "Products"), contain unsafe levels of lead and
cadmium.

The Lindt Dark Chocolate Products in question are the Lindt
"Excellence Dark Chocolate 70% Cocoa" bar and the Lindt "Excellence
Dark Chocolate 85% Cocoa" bar. Dark chocolate is often touted as
being a healthier alternative to milk chocolate, however, a
December 2022 report by Consumer Reports revealed that certain dark
chocolate bars, including the Products, had high enough levels of
lead and cadmium that "eating just an ounce a day would put an
adult over a level that public health authorities and Consumer
Reports' experts say may be harmful. Heavy Metals in foods pose a
significant safety risk to consumers because they can cause cancer
and often irreversible damage to brain development as well as other
serious health problems.

Consumers who purchase the Products are injured by Defendant's acts
and omissions concerning the presence (or risk) of Heavy Metals. No
reasonable consumer would know, or have reason to know, that the
Products contain (or risk containing) Heavy Metals. Worse, as
companies across the industry have adopted methods to limit heavy
metals in their dark chocolates, Defendant has stood idly by with a
reckless disregard for its consumers' health and well-being. As
such, the Plaintiff seeks relief in this action individually and as
a class action on behalf of all purchasers of the Products.

The Plaintiff believed she was purchasing quality and safe dark
chocolate that did not contain (or risk containing) lead. Had the
Defendant disclosed on the label that the Product contained (or
risked containing) unsafe toxic lead, the Plaintiff would have been
aware of that fact and would not have purchased the Product or
would have paid less for it, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has purchased Defendant's Product and has consumed
the Product numerous times.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells dark chocolate,
including the Products, throughout California and the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Sean L. Litteral, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
                 slitteral@bursor.com

               - and -

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


LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Rodriguez Sues Over Unsafe Levels of Heavy Metals
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Rodriguez, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. LINDT & SPRUNGLI (NORTH
AMERICA), INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00056-L-AHG (S.D. Cal., Jan. 11,
2023), is brought to enjoin Equal Exchange from deceptively
marketing the Product, and to recover compensation for the
Defendant's failure to disclose to consumers that the Lindt
Excellence Dark Chocolate 70% Cocoa and Lindt Excellence Dark
Chocolate 85% Cocoa (the "Products") contains unsafe levels of lead
and cadmium.

Lindt markets and sells a variety of confectionaries, including
dark chocolate products, and specifically including Lindt
Excellence Dark Chocolate 70% Cocoa and Lindt Excellence Dark
Chocolate 85% Cocoa. Lindt sells the Products throughout the United
States, including in California.

A December 2022 report by Consumer Reports states that "research
has found that some dark chocolate bars contain cadmium and
lead--two heavy metals linked to a host of health problems in
children and adults," in amounts such that "eating just an ounce a
day would put an adult over a level that public health authorities
and Consumer Report's experts say may be harmful for at least one
of those heavy metals." Among those containing substantial levels
of lead and cadmium are the Products.

As shown above, the 85% Cocoa bar tested at 166% of "California's
maximum allowable dose level (MADL) for lead" and the 70% Cocoa bar
tested at 116% of California's maximum allowable dose level for
cadmium. Lead and cadmium are heavy metals and their presence in
food, alone or combined, poses a serious safety risk to consumers
because they can cause cancer and serious and often irreversible
damage to brain development, liver, kidneys, bones, and other
serious health problems. As Consumer Reports noted, "both cadmium
and lead pose serious health risks" and, with respect to lead
specifically, "no amount of it is considered safe."

Consumers who purchased the Products were injured by Lindt's acts
and omissions concerning the presence of lead and cadmium. No
reasonable consumer would know, or have reason to know, that the
Products contained heavy metals, including lead and cadmium. Worse,
as companies across the industry have adopted methods to limit
heavy metals in their dark chocolate products, Lindt has stood idly
by with a reckless disregard for its consumers' health and
well-being.

Prior to purchasing the Products, Plaintiff and the Class members
were exposed to, saw, read, and understood the labels of the
Products, and relied upon the same in purchasing the Products, but
Lindt failed to disclose the presence of heavy metals. As a result
of Lindt's concealment of the fact that the Products contained
toxic heavy metals, including lead and cadmium, Plaintiff and the
Class members reasonably believed the Products were free from
substances that would negatively affect children's development as
well as their own health.

Had Plaintiff and the Class members known that the Products
contained toxic heavy metals, rendering them unsafe for
consumption, they would not have been willing to purchase the
Products or would have paid less for them. Therefore, as a direct
and proximate result of Lindt's omissions concerning the Products,
Plaintiff and the Class Members purchased the Products and paid
more than they were worth, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has purchased Defendant's Product and has consumed
the Product numerous times.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells dark chocolate,
including the Products, throughout California and the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
          Melanie Persinger, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
          Caroline S. Emhardt, Esq.
          FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP
          2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Phone: (619) 215-1741
          Email: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                 paul@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                 melanie@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                 trevor@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                 caroline@fitzgeraldjoseph.com


MADONNA FOOD: Cardoza Sues to Recover Unpaid, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Marlene Cardoza, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Madonna Food Sales, Inc. (DBA Chicken
Delight) Vincent J Madonna, Case No. 0:23-cv-00204 (E.D.N.Y., Jan.
11, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid wages, overtime
compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), as recently amended by the Wage
Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"), and related provisions from Title 12
of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations ("NYCRR").

The Plaintiff regularly work for Defendants in excess of 40 hours
per week without receiving appropriate overtime compensation for
any of the hours that she worked. The Plaintiff and other members
of the FLSA Class who are and/or have been similarly situated, have
had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and
have been subject to Defendants' common practices, policies,
programs, procedures, protocols and plans of willfully failing and
refusing to pay them the require overtime pay at a one and one half
her regular rates for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek under
the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants who was
employed at Chicken Delight in New York to prepare food for
deliveries.

The Defendants have owned, operated and controlled Madonna Food
Sales, Inc. (DBA Chicken Delight).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
          42 Broadway, 12t Floor
          New York, New York 10004
          Phone: (212) 203-2417


MAGNOLIA FLEET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Truong Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER TRUONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAGNOLIA FLEET LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00136-LMA-DPC (E.D. LA., Jan. 10, 2023) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Truong was employed by the Defendant as shore tankerman.

MAGNOLIA FLEET, LLC operates full service liquid and dry cargo
fleets on the lower Mississippi River and intracoastal waterways
and midstream fuel operations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
                 austin@a2xlaw.com

MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Houck Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher J. Houck, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated v. Maricopa County, Case No. 2:23-cv-00068-DGC (D. Ariz.,
Jan. 11, 2023), is brought against the County for its unlawful
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The County had and continues to have a consistent policy and
practice of suffering or permitting employees who worked as Patrol
Lieutenants, including Plaintiff, to work in excess of 40 hours per
week, without paying them proper overtime compensation as required
by federal wage and hour laws. The Plaintiff seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, interest thereon, statutory
penalties, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs on
behalf of himself and all similarly situated current and former
Patrol Lieutenants, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a full-time, non-exempt employee of the County
employed as a Deputy from August 2007 when he completed training
until September 2017 and then as Sergeant for MSCO from September
2017 until April 4, 2022.

The County provides law enforcement services throughout Maricopa
County.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
          YEN PILCH ROBAINA & KRESIN PLC
          6017 N. 15th Street
          Phoenix, Arizona 85014
          Phone: (602) 682-6450
          Email: TDF@yprklaw.com

               - and -

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          YEN PILCH ROBAINA & KRESIN PLC
          9655 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 200
          San Diego, California 92123
          Phone: (619) 756-7748
          Email: PNS@yprklaw.com


MARKET MY BUSINESS: Ulery Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ULERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARKET MY BUSINESS TODAY INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00039-MDB (D. Colo., January 6, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant placed prerecorded calls
to consumers' cell phones nationwide using an automatic telephone
dialing system without prior express written consent. As a result
of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff's and Class members'
privacy were invaded.

Market My Business Today Inc. is a marketing company based in
Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
         Michael Pascucci, Esq.
         EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
         7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
         Davie, FL 33314
         Telephone: (954) 889-3359
         E-mail: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com
                 mpascucci@justiceearned.com

                 - and -
       
         Jordan Richards, Esq.
         JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
         1800 Southeast 10th Ave., Suite 205
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
         Telephone: (954) 871-0050
         E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com

MARS INC: Sued Over Lead, Cadmium in Dark Dove Chocolate Bars
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Mars
didn't tell customers its Dove dark chocolate products contain
unsafe levels of lead and cadmium, a new class action lawsuit
alleges.

Plaintiff Arlene Millman filed the class action complaint against
Mars Inc. on Jan. 5 in a New York federal court, alleging
violations of state and federal consumer laws.

According to the lawsuit, Mars makes the product Dove Promises
Deeper Dark Chocolate 70% Cacao.

However, according to a December 2022 report by Consumer Reports,
certain dark chocolate bars, including the Dove product named in
the lawsuit, have high enough levels of lead and cadmium that
"eating just an ounce a day would put an adult over a level that
public health authorities and … experts say may be harmful."

Consumers are not warned of this fact by the label on the product
packaging, the lawsuit alleges.

Heavy metals can cause serious health implications, lawsuit
alleges
Heavy metals in foods pose a significant safety risk to consumers
because they can cause cancer and often irreversible damage to
brain development as well as other serious health problems, the
lawsuit states.

Consumers were harmed by Mars' omissions on the chocolate labeling,
the lawsuit alleges.

"No reasonable consumer would know, or have reason to know, that
the Products contain (or risk containing) Heavy Metals," it says.

"Worse, as companies across the industry have adopted methods to
limit heavy metals in their dark chocolates, Defendant has stood
idly by with a reckless disregard for its consumers' health and
well-being."

Millman seeks to represent anyone in the United States who bought
the dark chocolate product, plus a New York subclass.

She is suing for breach of New York consumer laws and for unjust
enrichment, and seeks certification of the class action, damages,
fees, costs and a jury trial.

In December, The Hershey Co. was hit with a class action lawsuit
alleging it misleadingly markets some of its Hershey's and Lily's
brand dark chocolate products by not disclosing that they contain
lead and cadmium.

Another consumer is suing Trader Joe's and its parent company,
alleging the supermarket sells dark chocolate that contains high
levels of heavy metals.

Did you buy the product Dove Promises Deeper Dark Chocolate 70%
Cacao? Let us know your thoughts on this class action in the
comments.

The plaintiff is represented by Max S. Roberts, L. Timothy Fisher
and Sean L. Litteral of Bursor & Fisher PA and Kevin Laukaitis of
Laukaitis Law Firm LLC.

The Mars class action lawsuit is Arlene Millman, et al. v. Mars
Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00079, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. [GN]

MDL 2773: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Antitrust Suit Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: QUALCOMM ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No.
17-md-02773-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley  of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants
in part and denies in part Qualcomm's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' second amended complaint.

Cellphones and tablets connect people to one another. To do so,
devices rely on hardware (known as modem chips) and critical
patented technologies. Qualcomm is a successful company in these
two distinct, yet related fields: modem chip manufacturing and
cellular patent licensing.

Located in San Diego, California, Qualcomm develops, designs,
licenses, and markets digital communications products and services
through two wholly owned subsidiaries -- Qualcomm Technology
Licensing and Qualcomm CDMA Technologies. Qualcomm Technology
Licensing licenses patents and other intellectual property rights
from Qualcomm's intellectual portfolio. Qualcomm CDMA Technologies
handles equipment sales including the sale of modem chips to device
manufacturers.

The Plaintiffs' allegations sit at the intersection of antitrust
and patent law. Qualcomm had a monopoly in the market for Code
Division Multiple Access ("CDMA") and Premium-LTE Chips. And
Qualcomm had critical SEPs necessary to participate in the cellular
telecommunications industry. If an original equipment manufacturers
("OEM") wanted to use chips, that OEM had to buy a license from
Qualcomm or risk patent litigation. Typically, SSOs require SEP
holders to give licenses to rivals and customers at "fair,
reasonable, and non-discriminatory" rates. But Qualcomm ignored
those obligations.

Instead, Qualcomm refused to license its chip-manufacturing
competitors outright and offered SEP licenses to OEMs for prices
far greater than it could have charged rival chip makers. Then,
under its "no license, no chips" policy, Qualcomm refused to sell
OEMs chips unless the OEMs bought a separate (but related) product
-- the SEP license -- at the inflated rate and agreed not to
challenge those rates or patents via litigation.

Plaintiffs Sarah Key, Andrew Westley, Terese Russell, and Carra
Abernathy reside in California.

They seek to represent the following class: All natural persons and
entities who purchased, paid for, and/or provided reimbursement for
some or all of the purchase price for all Universal Mobile
Telecommunications System, CDMA (including CDMAone and CDMA2000)
and/or Long-Term-Evolution ("LTE") cellular devices (Relevant
Cellular Devices) for their own use and not for resale from Feb.
11, 2011, through Sept. 27, 2018 (the Class Period) in California.

Based on the Qualcomm's business practices, the Plaintiffs estimate
OEMs overpaid by over $9 billion during the class period, and OEMs
passed 93.2% of these overcharges on to consumers.

In a separate action, initiated in January 2017, the Federal Trade
Commission ("FTC") sued Qualcomm in the Northern District of
California and alleged Qualcomm engaged in unfair methods of
competition in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and
the Sherman Act -- F.T.C. v. Qualcomm Inc., 969 F.3d 974 (9th Cir.
2020). Afterward, many consumers filed class action lawsuits
against Qualcomm. These lawsuits generally alleged that Qualcomm's
conduct violated state and federal antitrust and consumer
protection laws.

The Plaintiffs in several of the class action lawsuits moved to
centralize pretrial proceedings in a single judicial district,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407(a). The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation issued a transfer order to this Court for
"coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings" in the
multidistrict litigation ("MDL") arising out of Qualcomm's
allegedly anticompetitive conduct.

The MDL Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint
asserting two federal statutory claims and two state statutory
claims: (1) a claim under the California Cartwright Act, (2) a
claim under Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act, (3) a claim under
Section 2 of the federal Sherman Act, and (4) a claim under the
California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").

After Qualcomm filed a motion to dismiss all claims and strike the
Plaintiffs' nationwide class allegations, the Court dismissed only
the federal Sherman Act claims to the extent those claims sought
damages. The Plaintiffs retained their California Cartwright Act
and UCL claims, and their federal Sherman Act claims to the extent
those sought non-monetary relief. Plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint (the "FAC") and Qualcomm answered.

The Plaintiffs then moved for class certification on behalf of a
nationwide class. The Court granted that motion, ruling that the
Plaintiffs could seek damages on behalf of a nationwide class under
the Cartwright Act. Qualcomm sought interlocutory review in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While that
interlocutory appeal was pending, the Ninth Circuit issued its
opinion in FTC v. Qualcomm.

In sum, the court vacated the district Court's opinion because (1)
Qualcomm's practice of licensing its SEPs exclusively to OEMs, and
not to competitors, does not violate the Sherman Act; (2)
Qualcomm's patent-licensing royalties and "no license, no chip"
policy do not impose an anticompetitive surcharge on rivals' modem
chip sales; and (3) the record failed to show that Qualcomm's 2011
and 2013 agreements with Apple "had the actual or practical effect
of substantially foreclosing competition in the CDMA modem chip
market."

