/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230123.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, January 23, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 17

                            Headlines

ADELPHIA THREE: Hearing on Bid to Certify Class Set for Jan. 23
ADIDAS AMERICA: Charette Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising
ADVANCED FOOD CONCEPTS: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ASHLEY DIANA: Dismissal of Class Claims in Elson v. Black Affirmed
BAKER COLLEGE: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

BETMGM LLC: Fails to Protect Consumers' Info, Medina Suit Alleges
BLUE SHIELD: Bid to Dismiss Amended Saloojas Class Suit Granted
BOOZ ALLEN: Wilson Sues Over Improper Imposition of Service Fees
CARLOW UNIVERSITY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHATEAU EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Drivers' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA

CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION: Sued Over Deprivations of Rights
CLIFF-CARTWRIGHT CORP: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CLMBR INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COINBASE GLOBAL: Woody Sues Over Conversion of Crypto Tokens
COLORADO: Court Dismisses Knellinger v. Young and Treasury Dept.

COLUMBIA SOUTHERN: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY: Loses Bid to Amend Schedule in US Sugar Suit
CONTINENTAL INTERMODAL: Soezeri Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Bid to Consolidate Rios & Rivera Suits OK'd
CORELOGIC CREDCO: Must Support Class Cert Denial Bid by Feb. 21

EZELL EXCAVATING: Miller Sues Over Truck Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
FIVE GUYS: Faces Turner Suit Over Alleged Data Info Breach
FIVE GUYS: Fails to Protect Restaurant Staff's Info, Ranck Claims
FMA LANDSCAPE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Rico Suit Alleges
FRONTIDA MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Williams Alleges

GLAMCOR GLOBAL: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GPB CAPITAL: Ortiz Suit Removed to E.D. New York
GRACO FISHING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Smith Alleges
GREENIX HOLDINGS: Kirkpatrick Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HELLO PRODUCTS: Final Order and Judgment Entered in Aguirre Suit

HILL'S PET: Experts to Reply to Netz's Opinions in Vanzant Suit
HYLAN CUCINA: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Reyes Says
IHEALTH LABS INC: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ILLINOIS: Bid to Amend Complaint in Johnson v. Rue Granted in Part
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Adams Sues Over False Statements

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Suit Over Securities Violations
IRIS ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 6
ITS LOGISTICS: Guthrie Parties to File Copy of Revised Settlement
KALEO CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Workers' OT Wages Under FLSA
KRYSTAL RESTAURANTS: Hines Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation

LOWE'S COMPANIES: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Herrera Alleges
MARIPOSA LTD: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MARPAC LLC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAZDA MOTOR: S.D. New York Grants Bids to Dismiss Bey Consumer Suit
MDL 3010: Plaintiffs in Google Suit May Seal Unredacted Complaint

MIAMI MASTER: Underpays Tow Truck Drivers, Rojas Suit Alleges
MICHIGAN: District Court Refuses to Certify Class in Boussum Suit
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Rodriguez Sues Over Chocolate's Deceptive Label
MSJ CONSULTING: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NATROL LLC: Faces Yamasaki Suit Over Mislabeled Memory Pills

NEWHERE INC: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NUEVO TULCINGO: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Vasquez Suit Alleges
OK FOODS: Bid for Summary Judgment in Coffey Class Suit Granted
ORGAIN LLC: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OZ MANAGEMENT: Court Refuses to Approve $275K Deal in Wallis Suit

PERFECT PLANTS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
POSH BAKERY: Fails to Provide Rest, Meal Periods, De Sanchez Says
PREMIUM CHOICE: Johnson-Gruver Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
PREMIUM MERCHANT: Harris Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Liable to Retirement Plan Losses, Morales Says

RADIUS GLOBAL: Tabibov Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
REALPAGE INC: Corradino Sues Over Conspiracy to Fix Housing Prices
RECUR FOREVER: Lopez Sues Over Termination Without Prior Notice
REDLINE STEEL: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RIVERS AND HILLS: Gibson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ROMAN CATHOLIC: Woman Suing Cardinal of Misconduct Reveals Identity
SANOFI CONSUMER: Court Dismisses Miller Suit With Leave to Amend
SCARR PIZZA: Gibson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SCOTT & ASSOCIATES: Ostrander Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Abramson Sues Over Pre-Recorded Messages

SENIOR EXCHANGE: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SERENE HOME: Underpays Home Health Aides, McNeal Suit Claims
SILVER & WRIGHT: Summary Judgment in Morales Class Suit Affirmed
SKI-ROW INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SLEEPME INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SMC CORPORATION: Court Denies Downing's Bid for Summary Judgment
SONEROS BAR: Faces Queliz Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Flight Cancellations
SPRINLY INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STABILITY AI: Andersen Sues Over Copyright Infringement

STANDARD FUEL: Barber Suit Remanded to Wayne County Circuit Court
STANDARD FUEL: Beatty Suit Remanded to Wayne County Circuit Court
STANDARD FUEL: Esper Suit Remanded to Wayne County Circuit Court
STANDARD FUEL: Henni Suit Remanded to Wayne County Circuit Court
STANDARD FUEL: Kachman Suit Remanded to Wayne County Circuit Court

STANDARD FUEL: McCaul Suit Remanded to Wayne County Circuit Court
STANDARD FUEL: Walczyk Suit Remanded to Wayne County Circuit Court
STAR SNACKS LLC: Colburn Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
STARK'S VACUUM: Genwright Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STATOIL USA: Class Settlement in Rescigno Suit Wins Final Approval

STEEL RIVER: Systems Failed to Protect Consumer Info, Suit Says
SUN VALLEY: Pineda Suit Parties to File Case Disposition by March 6
TIKTOK INC: Bravo Sues Over Interception of Private Communications
TIKTOK INC: Faces Smith Suit Over Alleged Illegal Wiretapping
TWITTER INC: Gerber Files Suit in N.D. California

TWITTER INC: Workers Forced to Drop Suit Over Severance Packages
UNITED HEALTH: Faces Mitchell Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Cal.
UNITED MEDICAL: N.D. Mississippi Tosses Norwood Suit W/o Prejudice
UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Employment Authorization Docs' Fee
UNITED STATES: Only Six Plaintiffs Remain in Save Our Children Suit

WALMART INC: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Johnson Suit Affirmed
WEEK PUBLICATIONS: $5.1M Class Deal in Moeller Suit Wins Prelim. OK
WONG KWONG: Navor Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Staff
WV PARKWAYS: Fourth Circuit Vacates Dismissal of Monaco Class Suit
XCEL ENERGY: Arandell Class Suit Stayed Pending Appeal Resolution


                            *********

ADELPHIA THREE: Hearing on Bid to Certify Class Set for Jan. 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HALL v. ADELPHIA THREE
CORP., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01106 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge
Christine P. O'Hearn entered an setting a hearing an oral argument
on January 23, 2023 to:

  -- Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and Motion for Summary
     Judgment; and

     Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]

ADIDAS AMERICA: Charette Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Charette, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Adidas America, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-10114-SDK-CI
(E.D. Mich., Jan. 14, 2023), is brought seeking damages and an
injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading advertising
practices with regard to its NHL (National Hockey League) jerseys
represented as "authentic" under the Adidas brand (the "Product").

Consumers purchasing NHL jerseys marketed as "authentic" by the
company which makes the jerseys worn by NHL teams will expect they
are purchasing jerseys identical to those worn on the ice by NHL
players. On its website and in digital, print, radio and/or
television marketing, the Defendant promotes the jerseys as
authentic through labeling, hang tags, and descriptions.

The Defendant authorizes third-parties, such as Fanatics.com,
official team stores, and the NHL to sell its jerseys and provides
them with specific language to use in its marketing. At the
instructions and directions of Defendant, third-party stores and
websites such as fanatics.com identify these jerseys as "authentic"
by labeling them with names such as "Home Authentic Primegreen
Jersey" and "Authentic Pro Player Jersey."

The Defendant capitalizes on consumers believing and expecting the
jerseys are authentic, shown through one website description that
"this jersey is the same as the one Oilers players wear when the
puck drops on the road." The Defendant describes its "Authentic Pro
Player jersey" for the Detroit Red Wings as "Featuring sewn-on team
graphics, a tie-down fight strap and moisture-absorbing AEROREADY
fabric, this jersey features the same details that Dylan Larkin
wears on game day."

However, despite the representations as "authentic," the jerseys
are not those worn on-ice by NHL players. The jerseys have more in
common with what is commonly described as "replica" or even
counterfeit authentic jerseys than those worn by players on the ice
during games. The representation of the Product as "authentic" is
misleading, because they are more accurately described as
"replicas."

The Defendant has been aware that eagle-eyed consumers have
discovered the differences between its authentic jerseys and those
worn by players on the ice. First, a website devoted to covering
the San Jose Sharks, TealTownUsa.com, published an article by AJ
Strong, entitled, "Stop Calling Adidas NHL Jerseys Authentic," in
June 2021. Six months later, another fan of the San Jose Sharks,
the well-known memorabilia and video game blogger known as
"REZRECTION," notified Adidas of similar issues identified by
Strong.

Adidas, like most large companies, regularly monitors social media
for mentions of its brand, and was informed, directly or through
its agents, of the issues identified by Strong and Rezrection. As a
result of the false and misleading representations, the Adidas
authentic jerseys are sold at premium prices, approximately not
less than $150, excluding tax and sales, says the complaint.

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

Adidas manufactures uniforms, including jerseys, for the National
Hockey League.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADVANCED FOOD CONCEPTS: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advanced Food
Concepts, Inc. The case is styled as Maricela Donet, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Advanced Food
Concepts, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00367 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2023).

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

Advanced Food Concepts, Inc. develops sports nutrition products.
The Company provides varied selection of nutrition gel, and
electrolyte supplements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



ASHLEY DIANA: Dismissal of Class Claims in Elson v. Black Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled  EMILY ELSON; STACY HAAVISTO; LORETTA OAKES;
MICHELLE LANUM; TILLY DORENKAMP; DINA SALAS; ARLENE RODRIGUEZ;
SHARON DALTON; ALLYSON McCARTHY; SHEILA SMITH; KELLI FREDERICK;
JOEY CAMPBELL; CAROL RICHTER; BROOKE NEUFELD, Plaintiffs-Appellants
v. ASHLEY BLACK, AN INDIVIDUAL; ASHLEY DIANA BLACK INTERNATIONAL
HOLDINGS, L.L.C., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; ADB INTERESTS, L.L.C., A
TEXAS CORPORATION; ASHLEY BLACK COMPANY; ADB INNOVATIONS, L.L.C.;
ASHLEY BLACK GURU; ASHELY BLACK FASCIOLOGY, L.L.C.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-20349 (5th Cir.), the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirms in part and
reverses in part the order striking the Plaintiffs' class
allegations.

The Plaintiffs sued on behalf of themselves and putative class
members to redress consumer protection fraud claims and breach of
warranty claims under the laws of multiple states. The Court of
Appeals finds that the district court correctly struck the
Plaintiffs' class allegations and properly dismissed all but two of
their claims.

Fourteen women from seven states brought the present putative class
action against Ashley Black and her companies, alleging false and
deceptive marketing practices. The Plaintiffs take issue with
various representations in the Defendants' ads about a product
called the FasciaBlaster, a two-foot stick with hard prongs that is
registered with the Food and Drug Administration as a massager.
Purchasers are instructed to use the FasciaBlaster by pressing its
prongs into their skin to achieve a wide variety of health
benefits.

According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants falsely advertised that
the FasciaBlaster was able to "virtually eliminate cellulite," help
with weight loss, and relieve pain. The Defendants also allegedly
lied about the product's effects being supported by scientific
studies.

The Plaintiffs' complaint asserted a claim under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, claims under multiple state statutes, and a claim for
unjust enrichment. The case originated as two separate
lawsuits--one filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
California, and one filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California. Those suits were consolidated
in February 2018, and the case proceeded in the Central District of
California. But in September 2019, the court found that it lacked
personal jurisdiction over some Defendants and transferred the case
to the Southern District of Texas. The complaint included class
allegations for both a nationwide class and for seven subclasses
representing the seven states in which the Plaintiffs
reside--Arizona, California, Florida, Louisiana, Nevada, New York,
and Ohio.

The Defendants moved to strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations
and to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. After a
hearing and some limited discovery, the district court struck the
class allegations.

The Plaintiffs sought interlocutory review of the district court's
order, which a split panel of the Court of Appeals denied. The next
day, the district court dismissed the remainder of the Plaintiffs'
claims in their entirety. The Plaintiffs appealed the order
striking the class allegations and the dismissal of individual
claims.

On appeal, the Plaintiffs primarily argue that the district court
failed to conduct the "rigorous analysis" required by Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, accordingly, overlooked
the fact that reliance is not an element of many state statutes at
issue. The Court of Appeals agrees that the district court's order
was inappropriately brief. But the Panel, nonetheless, declines to
reverse the order because the district court's conclusion is
sound.

The Court of Appeals finds that the Plaintiffs' class pleadings
were deficient as a matter of law.  The Court of Appeals holds that
the Plaintiffs are unable to establish predominance as a matter of
law for two reasons. First, different state laws govern different
Plaintiffs' claims. Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones, writing for the
Panel, explains that variations in state law swamp any common
issues and defeat predominance.

The second reason the Plaintiffs cannot establish predominance is
that their allegations introduce numerous factual differences that
in no way comprise a coherent class, Judge Jones says. As a
thorough examination of the complaint reveals, Judge Jones finds
the Plaintiffs' claims are riddled with predominance issues and are
unsuitable for class treatment. The district court, therefore, did
not abuse its discretion in striking the class allegations.

After striking the class allegations, the district court dismissed
the Plaintiffs' individual claims. The dismissed claims that the
Plaintiffs challenge on appeal fall into two categories: consumer
protection law fraud claims and breach of express warranty claims.

The district court found that the Plaintiffs' allegations suffer
from a combination of defects, including a failure to plead
adequately what representations were actually made, when those
representations were made, who made the representations, and where
those representations occurred. Having reviewed the Plaintiffs'
amended complaint, the Court of Appeals agrees.

To begin, Judge Jones says, the Plaintiffs' allegations
inadequately allege when the misrepresentations they relied upon
occurred. Some provide the year and month that the Plaintiffs
purchased the FaciaBlaster. Others provide the approximate year and
month the purchase was made. Two alleged only the year in which the
purchase was made. None of the Plaintiffs specify when they viewed
the allegedly fraudulent representations. That is insufficient,
Judge Jones points out, among other things.

For all these reasons, Judge Jones holds that the district court
properly dismissed the Plaintiffs' various fraud claims pursuant to
Rule 9(b).

The only remaining claims are those of Plaintiffs Dalton and Smith
for breach of express warranty under, respectively, California
Consumer Code Sections 2313 & 10210, and Florida Statutes Sections
672.313 & 680.21.

The district court dismissed these claims on the ground that they
constituted "puffery." But the district court did not apply the law
of a specific jurisdiction when conducting its analysis, Judge
Jones notes. The Plaintiffs on appeal cite various Fifth Circuit
cases in addition to Texas and California state law precedents. The
Defendants proffer Fifth Circuit, California, and Florida
precedents.

Neither party, however, briefed what law should be applied to each
claim, Judge Jones notes. The Court of Appeals must reverse the
dismissal of these claims with instruction to reconsider the motion
to dismiss in light of applicable state law.

Hence, the district court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed
in part, and remanded.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 5, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdda5wwe from Leagle.com.


BAKER COLLEGE: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baker College. The
case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Baker College, Case No.
1:23-cv-00349 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2023).

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

Baker College -- https://www.baker.edu/ -- is Michigan's largest,
private, non-profit university with campuses across the state and
online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BETMGM LLC: Fails to Protect Consumers' Info, Medina Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BETMGM, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00146-EP-ESK (D.N.J., January 11, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
implied contract, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,
unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers following a data breach
on its network around May 2022. The Defendant failed to implement
reasonable security measures to protect the Plaintiff's and Class
members' PII, allowing an unknown actor to access its network.
Moreover, the Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff and Class
members with timely and adequate notice about the data breach. As a
result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and members of the
Classes have been exposed to a lifelong risk of identity theft and
fraud, says the suit.

BetMGM, LLC is a sports betting and online gaming business, with
its principal place of business in Jersey City, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
         Garden City, NY 11530
         Telephone: (865) 412-2700
         E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com

                - and -

         Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (866) 252-0878
         E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com

BLUE SHIELD: Bid to Dismiss Amended Saloojas Class Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SALOOJAS INC., Plaintiff v. BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA
LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
22-cv-03267-MMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California grants Blue
Shield's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Class Action
Complaint.

Saloojas filed its original complaint on July 12, 2022, which
pleading contained six claims for relief. By order filed Oct. 3,
2022, the Court dismissed without leave to amend Claim I, titled
"Violation of the FFCRA and the CARES Act," Claim II, titled
"Violation of Section 501(a)(1)(B) of ERISA," and Claim V, titled
"Injunctive Relief (Non-ERISA)," and dismissed with leave to amend
Claim III, titled "Violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) (RICO),"
Claim IV, titled "Promissory Estoppel (Non-ERISA)," and Claim VI,
titled "Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent Business Acts and
Practices." The Court further ordered Saloojas to "not add any new
claims without obtaining leave of court."

In the Amended Complaint ("AC"), Saloojas brings four claims for
relief, each again identified by a Roman numeral.

Before the Court is Blue Shield's motion, filed Nov. 21, 2022, to
dismiss by which it seeks an order dismissing all claims in
Saloojas' AC, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and, in the alternative, striking
portions of said complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(f). Saloojas has
filed opposition, to which Blue Shield has replied.

Judge Chesney strikes Claim I, titled "Violation of Section
501(a)(1)(B) of ERISA," for the reason that the Court previously
dismissed said claim without leave to amend. Moreover, the claim,
as now pleaded in the AC, remains deficient for the reasons stated
in the Court's prior order.

Claim II, titled "Insurance Bad Faith and Fraud," is also stricken,
for the reason that said new claim exceeds the scope of the leave
granted by the Court in its October 3 Order. Judge Chesney notes,
moreover, that even if the claim did not exceed the scope of the
leave previously granted, it nonetheless would be subject to
dismissal, on the ground that it fails to state a claim. In
particular, to the extent the claim is based on insurance bad faith
liability, Saloojas has failed to identify any policy under which
it is an insured, or that it has been assigned the rights of an
insured under any policy.

Claim III, titled "Unlawful, Unfair and Fraudulent Business Acts
and Practices" and brought under Section 17200 of the California
Business & Professions Code ("UCL"), is subject to dismissal for
the reason that Saloojas fails to allege facts sufficient to state
a claim under any prong of the UCL, Judge Chesney finds.

As to the "unlawful" prong, to the extent the claim is predicated
on Blue Shield's alleged violation of Section 3202 of the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act"),
Pub. L. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020), Judge Chesney says Saloojas
fails to plead facts establishing that it listed a cash price for
Covid-19 testing on a public website, and to the extent the claim
is predicated on California Health & Safety Code Section 1342.2,
Saloojas has not pleaded any facts to support its conclusory
allegation that Blue Shield "failed to reasonably reimburse it in
accordance with Section 1342.

To the extent the claim is predicated on the "unfair" prong,
Saloojas essentially reiterates the standard for unfairness under
the UCL, without further elaboration beyond a general reference to
the preceding paragraphs of the AC, i.e., the allegations on which
he bases Claims I through III. Those allegations, however, provide
no better support at this juncture. Lastly, to the extent the claim
is predicated on the "fraudulent" prong, it fails for the reasons
stated, namely, Saloojas' failure to identify a fraudulent
representation, let alone one that satisfies the heightened
pleading requirements of Rule 9(b).

Finally, Judge Chesney finds that Claim IV, titled "Violation of 18
U.S.C. Section 1962(c) (RICO)," is subject to dismissal for the
reasons stated in the Court's Oct. 3 Order, namely, that Saloojas
fails to allege facts sufficient to support a finding that Blue
Shield engaged in racketeering activity. In that regard, to the
extent the claim is again predicated on mail and/or wire fraud,
Saloojas fails to add facts sufficient to support a finding that
Blue Shield has engaged in such conduct, and to the extent the
claim is predicated on "embezzlement, theft, and conversion of
self-funded health plan assets," Saloojas fails to plead facts
demonstrating how, nor has he cited to any authority holding, a
failure to pay a plan benefit can give rise to any such claim.