The district court's class certification order in this MDL was
pending before the Ninth Circuit when the panel issued its opinion
in FTC v. Qualcomm. The Ninth Circuit requested supplemental
briefing from the parties regarding FTC v. Qualcomm's impact on the
MDL. After vacating the district court's class certification
decision, the Ninth Circuit remanded the MDL to this Court to
"reconsider the viability of the Plaintiffs' claims given FTC v.
Qualcomm.

After remand, the Plaintiffs filed their SAC. The SAC alleges only
state-law claims under the Cartwright Act and the UCL. Qualcomm
moves to dismiss.

The question before the Court is whether the Plaintiffs' complaint
survives FTC v. Qualcomm and states a claim under California law.
Judge Corley says the answer is no, but only in part. She first
addresses Qualcomm's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Cartwright
Act claims, then turns to the Plaintiffs' UCL claims.

In simplest terms, the Plaintiffs' complaint can survive FTC v.
Qualcomm via two paths. Either the Cartwright and Sherman Acts
differ in some way such that the SAC can survive under the
Cartwright Act. Or the Plaintiffs can meet a factual burden where
the FTC failed. Qualcomm argues no distinction exists -- in law or
in fact -- that commands a different outcome.

At this stage, Judge Corley agrees in part and disagrees in part.
She explains that the Plaintiffs ask the Court to strike a new path
in tying jurisprudence under the Cartwright Act, just as In re
Cipro Cases I & II, 61 Cal.4th 116, 136 (2015) did in the realm of
horizontal restraint. That is not the Court's prerogative. When
applying the Cartwright Act, the Court considers "existing state
law without predicting potential changes in that law." No cases
support the Plaintiffs' novel tying theory. Under California law as
it stands, a tying "transaction cannot restrain trade when no
competitor exists from whom to purchase the tied product." Without
any basis in caselaw, Judge Corley cannot invent a novel tying
violation. Hence, the Plaintiffs' tying claim fails as a matter of
law.

However, Judge Croley holds that California law and stare decisis
do not require the Court to dismiss the exclusive dealing theory on
a 12(b)(6) motion. Because the factual record presented at trial in
FTC v. Qualcomm does not bind the Plaintiffs, Qualcomm's sole
argument to dismiss the exclusive dealing claim falls short. And,
because the Plaintiffs allege a "difference in their ability to
meet their burden of proof," stare decisis does not require
dismissal of the exclusive dealing claim at this stage.

The Plaintiffs' derivative unfair competition claim also survives
in part. The Plaintiffs allege Qualcomm's practices were unlawful,
unfair, and fraudulent. Qualcomm moves to dismiss each claim.

As Qualcomm's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Cartwright Act
exclusive dealing claim fails, Judge Corley holds that the
Plaintiffs' UCL claim under the "unlawful" prong survives to the
same extent. Because she finds the Plaintiff can maintain the UCL
claim under this theory, she need not reach the Cel-Tech tethering
test. Lastly, because the Plaintiffs fail to allege reliance they
lack standing to bring a UCL claim under the "fraud" prong.

Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, Judge Corley grants in part
and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The
Plaintiffs' Cartwright Act claim survives as to their exclusive
dealing theory. The Plaintiffs' derivative UCL claim also survives
to the same extent as their Cartwright Act claim. In all other
respects the motion to dismiss is granted.

The Court will hold a further case management conference on Feb.
23, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. via Zoom video. An updated joint case
management conference statement is due one week in advance.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4s7s5ujk from Leagle.com.


MDL 2873: Three AFFF Litigation Suits Transferred to D.S.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation captioned "In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation," MDL NO. 2873,
Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transfers one case each from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Central
District of California and the Western District of Wisconsin to the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina for
inclusion in MDL No. 2873, and with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Richard M. Gergel for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Defendant 3M Company moved to transfer the case "Fleming, et al. v.
3M Company, et al.," (C.A. No. 6:22−00285) to the District of
South Carolina for inclusion in MDL No. 2873. No party responded to
this motion. Plaintiffs and defendant Kester, LLC, each moved to
vacate the panel's order that conditionally transferred "McKinnon,
et al. v. Applied Industrial Technologies, et al.," (C.A. No.
8:22−01398) to MDL No. 2873. Plaintiff State of Wisconsin
likewise moved to vacate the order that conditionally transferred
"State of Wisconsin v. 3M Company, et al.," (C.A. No. 3:22−00412)
to MDL No.  2873.

Defendants 3M Company and Tyco Fire Products LP opposed the motions
to vacate in both McKinnon and State of Wisconsin, while defendant
Chemguard, Inc., opposed the motion in State of Wisconsin.

According to the panel, 3M persuasively argues that, while the
complaint does not explicitly allege contamination by aqueous
film-forming foams (AFFFs), the spill cited in the complaint
involved the discharge of 3,500 gallons of AFFF from the 3M
facility into a nearby waterway. Fleming therefore will share
common factual questions with the actions in the MDL, which involve
allegations that AFFFs used at airports, military bases, or other
locations to extinguish liquid fuel fires caused the release of
perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and/or perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA; both of which are considered a PFAS) into local groundwater
and contaminated drinking water supplies. As no party opposes
transfer, the panel will grant the motion.

In the motions to vacate, Movants in the two actions argue that
federal subject matter jurisdiction over their respective actions
is lacking, and that pending motions for remand to state court
should be decided before transfer but the panel has held that
jurisdictional objections such as those asserted in these actions
generally do not present an impediment to transfer.

Movants in these actions also argue that their actions are
sufficiently distinct from those in the MDL such that transfer is
not appropriate. Movants in McKinnon argue that plaintiffs allege
that Mr. McKinnon was exposed to a variety of solvents, cleaners,
and other chemical products during his employment at a fire
department located at the Joint Forces Training Base in Los
Alamitos, California. Plaintiffs allege that Mr. McKinnon's
exposure to the numerous chemicals and products listed in his
complaint caused his cancers and lymphoma. Movants argue that,
because McKinnon involves over a dozen defendants and numerous
non-AFFF products, this action will involve different witnesses and
causation issues than the actions in the MDL. They also argued that
transfer would reduce efficiencies in McKinnon, and would inject
new and unrelated products and issues in the MDL.

Plaintiffs, though, amended their complaint in McKinnon to
expressly assert claims against 3M and Tyco for the manufacture and
sale of AFFF products. Plaintiffs allege that Mr. McKinnon was
exposed to these AFFF products through the course of his employment
at Los Alamitos, and that these products caused his alleged
injuries. These claims are not meaningfully distinguishable from
the hundreds of cases in the MDL brought by firefighter plaintiffs
who allege that they were injured by direct exposure to AFFF, notes
the panel.

The State of Wisconsin similarly argues that its action is
predominantly not an AFFF case. The State contends that its
complaint encompasses all PFAS products used in Wisconsin that
allegedly contaminated its waters and other natural resources. But
the State, like plaintiffs in McKinnon, expressly alleges
contamination from AFFF use and even identifies several sites in
its complaint that were allegedly contaminated by AFFFs. That the
State's claims encompass both AFFF and non-AFFF sources of
contamination does not eliminate the common factual questions and
discovery relating to PFAS and AFFF that State of Wisconsin will
share with the actions in the MDL, the panel says.

The State also argues that common defenses, such as the government
contractor defense, are not sufficient to merit centralization,
because the State's theory of the case encompasses more than just
the design of the products. "But we previously rejected the
argument that actions that do not implicate the government
contractor defense are inappropriate for transfer to MDL No. 2873,"
notes the panel.

Movants in both actions argue that transfer will cause them delay
and inconvenience. Transfer, though, is appropriate if it furthers
the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole, even
if some parties to the action might experience inconvenience or
delay, rules the panel. Furthermore, centralization is for pretrial
proceedings only, and there usually is no need for parties or
witnesses to travel to the transferee court for depositions or
court hearings. Movants' arguments in McKinnon, in particular, are
not well taken, as the procedural posture of the case when it was
in state court (where only written discovery had been completed)
bears little relevance to the case's posture after the addition of
the AFFF manufacturers as defendants and removal to federal court,
it adds.

Accordingly, the panel finds that the actions involve common
questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2873, and
that transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.

"[E]ach of these three actions will share common questions of fact
with the AFFF actions in the MDL and will benefit from inclusion in
the centralized proceedings," the panel opined.

A full-text copy of the Court's December 13, 2022 Order is
available at bit.ly/3X5isIV

MICHAELS STORES: Submission of Class Cert Bid Extended to May 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER SOLIS, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. MICHAELS STORES
PROCUREMENT COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
2:22-cv-09133-RGK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner
entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiff's deadline to submit a Motion for Class
      Certification is continued for 90 days from February 16,
      2023 to May 17, 2023.

   2. The Court continues the February 6, 2023 Scheduling
      Conference and any related deadlines until it has heard
      the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3II1MTi at no extra charge.[CC]

MICHAELS STORES: White Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michaels Stores
Procurement Company, Inc. The case is styled as Jamie Holzer White,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Michaels Stores Procurement Company, Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-00164-JFW-SK (C.D. Cal., Jan. 10, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Michaels -- https://www.michaels.com/ -- offers products for home
decor, framing, scrapbooking and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christin Kyungsik Cho, Esq.
          Simon Carlo Franzini, Esq.
          Jonas Jacobson, Esq.
          DOVEL AND LUNER LLP
          201 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 600
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Phone: (310) 656-7066
          Fax: (310) 656-7069
          Email: christin@dovel.com
                 simon@dovel.com
                 jonas@dovel.com


MONDELEZ INT'L: Klammer's 1st Amended Class Complaint Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AVI KLAMMER, Plaintiff v. MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-02046-JSW (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Jeffrey S. White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
first amended complaint with leave to amend.

Klammer brings the putative class action challenging the labeling
of the Defendant's Enjoy Life Lentil Chips. He alleges that the
Products are labeled as "high protein" and "protein-packed" when in
fact they are not high in protein and do not provide a good source
of protein.

Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges the following representations
and omissions are misleading: (1) protein content claims on the
front and back of the Products' labels; (2) the claims that each
product is "high protein" and "protein packed," and (3) the
omission of the percentage of the Daily Recommended Value ("DRV")
for protein in the Nutrition Facts panel.

The Plaintiff purchased the Sea Salt and Garlic & Parmesan flavors
of the chips on multiple occasions. Most recently, he purchased the
Products at a Walmart in San Leandro. He alleges that the label
statements led him to believe that consuming the products would
provide a good source of protein.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of: California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code sections 1750, et seq.
("CLRA"); California's False Advertising Law, Business and
Professions Code sections 17500, et seq. ("FAL"); and California's
Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code sections
17200, et seq. ("UCL"). He also asserts claims for breach of
express warranties and unjust enrichment. He seeks injunctive
relief, declaratory relief, disgorgement, restitution, and
damages.

Now before the Court for consideration is the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the FAC.

The Defendant first argues that the Plaintiff's theory of consumer
deception fails because a reasonable consumer viewing the packaging
in context would understand that the phrase "high protein" refers
to the lentil flour from which the Products are made rather than
the protein content of the Product itself. The Plaintiff contends
that the presence of the phrase "high protein" is misleading
regardless of the context.

Judge White concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to plausibly
allege consumer deception based on the "high protein" statements on
the front label. He finds that the Plaintiff fail to meaningfully
address the fact that "high protein" is never used in isolation and
always used in connection with lentils or lentil flour, not the
chips themselves. Accepting the Plaintiff's arguments would require
the Court to impermissibly ignore the context of the packaging.

Moreover, to the extent the Plaintiff contends that the phrase
"high protein" is misleading in any context unless it complies with
FDA regulations, Judge White is unconvinced. The Plaintiff has not
sufficiently alleged that the reasonable consumer is sufficiently
aware of the FDA regulations such that they would be misled by the
Product's alleged lack of conformity with the regulations.

The Plaintiff alleges that the phrase "protein-packed" leads
consumers to believe the products are "high" in protein or
constitute an excellent source of protein. The Defendant challenges
this theory as implausible for three reasons: (1) the phrase
"protein-packed" is non-actionable puffery; (2) the Nutrition Facts
panel resolves any ambiguity over the protein content of the chips;
and (3) the Plaintiff has failed to adequately allege he relied on
the "protein-packed" statement in deciding to purchase the chips.

Judge White concludes the Plaintiff has not shown that a reasonable
consumer would be deceived as to the meaning of "protein-packed" on
the back label because the Nutrition Facts panel located near the
statement clarifies the grams of protein in the product. He has
determined there are no affirmative misrepresentations on the
Product's packaging. Thus, there "is no deceptive act to be
dispelled," and the Plaintiff cannot ignore the presence of the
Nutrition Facts panel which states the amount of protein per
serving.

The Plaintiff's final theory of consumer deception is based on the
Defendant's purported omission of the DRV percentage for protein.
He alleges the Defendant was required to include the DRV, and its
failure to disclose this information was false and misleading. The
Defendant argues this theory fails because the Plaintiff does not
allege that he saw or relied on the Nutrition Facts panel when he
purchased the product.

Judge White finds that the conclusory allegations are insufficient
to establish that the Plaintiff relied on the purported omission of
the DRV in deciding to purchase the Product. He says the
Plaintiff's vague allegation that he relied on "labeling claims" on
the "front and back of the Product" does not establish that he
reviewed or relied on the Nutrition Facts panel in deciding to make
his purchase. Nor does the allegation that "the products did not
have a percentage of Daily Recommended Value ("DRV") listed for
protein" establish that he read the Nutrition Facts panel or that
its contents affected his purchasing decision.

Absent allegations that he read and relied on the Nutrition Facts
panel, Plaintiff cannot plausibly allege that he was deceived by
its lack of disclosures. Thus, the Plaintiff has failed to
plausibly allege that had the omitted information been disclosed,
he would have been aware of it and behaved differently. Judge White
dismisses the claims premised on this theory with leave to amend.

The Plaintiff also brings claims pursuant to the "unlawful" and
"unfair" prongs of the UCL, and common-law claims for breach of
express warranty and unjust enrichment. The Defendant argues that
the remaining claims fail absent plausible allegations of consumer
deception.

Because he has concluded the Plaintiff's complaint is subject to
dismissal in its entirety, Judge White need not reach the
Defendant's argument that the Plaintiff's claims should be
dismissed to the extent they seek equitable relief.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge White grants the Defendant's
motion to dismiss. He is skeptical that the complaint can be
amended to state a claim given that the deficiencies in the
pleading primarily relate to the Defendant's packaging, which would
not change in an amended complaint. However, he cannot say that
amendment would be futile, and thus, grants the motion with leave
to amend. The Plaintiff will file any amended complaint within 21
days of the Order.

Judge White further orders the parties to appear for an initial
case management conference on March 24, 2023, at 11:00 a.m. They
will submit a joint case management statement by March 17, 2023.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 4, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6uz6tdv from Leagle.com.


MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Ovando Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacinto Gomez Ovando and Maria Del Carmen Peralta Baeza, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MOUNTAIRE FARMS,
INC. and MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF NORTH CAROLINA, CORP., Case
7:23-cv-00004-M (E.D.N.C., Jan. 10, 2023), is brought against the
Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the North
Carolina Wage and Hour Act for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid
wages, and related penalties and damages for wages unlawfully
deducted by the Defendants.