For these reasons, Claims I and II are stricken, and Claims III and
IV are dismissed without further leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yakze72y from Leagle.com.


BOOZ ALLEN: Wilson Sues Over Improper Imposition of Service Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBYN WILSON; TAMERA STREETER; DANA OLIVER; KRISTEN JONES; NATALIA
LOGINOVA; JOSH BERGER; and NICK LAURITZEN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOOZ ALLEN
HAMILTON, INC.; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00043
(E.D. Va., Jan. 11, 2023) seeks to recover hundreds of millions of
dollars in illegal Junk Fees that have been charged by Booz Allen
on recreation.gov since 2018 and to prevent Booz Allen from
charging these Junk Fees in the future.

According to the complaint, beginning in October 2018, Booz Allen
took over the operation of recreation.gov, and immediately began
running the website for its own benefit, charging consumers Junk
Fees in the form of "processing fees," "reservation fees," "lottery
fees," "cancellation fees," and other bogus fees designed to line
its own pockets. The payment of Junk Fees to Booz Allen is not
disclosed to consumers at the time of account creation, is not
disclosed during the reservation "purchase" process, and is not
disclosed anywhere on recreation.gov. As a result, the interface
falsely leads consumers to believe that they are paying the Junk
Fees to the Federal Agencies that administer those lands, and not
Booz Allen, says the suit.

BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC. provides technology and management
consulting services. The Company offers consulting, analytics,
digital, engineering, and cyber solutions. Booz Allen Hamilton
serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glenn Chappell, Esq.
          Andrea Gold, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          Email: gchappell@tzlegal.com
                 agold@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Wesley M. Griffith, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          Email: wgriffith@tzlegal.com

CARLOW UNIVERSITY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carlow University.
The case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Carlow University, Case No.
1:23-cv-00350 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2023).

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

Carlow University -- https://www.carlow.edu/ -- is a Catholic
institution in Pittsburgh, PA, offers 90+ undergraduate and
graduate programs with online and accelerated options.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHATEAU EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Drivers' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Yannis Roig and Santiago Colon, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated v. Chateau Express, LLC and Gary
Sempere, Case No. 7:23-cv-00210 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 10, 2023) seeks to
recover compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory
minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages, and liquidated damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

From April 2020 through March 2021, Mr. Roig worked a regular
schedule of five days per week, for a total of 58 hours per week.
He was paid a bi-monthly salary of $987-$1100 through direct
deposit throughout his employment by the Defendants.

From February 2020 until January 14, 2021, Mr. Colon worked a
regular schedule five days per week, for a total of 57 hours per
week. He was paid bimonthly by direct deposit at the rate of
$22,000 per year in the first half of 2020, then $28,800 in the
second half of 2020 until the end of his employment by the
Defendant,

The Plaintiffs' effective rates of pay were each below the
statutory New York City minimum wage. In addition, the Defendants
allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiffs any overtime "bonus" for
hours worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek, and failed to pay the
Plaintiffs an additional hour's pay at the minimum wage for each
day he worked a shift lasting in excess of ten hours, says the
suit.

Mr. Roig and Mr. Colon were employed at Chateau Express, LLC as
carrier drivers.

Chateau Express owns and operates a wine & spirits storage facility
located at 251 Union Street, Northvale, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Samuel, Esq.
          THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
          1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884
          E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com

CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION: Sued Over Deprivations of Rights
------------------------------------------------------------
Kaya Hudgins, personally and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO (CPS); THE DAVID LYNCH
FOUNDATION; and THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, Case No. 1:23-cv-00218
(N.D. Ill., Jan. 13, 2023), is brought seeking to redress under on
her own behalf and students similarly situated for deprivations of
her constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution, and also seeks redress for
violations of the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the
Illinois Constitution, and common law.

All Defendants violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses
of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and other
legal protections for students when they collaborated to implement
and facilitate a Hinduistic religious program they called the
"Quiet Time" within eight CPS schools. The "Quiet Time" program,
which encompassed the practice of "Transcendental Meditation" and
the repetition of "mantras" is fundamentally religious in nature.

During the design, implementation, and conduct of Quiet Time, the
David Lynch Foundation knew, and Chicago Public Schools and the
University of Chicago knew or should have known that Malnak had
adjudicated Transcendental Meditation to be a religion and pursuant
to the Establishment Clause had resulted in Transcendental
Meditation being removed from all public schools in New Jersey.

The Plaintiffs' rights under the First Amendment were violated when
the Board, The David Lynch Foundation, and the University created,
abetted, enabled, and/or profited from hundreds of thousands of
actions coerced upon students within public schools where Hindu
beliefs and the practice of "Transcendental Meditation" were being
conducted. The Plaintiff and other students were coerced to engage
in religious practices against their will.

The Defendants, by collaborating to implement and facilitate the
"Quiet Time" program within certain CPS schools, also violated the
Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act by substantially
burdening the religious free exercise rights of Hudgins and other
CPS students and other fundamental rights protected by the Illinois
Constitution and common law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a former CPS student who graduated from a CPS
school that hosted the "Quiet Time" program.

Board is the board of the fourth largest school district in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Mauck, Esq.
          Judith A. Kott, Esq.
          MAUCK & BAKER, LLC
          One North LaSalle Street, Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 726-1243
          Facsimile: (866) 619-8661


CLIFF-CARTWRIGHT CORP: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cliff-Cartwright
Corporation. The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cliff-Cartwright
Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-00360 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2023).

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

Cliff-Cartwright Corporation is a drink company located in
Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CLMBR INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clmbr, Inc. The case
is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Clmbr, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00326
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2023).

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

CLMBR -- https://clmbr.com/ -- offers an ergonomic and vertical
climbing machine for intense workings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COINBASE GLOBAL: Woody Sues Over Conversion of Crypto Tokens
------------------------------------------------------------
DALLAS WOODY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs vs. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC.; COINBASE, INC.;
BRIAN ARMSTRONG; JOHN DOES or JANE DOES 1 through 200; and BLACK
AND WHITE CORPORATIONS 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-00190-TSH (N.D. Cal., Jan. 13, 2023) alleges violation of
the California's Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, unlike the largest digital asset
exchanges that likewise participated in the Flare Airdrop and
lawfully distributed Songbird DCUs ("SGB") and Flare DCUs ("FLR")
to its users (such as cryptocurrency exchanges Uphold and Kraken),
Coinbase refuses to distribute the Plaintiff's digital currency
units ("DCUs"), the SGB and FLR tokens, despite having received
them from Flare Network at the time of the SGB and FLR
distributions.

In so doing, the Defendants have unjustly converted the property of
the Plaintiff in addition to breaching the California's Unfair
Competition Law and committing several other tortious acts. The
Plaintiff and the Class seek damages related to losses incurred
through the Defendants' unlawful conversion of the Plaintiff's SGB
and FLR, says the suit.

COINBASE GLOBAL, INC. provides financial solutions. The Company
offers platform to buy and sell cryptocurrencies. Coinbase Global
serves clients worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frederick A. Rispoli, Esq.
          HODL LAW CALI, APC
          27762 Antonio Parkway
          Suite L-1, No. 232
          Ladera Ranch, CA 92694
          Telephone: (213) 292-5200
          Email: Filing@HodlLaw.org

COLORADO: Court Dismisses Knellinger v. Young and Treasury Dept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID KNELLINGER and ROBERT STOREY, individually and
on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAVID
YOUNG, in his individual and official capacities as Colorado
Treasurer, Colorado Office of Treasury; and BIANCA GARDELLI, in her
individual and official capacities as Director of Colorado
Department of Treasury, Unclaimed Property Division, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-01379-CNS-MDB (D. Colo.), Judge Charlotte
N. Sweeney of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6).

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 against Young in his individual and official capacity
as Colorado Treasurer, and Gardelli in her individual and official
capacity as Director of the Colorado Department of Treasury
regarding unclaimed property held in trust under the Revised
Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, Colorado Revised Statute Section
38-13-101, et seq. (RUUPA). The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants'
failure to provide notice to the property owners about the alleged
seizures and sales of abandoned property allows them to use RUUPA
funds "to satisfy budget shortfalls."

Plaintiffs Knellinger and Storey searched their names on the
website and discovered that they may each have a claim for
abandoned property. They allege that they did not receive any
notice from the Colorado Department of Treasury. They neither
allege in the Complaint whether they have attempted to claim the
property identified on the website under RUUPA's administrative
claims process nor identify what type of property is being held by
the Colorado Department of Treasury, Unclaimed Property Division.

The proposed Class is defined as: "all persons or entities who did
not receive actual notice before their property was taken by the
State of Colorado between May 27, 2016, and the present."

The Plaintiffs raise five claims for relief:5 (1) injunctive and
declaratory relief that Defendants violated the Fourth Amendment
(Right to Privacy), Fifth Amendment (Takings Clause), Fourteenth
Amendment (Due Process), and the Due Process Clause of the Colorado
Constitution (Colo. Const. art. 2, Section 25); (2) violation of
their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment via 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Due Process Clause of the Colorado
Constitution; (3) violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment via 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; (4) accounting; and (5)
breach of fiduciary duty under Colorado Revised Statutes Sections
24-22-101, 604, 38-13-803.

The Defendants move to dismiss arguing that (1) the Plaintiffs lack
standing; (2) the Court should decline jurisdiction of the Section
1983 under the Burford abstention doctrine; (3) qualified immunity
bars the Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims for monetary damages; (4)
Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars state law claims against
Defendants in their official capacity; (5) the state law claims for
monetary relief are barred by the Colorado Governmental Immunity
Act and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; (6) Counts
II, III, and IV fail to state a claim for relief and are barred by
the statute of limitations; (7) the Plaintiff cannot state a claim
for accounting.

In their response to the Defendant's motion to dismiss, the
Plaintiffs abandon their claims for violations of the Contracts
Clause, U.S. Const. article I, section 10, clause 1, and the Fourth
Amendment for violation of privacy. The Defendants also argue that
the Plaintiffs have conceded all their state law claims for
relief.

Judge Sweeney agrees that the Plaintiffs have abandoned their fifth
claim, breach of fiduciary duty, by not responding to the
Defendant's arguments in the motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs,
however, did sufficiently respond to the motion to dismiss
regarding their accounting claim. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs'
federal claims for violations of the Contracts Clause, U.S. Const.
article I, section 10, clause 1, and the Fourth Amendment for
violation of privacy and state law claim regarding breach of
fiduciary duty are conceded and, therefore, dismissed.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction due to lack of standing and sovereign
immunity.

Judge Sweeney finds that (i) a review of RUUPA does not indicate to
the Court that the State waived its sovereign immunity; (ii) the
Plaintiffs also do not argue that Colorado consented to the lawsuit
or that Congress abrogated Colorado's sovereign immunity; (iii) the
Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged ownership of the
respective property identified in the Complaint; (iv) they fail to
allege injuries either in the past or future that could give rise
to their claims; and (v) because the Plaintiffs' allegations are
only conjectural and there is no continuing injury, they cannot
sustain a claim under Section 1983 for declaratory or injunctive
relief.

For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' claims under Section 1983 are
dismissed without prejudice. Judge Sweeney does not need to reach
the remaining arguments in the Defendants' motion.

In view of the foregoing, Judge Sweeney grants the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss. She dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims without
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4xtdmj3c from Leagle.com.


COLUMBIA SOUTHERN: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Columbia Southern
University, Inc. The case is styled as James Murphy, for himself
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Columbia
Southern University, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00351 (S.D.N.Y., Jan.
13, 2023).

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

Columbia Southern University -- https://www.columbiasouthern.edu/
-- is a private for-profit online university in Orange Beach,
Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY: Loses Bid to Amend Schedule in US Sugar Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, United States Sugar Corporation, Plaintiff v. Commerce
and Industry Insurance Company, Defendant, Civil Action No.
22-21737-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denies the
Defendant's expedited motion to amend scheduling order and continue
trial.

The matter consists of a dispute between and insurer, C&I, and its
insured, US Sugar, regarding US Sugar's claims to reimbursement of
its attorneys' fees and expenses incurred defending a putative
class-action lawsuit relating to US Sugar's practice of pre-harvest
sugarcane burning (the "Underlying Lawsuit"). The Court has
previously found that, under the terms of the insurance policy that
US Sugar held with C&I, C&I was obligated to defend US Sugar for
any expenses that arose beyond a $1 million self-insured retention
limit in the policy. Now, the remaining issue in this matter is the
determination of the actual US Sugar's expenses incurred defending
the Underlying Lawsuit.

On Sept. 26, 2022, the parties submitted their joint discovery plan
and conference report to the Court, in accordance with the Court's
order requiring the same in their report, the parties jointly
requested that the Court set this matter on its expedited case
management track. They additionally identified in their report that
they anticipated that discovery would relate to the attorneys' fees
and costs for which the Plaintiff seeks reimbursement. In their
report, the parties agreed to a 14n-week deadline after the date of
the entry of the Court's anticipated scheduling order by which fact
discovery would conclude.

The next day, the Court entered its scheduling order adopting the
parties' jointly requested case management schedule, including a
14-week discovery cutoff. That 14-week deadline set the discovery
cutoff date as Jan. 3, 2023.

Despite explicitly requesting an expedited schedule and a discovery
period of 14 weeks, neither of the parties sought discovery until
late November 2022. The parties' deliberate choices not to seek
discovery until the end of November meant that their discovery
responses were due to each other at the end of December -- less
than two weeks before the close of fact discovery.

As might be expected, C&I was unhappy with US Sugar's (timely)
discovery responses. In its responses, US Sugar took the position
that it would not produce any documents relating to its expenses in
the Underlying Lawsuit until a protective order had been approved
by the Court, because the invoices and other associated documents
contain information subject to attorney-client privilege, the
attorney work product doctrine, or other confidentiality concerns
relating to US Sugar's business operations.

Instead of resolving an agreed confidentiality order between
December 21 and January 3, the parties dithered on settling the
precise terms of the order. Indeed, by the time C&I filed its
expedited motion -- and as of the date the Court enters the instant
Order -- the parties still have not filed a proposed
confidentiality order for Magistrate Judge Goodman to approve.

Rather than confer with US Sugar regarding any perceived
deficiencies in US Sugar's discovery responses or the terms of a
confidentiality order, C&I filed its expedited motion to amend the
scheduling order on the final day of the discovery period. Having
waited until the literal eleventh hour of the discovery period it
jointly requested, and without having attempted to confer with the
Plaintiff before the discovery deadline expired, C&I now asks the
Court to extend the discovery period -- and the trial date -- for
an additional 90 days. Predictably, US Sugar objects, arguing that
the delays C&I offers to support its request are of its own doing.

Judge Scola's analysis begins and ends with C&I's lack of diligence
in pursuing discovery. As US Sugar points out, and supports with
exhibits detailing the parties' communications relating to
discovery requests underlying this dispute, C&I created the
circumstances of which it now complains. It chose to wait to issue
its discovery requests until late November 2022, when the discovery
period started roughly two months earlier, in late September 2022.
C&I sought this last-minute extension without seeking to resolve
the underlying issues relating to US Sugar's production with US
Sugar first. And it chose the course of action it pursued with full
awareness of the deadlines in an expedited schedule that C&I itself
requested.

In other words, C&I fails to demonstrate that the original
discovery deadline in this matter could not be met despite C&I's
diligence. Judge Scola is therefore under no obligation to extend
the discovery deadline in the Scheduling Order and will not do so.

Nevertheless, Judge Scola makes two minor adjustments to the
Scheduling Order in light of the potential problems raised by the
parties' failure to come to an agreement on the terms of a proposed
confidentiality order relating to US Sugar's pending production.
First, the parties must submit a proposed confidentiality order for
Magistrate Judge Goodman's approval. He also extends the deadline
for the parties to file dispositive motions to Jan. 20, 2023, so
that the parties may address any documents produced by US Sugar
after the entry of a confidentiality order. The other deadlines in
the Scheduling Order remain in full effect.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Scola denies C&I's expedited
motion to amend scheduling order and continue trial. The deadlines
established in the Scheduling Order otherwise remain in effect.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/th6vufsc from Leagle.com.


CONTINENTAL INTERMODAL: Soezeri Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Margaret Strickland of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico dismisses the case, AXEL SOEZERI, Plaintiff
v. CONTINENTAL INTERMODAL GROUP - TRUCKING LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00505-MIS-KK (D.N.M.), without prejudice.

The matter is before the Court on the Order to Show Cause entered
by the Court on Dec. 7, 2022. Therein, Mr. Soezeri's counsel was
ordered to show cause, no later than Dec. 28, 2022, as to why the
Court should not dismiss this matter for failure to timely file a
motion for substitution of Mr. Soezeri after suggestion of his
death, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1). Mr.
Soezeri's surviving spouse was provided with a copy of the Order at
her last known mailing address, and the Plaintiff's counsel was
served with a copy of the Order via CM/ECF.

On Dec. 20, 2022, the Plaintiff's counsel filed a response, stating
that he is not authorized to pursue claims on behalf of Mr.
Soezeri's estate." He certified that Mr. Soezeri's son and widow
have been provided a copy of the response and have approved its
contents. Since the filing of the response, no motion for
substitution or entry of appearance has been filed.

On the present record, Judge Strickland finds that it appears that
the Defendant served its Notice of Suggestion of Death on Mr.
Soezeri's successor or representative no later than Aug. 26, 2022.
No motion for substitution has been filed as of the date of this
Order. Under Rule 25(a)(1), unless a motion for substitution is
made by any party or by the decedent's successor or representative
within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, the
action by or against the decedent must be dismissed. Therefore,
Judge Strickland holds that the claims brought by Mr. Soezeri must
be dismissed. And because there are no other named parties, the
entire civil action must be dismissed.

Finally, Judge Strickland notes that a Rule 23 class action was
alleged in the Complaint. However, the record reflects that the
Court has not certified a class in this matter. She finds that, to
the extent that valid class action claims existed (which the Court
does not determine here), the statutes of limitations for the
individual claims of putative class members, if any, have been
equitably tolled from the filing of the class action complaint
through the date of this Order. However, a class action suit filed
after the statute of limitations has expired will not save such an
action from being time barred.

For these reasons, Judge Strickland dismisses this cause of action
and all claims made therein without prejudice. The statutes of
limitations for the individual claims of putative class members, if
any, are equitably tolled from the filing of the class action
complaint through the date of this Order.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of the Order via
First Class Mail to the following: Nigar Sharon Soezeri, 3112
Woodridge Lane, Odessa, Texas 79762.

The Court will enter a separate final judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2mpwdc6b from Leagle.com.


CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Bid to Consolidate Rios & Rivera Suits OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William J. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado grants Rios' Unoppossed Motion to Consolidate
Related Cases for Settlement Purposes, which seeks to consolidate
Rivera v. Corecivic of Tennessee, LLC, Civil Action No.
21-cv-2632-RMR-MDB with the case, ALFONSO RIOS, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORECIVIC OF
TENNESSEE, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 21-cv-2295-WJM-MDB,
Consolidated with Civil Action No. 21-cv-2632-RMR-MDB (D. Colo.).

In the instant action, Plaintiff filed a putative class and
collective action, alleging Defendant violated the FLSA and
Colorado law by failing to pay its hourly, non-exempt correctional
and detention officers for all hours worked, including for time
spent completing pre-shift, mandatory security screenings
"off-the-clock." Similarly, in Rivera, Plaintiff filed a putative
class action, alleging Defendant violated Colorado law by failing
to pay its hourly, non-exempt correctional and detention officers
for all hours worked, including for time spent completing
pre-shift, mandatory security and COVID-19 screenings
"off-the-clock," and failed to provide required meal and rests
breaks.

Judge Martinez explains that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
42(a)(2) provides that if actions before the court involve a common
question of law or fact, the court may consolidate the actions. The
purpose of Rule 42(a) is to give the court broad discretion to
decide how cases on its docket are to be tried so that the business
of the court may be dispatched with expedition and economy while
providing justice to the parties.