Despite notifying Plaintiffs of their non-exempt hourly status,
entitlement to premium rates for certain hours worked, including
premium pay for hours over forty per week, promised hourly rates,
through an employee handbook and earning statements consistent with
the NCWHA's notice requirements, Plaintiffs, and others similarly
situated, were not always paid for all of their hours worked,
including time spent working through lunch breaks, donning and
doffing personal protective equipment prior to the start of their
shift and following the end of their shift, and either were not
paid for all of their hours worked, or did not receive overtime
premium at time and one-half for certain hours worked over 40 per
week, and/or, did not receive the appropriate premium overtime rate
because Defendants did not incorporate all gross earnings in
determining the appropriate regular-rate for overtime compensation
when Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hour workweeks, in violation
of the FLSA or the NCWHA, as applicable.

The Defendants are aware of Plaintiffs working generally in excess
of 40 hours per week, as Defendants have suffered or permitted, and
in fact, required Plaintiffs to work in excess of 40 hours per week
on a regular basis without being properly compensated time and
one-half for hours over 40 per week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs consist of current and former employees working at
the Defendants' chicken processing plant.

The Defendants are the fourth largest chicken processing company in
the United States with locations in Arkansas, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, and North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gilda A. Hernandez (NCSB No. 36812)
          Charlotte Smith (NCSB No. 53616)
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130
          Cary, NC 27513
          Phone: (919) 741-8693
          Fax: (919) 869-1853
          Email: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                 csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com


MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Foley Putative Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Mullen Automotive Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 13, 2023, that
the Company faces the Foley putative stockholder class suit in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

On December 13, 2022, a second putative stockholder class action
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, styled
as Foley v. Michery, et al., C.A. No. 2022-1147-LWW (the "Foley
Action" and, together with the Robbins Action, the "Stockholder
Actions"). The plaintiffs in the Stockholder Actions filed
complaints alleging, among other things, that the number of shares
of Common Stock issued and outstanding as of the Annual Meeting
Record Date was 477,510,822 and that, based on this eligible share
total, a majority of shares of Common Stock, when considered
separately as a class, did not vote in favor of the increase in
authorized shares at the 2022 Annual Meeting.

Mullen Automotive Inc. is an automotive industry company,
headquartered in Brea, California. [BN]


MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Robbins Stockholder Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Mullen Automotive Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 13, 2023, that
the Company faces the Robbins putative stockholder class suit in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

On December 7, 2022, a putative stockholder class action was filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, styled as
Robbins v. Michery, et al., C.A. No. 2022-1131-LWW.

Mullen Automotive Inc. is an automotive industry company,
headquartered in Brea, California. [BN]


NATIONAL REALTY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 13
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 10
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of National Realty Investment Advisors LLC membership
units (NRIA), against defendants Rey E. Grabato II, Daniel Coley
O'Brien, Thomas Nicholas Salzano, Arthur Scutaro, Arthur Raymond
Scutaro, Sr., Arthur Raymond Scutaro, Jr., Olena Budinska, Ivel
Turner, Jeff Rosenberg, Mark Korczak, Byron Cartozian, and Brian
Harrington. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than March 13, 2023.

SO WHAT: If you purchased NRIA membership units 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 NRIA class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=10974 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 March 13, 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. 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, National Realty
Investment Advisors LLC offered and sold NRIA, a membership unit in
the NRIA Fund. Defendants used NRIA and the NRIA Fund to carry out
a fraudulent scheme, including making and disseminating material
misrepresentations, and effectuating a Ponzi scheme to divert
millions of dollars invested in the NRIA Fund for their own
personal gain.

To join the NRIA class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=10974 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.

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

Contacts
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]

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Suarez Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Isidro Suarez, Maribel Almaguer, Martha Moro,
Maria L. Almaguer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC doing business as: Mr. Cooper,
Case No. 22-023438-CA-01 was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on Jan. 11, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-20114 to the
proceeding.

The nature suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper --
https://www.mrcooper.com/ -- offers mortgage services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce Craig Botsford, Esq.
          BRUCE BOTSFORD
          1615 SW 2 Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315
          Phone: (954) 990-4213
          Email: bruce@botsfordlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Hallie Smith Evans, Esq.
          600 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3000
          Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
          Phone: (470) 832-5580
          Email: hallie.evans@troutman.com


NATIONWIDE INBOUND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Turnham Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERYN TURNHAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONWIDE INBOUND, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-50014 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 10, 2023) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Turnham was employed by the Defendant as customer service
representative.

NATIONWIDE INBOUND, INC. provides telephone services and live
customer support. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7034 Braucher St., N.W., Suite B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
                  hnilges@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Max Barack, Esq.
          THE GARFINKEL GROUP, LLC
          6252 N. Lincoln Ave., Ste. 200
          Chicago, IL 60659
          Telephone: (312) 736-7991
          Email: max@garfinkelgroup.com

NEW YORK: DRNY File Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW
YORK; KATARINA SCHOLZ, by her legal guardian, Teresa Herbert, fer
herself and those similarly situated, v. NEW YORK STATE; ANDREW M.
CUOMO, in his official capacity as the Governor of New York State;
THE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES; and THEODORE
KASTNER, MD, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New
York State Office for People with Developmental Disabilities, Case
No. 17-cv-06965-RRM-MMH (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying the case as a class action pursuant to Federal
       Rule of Civil Procedure 239b)(2).

   2. certifying a Plaintiff Class;

   3. appointing Katarina Scholz as Class Representative; and

   4. appointing Disability Rights New York as class counsel.

Disability Rights New York provides protection and advocacy
services for persons with disabilities.

New York is a state in the northeastern U.S., known for New York
City and towering Niagara Falls. NYC’s island of Manhattan is
home to the Empire State Building, Times Square and Central Park.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 12,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3iJ6sxNat
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erin G. McGuinness, Esq.
          Jennifer Monthie, Esq.
          Julie M. Keegan, Esq.
          Alyssa Galea, Esq.
          Jessica Cochrane, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW YORK
          279 Troy Road, Ste 9 PMB 236
          Rensselaer, NY 12144
          E-mail: Erin.mcguinness@drny.org
                  jennifer.monthie@drny.org
                  julie.keegan@drny.org
                  alyssa.galea@drny.org
                  jess.cochrane@drny.org

NEXI SPA: First Hearing in Privacy Suit Scheduled in February 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maurizio Carta, writing for Alliance News, reports that as stated
in article in Starmag magazine, "after the scam against Poste
Italiane account holders, accounts of scams on Nexi customers are
increasing on the web. A text message extorts data and money from
the unwary. And victims are suing the Italian PayTech directly."

The first hearing in a class action brought by a group of people
scammed by hackers will be held in February.

The latest bait launched by cyber criminals," the magazine points
out, "targets Nexi customers, an Italian PayTech company that
offers services and infrastructure for digital payments, but in
reality similar, more or less credible text messages bear the names
of the most popular banks. And when the sender catches, by randomly
shooting, a customer, that's it."

"It is surprising that the Italian PayTech, at least at the moment,
says nothing either on the site" -- Starmag's focus points out --
"not even in the section devoted to online security, nor on social.
Perhaps the class action against the digital payments company filed
by a group of people defrauded by hackers will also be based on
this. February will see the first hearing."

https://www.startmag.it/innovazione/truffe-ai-clienti-di-nexi-tutti-i-dettagli/?s=08

Nexi ended the Jan. 9 session in the green by 1.4 percent at
EUR7.86. [GN]

NORTH MISSISSIPPI CLINICS: More Time to File Response OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STANLEY WOOD AND CHASTITY
WOOD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED
PERSONS v. NORTH MISSISSIPPI HEALTH SERVICES, INC., NORTH
MISSISSIPPI CLINICS, LLC, NORTH MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CENTER, INC.,
TUPELO SERVICE FINANCE, INC., ALLIANCE COLLECTION SERVICE, INC.,
AND JOHN DOES 1-8, Case No. 1:20-cv-00042-NBB-RP (N.D. Miss.), the
Hon. Judge Neal B. Biggers, Jr. entered an order granting the
Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time:

Accordingly, Defendants shall have up to and including January 31,
2023, to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3iywBPYat no extra charge.[CC]




OAKBEND MEDICAL CENTER: Bryant Files Suit in S.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OakBend Medical
Center. The case is styled as Kayla Bryant, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. OakBend Medical Center, Case
No. 4:23-cv-00103 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 11, 2023).

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

OakBend Medical Center -- https://www.oakbendmedcenter.org/ -- is
the last remaining independent, nonprofit hospital in the Greater
Houston area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Phone: (214) 744-3000
          Fax: (214) 744-3015
          Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com


ONIN STAFFING: Bid for Extension of Time Tossed w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOBBY LEE MILES, JR., on
behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. ONIN STAFFING, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00275 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Hon. Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. entered an order denying
without prejudice the Joint Motion for extension of time to file
motion for class certification.

Onin Staffing provides staffing services. The Company offers
temporary staffing, direct staffing, and personnel support
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WbYkUj at no extra charge.[CC]

ONTARIO: Class Action v. MLTC Over COVID-19 Deaths/Illnesses OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Danika L. Winkel, Esq., of Hicks Morley, disclosed that in
Robertson v. Ontario, Justice Belobaba of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice recently certified a class proceeding against the
Ontario Minister of Long-Term Care (MLTC). The case relates to the
deaths or serious illness due to COVID-19 of thousands of residents
in provincially regulated long-term care (LTC) homes. Although the
class proceeding was certified, the outcome of the motion was mixed
for both parties.

The plaintiffs' argument was that the government of Ontario knew
early on in 2020 that residents of LTC homes were the most
vulnerable to COVID-19 and yet allegedly failed to act soon enough
to prevent the rapid spread of COVID-19 in these environments. The
plaintiffs argued that this outcome would have been prevented, but
for the government's alleged delay in its pandemic response. The
plaintiffs' claim rested on three asserted grounds: breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, and negligence/gross negligence.

At the certification motion, Justice Belobaba rejected two of the
plaintiffs' three proposed causes of action. His Honour decided
that the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and for breach of s. 7
of the Charter had no reasonable prospect for success.

With respect to the claim for negligence/gross negligence and the
alleged acts or omissions, Justice Belobaba stated that it would be
challenging, at best, for the plaintiffs to pursue this claim
against a public authority due to the issue of proximity. The
"proximity analysis" asks "whether there is a relationship of
"sufficient closeness" between the government actor and the
impacted individual or group of individuals that it would be "just
and reasonable" to impose an obligation on the government actor to
take reasonable care not to injure the individual or group of
individual." Prior case law states that, because most statutes are
aimed at a public good, it may be difficult to infer that the
legislature intended to create private law tort duties owed to
individuals by a government actor. However, the motion judge
ultimately concluded that it was not possible to say that the claim
would have no reasonable chance for success at the certification
stage.

Because the Crown cannot be sued directly in tort, the plaintiffs
identified the following agents (or officer) of the Crown whose
actions might give rise to vicarious liability on the part of the
Crown: the MLTC, the Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH), and
the Minister of Health (MOH).

After analyzing the language of the guiding statutes of the named
parties, Justice Belobaba concluded that the plaintiffs' claim
could only potentially succeed against the MLTC. His Honour held
that there was no reasonable possibility that the CMOH and MOH
could potentially be found vicariously liable for negligence/gross
negligence against the residents of LTC homes. Justice Belobaba
therefore restricted the plaintiffs' class action further based on
that conclusion.

Justice Belobaba noted that, to succeed on the merits on the cause
of action of negligence/gross negligence, the plaintiffs would have
to eventually establish the existence of a private duty of care
owed by the MLTC to the plaintiffs.

Finally, Justice Belobaba considered the plaintiffs' proposed class
definition. The plaintiffs had sought to certify the class action
with a resident class, a visitor class and a family class. Once
again, Justice Belobaba narrowed the scope of the proposed class,
restricting this class to only LTC residents and surviving family
members. On that point, the decision noted at paragraph 63:

The possible imposition of a private law duty of care on the MLTC
in these circumstances is already tenuous given the issues and
arguments discussed above. I am not persuaded on the statutory
language before me that the reach of the private law duty of care
analysis can or should go beyond the LTC residents to include
visitors.

In sum, Justice Belobaba allowed the class proceeding to proceed,
but in a much-reduced form as compared to the original claim. The
key question as to whether or not the MLTC's alleged inaction or
delay to implement protective measures in LTC homes amounted to
gross negligence which caused the deaths and illnesses of thousands
of LTC residents, and if so, whether that delay attracts legal
liability, remains to be decided.

The article in this client update provides general information and
should not be relied on as legal advice or opinion. This
publication is copyrighted by Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie
LLP and may not be photocopied or reproduced in any form, in whole
or in part, without the express permission of Hicks Morley Hamilton
Stewart Storie LLP. GN]

PACKED WITH PURPOSE: Hernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mairoby Hernandez, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Packed with Purpose, LLC, Case No.
150217/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Jan. 8, 2023) alleges that Defendant's
Website is not equally accessible to blind and/or visually impaired
consumers, in violation of 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 thereon during the past three years from the date
of the filing of the complaint.

The Plaintiff also brings this action for monetary damages and
injunctive relief on their own behalf and, pursuant to Civil
Practice Law and Rules, on behalf of all visually impaired and/or
legally blind individuals in the state of New York, who have
attempted to access Defendant's website and have been denied access
to the equal enjoyment of the goods offered by Defendant.

On June 21, 2022, and December 26, 2022, the Plaintiff browsed and
attempted to transact business on Defendant's Website using the
NVDA screen-reader. The Plaintiff tried to purchase a product on
the Website, but the Access Barriers encountered on the Website
would not allow her to purchase a product, i.e., the A Sweet
Thanks.

As a result of the existence of these access barriers, the
Plaintiff was repeatedly denied full and equal access to
Defendant's Website, says the suit.

Packed with Purpose is is an online retail company that sells
curated snack gift boxes through its Website
packedwithpurpose.gifts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 595-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
          E-mail: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com

PARETEUM CORP: $5.65MM Class Settlement Hearing Set April 25
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC on Jan. 10 disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit purchasers of Pareteum Corporation common stock
(NASDAQ:TEUM):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO purchased or otherwise acquired
PARETEUM CORPORATION securities between DECEMBER 14, 2017, and
OCTOBER 21, 2019, inclusive:  

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on April 25, 2023, at 10:30 a.m., before the
Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein in Courtroom 14D of the Daniel
Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY
10007, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
Settlement for the combined sum of $5,650,000 in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether, after the hearing, this Action should be dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the
Amended Stipulations and Agreements of Settlement dated as of
October 25, 2022; (3) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is
fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; and (4)
whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses incurred in this
Action should be approved.