In the Motion, the Plaintiff states that after attending a
full-day, joint mediation with mediator Carole Katz, the parties in
both actions successfully reached a joint settlement of these
similar wage and hour class and collective actions. The parties are
now in the process of finalizing their settlement agreement to
submit the same to the Court for approval.

Thus, the Plaintiff maintains that consolidating these similar wage
and hour actions for settlement and settlement approval purposes
unquestionably serves the interest of judicial economy because it
will eliminate the need for various judicial officers to address
and rule on substantially the same issues in two different cases.

For all of the reasons he explained, Judge Martinez agrees and
consolidates the action with Rivera for settlement purposes.
Accordingly, Rios' Unopposed Motion to Consolidate is granted to
the extent the Court consolidates the cases for settlement
purposes.

In accordance with the Court's inherent power to control its
docket, and in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
42(a), Civil Action No. 21-cv-2632-RMR-MDB is consolidated into the
captioned action. The captioned action will be the lead case and
all future filings will be made in this action only.

The Clerk will re-docket the Complaint and the Defendant's Answer
from Civil Action No. 21-cv-2632 onto the captioned docket.

The parties will update their captions as shown in the caption of
the Order. A copy of this Order will be docketed in Civil Action
No. 21-cv-2632.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2xhujp6j from Leagle.com.


CORELOGIC CREDCO: Must Support Class Cert Denial Bid by Feb. 21
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fernandez v. CoreLogic
Credco, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-01262 (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler entered an order that the
Defendant's reply in support of its motion to deny class
certification is now due February 21, 2023.

The Court said, "The order modifies only the dates in the original
scheduling order, as amended; all other provisions remain in
effect."

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
involving consumer credit.[CC]

EZELL EXCAVATING: Miller Sues Over Truck Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN KYLE MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EZELL EXCAVATING INC., ILLIANA
CONSTRUCTION CO., OPEN ROAD PAVING COMPANY, LLC, and JOHN DOE
COMPANIES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02008-CSB-EIL (C.D.
Ill., January 10, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated
truck drivers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act, and the Illinois Minimum Wage
Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a truck driver from
November 2020 to December 2022.

Ezell Excavating Inc. is a privately owned construction company
located at 1574 County Road 100 N. Villa Grove, Illinois.

Illiana Construction Co. is a construction company in Illinois.

Open Road Paving Company, LLC is a full-service paving company,
with its business office at 1414 West Anthony Drive, Urbana,
Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         David L. Lee, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF DAVID L. LEE
         542 S. Dearborn St., #660
         Chicago, IL 60605
         Telephone: (312) 952-1321
         E-mail: d-lee@davidleelaw.com

                - and -

         Bruce E. Menken, Esq.
         Jason J. Rozger, Esq.
         MENKEN SIMPSON & ROZGER LLP
         80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 509-1616
         E-mail: bmenken@nyemployeelaw.com
                 jrozger@nyemployeelaw.com

FIVE GUYS: Faces Turner Suit Over Alleged Data Info Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIVE GUYS ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00040-MSN-JFA (E.D. Va., Jan. 11, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard personally identifiable information ("PII") of
Defendant's job applicants and current and former employees.

According to the complaint, the information theft and data breach
targeted the information of past and present employees of the
Defendant (the "Data Breach") prior to and through September 17,
2022. Because of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and thousands of
Class Members suffered ascertainable losses including out-of-pocket
expenses and the value of their time incurred to remedy or mitigate
the effects of the attack. In addition, Plaintiff and Class Members
are now faced with the present and substantial risk of imminent
harm caused by the compromise of their sensitive personal
information, including their names and Social Security numbers as
of September 17, 2022, says the suit.

FIVE GUYS ENTERPRISES, LLC owns and operates restaurants. The
Company offers prepared foods, snacks, and drinks for on-premises
and off-premises consumption. Five Guys Enterprises serves
customers in the United States and Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee A. Floyd, Esq.
          Justin M. Sheldon, Esq.
          BREIT BINIAZAN, PC
          2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310
          Richmond, VA 23223
          Telephone: (804) 351-9040
          Facsimile: (804) 351-9170
          Email: Lee@bbtrial.com
                 Justin@bbtrial.com

               - and -

          Scott M. Perry, Esq.
          BREIT BINIAZAN, P.C.
          1010 N. Glebe Road, Suite 310
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Telephone: (703) 291-6666
          Facsimile: (703) 563-6692
          Email: Scott@bbtrial.com

               - and -

          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 239-4778
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          Email: aberry@justice4you.com
                 gharoutunian@justice4you.com

FIVE GUYS: Fails to Protect Restaurant Staff's Info, Ranck Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA RANCK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIVE GUYS ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00034 (E.D. Va., January 10, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
implied contract, violation of Virginia Data Breach Notification
Law, and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees following a data breach
on its network on or around September 17, 2022. The Defendant
failed to implement reasonable security measures to protect the
Plaintiff's and Class members' PII, allowing an unknown actor to
access its network. As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the
Plaintiff and members of the Classes have been exposed to a
lifelong risk of identity theft and fraud, says the suit.

Five Guys Enterprises, LLC is an operator of hamburger restaurants,
with a principal place of business in Lorton, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Lee A. Floyd, Esq.
         Justin M. Sheldon, Esq.
         BREIT BINIAZAN, PC
         2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310
         Richmond, VA 23223
         Telephone: (804) 351-9040
         Facsimile: (804) 351-9170
         E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com
                 Justin@bbtrial.com

                - and -

         Scott M. Perry, Esq.
         BREIT BINIAZAN, PC
         1010 N. Glebe Road, Suite 310
         Arlington, VA 22201
         Telephone: (703) 291-6666
         Facsimile: (703) 563-6692
         E-mail: Scott@bbtrial.com

                - and -

         Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
         Raina Borrelli, Esq.
         TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP
         613 Williamson Street, #201
         Madison, WI 53703
         Telephone: (608) 237-1775
         E-mail: Sam@turkestrauss.com
                 Raina@turkestrauss.com

                - and -

         Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (866) 252-0878
         E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com

FMA LANDSCAPE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Rico Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN MANUEL NINO RICO, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and aggrieved v. FMA LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC, a
California corporation, MIGUEL A. MEDINA, an individual, and DOES
through 20, inclusive, Case No. 230V409762 (Cal. Super., Jan. 10,
2023) seeks to recover all unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the
California Labor Code Section 1194 and 1194.2.

The Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff and the class members
with all required meal periods and rest periods, or with
compensation in lieu thereof. As a result, under Labor Code Section
226.7, the Plaintiff and the class members are entitled to one
additional hour's pay at the regular rate of compensation for each
day a meal period or a rest period was missed, late or interrupted,
the Plaintiff claims.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt employee in
its landscaping business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Kirk Donnelly, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF J. KIRK DONNELLY, APC
          2173 Salk Ave., Suite 250
          Carlsbad, CA 92008
          Telephone: (760) 209-5894
          E-mail: kdonnelly@jkd-law.com

FRONTIDA MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Williams Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
NADIA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIDA MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC; MIDWEST
ASSISTED LIVING PARTNERS II, LLC; and WESTON MEMORY CARE, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00037-WCG (E.D. Wis., Jan. 11, 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 Williams was employed by the Defendants as caregiver.

FRONTIDA MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC owns and operates an assisted living
homes across Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          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

GLAMCOR GLOBAL: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Glamcor Global, LLC.
The case is styled as Maricela Donet, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Glamcor Global, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00368 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2023).

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

GLAMCOR -- https://glamcor.com/ -- is the leading manufacturer of
professional portable lighting and vanity mirrors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GPB CAPITAL: Ortiz Suit Removed to E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Monica Ortiz, on behalf of herself and other
individuals similarly situated v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC,
Automile Holdings LLC doing business as: Prime Automotive Group,
David Gentile, David Rosenberg, Philip Delzotta, Joseph Delzotta,
and other affiliated entities and individuals, Case No. 604918/2020
was removed from the New York Supreme Court, County of Nassau, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
Jan. 13, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00255 to the
proceeding.

The nature suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

GPB Capital -- http://gpb-cap.com/-- is a New York-based
alternative asset management firm that seeks to acquire
income-producing private companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alexandra Zoe Bunnell, Esq.
          KOBRE & KIM LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 488-1200
          Email: zoe.bunnell@kobrekim.com


GRACO FISHING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Smith Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
CORY SMITH, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v GRACO FISHING & RENTAL TOOLS INC., d/b/a
Graco Oilfield Services, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-13 (N.D. TX.,
Jan. 11, 2023) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay
the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Smith was employed by the Defendant as case hole fishing
supervisor.

GRACO FISHING & RENTAL TOOLS, INC. was founded in 1983. The
Company's line of business includes renting and leasing equipment.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GREENIX HOLDINGS: Kirkpatrick Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clarence Kirkpatrick, Individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. GREENIX HOLDINGS, LLC, dba Greenix Pest
Control, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00033 (D. Utah, Jan. 13, 2023), is
brought against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was required to perform off-the-clock work resulting
in Service Pros working an average of 5-10 additional hours a week
for which they are not compensated. As a result of being required
to perform the above described off-the-clock work in addition to
the work they performed while clocked-in (with the clocked-in work
typically totaling a minimum of around forty hours per week), there
were weeks during the period of their employment with Defendant in
which the Plaintiff and other Service Pros worked over 40 hours per
week. The Plaintiff and the putative class members were not paid
overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 hours per week, even
though they were "non-exempt" employees and thus entitled to such
wages under state and federal law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a "Service Pro" from
February, 2021 through July, 2022.

The Defendant's business primarily involves the marketing, sale,
and provision of pest control services to residential
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          April L Hollingsworth, Esq.
          Katie Panzer, Esq.
          HOLLINGSWORTH LAW OFFICE, LLC
          1881 South 1100 East
          Salt Lake City, UT 84105
          Phone: (801)415-9909
          Facsimile: (801) 303-7324
          Email: april@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com
                 katie@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
          Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
          60 South Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Phone: (440) 352-3391
          Facsimile: (440) 352-3469 Fax
          Email: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
                 nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
                 fbartela@dworkenlaw.com


HELLO PRODUCTS: Final Order and Judgment Entered in Aguirre Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, 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, Plaintiffs v. HELLO
PRODUCTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-09577-SDA (S.D.N.Y.),
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York enters Final Order and Judgment.