If you purchased Pareteum Corporation ("Pareteum" or the "Company")
securities between December 14, 2017, and October 21, 2019,
inclusive, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this
Action. Please visit the website at
www.PareteumSecuritiesLitigation.com to obtain copies of the Notice
of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and
the Proof of Claim and Release. You may also obtain copies of these
documents by writing to Pareteum Securities Litigation, c/o
Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste.
205, Media, PA 19063, by calling the Claims Administrator at
1-866-274-4004. The Notice contains details about this Action and
Settlement, including what you must do to file a Proof of Claim,
exclude yourself from the Settlement, or object to the Settlement.
If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of
Claim and Release electronically or mail it postmarked no later
than April 3, 2023, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a Request for Exclusion postmarked by April 3, 2023, in the
manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above.
All Members of the Settlement Class who have not timely and validly
requested exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Action pursuant to the terms and conditions of the
Amended Stipulations of Settlement. Please note that if you exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class and decide to pursue your own
action individually, you may not be able to pursue certain claims
due to the expiration of certain applicable statutes of repose.
Your objection(s) must be mailed on or before April 3, 2023, to:
the Court, Lead Counsel Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, Counsel for the
Individual Defendants, and Counsel for Defendant Squar Milner LLP,
at the following addresses:

COURT:
Clerk of the Court
Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

LEAD COUNSEL:
Lewis S. Kahn
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Class

FOR THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
If to Individual Defendants:         
As to Messrs. Turner, O'Donnell, McCarthy, Bozzo, and Van Sante:
Douglas W. Greene
Baker & Hostetler, LLP
45 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10111-0100
Telephone: (212) 589-4200
Email: dgreene@bakerlaw.com

As to Messrs. Lippert and Jimenez-Tuñon:
James K. Goldfarb
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 880-3999
Email: jamesgoldfarb@dwt.com

FOR DEFENDANT SQUAR MILNER LLP:
Peter J. Larkin
WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
1133 Westchester Avenue
White Plains, NY 10604
Counsel for Defendant Squar Milner LLP

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above.

DATED: DECEMBER 20, 2022  

THE HONORABLE ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN]

PETERSON OIL: Must Face Class Action Over Fuel Oil, Judge Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sean P. Murphy, writing for Boston Globe, reports that a group of
former customers of a Worcester home heating fuel company have won
a major legal victory after a judge ruled their lawsuit against the
company can go forward as a class action.

A handful of former customers first filed the suit in 2019, saying
Peterson Oil and an affiliate, Cleghorn Oil, misrepresented the
contents of the fuel oil sold to them.

The ruling last month by Superior Court Judge William J. Ritter
opens the lawsuit to thousands of possible new claims against
Peterson Oil from current and former customers, potentially adding
strength in numbers to the existing lawsuit. [GN]




PFIZER INC: Bleeker Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Timothy Bleeker, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Pfizer, Inc., Case No.
2:22-cv-00277 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on Jan. 10, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00202-KPF to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Boyd, Esq.
          NELSON BOYD PLLC
          601 Union Street, Suite 2600
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 971-7601

The Defendant is represented by:

          Anthony Todaro, Esq.
          GRAY CARY WARE & FREIDENRICH LLP
          701 Fifth Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104-7044
          Phone: (206) 839-4800
          Fax: (206) 839-4801


PFIZER INC: Fish Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Candace Fish, individually and behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Pfizer, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00278
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on Jan. 10, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00203-KPF to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Deborah M. Nelson, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Boyd, Esq.
          NELSON BOYD PLLC
          601 Union Street, Suite 2600
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 971-7601

The Defendant is represented by:

          Anthony Todaro, Esq.
          GRAY CARY WARE & FREIDENRICH LLP
          701 Fifth Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104-7044
          Phone: (206) 839-4800
          Fax: (206) 839-4801


PFIZER INC: LaMotte Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tammy LaMotte, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Pfizer, Inc., Case No. 0:22-cv-02325
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on Jan. 10, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00205-KPF to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marlene J Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERGLAW, PLLC
          800 LaSalle Ave Ste 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 436-5028
          Fax: (612) 367-8107

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jessica Wilson, Esq.
          JESSICA WILSON PC
          26 Broadway, Ste. 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 739-1736
          Email: jwilson@wilsonjustice.com

               - and -

          Ruth Dapper, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          401 B Street, Ste. 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 699-2752
          Fax: (619) 699-2701

PFIZER INC: Lima Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kathleen Lima, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Pfizer, Inc., Case No. 0:22-cv-02243
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on Jan. 10, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00204-KPF to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ashleigh Raso, Esq.
          MESHBESHER & SPENCE
          1616 Park Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55404
          Phone: (612) 767-5123
          Fax: (612) 339-9188
          Email: araso@meshbesher.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jessica Wilson, Esq.
          JESSICA WILSON PC
          26 Broadway, Ste. 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 739-1736
          Email: jwilson@wilsonjustice.com

               - and -

          Ruth Dapper, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          401 B Street, Ste. 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 699-2752
          Fax: (619) 699-2701


PHILO INC: Bryant Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII
------------------------------------------------------
Lakiesha Bryant and Neshaunda Carodine, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. PHILO, INC., Case No.
4:23-cv-00136 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 11, 2023), is brought for its
violations of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act, ("VPPA" or
"the Act"), arising from the Defendant's practice of knowingly
disclosing to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known
as Facebook, Inc., "personally identifiable information" ("PII")
about the videos the Plaintiffs and similarly situated subscribers
request or obtain from the Defendant's website.

This is a consumer privacy class action against Philo, for
disclosing its digital subscribers' identities and the specific
video materials they requested or obtained from Defendant's website
to Facebook, in violation of the VPPA.

Philo is "engaged in the business of rental, sale, or delivery of
prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audiovisual materials,"
thus bringing it within the VPPA's definition of "video tape
service provider." Specifically, Philo operates a digital
subscription service where subscribers may request or obtain
pre-recorded television shows and movies from the more than 60
networks available on the Philo platform.

The VPPA prohibits "video tape service providers," such as Philo,
from "knowingly disclosing" consumers' PII, including "information
which identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific
video materials or services from a video tape service provider."
Philo violates the VPPA by disclosing the specific videos its
subscribers have requested or obtained to Facebook. Defendant
discloses this information to Facebook using the "Facebook Pixel"
or "Pixel"--a snippet of programming code Philo chose to install on
its website
that sends information to Facebook.

In this case, the information shared with Facebook includes the
subscriber's Facebook ID ("FID") coupled with the title of the
video that the subscriber requested or obtained on the Philo
website. A subscriber's FID is a unique sequence of numbers linked
to that individual's Facebook profile. Entering
"facebook.com/[FID]" into a web browser returns the Facebook
profile of that particular person. Thus, the FID identifies a
person more precisely than a name.

Philo discloses the subscriber's FID and content the subscriber
requested or obtained to Facebook together in a single transaction.
Because the subscriber's FID uniquely identifies an individual's
Facebook account, Facebook—or any other person—can use the FID
to quickly and easily locate, access, and view a particular
subscriber's corresponding Facebook profile. In the simplest terms,
the Pixel installed by Defendant captures and discloses to Facebook
what video a specific subscriber requested or obtained on the Philo
website, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs used their Internet-connected device and
web-browsing software installed on that device to visit and request
or obtain pre-recorded video content on the Defendant's website.

Philo operates a website in the U.S., accessible from a desktop and
mobile device at https://www.philo.com/.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq.
          Lee Lowther, Esq.
          Courtney E. Ross, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 West 7th St.
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          Email: hbates@cbplaw.com
                 llowther@cbplaw.com
                 cross@cbplaw.com

               - and -

          Douglas I. Cuthbertson, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Phone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
          Email: dcuthbertson@lchb.com

               - and -

          Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Phone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          Email: msobol@lchb.com


PORSCHE CARS: Parties Seek Initial Approval of Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENT BOWEN and KATHLEEN
DARNELL on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. PORSCHE CARS, N.A., INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00471-MHC (N.D. Ga.),
the parties request that the Court set the following proposed
schedule for disseminating notice and holding a final approval
hearing:

             Event                           Deadline

  Deadline for disseminating class      30 days after order
  notice                                granting preliminary
                                        approval

  Deadline for Plaintiffs' motion       51 days before final
  seeking final settlement approval     approval hearing
  and award of attorneys' fees and
  cost reimbursements

  Deadline for class members to         30 days before final
  object or opt out of settlement       approval hearing

  Deadline for replies in support       14 days before final
  of final approval motion              approval hearing

  Final approval hearing                At least 105 days after
                                        order granting
                                        preliminary approval

After two years of litigation, the Plaintiffs are pleased to inform
the Court that the parties have reached a class settlement and are
ready to enter the court-approval process under Rule 23(e).

The Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the settlement here
warrants approval. As the Court may recall, the underlying
litigation stems from problems with the "Porsche Communication
Management" or "PCM" system in vehicles across the country. The PCM
is the infotainment system that controls satellite radio,
navigation, and the like. Beginning in May 2020, many Porsche
drivers complained that their PCMs had begun entering constant
rebooting cycles.

The parties' proposed settlement makes compensation available to
everyone in the proposed settlement class who spent time or money
addressing the PCM rebooting. The settlement provides full
reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs incurred while repairing a
PCM, up to $7,500 per vehicle.

Porsche owners who have not yet succeeded in obtaining satisfactory
repairs may do so now and be reimbursed for their expenses. And
those class members who were able to resolve their PCM rebooting at
no cost will be eligible for payment to compensate for the
inconvenience of resolving the problem; they will have their choice
of $25 in cash or a $50 dealership credit.

From Plaintiffs' perspective, this relief approaches -- and in some
ways may exceed -- the level of compensation that realistically may
have been obtainable after a successful trial. Plaintiffs
accordingly ask that the Court find under Rule 23(e)(1) that it
will likely be able to approve the settlement and certify the
settlement class, directing notice to the class consistent with the
notice program in the parties' settlement agreement.

The lawsuit arises from allegations that in late May 2020, Porsche
owners around the country began experiencing problems with their
vehicles' PCM infotainment systems.

Porsche Cars is the exclusive importer of Porsche vehicles for the
United States.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3QSUpuFat no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
          Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          305 West Nationwide Boulevard
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224-6000
          Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
          E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
                  mboyle@meyerwilson.com

                - and -

          Michael A. Caplan, Esq.
          T. Brandon Waddell, Esq.
          CAPLAN COBB LLP
          75 Fourteenth Street, NE, Suite 2750
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 596-5600
          Facsimile: (404) 596-5604
          E-mail: mcaplan@caplancobb.com
                  bwaddell@caplancobb.com

                - and -

          David Stein, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: ds@classlawgroup.com

PRESTWICK GROUP: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Kitchens Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHEILA KITCHENS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. THE PRESTWICK GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00028 (E.D.
Wis., Jan. 9, 2023) seeks to obtain relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws
for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular)
and/or agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys'
fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant operated an unlawful
compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate the
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 failing to include all forms of
non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, premiums,
incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in said
employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes.

In March 2022, the Defendant hired the Plaintiff as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee in the position of Customer Service Specialist
working at Defendant's Sussex, Wisconsin location. Her employment
ended in approximately November 2022.

Prestwick is a golf course furnishings manufacturing company.[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
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

PRINCIPAL NATIONAL LIFE: Varian Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Diane Varian, Michael Varian, Daniel Varian, and
all others similarly situated v. Principal National Life Insurance
Company, Todd Patrick Nelson, Case No. 22ECG-3913 was removed from
the Superior Court of California - County of Fresno, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 11,
2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-at-00027 to the
proceeding.

The nature suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.

Principal Life Insurance Company -- https://www.principal.com/ --
provides insurance services. The Company offers retirement,
annuties, mutual funds, life, and term insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ophir Johna, Esq.
          MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC
          10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Ste. 550
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 595-4364
          Fax: (205) 254-1999
          Email: OJohna@maynardcooper.com


R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR: Chastain Sues Over False Representations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Camellia Chastain, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, Case No.
3:23-cv-00040-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla., Jan. 11, 2023), is brought
seeking damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's false and
misleading representations with regard to its e-cigarette pods
under the Vuse brand ("Product").

Consumers purchase e-cigarettes for their functionality, ease of
use, and convenience, which allow for the devices to be used beyond
a single vape thanks to the use of easily replaced pre-filled pods.
Despite the marketing of the Product as capable of functioning
reliably and of uniform quality, it was not of uniform quality and
therefore could not function reliably, because the fluid in the
pre-filled pods was of different colors and taste.

Because the fluid in the pods varied in quality, color, and taste,
the palatability of the Product was significantly compromised.
While the fluid should be light in color and smooth in taste,
consumers have been receiving pods with medium to dark brown fluid
and a burnt, acrid taste. Quality differences are not just limited
to different batches, as a single 4-pack can include four pods of
varying colors, and therefore varying quality and taste. Many
individuals have complained online about the Product and
Defendant's handling of the situation.

The Defendant has been aware of this issue for at least one year,
as it has been contacted by consumers about the inconsistent
quality, color, and taste of its pods and has offered coupons in
response. Some consumers have not been as lucky as those offered
coupons and have had the Defendant instead tell them the
differences in color are normal, even though they can taste and see
a difference in quality.

As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at a premium price, $14.99 for a pack of two pods
and $24.99 for a pack of four pods, excluding tax and sales, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Product or substantially similar
products at retailers.

The Defendant manufactures and markets Vuse pods, known for the
highest quality, ingredients, and taste.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Wright, Esq.
          THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
          515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300
          West Palm Beach FL 33401
          Phone: (561) 514-0904
          Email: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com

               - and -

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


REALPAGE INC: Crook Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Crook, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC;
LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.; MID-AMERICA APARTMENT
COMMUNITIES, INC.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL;
ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC.; THRIVE COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC; and
SECURITY PROPERTIES INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00054 (W.D. Wash., Jan.
10, 2023), is brought against the Defendants violation of the
Sherman Act as a result of artificially inflated prices.

A cartel of lessors ("Lessors") has artificially inflated prices in
the multifamily real estate market in the United States.
Historically, Lessors priced their units independently to maximize
occupancy (i.e., maximize output), and were incentivized to reduce
prices to attract lessees away from competitors until complete
occupancy ("heads-in-beds" strategy). This competitive process
drove rent levels to reflect natural market supply and demand of
rental units. Lessors also determined when to market a unit
independently, which led to unstable supply levels (a natural
feature of a competitive market). And when supply exceeded demand,
Lessors cut rent prices.

The historical approach presented Lessors with a "a classic
prisoner's dilemma," from the view of a former industry executive,
because although all Lessors "would be better off limiting their
rent reductions," if any "lowered their rents while the others
don't, then that one would outperform" the others. Lessors solved
the natural prisoner's dilemma by replacing independent pricing and
supply decisions with collusion that is organized and facilitated
by RealPage, Inc., a company that offers software and data
analytics to the real estate industry.

Starting in 2016 (or earlier), Lessors agreed to provide RealPage
with real-time, competitively sensitive price and supply data that
RealPage then feeds into its centralized pricing algorithm that
provides cartel members with unit-specific price and supply
recommendations. Lessors adhere to RealPage's price recommendations
because they know that other Lessors will do the same. By sharing
non-public sensitive information and following RealPage's
algorithmic price and supply decisions, Lessors have avoided the
price competition natural to the market and increased
(artificially) residential lease prices.

First, Lessors "outsource daily pricing and ongoing revenue
oversight" to RealPage, i.e., they replace many independent
decision makers with one. Lessors provide, and RealPage collects,
historical and live pricing data from more than 13 million units (a
"very large chunk of the total inventory in the country," according
to RealPage), which is updated every time Lessors make or change a
lease offer. Adherence to the scheme is ensured by RealPage, which
commands that Lessors must be "disciplined" and accept at least
80-percent of RealPage's price recommendations for its services to
be effective. Participating Lessors adopt as many as 90- (and at
least 80-) percent of RealPage's prices without deviation.