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 set forth
therein; provisionally certifying the Settlement Class; appointing
Federman & Sherwood ("F&S") and Pastor Law Office, LLP as the Class
Counsel; appointing Simpluris, Inc. as the Settlement
Administrator; and authorizing notice to all the Class Members.

On June 21, 2022, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28
U.S.C. Section 1715 ("CAFA"), notices were sent informing the
appropriate state and federal Attorneys General about the
Settlement.

The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Final Approval of the Class
Action Settlement on Dec. 6, 2022, which the Defendant did not
oppose. On the same day, they also filed a Motion for Award of
Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses and Service
Awards to Plaintiffs, which the Defendant also did not oppose.

Judge Aaron held a fairness hearing on Jan. 10, 2023, and no
objections were lodged to the settlement, the service award or the
attorneys' fees and expenses. Having considered the complete record
in the matter, he certifies 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 entered
an order preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement [i.e.,
June 15, 2022].

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
for the purposes of the Settlement only, the Plaintiffs are
certified as the Class Representatives, and William B. Federman of
F&S and David Pastor of Pastor Law are certified as the Class
Counsel.

Judge Aaron also 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. In these circumstances, Mr. McClarty's
request for exclusion is invalid.

Judge Aaron further finds and concludes that the Settlement is
fair, reasonable and adequate, and should be approved. He approves
the Settlement (as set forth in the Settlement Agreement), the
releases of the Released Claims, and all other terms in the
Settlement Agreement, as fair, just, reasonable and adequate as to
the settling parties.

The Parties are directed to perform in accordance with the terms
set forth in the Settlement Agreement. However, without seeking
further Court approval, the settling parties may jointly agree to
make changes to the Settlement Agreement, provided that those
changes do not reduce the benefits to which Settlement Class
Members may be entitled, increase the burden on Settlement Class
Members in making a Claim, or otherwise materially alter the
Settling Parties' obligations under the Settlement and the
Settlement Agreement.

By this Judgment, the Releasing Persons will be deemed to have (and
by operation of the Judgment will have) fully, finally, and forever
released, relinquished, and discharged all Released Claims against
the Released Persons.

The action is dismissed with prejudice. The settling parties are to
bear their own attorneys' fees and costs, except as otherwise
expressly provided in the Settlement Agreement and in this
Judgment.

Judge Aaron grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
reimbursement of expenses. The Class Counsel is awarded $420,000 in
attorneys' fees, consistent with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement. Judge Aaron also awards the Class Counsel reimbursement
of their litigation expenses in the amount of $21,300.90.

The Plaintiffs' Motion for Service Awards to Class Representatives
is also granted. Consistent with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, Plaintiffs Patellos and Fishon will be paid Service
Awards in the amount of $3,500 each, and each Other Claimant will
be paid $350 each, in recognition of the services they each
rendered on behalf of the Class.

Per the Settlement Agreement, the fees, expenses and service awards
will be paid from the Settlement Fund.

Each and every Settlement Class Member, Releasing Persons, and any
Person actually or purportedly acting on behalf of any Settlement
Class Member or Releasing Persons, is hereby permanently barred and
enjoined from commencing, instituting, continuing, pursuing,
maintaining, prosecuting, or enforcing any Released Claims,
directly or indirectly, in any judicial, administrative, arbitral,
or other forum, against the Released Persons.

The Final Order and Judgment is a final, appealable order, and will
constitute a judgment for purposes of Rules 54 and 58 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By incorporating the Settlement
Agreement's terms herein, Judge Aaron determines that his Final
Judgment complies in all respect with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65(d)(1).

The Court retains jurisdiction, without affecting in any way the
finality of the Order and Judgment, over (a) the implementation and
enforcement of this Settlement; (b) enforcing and administering
this Order and Judgment; (c) enforcing and administering the
Settlement Agreement, including any releases executed in connection
therewith; and (d) other matters related or ancillary to the
foregoing.

The Clerk of Court respectfully is requested to enter Judgment and
close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2023 Final Order &
Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/5ctf876j from
Leagle.com.


HILL'S PET: Experts to Reply to Netz's Opinions in Vanzant Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HOLLY BLAINE VANZANT, and SHERRY NEVIUS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC. and PETSMART LLC, Defendants, Case No.
17 C 2535 (N.D. Ill.), Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division:

   a. grants the Defendants' motion to strike the expert
      testimony of two of the Plaintiffs' rebuttal experts
      insofar as Thomas Maronik's report is stricken; and

   b. allows the Defendants' experts to respond to Janet Netz's
      opinions about her but-for world in connection with any
      motion, hearing, or trial.

The Defendants are challenging the expert testimony of two of the
Plaintiffs' rebuttal experts, Maronick, a marketing expert, and
Netz, an economics expert. Essentially, they complain that they are
not "rebuttal" opinions at all.

Nearly six years ago, on March 2, 2017, a couple of cat owners --
their cats were Tarik and Chief -- filed a class action lawsuit
against the Defendants in Cook County Circuit Court. About four
years into the case, Chief's owner had to drop out. She was
replaced by a dog owner, whose dog is named Moose. The pet owners'
beef was that the Defendants said their cat food required a
prescription when, legally, it did not. Allegedly, that
"prescription" label lead to the Plaintiffs paying a premium for
their pets' food.

The attorneys for those pet owners and those pet food sellers are
still going at it six years later, and seem to have raised this
dispute over the cost of dog food to the level of an existential
struggle. Remarkably, the present battle over expert rebuttals
alone has involved 16 separate filings covering over 1,000 pages,
including a botched attempt to seal a number of documents.

It's no wonder the case has not exactly moved at a greyhound-like
pace. The attorneys have missed so many deadlines over the years
that it's easy to lose count of them all. As it happens, they've
also changed those deadlines so very often that there seems to be
some confusion as to what they are or were. So, the parties'
present discovery dispute, which all can agree comes after the
close of all discovery, forces the Court to begin with a little
schedule archaeology.

First, the Plaintiffs argue that, as the Defendants' motion to
strike was filed after the expert discovery deadline, the motion is
untimely.

Judge Cole opines that the Plaintiffs are in no position to argue
against a motion to strike because they think it was filed too
late. He says the Plaintiffs' habit of missing deadlines or
penchant for waiting for the last minute makes them the wrong
people to complain about timeliness.

Next, Judge Cole examines Maronick's testimony. The report of the
Defendants' survey expert, Sarah Butler, resulted from surveys she
designed and conducted with 600 purchasers of therapeutic pet food,
403 veterinarians, and 411 purchasers of defendant Hill's
Prescription Diet pet food. The survey examined the Plaintiffs'
claims of materiality of "prescription" packaging in purchase
behavior.

Butler concluded that "prescription" labeling and packaging does
not affect purchasing behavior. She found that veterinarians were
equally likely to provide a formal authorization as to simply note
on the chart the food had been authorized. Butler reported that her
survey demonstrated that most consumers purchased the Defendant
Hill's product because a veterinarian recommended it.

Maronick's report went beyond addressing Butler's surveys, data,
and conclusions derived therefrom. He said the Defendants'
marketing conduct as a whole implied Prescription Diet products
have high credence quality because they are described as
"prescription" products and presented as appropriate treatment for
their pet's ailment, which credence quality is material to
consumers deciding whether to purchase a product for their sick
pets. He also said that FTC would presume the Defendants' marketing
conduct is material because they made express claims that
Prescription Diet products are prescription products that involve
the health and safety of pets.

Judge Cole opines that Maronick's deposition testimony confirms
that he was offering opinions that were extraneous to his rebuttal
of Butler's survey work. Aside from his critique of Butler's survey
conclusions, Maronick is offering materiality opinions that should
have been a part of the Plaintiff's original expert disclosures.
Judge Cole grants that part of the Defendants' motion seeking to
strike Maronick's opinions about the FTC and the materiality of the
Defendants' marketing.

Lastly, Judge Cole examines Netz's testimony. Netz's opening
opinion came way back in June of 2022. In it, she sought to explain
her class-wide damages estimate of $92 million. The Defendants
submit that their experts understandably offered opinions
responsive to the single but-for world described in Netz's report.
But they cry foul because at her deposition, Netz said that she had
"two particular scenarios." The conduct alleged to violate the
deceptive practices claim doesn't happen, and in that but-for
world, there is no therapeutic food.

In her rebuttal report -- which is a rebuttal of the Defendants'
experts' response or rebuttal to her original report -- Netz
criticized the Defendants' experts for ignoring the two distinct
claims the Plaintiff had brought. She said that several of their
criticisms may apply to deceptive practices but not unfair
practices. She argued that Dr. Ugone criticizes my analysis on the
basis of the Plaintiffs' deceptive practices claim but completely
ignores the unfair practices claim. Similarly, while Dr. Wilner's
report discusses damages calculations absent the deceptive conduct,
there is no analogous discussion or calculations addressing the
unfair practices conduct.

Judge Cole finds that the appropriate remedy is not to strike the
entire rebuttal opinion or whatever portions of it deal with a
second but-for world -- if that could even be accomplished.
Additionally, he is not going to allow the Defendants a
sur-rebuttal and even more expert discovery in this already bloated
litigation. If there were a prescription diet for lawsuits, the
case would be on it. After more than two and a half years,
discovery -- all discovery -- is finally closed, and there will be
no looking back. Instead, Judge Cole agrees with the Defendants'
third option: Dr. Ugone and Dr. Wilner may respond to Dr. Netz's
opinions about her but-for world in connection with any motion,
hearing, or trial.

All good things, including discovery, must come to an end. If
counsel desires a settlement conference, they should contact Judge
Cole's courtroom deputy, Yulonda Thomas (312-408-5178) within the
next two weeks. Otherwise, the referral will be closed and the case
returned to Judge Alonso.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5xchmew2 from
Leagle.com.


HYLAN CUCINA: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Reyes Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN REYES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. HYLAN CUCINA, INC. d/b/a ROYAL CROWN BAKERY a New York
Corporation, and FRANK GALANO an individual, Case No. 1:23-cv-00164
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 10, 2023) seeks to recover minimum and overtime
wages and "spread of hours" pay pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and NYLL's Spread of Hours
Wage Order.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from November 29, 2022
through December 30, 2022 to cook, clean and provide customer
service to those who came into the store. He worked for the
Defendants from Tuesday through Saturday from 9 am to 9 pm, a total
of 60 hours per week. The Plaintiff was paid a standard rate of
$13.00 per hour as a flat hourly rate, with no pay raises during
the term of his employment.

The Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff with wage statements,
and, at the time of hiring, a statement in English and the
employee's primary language (Spanish) containing the rate of pay
and basis thereof, allowances, the regular pay, any "doing business
as" names, the physical address of the employer's main office, and
telephone number of the employer, the Plaintiff claims.

Hylan Cucina is a bakery located at 1352 Hylan Blvd, Staten Island,
NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nolan Klein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES Of NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
          5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (954) 745-0588
          E-mail: klein@nklegal.com
                  amy@nklegal.com
                  melanie@nklegal.com

IHEALTH LABS INC: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IHealth Labs Inc. The
case is styled as Roberta Feliz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. IHealth Labs Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00354 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2023).

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

iHealth -- https://ihealthlabs.com/ -- offers cloud-based, personal
healthcare products for individuals of all ages to take a more
active role in managing their health.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ILLINOIS: Bid to Amend Complaint in Johnson v. Rue Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois grants in part and
denies in part the Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint in the
lawsuit titled WILLIAM JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. MR. RUE, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-779-NJR (S.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff William Johnson, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections ("IDOC"), who is currently incarcerated at Menard
Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Although
his Complaint and First Amended Complaint were large,
multi-defendant, multi-claim filings, the Court eventually allowed
Johnson to proceed on two counts: (1) a failure to protect claim
against Defendants Rue, John/Jane Doe #'s 3-4, and Brookhart in
relation to an assault by inmate Tademy on Nov. 28, 2018, and (2) a
deliberate indifference claim against Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #5,
Hough, Ochs, Weaver, Harris, Piper, Lewis, and Mayberry for failing
to provide him with treatment, send him to an outside hospital, or
conduct a Prison Rape Elimination Act ("PREA") investigation
following the assault. Claims related to the disciplinary ticket
Johnson received, including due process and retaliation claims,
were dismissed without prejudice.

Mr. Johnson indicates that his proposed Second Amended Complaint
seeks to identify Jane Doe #1 as A. Fiscus and John Doe #1 as C.
Saatkamp. He also intends to substitute Benjamin Vaughn in place of
Defendant Hough. He indicates that certain paragraphs in the
proposed Second Amended Complaint have been modified to reflect
those substitutions. Johnson also indicates that his amended
pleading adds new factual allegations to support adding new
defendants, although his motion fails to identify the new claims or
parties. His proposed pleading, however, seeks to restate claims
against a number of previously dismissed individuals. It also adds
additional John Doe Defendants. The proposed pleading, without
exhibits, is 97 pages.

The named Defendants have filed answers, thus, Johnson must now
seek to amend his complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2), which allows
a party to amend its pleading only with the opposing party's
written consent or the Court's leave.

Judge Rosenstengel finds there are a number of issues with
Johnson's proposed pleading. First, the pleading does not conform
with SDIL Local Rule 15.1, which requires that the new allegations
be underlined. The majority of the pleading is underlined making it
difficult to determine what allegations are newly added. Nor does
his motion adequately explain what he seeks to re-allege with his
proposed pleading.

Mr. Johnson's proposed pleading also violates Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8, which requires a complaint to set forth a short and
plain statement of plaintiff's claim(s) showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief, Judge Rosenstengel holds.

As previously stated, Johnson's proposed pleading is 97 pages of
allegations, much of which is citation to the Lippert report and
its findings. Many of those findings appear entirely unrelated to
the two claims that Johnson was allowed to proceed on in this case,
Judge Rosenstengel notes.

Although it appears Johnson is attempting to use the report to
substantiate a class action, Judge Rosenstengel finds he fails to
indicate how his claims would qualify for a class action. He merely
regurgitates the standard without stating how the allegations in
this case meet the standard. Johnson's claims relate to medical
care that he did or did not receive after an assault, but the
allegations in his amended pleadings suggest that he seeks to bring
a class action for all deficiencies in medical and dental care
provided by the Illinois Department of Corrections. Such
allegations do not meet the standard for a class action, Judge
Rosenstengel points out.

Mr. Johnson also complains about a March 2017 disciplinary report
that he received and attempts to allege that any claim which arose
after that date was an act of retaliation for the disciplinary
report. The report appears to be entirely unrelated to his claims
regarding the assault by inmate Tamedy, the only claims, which he
was allowed to proceed with in the First Amended Complaint, Judge
Rosenstengel says. He further seeks to reallege due process claims
that were previously dismissed as being barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994), without offering any additional facts that
would overcome the bar.

The proposed pleading also cites the Lippert report and tries to
tie additional defendants to his claims by stating that they had
knowledge of the report and its findings, Judge Rosenstengel notes.
But the Court previously dismissed such claims because Johnson
failed to allege that the individuals were aware of the specific
conditions and care that Johnson experienced and/or received. He
fails to offer any allegations that the proposed defendants were
aware of his specific allegations, instead citing to the report's
findings. Thus, Judge Rosenstengel finds he again fails to state a
claim.

Accordingly, the Court denies Johnson's motion to amend to add
additional claims, parties, and a proposed class action. To the
extent that he seeks to identify Jane Doe #1 as A. Fiscus, however,
the Court grants his motion and DIRECTS the clerk to substitute A.
Fiscus in place of Jane Doe #1 and serve her in accordance with the
threshold order.

The First Amended Complaint will remain the operative pleading. To
the extent Johnson seeks to identify John Doe #1, that individual
was dismissed from the case. Further, as it relates to Defendant
Hough and proposed Defendant Benjamin Vaughn, Judge Rosenstengel
says it is not clear whether Johnson alleges that Hough should not
be a defendant at all, or whether he merely seeks to add Benjamin
Vaughn as an additional defendant. Thus, the Court denies his
request to amend as to Hough and Vaughn.

To the extent that the Defendants request additional time to file
their dispositive motion on the issue of administrative exhaustion,
the requested extension is granted. The summary judgment motion is
now due March 6, 2023.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Jan. 5,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5bb45mtz from
Leagle.com.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Adams Sues Over False Statements
--------------------------------------------------------
June E. Adams Irrevocable Trust Dated 7/21/14 FBO Edward Robert
Adams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, VIRGINIA M.
ROMETTY, MARTIN J. SCHROETER, JAMES J. KAVANAUGH, ARVIND KRISHNA,
BRIDGETTE VAN KRALINGEN, SHANKER RAMAMURTHY, PABLO SUAREZ, SARAH
DIAMOND, ALISTAIR RENNIE, MARK ANDREWS, DON INDIA, CHRIS JOHNSTON,
and MARK FOSTER, Case No. 7:23-cv-00332 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2023),
is brought to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain
of its present and former officers and/or directors and who
knowingly or recklessly engaged in a device, scheme, or artifice to
defraud, engaged in acts, practices, and courses of business
conduct designed to deceive investors, and who knowingly or
recklessly made false statements of material fact during the Class
Period.

The Defendants misled the market, engaging in a fraudulent scheme
to report billions of dollars in mainframe segment and other
non-strategic revenues as Strategic Imperatives and CAMSS revenues,
enabling Defendants to report publicly materially distorted segment
information. Defendants portrayed Strategic Imperatives and CAMSS
as growing materially beyond actual growth, materially
misrepresenting IBM's shift away from its stagnant legacy mainframe
segment. Having chosen to report these revenue segments, Defendants
were duty bound not to lie about the revenues properly attributable
to IBM's legacy mainframe segment and the business segments IBM
conveyed would propel it into the future.

After the close of trading on October 16, 2018, Defendants
disclosed a shortfall in revenue and disappointing 3Q2018 growth
associated with the Company's Strategic Imperatives and CAMSS lines
of business, particularly its Cloud business line. This caused
IBM's stock price to decline approximately $11.00 per share from
the close of trading on October 16, 2018, to the close on trading
on October 17, 2018. After reporting its fourth quarter and year
end 2018 results, IBM stopped reporting revenue for Strategic
Imperatives and CAMSS, thereafter reporting Total Annual Revenue
without any breakdown among segments.

In violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"),
the Company failed to account for the economic substance of these
transactions (violating the basic principle of accounting). The
financial statements and the notes thereto did not disclose this
fact. Accordingly, the overall impression created by the financial
statements did not present the business realities of the Company,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff June E. Adams Irrevocable Trust Dated 7/21/14 FBO
Edward Robert Adams purchased IBM securities during the Class
Period.

IBM ranks among the world's largest information technology
companies, providing a wide spectrum of hardware, software, and
service offerings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Phone: 215-600-2817
          Fax: 212-202-3827
          Email: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          Stuart J. Guber, Esq.
          EVANGELISTA WORLEY LLC
          500 Sugar Mill Road, Ste. 245A
          Atlanta, GA 30350
          Phone: 404.205.8400
          Fax: 404.205.8395
          Email: jim@ewlawllc.com
                 stuart@ewlawllc.com


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Suit Over Securities Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of International Business Machines Corporation (NYSE:
IBM) between January 18, 2018 and October 16, 2018, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for IBM investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the IBM class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5104 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.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Strategic Imperatives Revenue growth, CAMSS (the distinct
components of "Cloud," "Analytics," "Mobile," "Security," and
"Social") and CAMSS components' revenue growth, and the Company's
Segments' revenue growth were artificially inflated as a result of
the wrongful reclassification/misclassification of revenues from
non-strategic to strategic to make those revenues eligible for
treatment as Strategic Imperatives Revenue; and (2) IBM was
materially less successful in growing its Strategic Imperative
business, reporting materially higher growth than it actually
achieved only by wrongfully reclassifying and misclassifying
revenue from non-strategic to strategic thereby reporting publicly
materially false Strategic Imperative Revenue. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

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 14,
2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5104 or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

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

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]

IRIS ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of Iris
Energy Limited (NASDAQ: IREN) ("Iris" or the "Company"). The class
action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased Iris ordinary
shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued
in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted
on or about November 17, 2021 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (b)
Iris securities between November 17, 2021 and November 1, 2022.
Investors are hereby notified that they have until February 6,
2023, to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action.