Second, Lessors coordinate supply levels through RealPage to avoid
price competition. In a competitive rental market, lease supply
exceeds demand at times, which creates downward price pressure as
firms compete to attract lessees. To avoid such competition,
RealPage provides Lessors with information sufficient to "stagger"
lease renewals to avoid an oversupply in the market, which causes
Lessors to hold units vacant for periods of time (contra the
historical heads-in beds strategy) so that, collectively in the
market, there is never a period of oversupply of available units,
artificially maintaining and inflating prices. And by staggering
lease renewals to artificially curb supply, the cartel eliminates
incentive to cheat on price, avoiding a race to the bottom (or
return to the natural prisoner's dilemma). To this end, RealPage
educates Lessors that they must sacrifice "physical occupancy"
(i.e., decrease output) for "economic occupancy" (RealPage's term
for increasing prices using artificial scarcity).

The cartel's efforts have caused anticompetitive effects in the
form of higher prices and reduced output (occupancy). RealPage
advertises that participating Lessors experience year-over-year
rent price increases "between 5% and 12% in every market." The
conspiracy here alleged violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The
Plaintiff brings this action to recover its damages, trebled, as
well as injunctive and other appropriate relief, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff rented a multifamily residential unit in a property
managed by Defendant Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc.
located in Memphis, Tennessee.

RealPage, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Richardson, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
          J. Caleigh Macdonald, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Phone: (415) 421-7100
          Email: TSchneider@schneiderwallace.com
                 MWeiler@schneiderwallace.com
                 JMacdonald@schneiderwallace.com


REALPAGE INC: Hardie Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kara Hardie and Kyle O'Brien, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE
PARTNERS, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.;
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC;
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC.; THRIVE COMMUNITIES
MANAGEMENT, LLC; and SECURITY PROPERTIES INC., Case No.
2:23-cv-00059 (W.D. Wash., Jan. 11, 2023), 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 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. The conspiracy Plaintiffs
challenge is unlawful under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Plaintiffs bring this action to recover their damages, trebled, as
well as injunctive and other appropriate relief, detailed infra, on
behalf of all others similarly situated, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs rented a multifamily residential unit in a property
managed by Lessor Defendant Greystar Real Estate Partners LLP
located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania beginning in 2022 through the
present.

RealPage provides software and services to the residential real
estate industry, including the RMS.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Breanna Van Engelen, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
                 breannav@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Austin Cohen, Esq.
          Keith Verrier, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: (215) 592-1500
          Email: acohen@lfsblaw.com
                 kverrier@lfsblaw.com


RUE GILT GROUPE: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Herrera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Rue Gilt Groupe, Inc., Case No. 650131/2023 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., New York Cty., Jan. 10, 2023), is brought against Defendant
for its violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act by
failing to make its website fully accessible for the Plaintiff and
for other blind or visually-impaired people.

Upon visiting the Defendant's website, https://www.gilt.com/, the
Plaintiff quickly became aware of the Defendant's failure to
maintain and operate its website in a way to make it fully
accessible for himself and for other blind or visually-impaired
people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered
thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the ADA.

On December 2022, Plaintiff visited the Website, using a popular
screen reading software called Voice Over, with the intent of
browsing and potentially engaging in online shopping. Despite his
efforts, however, Plaintiff, a visually impaired or blind person,
was denied access similar to that of a sighted individual due to
the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations,
which effectively barred Plaintiff from being able to enjoy the
privileges and benefits of Defendant's public accommodation.

As a result of visiting the Website, Plaintiff is aware that the
Website includes multiple barriers making it impossible for
himself, and any other visually impaired or blind person, from
enjoying access to the Website's content equally to that of a
sighted user. Because of this, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has
engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, including
maintaining a website that is inaccessible to members of a
protected class, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and
a member of member of a protected class of individuals under the
ADA.

The Defendant is a corporation doing business in the State of New
Jersey with its corporate headquarters located in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          660 Broadway
          Paterson, NJ 07514
          Phone: (862) 227-3106
          Fax: (973) 282-8603
          Email: dz@zemellawllc.com


SAZERAC CO: Faces Class Suit Over Fireball Cinnamon Whisky Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Sazerac
Co. misleads consumers who expect mini bottles of its Fireball
Cinnamon product to contain whisky, a new class action lawsuit
alleges.

Plaintiff Anna Marquez claims Sazerac misleads consumers who
confuse its Fireball Cinnamon mini bottles -- a malt beverage sold
for 99 cents -- with its Fireball Cinnamon Whisky product.

Marquez argues the bottles for Fireball Cinnamon "appear identical"
to the Fireball Cinnamon Whisky product, aside from them not
containing the word "Whisky" on their front label, something "most
purchasers seeking alcohol will not even detect."

"When viewed together with the Fireball distilled spirit brand
name, the label misleads consumers into believing it is or contains
distilled spirits," the Fireball class action states.

Fireball Cinnamon purchasers led to believe product has added
natural whisky, class action says Sazerac further misleads
consumers by labeling its Fireball Cinnamon product with the words
"Malt Beverage With Natural Whisky & Other Flavors and Carmel
Color," confusing purchasers into thinking it is a malt beverage
with added natural whisky, the Fireball class action alleges.

"By not including the word 'Flavors' after 'Natural Whisky,'
purchasers who look closely will expect the distilled spirit of
whisky was added as a separate ingredient," the Fireball class
action states.

Marquez claims Sazerac is guilty of unjust enrichment, fraud and
negligent misrepresentation and in violation of the Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act and several state consumer fraud acts.

Marquez wants to represent an Illinois class and multistate
consumer fraud class of individuals who have purchased a mini
bottle of Fireball Cinnamon within the statutes of limitations for
each alleged cause of action.

She demands a jury trial and requests injunctive relief along with
an award of monetary, statutory and/or punitive damages for herself
and all class members.

In other booze news, last month, Coca-Cola asked a federal judge in
New York to dismiss claims it misleadingly labels its Topo Chico
brand ready-to-drink hard margherita products because they don't
contain any tequila.

Have you purchased a Fireball Cinnamon mini bottle? Let us know in
the comments.

The plaintiff is represented by Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan &
Associates PC.

The Fireball whisky class action lawsuit is Marquez, et al. v.
Sazerac Co. Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00097, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN]

SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Videoconference Hearing Set for Feb. 8
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREVER GUILBEAU,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; AND
CHRISTOPHER O'MARA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED; v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Case
No. 5:21-cv-00142-JKP-ESC (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth S.
Chestney entered an order that Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion for
Notice Under Swales is set for a videoconference hearing at 10:30
a.m. on February 8, 2023.

  -- Counsel for all parties are required to appear by Zoom for
     the hearing. The information to join the hearing is as
     follows:

     ZoomGov Meeting:
     https://txwd-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/16126729723

     Meeting ID: 161 2672 9723

Schlumberger operates as an oilfield services company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QAkvlX at no extra charge.[CC]

SCI FUNERAL: Faces Rogala Suit Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT ROGALA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SCI FUNERAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK, INC., ALDERWOODS (NEW
YORK), LLC, CHAS. PETER NAGEL, LLC, I.J. MORRIS, LLC, NEW YORK
FUNERAL CHAPELS, LLC, and THOMAS M. QUINN & SONS, LLC,, Case No.
2:23-cv-00111 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2023) alleges that the Defendants
violated the requirement that manual workers be paid within seven
days after the end of the workweek in accordance with New York
Labor Law, and the requirement that employees "be paid on the
regular pay day" under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants allegedly withheld Mr. Rogala and the FLSA
Collective's federally mandated wages for about 11 days after the
conclusion of the workweek. This delay was pursuant to a
companywide policy and practice to pay Defendants' employees on a
biweekly basis.

Mr. Rogala regularly worked outside of his scheduled hours. He
consistently had to answer the phone or oversee a casket delivery,
for example, during this meal break. He also came in 15 minutes
early each day and started worked upon his arrival. Mr. Rogala's
hours were not recorded and paid until his regularly scheduled
time. As a result, Rogala regularly was denied one or more hours of
pay each week, says the suit.

Mr. Rogala worked for the Defendants in New York as a funeral
director and embalmer from June 2017 through July 2021.

Mr. Rogala's duties included transporting deceased individuals to
the funeral home from the mortuary, dressing and embalming the
deceased, and cleaning the facility.

SCI Funeral owns and operates 75 funeral homes in New York
State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
          Garrett Kaske, Esq.
          KESSLER MATURA P.C.
          534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 499-9100
          Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
          E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
                  gkaske@kesslermatura.com

SEOUL SOONDAE: Contreras Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Felipe Contreras, on behalf of himself and all others aggrieved
employees v. SEOUL SOONDAE, INC., a California Corporation; and
DOES 1- 50, Inclusive, Case No. 23STCV00498 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Anegeles Cty., Jan. 10, 2023), is brought seeking relief against
Defendant for its: failure to pay all wages due, including regular
and overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods or premium
compensation in lieu thereof; failure to provide rest periods or
premium compensation in lieu thereof; failure to keep accurate
payroll records and provide accurate itemized wage statements;
failure to pay wages due upon termination of employment; and
failure to indemnify for expenditures or losses in discharge of
duties.

The Defendants have consistently maintained and enforced the
following unlawful policies and practices against Plaintiff:
willfully refusing to pay all hours worked, including both regular
and overtime wages; willfully refusing to permit off-duty meal
periods or providing compensation in lieu thereof; willfully
refusing to permit rest periods or providing compensation in lieu
thereof; willfully refusing to furnish accurate itemized wage
statements upon payment of wages; willfully refusing to pay all
wages due upon separation of employment; and willfully refusing to
pay for expenditures or losses in the discharge of their duties,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from on November 2011,
through October 2, 2022, in Los Angeles County at Defendant's
restaurant.

Seoul Soondae, Inc. is a California corporation, operating
restaurants throughout California and.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Lo, Esq.
          Berkeh Alemzadeh, Esq.
          WORK LAWYERS PC
          22939 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 202
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Phone: (424) 355-8535
          Facsimile: (213) 784-0032
          Email: iustin@caworklawver.com
                 bevonca@caworklawver.com


SHOP-VAC CORP: Court Amends Case Management Deadlines in Gair
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gair v. Shop-Vac
Corporation, Case No. 4:21-cv-00976-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Matthew W. Brann entered an order granting the joint motion to
amend the case management deadlines:

   -- Discovery:                      June 16, 2023

   -- Dispositive Motions:            July 10, 2023

   -- The Plaintiff's expert          July 17, 2023
      reports:

   -- The Defendant’s expert          August 14, 2023
      reports:

   -- Supplemental and rebuttal       August 28, 2023
      expert reports:

   -- Expert discovery:               September 18, 2023

   -- Deadline to move for            January 23, 2023
      class certification:

   -- All trial and pretrial deadlines are canceled and will be
      rescheduled upon the disposition of any filed dispositive
       motion.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vWZSXv at no extra charge.[CC]

SHUFFLE 512: Arredondo Sues Over to Recover the Minimum Wage
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Arredondo, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Shuffle 512, LLC and Matthew Morgan, Case No.
1:23-cv-00037 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 11, 2023), is brought against the
Defendant to recover his improperly taken tips and to recover the
minimum wage to which he is entitled under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants required the Plaintiff and their other poker dealers
to pay 12% of the tips that they received each day to the
Defendants. The 12% of tips was paid to the Defendants' "floor
managers," individuals who supervised the dealers and who were the
highest level of management on the premises of the card house while
the Plaintiff and his co-workers were present working.

The Defendants paid the Plaintiff and their other dealers as
"tipped workers," that is, they took the FLSA's tip credit from the
minimum wage of $7.25, resulting in an hourly wage of $2.13. An
employer is only allowed to take the tip credit if it follows the
FLSA's applicable rules, which includes the requirement that the
workers get all tips paid to them by customers. the Plaintiff
worked with other individuals who were paid a sub-minimum wage as
poker dealers. Defendants also improperly took 12% of these other
individuals' tips.

The Defendants were legally required to pay the Plaintiff and their
other poker dealers ("Similarly Situated Workers") all of the tips
that customers paid to them. Instead, Defendants took 12% of the
tips and gave them to managerial employees who are not eligible to
pool tips with tipped workers such as the dealers. The Defendants
did not steal the Plaintiff's tips by accident. Rather, the
Defendants knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried
out their illegal pattern or practice with respect to the Plaintiff
and Similarly Situated Workers. Such practice was and continues to
be with regard to some of the Similarly Situated Workers, a clear
violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a poker dealer in from
June of 2021 until June of 2022.

The Defendants operate a card house, which is a place for people to
play poker for money, in Austin Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 10099
          Houston, TX 77206
          Phone: 713-868-3388
          Facsimile: 713-683-9940
          Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


SHUTTERFLY LLC: Faces Remus Class Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
LISA REMUS, individually and on behalf of all, others similarly
situated v. SHUTTERFLY, LLC,, Case No. 164300229 (Fla. Cir., Jan.
8, 2022) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its
consumer goods and services, in part, by engaging in telephonic
sales calls to consumers without having secured prior express
written consent as required by the Florida Telephone Solicitation
Act.

Commencing on July 15, 2022, the Defendant sent telephonic sales
call to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number. The purpose of
telephonic sales calls was to solicit the sale of consumer goods
and/or services and for the purpose of 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.

The Defendant allegedly made and/or knowingly allowed the
telephonic sales calls to the Plaintiff and the Class members to be
made utilizing an automated system for the selection or dialing of
telephone numbers. The Defendant's telephonic sales calls have
caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including violations
of their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance,
and invasion of their privacy, the Plaintiff claims.

As a result of Defendant's conduct, and pursuant to section
501.059(10)(a) of the FTSA, the Plaintiff and Class members were
harmed and are each entitled to a minimum of $500.00 in damages for
each violation. The Plaintiff and the Class members are also
entitled to an injunction against future calls.

The Defendant has willfully or knowingly violated section 501.059,
Florida Statutes, and pursuant to section 501.059(10)(b) of the
FTSA, the Plaintiff and Class members were harmed and are each
entitled to $1,500.00 in damages for each violation, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff is a regular user of cellular telephone number that
received Defendant's telephonic sales calls.

Shutterfly is an American photography, photography products, and
image sharing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary Z. Zermay, Esq.
          ZERMAY LAW, P.A.
          203 Labelle Avenue
          Fort Myers, FL 33905
          Telephone: (239) 699-3107
          E-mail: zach@zermaylaw.com

SILVERGATE BANK: Faces Husary Class Suit Over FTX Customer Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRAWES HUSARY, FRANCISCO DE TOMASO, SOHAM BHATIA and MICHAEL
HAWWA on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
SILVERGATE BANK, SILVERGATE CAPITAL CORPORATION and ALAN J. LANE,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00038-CAB-AHG (S.D. Cal., Jan. 9, 2023) sues the
Defendant for aiding and abetting a multibillion-dollar fraudulent
scheme orchestrated by Sam Bankman-Fried through the cryptocurrency
exchange FTX and the cryptocurrency hedge fund Alameda Research LLC
(Alameda).

In early November 2022, FTX, which was the largest user of the
Silvergate Exchange Network (SEN) network, filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection.

Silvergate, which publicly touted its enhanced, proprietary
anti-money laundering and "Know Your Customer" systems, knew FTX
and Alameda were different companies. It saw billions of dollars of
investor money transferred out of FTX and into Alameda, then out of
Alameda to pay Alameda’s debts and to enrich Bankman-Fried and
his inner circle. It saw billions of dollars in FTX customer funds
wired directly to Alameda and related entities. But despite this
knowledge, Silvergate -- which proudly displayed on the home page
of its website a quote by Bankman-Fried heralding Silvergate as the
bank that "revolutionized crypto banking" -- did nothing. To the
contrary, Silvergate substantially assisted FTX by continuing to
allow FTX to use its Silvergate accounts and the SEN network, the
lawsuit claims.

In the end, approximately $8 billion in FTX customer funds,
including the funds of the Plaintiffs and about one million others,
have been lost.

This lawsuit seeks to recover some of those losses, which would not
have occurred had Silvergate stopped giving FTX access to its
accounts and the SEN network when it saw what FTX and Bankman-Fried
were doing.

On April 15, 2022, Mr. Husary placed $2,000 in funds in an FTX
account. Shortly thereafter, he purchased a nonfungible token as an
investment.

On April 28, 2021, Mr. de Tomaso placed $500 in funds in an FTX
account. He was instructed to the wire the funds directly to the
Alameda account at Silvergate Bank, which he did. Mr. de Tomaso
also transferred cryptocurrency worth $138,360 into the FTX
account.

Beginning September 2021, Bhatia made eight separate deposits of
cryptocurrency valued at $20,000 in an FTX account.

In or around April 2022, Mr. Hawwa placed $500 in funds in an FTX
account, then purchased a nonfungible token as an investment.

When FTX 7 announced its bankruptcy in early November 2022, the
Plaintiffs tried to withdraw the assets from their FTX accounts but
were unable to do so, the suit further alleges.

Silvergate Bank is a Californian bank that mostly deals in
cryptocurrency transactions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
          Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
          HARTLEY LLP
          101 West Broadway, Suite 820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5822
          E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com
                  lindner@reiserlaw.com

                - and -

          Michael J. Reiser, Esq.
          Matthew Reiser, Esq.
          Isabella Martinez, Esq.
          REISER LAW, P.C.
          1475 N. Broadway, Suite 300
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 256-0400
          E-mail: michael@reiserlaw.com
                  matthew@reiserlaw.com
                  isabella@reiserlaw.com

                - and -

          Jason Kellogg, Esq.
          Victoria J. Wilson, Esq.
          Marcelo Diaz-Cortes, Esq.
          LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN
          SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP
          100 Southeast Second Avenue, 36th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 403-8788
          E-mail: jk@lklsg.com
                  vjw@lklsg.com
                  md@lklsg.com

SILVERGATE CAPITAL: Faces Thomas Suit Over Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SILVERGATE CAPITAL CORPORATION; ALAN J.
LANE; and ANTONIO MARTINO, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-00043-LL-NLS (S.D. Cal., Jan. 10, 2023) is a class action
on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Silvergate securities between November 9, 2021 and January
5, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), pursuing claims against
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the class
period, the Defendants made materially false and 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: (1)
that the Company's platform lacked sufficient controls and
procedures to detect instances of money laundering; (2) that
Silvergate's customers had engaged in money laundering in amounts
exceeding $425 million; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Company was reasonably likely to receive regulatory scrutiny and
face damages, including penalties and reputational harm; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendant's positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

The Company's Class A common stock fell more than $9 per share,
from a closing price of $21.95 on January 4, 2023, to $12.57 on
January 5, 2023 on unusually heavy volume, a drop of 42.73%.

SILVERGATE CAPITAL CORPORATION operates as a bank holding company.
The Company, through its subsidiary Silvergate Bank provides a
banking platform for innovators, especially in the digital currency
industry, and developing product and service solutions addressing
the needs of entrepreneurs. Silvergate Capital serves customers in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

SONIC INDUSTRIES: Balasetti Sues Over Unsolicited Calls and Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JC Balasetti, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SONIC INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-00038-R (W.D.
Okla., Jan. 11, 2023), is brought for legal and equitable remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in sending
automated telephonic sales calls, in the form of text messages, to
his cellular telephone and the cellular telephones of numerous
other individuals across Florida, in clear violation of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA").

The Plaintiff has received numerous text messages that the
Defendant made or knowingly allowed another person to make on its
behalf. Accordingly, the text messages that the Defendant made or
knowingly allowed another person to make on its behalf to
Plaintiff's 3505 Number constituted "telephonic sales calls" within
the meaning of the FTSA.

Because the Plaintiff's cellular phone alerts him whenever he
receives a text message, each telephonic sales call by or on behalf
of the Defendant to the Plaintiff's Number invaded the Plaintiff's
privacy and intruded upon the Plaintiff's seclusion upon receipt.

The Plaintiff has never provided his prior "prior express written
consent" to the Defendant or any other party acting on the
Defendant's behalf to authorize the subject telephonic sales calls
to the Number by means of an "automated system for the selection or
dialing of telephone numbers" within the meaning of the FTSA, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Florida.

Sonic Industries, LLC owns a national quick service restaurant
brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew K. Felty, Esq.
          LYTLE SOULE & FELTY, P.C.
          1200 Robinson Renaissance
          119 N. Robinson Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Phone: (405) 235-7471
          Facsimile: (405) 232-3852
          Email: mkfelty@lytlesoule.com

               - and -

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          Arun G. Ravindran, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: + 1 (305) 357-2107
          Facsimile: + 1 (305) 200-8801
          Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                 aravindran@hedinhall.com


SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC: Eligible Customers Got Settlement Checks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WLTX reports that have you recently received a check in the mail
from SCE&G/SCANA/Dominion Energy? If so, the check is legit.

A spokesperson from Dominion Energy says the check is part of a
second distribution of settlement checks mailed out on Dec. 22,
2022.

The settlement was reached between South Carolina Electric & Gas
Company (SCE&G) and SCANA, and their customers over the
construction of two nuclear units at the VC Summer site in
Jenkinsville, South Carolina.

The lawsuit was filed after the utility company abandoned
construction at the site, which had been financed by its customers
since Nov. 2018.

If you are wondering why you received a second payment,
scegratepayersellment.com says final approval was granted in May
2022 for a final distribution of the Common Benefit Fund. Eligible
customers were issued a settlement check or bill credit as part of
the initial distribution in August 2019. If you received an initial
payment or credit -- and your check was not returned as
undeliverable -- you were eligible for the second payment.

If you have any questions about the second check, see
scegratepayersellment.com or contact the Claims Administrator at
877-432-3808, info@scegratepayersettlement.com. [GN]

SPARTAN CAPITAL: Court Denies Amendment to Scheduling Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cedric Bishop v. Spartan
Capital Securities, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09114-AT (), the Hon.
Judge Analisa Torres entered an order denying the amendment to the
scheduling order:

  a. Fact discovery to conclude by May 9, 2023

  b. Any motion for class certification to be filed no later
     than May23, 2023

  c. The expert discovery proceed as scheduled with a deadline
      of completion of June 23.

The parties request to amend the case management plan to account
for class certification briefing is not properly before the Court.
In addition, the parties requests do not change the discovery
deadlines in the case management plan. The parties are directed to
consult Rule III of the Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases
prior to the filing of any motion.

Spartan Capital is a financial services company offering investment
advisory services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3X8AJFm at no extra charge.[CC]


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Chen Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christine Chen, and all other similarly situated
employees of SS&C v. SS&C Technologies, Inc., Defendant; Comvest
Partners, Interested Party; Case No. 9:22-cv-81895 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
Jan. 11, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00238-UA to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.ssctech.com/ -- is
an American multinational holding company headquartered in Windsor,
Connecticut, that sells software and software as a service to the
financial services industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kara S. Miller, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 943-9080

               - and -

          Michael P. Reitzell, Esq.
          MICHAEL P. REITZELL, P.A.
          PO Box 222306
          West Palm Beach, FL 33422
          Phone: (561) 478-4001
          Fax: (561) 828-3137

The Defendant is represented by:

          Emily M. Miller, Esq.
          Hallie S. Goldblatt, Esq.
          Liza M. Velazquez, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIN, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 373-3000


STATOIL USA: Final Certification Granted in Rescigno Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELO R. RESCIGNO, SR.,
AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHERYL B. CANFIELD, v. STATOIL USA
ONSHORE PROPERTIES INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-00085-MEM (M.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Malachy E. Mannion entered an order that motion for
final certification is granted.

After review of the Girsh, Prudential, and Rule 23(e)(2), the terms
of settlement appear fair, reasonable, and adequate. Pursuant to
the above analysis, the court has determined that Rule 23(a) and
(b)(3) have been met and, consequently, certification is proper.

Additionally, the court will grant the motion for attorneys' fees
and expenses and a service award to Rescigno and the class
representatives.

Significantly, although Objectors contend the Stines "have not
asserted claims," Objectors do not argue the Stines are not part of
the class or the L-29 Group. Moreover, as Rescigno previously noted
in this case, in applying Rule 23, other courts have appointed
individuals as class representatives who were not named in the
complaint.

Objectors contend that the release for non-L-29 class members is
unfair because of the five-year release. The Objectors' argument
misconstrues ¶2.5 of the Settlement. The release allows for SOP to
use the "Index Pricing Methodology to calculate and pay Royalties
for a period continuing until the Sunset Date."

The release is for the specific methodology used. If SOP does not
use the Index Pricing Methodology or does not pay the Class Members
correctly based on Index Pricing Methodology, then class members
still maintain their right to sue.

On August 5, 2020, 13,445 notices were mailed to the Class Members
and the parties have maintained a toll-free helpline and website to
accommodate inquiries. (Doc. 184). On September 25, 2020, Rescigno
moved for final approval of the settlement and plan of allocation,
as well as for attorneys' fees and expenses and a service award to
Rescigno and the class representatives,

   -- Terms of Settlement

      The settlement agreement identifies the class as "Royalty
      Owners in Northern Pennsylvania [1] who have entered into
      oil and gas leases, regardless of the type of lease, that
      provide that the Royalty Owner is to be paid Royalties and
      to whom [SOP] has (or had) an obligation to pay Royalties
      on production attributable to [SOP]'s working interest."

      The settlement agreement divides all plaintiffs and named
      plaintiffs into two groups. The first group, termed the
      "Lease Form 29 Group," or "L-29 Group," includes those
      class members whose leases contain the following provision
      governing valuation of royalty on natural gas:

      The L-29 Group comprises approximately 7% of the class and
      the settlement agreement provides that they will be
      allocated 18% of the net settlement fund.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GZH6Fl at no extra charge.[CC]

STEEL RIVER SYSTEMS: Bower Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steel River Systems,
LLC. The case is styled as Amber Bower, Joel Courtney,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Steel River Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00136 (N.D. Ill., Jan.
10, 2023).

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

Steel River Systems is an ARM company that focuses on default
collections, student lending, and federal subcontracting.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson St., Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone: (608) 237-1775
          Email: sam@turkestrauss.com


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Sampson
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA SAMPSON, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-10284-CPO-SAK
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Sharon A. King entered an amended
scheduling order as follows:

  -- All affirmative exports on class          June 30, 2023
     certification and disclosures
     pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.
     26(a)(2) on behalf of Plaintiffs
     shall be served upon counsel for
     the Defendants no later than:

  -- Depositions of the Plaintiffs             August 14, 2023
     experts in support of class
     certification shall be completed
     by:

  -- All rebuttal expert reports on            Sept. 25, 2023
     class certification pursuant to
     FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2) on
     behalf of Defendants shall be
     served upon counsel for the
     Plaintiffs no later than:

  -- Class certification motions shall         Dec. 1, 2023
     be filed with the Clerk of the
     Court no later than:

Subaru of America is the United States-based distributor of
Subaru's brand vehicles, a subsidiary of Subaru Corporation of
Japan. The company markets and distributes Subaru vehicles, parts
and accessories.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kfnqEu at no extra charge.[CC]

TARGET CORPORATION: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Bayne Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIEKE BAYNE and ALYSSA
HART, individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-05938-MKV
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered a civil case
management plan and scheduling order as follows:

  -- Any motion to amend or to join       January 20, 2023
     additional parties shall be filed
     within 19 days from the date of
     the Order or:

  -- Initial disclosures, pursuant to     January 18, 2023
     Rules 26(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P.,
     shall be served not later than 7
     days from the date of this Order,
     or:

  -- All fact discovery shall be           May 12, 2023
     completed no later than:

  -- Initial requests for production       March 10, 2023
     of document to be served by:

  -- Interrogatories to be served by:      March 10, 2023

  -- All expert discovery shall be         July 12, 2023
     completed no later than:

Target Corp is an American big box department store chain
headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Wf7y1Y at no extra charge.[CC]

TENANTREPORTS.COM LLC: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in McKey
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN MCKEY,
individually and as a representative of the Class, v.
TENANTREPORTS.COM, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01908-GJP (E.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Gerald J. Pappert entered an amended scheduling order as
follows:

   1. The Defendant produces requested     February 1, 2023
      data to Plaintiff on or before:

   2. Fact discovery shall be completed    April 1, 2023
      on or before:

   3. The Plaintiff shall produce his      March 15, 2023
      expert report(s) on or before:

   4. The Defendant shall produce its      April 15, 2023
      expert report(s) on or before:

   5. Rebuttal disclosures shall be        May 15, 2023.
      produced on or before:

   6. The Plaintiff shall file his         July 15, 2023
      motion for class certification
      on or before:

   7. The Defendant shall file its         August 15, 2023
      response on or before:

   8. The Plaintiff's reply, if any,       September 8, 2023
      shall be filed on or before:

TenantReports.com is a tenant screening agency.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k9GJim at no extra charge.[CC]

TIKTOK INC: Tracks Users' External App Activity, Androshchuk Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YEVGENIY S. ANDROSHCHUK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIKTOK INC. (f/k/a MUSICAL.LY,
INC.), and BYTEDANCE INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00108 (C.D.
Cal., January 9, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and violations of Federal
Wiretap Act and Washington Wiretapping Statute.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful practice of
intercepting information about the Plaintiff and similarly situated
TikTok application (app) users without their consent. At no time
did the Defendants disclose to the Plaintiff and Class members that
TikTok users who click a link inside the application to access an
external website, make purchases, register to vote, or seek to
access any information external to the application itself,
automatically launch an in-app browser which records all of the
data that they input and the actions they take, even though the
user appears to have exited the TikTok app. Through its in-app
browser, TikTok has secretly amassed massive amounts of highly
invasive information about its users by tracking their activities
on third-party websites. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful
activities, the Plaintiff's and Class members' privacy rights have
been violated, says the suit.

TikTok Inc., formerly known as Musical.ly, Inc., is a social media
application company, with its principal place of business in Culver
City, California.

ByteDance Inc. is a technology company, with its principal place of
business in Mountain View, California. [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

TOYOTA MOTOR: Velez Sues Over 2022 Lexus SUV's Deceptive Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
LUCAS VELEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., TOYOTA
MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., and COUNTYLINE AUTO CENTER, INC. a/k/a
LEXUS OF NORTH MIAMI, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-20046-JEM (S.D.
Fla., January 6, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty of fitness for
particular purpose, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
breach of express warranty, and violations of the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Misleading Advertising Statute,
and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' continuous advertising of the
rugged nature and towing capabilities of the 2022 Lexus GX 460
sports utility vehicle (SUV) without reference to the
unavailability of the tow hitch receiver. The Defendants are aware
that the tow hitch receiver, an integral component that is
necessary to utilize the towing capabilities of Lexus GX 460 SUVs,
is no longer in production and not available to the consumers who
purchase and/or lease the SUVS. As a result of Toyota's wrongful
conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered an ascertainable
loss of money, says the suit.

Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc. is an automobile company headquartered
in Plano, Texas.

Toyota Motor North America, Inc. is a holding company for Toyota
Motor Corporation's sales and manufacturing subsidiaries in the
U.S., headquartered in Plano, Texas.

Countyline Auto Center, Inc., also known as Lexus of North Miami,
is a company that markets, distributes, leases, and sells Lexus
vehicles in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Yosef Steinmetz, Esq.
         SFT LEGAL SERVICES P.A.
         4014 Chase Avenue, Suite 220
         Miami Beach, FL 33140
         Telephone: (786) 368-5617
         E-mail: yosef@sftlegal.net

TRADER JOE'S: Dark Chocolate Contains Heavy Metals, Bellinger Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TRUDY BELLINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00075 (C.D. Cal., January 6, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, unjust enrichment, fraud by omission, and
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California
False Advertising Law, and the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its dark chocolate products, including Trader Joe's Dark Chocolate
(72% Cacao) and Trader Joe's The Dark Chocolate Lover's Chocolate.
The Defendant failed to disclose to consumers that the products
contained lead and cadmium, which are known toxic heavy metals.
Given the negative effects of toxic heavy metals on child
development and adult health, the presence of these substances in
dark chocolate is a material fact to reasonable consumers,
including the Plaintiff and Class members. Had the Plaintiff and
putative Class members known the truth, they would not have been
willing to purchase the products or would have paid less for them,
says the suit.

Trader Joe's Company is a chain of grocery stores headquartered in
Monrovia, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
         Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
         LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
         100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55401
         Telephone: (612) 339-6900
         Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
         E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                 rapeterson@locklaw.com

                 - and -
       
         Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
         GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
         102 Half Moon Bay Drive
         Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
         Telephone: (917) 983-9321
         E-mail: LFeldman@4-Justice.com

                 - and -
       
         David J. George, Esq.
         Brittany L. Brown, Esq.
         GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
         9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite #302
         Lake Worth, FL 33467
         Telephone: (561) 232-6002
         E-mail: DGeorge@4-Justice.com
                 BBrown@4-justice.com

                 - and -
       
         Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
         Catherine Sung-Yun K. Smith, Esq.
         Shashi Gowda, Esq.
         GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
         120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 333-8844
         Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
         E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                 csmith@gustafsongluek.com
                 sgowda@gustafsongluek.com

                 - and -
       
         Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
         Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
         WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP
         311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5450
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 346-2222
         Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
         E-mail: kaw@wbe-llp.com
                 kae@wbe-llp.com

                 - and -
       
         Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
         BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
         600 West Broadway, Suite 900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 230-0800
         Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
         E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com

TRAEGER PELLET: Court Tosses Yates Bid to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Yates, et al., v.
Traeger Pellet Grills, Case No. 2:19-cv-00723-BSJ (D. Utah), the
Hon. Judge Bruce S. Jenkins entered an order:

The court denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class as to the
proposed nationwide class because, as stated previously:

   "Ordinarily, the power of the Utah legislature stops at the
   borders."

This statement references not only the difficulties related to
extraterritorial application of state law, but also recognizes that
questions implicated by a choice-of-law analysis involve
predominantly individual questions, rather than questions common to
the proposed nationwide class.

Additionally, the court denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify
Class as to the proposed Utah and California subclasses, though it
will provide Plaintiffs an opportunity to provide additional
information in an amended motion to certify a proposed Utah and/or
California class.

During counsel's conversation with the court, certain information
gaps became apparent regarding Plaintiffs' claimed damages and
their theory regarding causation under Utah law and California law.
If Plaintiffs so choose, they may file an amended motion within
twenty days, filling in the voids demonstrated during the hearing.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3vZNuGcat no extra charge.[CC]

TRAVELEX INSURANCE: Haas Bid for Class Certification Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Donna Haas v. Travelex
Insurance Services Inc. et al, Case No. 2:20-cv-06171-PSG-PLA (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez entered an order:

    1. granting in part and denying in part the Defendants'
       motion to exclude Plaintiff's expert; and

    2. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's
       motion for class certification.

Travelex is a leading provider of travel insurance, offering a wide
range of travel protection plans with a variety of benefits.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W4JoXZ at no extra charge.[CC]

TRUMP CORP: Court Denies McKoy's Letter Motion to Seal
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE MCKOY, et al.,
v. THE TRUMP CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-09936-LGS-SLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered an order
denying the Plaintiff's letter motion to seal.

A presumption of public access attaches to documents filed on the
docket, and no party has rebutted that presumption.

Further, the redacted information is central to Plaintiff's claims
and does not fall within one of the recognized exceptions that can
rebut the presumption of public access.

On November 21, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a letter regarding a
request to set a trial date and to set or modify the briefing
schedule for summary judgment and class certification motions. The
same day, Plaintiffs filed a letter motion to file portions of the
Trial Scheduling Letter under seal, on grounds that information
contained within it was designated confidential under the operative
Protective Order.

Trump Corporation provides real estate services. The Company offers
renting, buying, selling and appraising real estate.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3XqdFlHat no extra charge.[CC]

UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Kane Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Kane, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 6:23-cv-06027
(W.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2023), is brought arising from the Defendant's
intentional, reckless, and negligent disclosure of the Plaintiff's
and Class Members' confidential and private medical information to
Meta Platforms, Inc., d/b/a Meta ("Facebook"), both of which
benefitted from the Defendant's marketing program at the expense of
its patients' privacy.

URMC failed to properly secure and to safeguard personally
identifiable information ("PII") and non-public personal health
information ("PHI"), including, but not limited to, individual
patients' computer IP addresses, physical locations, appointment
information, medical provider information, unique and persistent
Facebook IDs, and other confidential information submitted on
Defendant's website and patient portal. The Defendant encouraged
Plaintiff and Class Members to use its digital tools via its
website, https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/ (the "Website") in order
to receive healthcare services, and Plaintiff and Class Members did
so with the reasonable and appropriate understanding that Defendant
would secure and maintain any PII and PHI provided as
confidential.

At all times that they visited and utilized Defendant's Website,
Plaintiff and Class Members had a reasonable expectation of privacy
that any Private Information collected through Defendant's Website
would remain secure and protected and only accessible by URMC to be
utilized for medical purposes. The Plaintiff and Class Members
provided Private Information to Defendant in order to receive
medical services rendered and with the reasonable expectation that
Defendant would protect their Private Information. Plaintiff and
Class Members relied on Defendant to secure and to protect the
Private Information and not disclose same to unauthorized third
parties without their knowledge or informed consent. The Defendant
further made express and implied promises to protect Plaintiff's
and Class Members' Private Information and to maintain the privacy
and confidentiality of communications that patients exchanged with
Defendant.

The Defendant, however, failed in its obligations and promises by
utilizing the Facebook Pixel, on its Website knowing that such
technology would transmit and share Plaintiff's and Class Members'
Private Information with unauthorized third parties. The
Defendant's Website encourages patients to exchange communications
to search for a doctor, learn more about their conditions and
treatments, make appointments, and access medical records and test
results. The Defendant intentionally installed the well-known
Facebook tracking pixel (the "Pixel") on its Website that secretly
enabled the unauthorized transmission and disclosure of the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential medical information.

Such Private Information would allow a third party (e.g., Facebook)
to know that a specific patient was seeking confidential medical
care. This type of disclosure could also allow a third party to
reasonably infer that a specific patient was being treated for a
specific type of medical condition such as cancer, pregnancy or
AIDS. The exposed Private Information of Plaintiff and Class
Members can--and likely will--be further disseminated to additional
third parties utilizing the data for retargeting or insurance
companies utilizing the information to set insurance rates.

Furthermore, third parties can often offer for sale the
unencrypted, unredacted Private Information to criminals on the
dark web for use in fraud and cyber-crimes. The Defendant has not
disclosed to Plaintiff or Class Members that it shares patients'
sensitive and confidential communications via the Website with
Facebook. As a result, Plaintiff and Class Members were unaware
that their PII and PHI were being surreptitiously transmitted to
Facebook as they communicated with their healthcare provider, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff accessed the Defendant's Website on her mobile device
and computer as recently as November 2022 and used the Website to
look for providers.

URMC is one of the largest facilities for medical treatment and
research in upstate New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 558-5500


USA SILO: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Knowlton
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMERON KNOWLTON, v.
U.S.A. SILO SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-04045-JLG-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge James L. Graham entered a scheduling order as
follows:

  -- vacating the Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for
     January 18, 2023 based upon the Parties' Report pursuant to
     Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and

  -- adopting the following schedule:


     1. The parties shall exchange initial     Jan. 25, 2023
        disclosures by:

     2. Any motion to amend the pleadings      Feb. 10, 2023
        or to join additional parties
        shall be filed by:

     3. The motion for conditional             June 7, 2023
        collective certification and
        class certification shall be
        filed by:

This case is a putative overtime collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and a putative overtime class action under the
Ohio Minimum Wage Fair Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act,
on behalf of all hourly Laborers who are or were employed by the
Defendant at any time within the period of three (3) years prior to
the conditional certification of the class through the date of
judgment.

USA Silo is a silo and bin cleaning, bulk storage removal/clean-out
and industrial coating corporation.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XMdpgD at no extra charge.[CC]

VERVENT INC: Bid for Class Cert Granted in Part in Turrey Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATER TURREY, OLIVER
FIATY, JORDAN HERNANDEZ, and JEFFREY SAZON, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VERVENT, INC. fka FIRST
ASSOCIATES LOAN SERVICING, LLC; ACTIVATE FINANCIAL, LLC; DAVID
JOHNSON; and LAWRENCE CHIAVARO, Case No. 3:20-cv-00697-DMS-AHG
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dana M. Sabraw entered an order:
granting in part and denying in part, as follows.

  1. The Court certifies the following Class and subclasses
     under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3):

     -- "A nationwide Class consisting of all individuals who,
        based on Defendants' records:

           (i) were PEAKS loan borrowers, and

          (ii) made a payment during the period April 10, 2016
               until the present.

        The Class includes the RICO claims against all
        Defendants, and the UCL and negligent misrepresentation
        claims against Defendants Vervent and Activate
        Financial.

     -- A nationwide FDCPA subclass consisting of all
        individuals to whom on or after 11 April 10, 2019,
        Activate Financial sent a written communication in an
        attempt to collect 12 on a PEAKS loan, and who
        thereafter made a payment to Activate Financial.

     -- The FDCPA subclass includes claims against Defendants
        Vervent and Activate Financial.

     -- A California RFDCPA subclass consisting of all
        individuals to whom on or after April 10, 2019,
        Defendants sent a written communication in an attempt to
        collect on a PEAKS loan to an address in California, and
        who thereafter made a payment to Defendants.
     -- The RFDCPA subclass includes claims against Defendants
        Vervent and Activate Financial.

     -- The Plaintiff's Turrey, Hernandez, Fiaty, and Sazon are
        appointed as class representatives for the Class RICO
        claim.

     -- The Plaintiff's Hernandez and Fiaty are appointed as
        class representatives for the FDCPA subclass.

     -- The Plaintiff's Hernandez, Fiaty, and Sazon are
        appointed as class representatives for the RFDCPA
        subclass.

     -- The Plaintiff Hernandez is appointed as the class
        representative for the Class UCL and negligent
        misrepresentation claims.

     -- The law firms of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP, Langer,
        Grogan & Diver, and Law Office of Paul Arons are
        appointed as class counsel, pursuant to Rule 23(g).

The Plaintiffs Heather Turrey, Jeffrey Sazon, Jordan Hernandez, and
Oliver Fiaty bring this consumer class action as alleged victims of
a racketeering student loan scheme against companies and persons
that collected millions of dollars in loan payments from them.

Vervent is a financial service provider company. The company
specializes in consumer loan and lease services and call center
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3X22Wxr at no extra charge.[CC]


VINCENT K. MCMAHON: Fellows Sues Over Serial Abuses of Power
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott A. Fellows, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. VINCENT K. MCMAHON, Case No. 2023-22- (Del. Chancery
Ct., Jan. 10, 2023), is brought arising out of McMahon's serial
abuses of power as Chief Executive Officer of WWE, his subsequent
banishment from the board room, to which he acquiesced by resigning
his positions, and his current effort to impose his personal will
on WWE and its board of directors (the "Board") by purporting to
adopt a package of invalid and inequitable bylaw amendments that
would hamstring the Board from making critical business decisions.

McMahon is the 77-year-old controller of WWE, with control over
approximately 81% of the Company's total voting power. For decades,
McMahon controlled WWE through his stock ownership and his
positions as CEO and Board Chairman. During much of his reign,
McMahon abused his position as CEO by sexually harassing women
within and outside WWE.

In July 2022, following public disclosures that McMahon had paid
more than $12 million in secret settlements to his accusers dating
back to 2006, McMahon agreed to relinquish his positions as WWE's
CEO and Chairman. Following governmental inquiries and an internal
investigation, WWE disclosed that McMahon had made additional
payments totaling $5 million that were unrelated to the initial
allegations of misconduct that had caused WWE to conduct its
internal investigation.

In late December 2022, McMahon demanded in writing that the Board
invite him back to serve as Executive Chairman. McMahon insisted
that he guide a strategic review process as Executive Chairman or
else he would hold the Company hostage. He asserted that he would
interfere with and withhold support or approval of any process that
he did not lead. McMahon further threatened to withhold his support
of any negotiation respecting WWE's expiring media rights deals.
WWE's media rights are the Company's lifeblood. The media right
agreements were set to expire in 2024 and were slated for
renegotiation in early 2023. The 11-person Board unanimously
determined that McMahon should not return to the Board. That
unanimous Board determination included McMahon's daughter,
then-Chairwoman and co-CEO Stephanie McMahon.

McMahon took matters into his own hands. He purported to exercise
his powers as controlling stockholder in a matter that would his
impose his will on the Board and WWE. On January 5, 2023, McMahon
executed a written consent by which he purported to: remove three
directors; fill three vacancies with himself and two former
co-presidents of WWE; and amend the Company's bylaws in various
ways (the "Bylaw Amendments"), including by purporting to require
stockholder approval (the "Stockholder Approval Amendment") for any
Board-approved transaction to: enter into or modify any contracts
or transactions respecting "certain media rights"; issue stock; or
enter into or modify any contract with a "change of control"
provision relating to the composition of the Board.

By his Written Consent, McMahon seeks to hamstring the Board and
prevent it from undertaking significant time-sensitive decisions
respecting some of the most important properties of the Company. He
also leveraged that purported blocking power to get himself
reappointed as Executive Chairman of the Board. Through this
Action, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Stockholder Approval
Amendment impinges upon the Board's core functions and is therefore
void and invalid and that McMahon has breached his fiduciary duties
as a controlling stockholder, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff owns WWE Class A common stock and has been a
stockholder of WWE.

McMahon acquired the Company's predecessor from his father in
1982.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Vielandi, Esq.
          Guillaume Buell, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 907-0700

               - and –

          Ned Weinberger, Esq.
          Mark Richardson, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 573-2540

               - and –

          Joel Friedlander, Esq.
          Christopher M. Foulds, Esq.
          David Hahn, Esq.
          FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A.
          1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 573-3500

               - and –

          Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
          David Tejtel, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
          493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
          Bedford Hills, NY 10507
          Phone: (888) 529-1108

               - and –

          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          Adrienne Bell, Esq.
          KASKELA LAW LLC
          18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
          Newtown Square, PA 19073
          Phone: (888) 715-1740


VOYAGER DIGITAL: Cuban Faces Suit Over Promotion of Ponzi Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Sor, writing for Markets Insider, reports that Shark Tank
investor Mark Cuban will be deposed next month in connection to his
promotion of Voyager, the crypto lender described as a "Ponzi
scheme" in a class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit, which was originally filed in August, aims to hold
Cuban and Voyager CEO Steve Ehrlich responsible for over $5 billion
in lost customer funds. Cuban requested to split his deposition in
court over two hearings, though that request was denied on Jan. 9,
according to court documents, with orders for Cuban to deliver his
testimony in one session on February 2.

Voyager investors have claimed that Cuban and Ehrlich roped in
naive customers to the platform, as Cuban, an avid cryptocurrency
investor, touted the crypto exchange on numerous occasions to his
followers. Cuban previously stated that he was a customer of
Voyager himself, and claimed it was "as close to risk-free as
you're gonna get in the crypto universe."

Cuban's basketball team, the Dallas Mavericks, also entered a
five-year partnership with the now-bankrupt crypto exchange. At one
point, the the team ran a promotion wherein Mavericks fans would
receive $100 worth of Bitcoin if they deposited $100 into Voyager.

"The Deceptive Voyager Platform … was an unregulated and
unsustainable fraud, similar to other Ponzi schemes," the class
action complaint reads. "Defendants Mark Cuban and Stephen Ehrlich
were key players who personally reached out to investors,
individually and through the Dallas Mavericks, to induce them to
invest in the Deceptive Voyager Platform."

Voyager declared bankruptcy last summer and was part of a chain of
bankruptcies among crypto firms stemming from the collapse of
Terra-Luna, which sparked a massive sell-off in digital assets. The
firm is going through Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. Binance.US
has made a $1 billion bid to buy the assets of the defunct firm,
though the deal is being scrutinized by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, which raised a limited objection to the transaction.
[GN]

WALGREENS CO: Goodwin Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joycette Goodwin, an individual, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public v. WALGREENS, CO., an
Illinois corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00147 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 10,
2023), is brought alleging violations of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising
Law, and brought further causes of action for breach of express and
implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, intentional
misrepresentation/fraud, and quasi-contract/unjust enrichment as a
result of the Defendants false and misleading advertising of
Children's Cough DM.

The Defendant makes, distributes, sells, and markets "Children's
12-Hour Cough Relief Cough DM," a cough suppressant product.
Defendant sells two separate Cough DM products: one advertised for
adults, and one advertised for children. The Cough DM product
marketed for children ("Children's product" or "Product") is named
"Children's" Cough DM, has an image of a cartoon child, explicitly
states that it is "For children" and assures parents that the
product is safe for "Ages 4 & older". The Children's product's
front label also states "Compare to Children's Delsym active
ingredient." The Cough DM product marketed for adults ("Adult's
product") does not have the word "Children" anywhere on the front
label, does not contain any image of a cartoon-like child or
otherwise, and does not provide an age range. The Adult's product's
front label also states "Compare to Delsym® active ingredient."

These representations lead reasonable consumers to believe that the
Cough DM product advertised for children is more suitable for
children and the Cough DM product advertised for adults is suitable
only for adults. Based on this reasonable belief, consumers are
willing to pay more for the Children's product. Reasonable
consumers are willing to pay more for the Children's Cough DM
product because they want a product that is specifically formulated
for children and is guaranteed to be safe for children to consume.
The truth, however, is that the Children's Cough DM product has the
exact same formula and ingredients as the Adult's Cough DM product.
Defendant puts the same cough syrup into two different products
with different labels. Consumers are being deceived and
overcharged. The Plaintiff read and relied upon Defendant's
advertising when purchasing the Product and was damaged as a
result, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has purchased the Product for personal and household
use and not for resale several times throughout the Class Period.

The Defendant makes, labels, distributes, sells, and markets the
Walgreens Cough DM products throughout the United States and in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A Marron, Esq.
          Michael T Houchin, Esq.
          Lilach Halperin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Phone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                 mike@consumersadvocates.com
                 lilach@consumersadvocates.com


WEC ENERGY: Court Junks Bid to Reset Class Cert Briefing Schedule
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Munt, et al., v. WEC
Energy Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00555 (E.D. Wisc.),
the Hon. Judge J.P. Stadtmueller entered an order denying the the
Plaintiffs' expedited motion to reset the class certification
briefing schedule, together with the Defendants' response.

The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) involving employee benefits.

WEC Energy is an American company based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
that provides electricity and natural gas to 4.4 million customers
across four states.[CC]






WEST GARDEN INC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against West Garden, Inc. The
case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. West Garden, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00206 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2023).

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

West Garden, Inc. -- https://www.westgardenrestaurant.com/ -- is a
Chinese restaurant in West Roxbury, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WESTERN MANAGEMENT: McKee Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Western Management
Consultants, LLC. The case is styled as Kathleen McKee,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Western Management Consultants, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00043 (M.D.
Fla., Jan. 11, 2023).

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

Western Management Consultants -- https://www.wmc.ca/ -- offer a
wide range of management consulting services and our degree of
repeat business and ongoing client relationships.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

YDESIGN GROUP: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against YDesign Group, LLC.
case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. YDesign Group, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00263 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2023).

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

YDesign Group is a California-based e-commerce company that offers
the best in modern and contemporary lighting, furniture and home
furnishings through Lumens.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (917) 796-7437
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com


ZETRONIX CORP: Fontanez Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON FONTANEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZETRONIX CORP., Defendant, Case No.
150216/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., January 8, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York
State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and
the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, zetronix.com,
contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class
members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services offered to the public through the website. The
accessibility issues include, but not limited to: (a) the website
is not configured to indicate to a screen reader when the shopping
cart function is engaged; (b) the screen reader will read multiple
prices without explanation; and (c) the website is not configured
to allow the screen reader access to the "search" function, says
the suit.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.

Zetronix Corp. is an online retail company that sells consumer
electronics. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         William J. Downes, Esq.
         MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
         225 Broadway, 39th Floor
         New York, NY 10007
         Telephone: (212) 595-6200
         Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
         E-mail: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com

[*] Class Action Settlements Reached $63-B Payments in 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------
Irvin Jackson, writing for AboutLawsuits.com, reports that
settlements involving class action actions lawsuits resulted in
agreements to pay more than $63 billion in 2022, according to the
findings of a new report, which suggests that the payments were
driven by recent efforts by pharmaceutical companies to resolve
claims stemming from the marketing of opioid medications, which has
been blamed for causing the opioid addiction crisis in the U.S.

The Duane Morris Class Action Review was released on January 4,
indicating that the amount represents a new record for class action
settlements in product liability claims, spread out over 635 class
action decisions and settlements last year.

Researchers examined claims resolved in state and federal courts
nationwide, involving plaintiff class actions and government
enforcement actions. It is the 20th year the report has been
issued.

Opioid Crisis Settlements Led the Way
Of the more than $63 billion in judgments and class action
settlements, 15 of the cases resulted in payments of $1 billion or
more. The largest of those involved a $7.4 billion settlement by
McKesson, a drug and medical supply distribution company, which
agreed to resolve lawsuits filed against it by communities and
states nationwide.

The next two highest settlements, each about $6 billion, involved
AmerisourceBERGEN and Cardinal Health, both of resulted from the
companies' roles in the opioid crisis cases.

The largest non-opioid related case was a Cardona student debt
settlement, which resulted in an agreement to pay about $6
billion.

The report also found that product liability and mass torts alone
led to $50 billion in settlements, increasing 267% over 2021.
Consumer fraud cases raked in nearly $8.6 billion overall, a 640%
increase, and antitrust cases resulted in $3.8 billion in
settlements, which is an increase of 119% over 2021's numbers.

Opioid Overuse and Addiction Problems
Recent research has indicated opioids should no longer be used to
treat back pain, spurring new guidelines that only recommend the
use of opioids for cancer pain. However, according to a study
involving 2019 data, nearly one-quarter of US adults with chronic
pain admitted to using opioids in the prior three months.

Other research indicates long-term opioid prescriptions and
high-doses increase the risk of abuse and adverse events, including
overdoses. Furthermore, many children are given high risk opioid
prescriptions that can lead to misuse and abuse later.

In recent years, the opioid epidemic has worsened, ultimately
accounting for nearly 70% of all overdose deaths, according to a
2018 study.

The crisis has largely been spurred by the use of synthetic
opioids, like fentanyl which is 50 to 100 times more powerful than
morphine. Fentanyl deaths increased more than 1,000% in recent
years. [GN]

[*] Increase in UK Class Actions Targeting Tech Giants Discussed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Broersma, writing for Silicon, reports that class action
lawsuits filed in the UK have risen dramatically over the past two
years, with tech giants a key target, according to new research
from Thomson Reuters.

The research found that the damages being sought in collective
proceedings in the UK rose from GBP4bn in 2021 to GBP26bn in 2022.

Ten of the 14 class actions filed over the past two years were
against tech multinationals, including Apple, Google and Sony.

Prominent cryptocurrency firms Binance and Kraken have also been
targeted by such actions.

Legal shift
A legal change in 2021 allowed individuals to sue on behalf of
potentially huge numbers of claimants without their express mandate
or knowledge, unless they expressly opt out.

The UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) set the precedent by
allowing an opt-out lawsuit to be brought against Mastercard, over
claims it overcharged 46 million UK customers for cross-border
transactions.

Only two other jurisdictions in Europe, Portugal and the
Netherlands, offer these opt-out class actions.

Online publishers last year sued Google and parent Alphabet for
GBP13.6bn over claims the firm abused its dominant position in
online advertising and deprived website owners of revenue.

Sony has been sued for GBP5bn over claims it abused its market
power to overcharge customers buying digital games or in-game
content via the PlayStation Store.

Competition claims
And Apple is similarly being sued for allegedly abusing its market
power to overcharge customers through its App Store.

Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen, a senior adviser to Britain's Financial
Conduct Authority (FCA) watchdog and a competition law academic,
last year said she would bring a GBP2.3bn class action against
Facebook parent Meta over claims it abused its market dominance by
exploiting the personal data of 44 million users. The action is
currently awaiting a hearing to determine whether it can be brought
forward.

"With this kind of class action gaining popularity, corporates have
to be wary of acting in what could be seen as an anti-competitive
way," said Thomson Reuters competition lawyer Warsha Kalé.

"Fines for anti-competitive behaviour in the UK can already be as
much as 10 percent of a businesses' worldwide turnover.

"Now, a business can pay that fine and then find themselves facing
a separate class action composed of tens of thousands, or even
millions, of customers." [GN]

[*] UK Banks Facing at Least 109 Class Actions, Group Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
RPC reports that the UK's leading banks* are facing at least 109
class action and group action lawsuits across different
jurisdictions, which could potentially cost them billions of
pounds, new research from international law firm RPC reveals.

Just under two-fifths (41) of the class and group actions related
to interest rate manipulation, while almost one-fifth (18) related
to breaches of the US Anti-Terrorism Act.

The class and group actions were disclosed to shareholders of the
banks concerned.

Class and group actions are mechanisms for bringing claims on
behalf of hundreds or even thousands of claimants who collectively
allege they have suffered loss due to the defendant's unlawful
conduct.

Examples include situations where the defendant bank has
participated in an illegal cartel to fix LIBOR or manipulated
foreign exchange rates.

Prevalent in the USA and Australia, class and group action lawsuits
are becoming increasingly common in the UK and certain European
jurisdictions.

Simon Hart, Partner at RPC, says: "It's clear that the leading UK
banks are still parties to an enormous number of legal disputes
globally with customers and market counterparties.

"Many of these relate to legacy matters of compliance failings and
market manipulation, the effects of which the banks are struggling
to shake off.

"However, the range of actions both in terms of subject matter and
jurisdictions highlight the ongoing legal risks faced by banks.

"It does not take much analysis to conclude that we will see
ESG-related claims being added to this list over the next five
years.

"Coupled with an increase in asset price volatility, a recessionary
environment and litigation funders looking for more cases, over the
short to medium term it is realistic to expect the number of class
and group actions to grow globally."

Class actions against banks have attracted increased levels of
potential funding from litigation funders.

Often backed by hedge funds and PE houses, Litigation funders,
finance the legal costs of a company or individual's case (ie they
will pay for the lawyers and experts) in exchange for a share of
the proceeds if the claimant is victorious.

Litigation funding is becoming increasingly established among
corporates and individuals as they can pursue legal claims without
risking their own money, explains RPC.

Daniel Hemming, Partner at RPC, says: "Banks and other large UK
corporates are likely to face a gradual rise in class actions.
Often the quantum of these cases against the banks is so
significant that litigation funders are front of the queue to back
these class and group actions. The funders also have a role to play
in building the group of claimants where that is appropriate.

"Litigation funders have the potential to shift the balance of
power in favour of claimants in these kinds of cases. Banks and
other large corporates can no longer rely on the prohibitive cost
of these cases putting off potential claimants."

Barclays faces the most class and group actions of all the UK's
biggest banks, with 41 cases against them, followed by HSBC with 31
and NatWest with 28.

The most common type of case -- making up over a third of the total
-- relates to manipulation of LIBOR and other interest rate
benchmarks. The LIBOR scandal concerned the alleged collusion of
leading banks, including Barclays, to manipulate the London
Interbank Offered Rate, the rate at which banks borrow from each
other.

LIBOR was the reference rate for many billions of loans and
derivatives. In the wake of the scandal, LIBOR is being retired and
the mechanisms for setting these rates has been radically
reformed.

The next largest category of cases relates to breaches of the US
Anti-Terrorism Act, where banks processed transactions which
claimants allege were destined for terrorist organisations. This
includes claims against major banks for handling funds sent to
Iran, which the lawsuit alleges were then used to fund terrorist
attacks on US service personnel in places such as Iraq and
Afghanistan.

In third place comes actions relating to the FX manipulation, where
a number of banks admitted manipulating various currency pairs.
[GN]

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honx Gets Ch.11 Stay to Resolve USVI Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Akiko Matsuda of The Wall Street Journal reports that a bankruptcy
judge allowed a Hess Corp. subsidiary, Honx Inc., to stay in
Chapter 11 to resolve mass asbestos injury claims stemming from an
oil refinery the company previously owned in the U.S. Virgin
Islands.  Judge Marvin Isgur of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Houston, Texas, ruled against asbestos-injury claimants who had
challenged the Chapter 11 filing by Honx Inc., a defunct Hess unit
that once operated the company's oil refinery on the island of St.
Croix.


                            *********

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 ***