What actions may I take at this time? If you suffered a loss and
are interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff,
please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone
at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.

To join this action, you can click or copy and paste the link below
into a browser:

https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/iris-energy-limited-iren

There is no cost or obligation to you.

On or about November 17, 2021, Iris conducted the IPO, issuing
approximately 8.27 million of its shares to the public at the
Offering price of $28 per share.

The Complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of a
material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared per the rules
and regulations governing their preparation. Additionally,
throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that:
(i) certain of Iris's Bitcoin miners, owned through its
Non-Recourse SPVs, were unlikely to produce sufficient cash flow to
service their respective debt financing obligations; (ii)
accordingly, Iris's use of equipment financing agreements to
procure Bitcoin miners was not as sustainable as Defendants had
represented; (iii) the foregoing was likely to have a material
negative impact on the Company's business, operations, and
financial condition; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents
and Defendants' public statements throughout the Class Period were
materially false and misleading failing to state information
required to be stated.

A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Iris class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the Iris class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff.

About Johnson Fistel, LLP:

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel
seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal
securities laws. For more information about the firm and its
attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney
advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. [GN]

ITS LOGISTICS: Guthrie Parties to File Copy of Revised Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEITH GUTHRIE, individually, on a representative
basis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
ITS LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-000729-AWI-EPG
(E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California orders the
parties to file a copy of their revised settlement agreement and
the exhibits missing from the supplement.

At a hearing regarding the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement, the Court permitted the
parties to file supplemental briefing and/or evidence in support of
the motion. The parties have since filed a supplement, which
includes various attachments. However, the supplement is missing
some documents.

First, the parties' supplement proposes various revisions to their
settlement agreement. However, the parties have not provided a
revised copy of their settlement agreement.

Second, the supplement purports to attach Exhibits A, B and C to
the declaration of Timothy Aboussleman. However, no such exhibits
are attached to the declaration.

Accordingly, Judge Grosjean orders the parties will file a copy of
their revised settlement agreement and the exhibits missing from
the supplement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/39w2zee6 from Leagle.com.


KALEO CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Workers' OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE ROJAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. KALEO CONSTRUCTION CORP. And ANDREW HAZANTONIS, individually,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00199 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 10, 2023) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as
well as unpaid overtime wages and wage notice damages pursuant to
the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, even though Mr. Rojas and the Class
Members regularly worked more than 40 hours a week with the
knowledge of Defendants, the Defendants did not pay Mr. Rojas and
the Class Members time and a half for all worked performed after 40
hours. Instead, Mr. Rojas and the Class Members were paid a flat
hourly wage for all hours
worked. The Defendants also failed to furnish Mr. Rojas and the
Class Members with accurate statements of wages, hours worked,
rates paid, and gross wages, the suit says.

Mr. Rojas was employed as construction worker by Defendants from
March 2022 through August 2022.

Kaleo construction is a family owned contracting company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 323-6980

KRYSTAL RESTAURANTS: Hines Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Hines, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. KRYSTAL RESTAURANTS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00012 (E.D.
Tenn., Jan. 13, 2023), is brought against the Defendant as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
unpaid overtime compensation owed to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff performed work for Defendant in excess of 40 hours
per week within weekly pay periods, especially when adding all
their unpaid "off the clock" and "edited-out" wages. The Defendant
did not compensate Plaintiff and those similarly situated at the
applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay for all hours
performed over 40 per week within weekly pay periods during all
times material., says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by and worked for the Defendant as an
hourly-paid shift leader.

The Defendant is one of the oldest fast-food chain of restaurants
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Phone: (901) 754-8001
          Fax: (901) 759-1745
          Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 rturner@jsyc.com
                 rmorelli@jsyc.com


LOWE'S COMPANIES: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Herrera Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., Case No. HUD-L-000068-23 (N.J.
Sup., Jan. 9, 2023) alleges that the Defendant has engaged in
intentional discrimination, including maintaining a website
"https://www.lowes.com/" that is inaccessible to blind or
visually-impaired people, in violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

On December 2022, the Plaintiff visited the Website, using a
popular screen reading software called Voice Over. He 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 the Plaintiff from being able to enjoy the privileges and
benefits of Defendant's public accommodation. Specifically, many
features on the Website fail to accurately describe the contents of
graphical images, fail to properly label title, fails to
distinguish one page from another, contain multiple broken links,
contain headings that do not describe the topic or purpose, and
contain text that is not read. The access barriers Plaintiff
encountered have caused a denial of the Plaintiff's full and equal
access in the past, and have caused the Plaintiff real harm, the
lawsuit claims.

The Plaintiff is and was a resident of North Bergen, New Jersey.

Lowe's Companies is an American retail company specializing in home
improvement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MARIPOSA LTD: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mariposa, Ltd. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Mariposa, Ltd., Case No.
1:23-cv-00363 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2023).

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

Mariposa, Ltd. -- https://mariposa.com/ -- is a wholesaler in
Manchester-by-the-Sea, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARPAC LLC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marpac, LLC. The case
is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Marpac, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00324
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2023).

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

Marpac LLC, doing business as Yogasleep -- https://yogasleep.com/
-- manufactures mattresses. The Company offers yogabed mattress,
comforters, sheets, pillows, bed frames, and blankets, as well as
sound accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAZDA MOTOR: S.D. New York Grants Bids to Dismiss Bey Consumer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss the
lawsuit entitled TAMERLANE T. BEY, II, Plaintiff v. MAZDA MOTOR OF
AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-CV-3328 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Tamerlane T. Bey, II, proceeding pro se, filed this
action on April 22, 2022, against Defendants Mazda Motor of
America, Denso Corp., and Denso International America, Inc.
("Denso"). Bey's 125-page complaint brings, in total, 16 counts on
behalf of himself and members of a variety of classes
(specifically, a purported New York class, California class, and
nationwide class). Bey's claims are primarily based on state law,
but also include one federal claim for violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 2301, et seq.

Mazda has filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), and Denso has filed a motion to
dismiss under Federal Rules 8(a), 9(b), 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and
12(f). Bey did not file a responsive opposition to either
Defendant's motion, though he filed a letter in response to Denso's
motion to dismiss requesting that he be given the opportunity to
respond to all motions submitted by the Defendant for the Court's
Trial by Jury proceedings.

The case concerns allegedly defective low-pressure fuel pumps
supplied by Denso to Mazda for use in the vehicles that Mazda
manufactures and sells. These pumps contain a plastic "impeller"
that, due to excessive fuel absorption, may deform and fail. This
failure, according to a report filed by Mazda with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), could result in
failure of the engine to start, stalling at low speeds, and in some
cases, stalling at high speeds, which could lead to a crash.

Denso issued the first recall of these fuel pumps on April 27,
2020, in a Part 573 Safety Recall Report filed with NHTSA. This
report pertained to pumps manufactured between Sept. 1, 2017, and
Oct. 6, 2018, and listed Mazda as one purchaser of the defective
pumps. It also said that any remedy would be determined by the
vehicle manufacturers, such as Mazda. Seven months later in
November 2020, Denso issued an expanded recall that also included
fuel pumps manufactured as early as June 26, 2017, and as late as
June 28, 2021.

Mazda also issued recalls. On July 17, 2020, Mazda filed a Foreign
Recall Campaign Report with NHTSA, alerting NHTSA of recalls of
their affected vehicles in other countries, and alerted NHTSA that
"substantially similar" vehicles had been sold in the U.S. At that
time, Mazda did not issue a U.S.-based recall because of
"differences in U.S. logistic conditions, typical customer usage,
and other factors." Then on Nov. 12, 2021, Mazda issued a voluntary
U.S.-based recall of vehicles containing the allegedly defective
Denso fuel pump, a recall that included the 2018 Mazda6.

The complaint alleges that Denso knew that the fuel pump was
defective because in 2016, Denso filed a patent application for an
improvement to the allegedly defective fuel pump impeller. Despite
this alleged knowledge, the complaint claims that Denso misled
customers through promotional materials stating that Denso is
"committed to making high-quality products" and focuses on
"meticulous quality control" and safety. Denso also allegedly told
customers, though not Bey specifically, that its "rigorous
manufacturing and testing process" ensures that each fuel pump
meets Denso's high standards for fit and performance.

Per the complaint, Mazda also knew or should have known of the
alleged defect because of its "production part approval process
testing and failure mode and effects analysis," because of its
obligations under the Transportation Recall, Enhancement,
Accountability and Documentation ("TREAD") Act, and because
consumers had lodged complaints about the fuel pump on NHTSA
consumer databases. Again, despite this alleged knowledge, Mazda
employed a "uniform and pervasive marketing message of safety and
dependability," including in advertisements about vehicles that are
now included in the recall.

The complaint alleges that Mazda could have and should have
mentioned the fuel pump issue in (1) point of sale communications;
(2) the owner's manual; and/or (3) direct communication to Class
Members through means such as state vehicle registry lists. The
complaint also alleges that other customers, though not Bey,
brought their vehicles to Mazda and complained of fuel pump
failures, and Mazda denied any knowledge of or repair for the Fuel
Pump Defect.

Mr. Bey, who states that he is a New York resident, alleges that he
purchased a used 2018 Mazda6 from the Carl Black Orlando car
dealership in Orlando, Florida, on Feb. 16, 2021. He claims that
his Mazda6 contains the fuel pump defect because during at least
six different usages, he experienced, hesitated and interrupted
acceleration and near engine stall out. He alleges that this defect
creates a dangerous condition that gives rise to a clear,
substantial, and unreasonable danger of death or personal injury to
him, other occupants in his Class Vehicle, and others on the road.

The Defendants have moved for dismissal on grounds pertaining both
to this Court's jurisdiction and the merits of Bey's claim. Denso
argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction on either
of the grounds that Bey proffers.

Mr. Bey first bases the Court's jurisdiction on the Class Action
Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a) and (d) ("CAFA"). As a pro
se plaintiff, Judge Oetken holds that Bey cannot bring an action on
behalf of others. Accordingly, Bey's complaint is construed as
raising only individual claims, and CAFA cannot confer
jurisdiction.

Mr. Bey also states that this Court has jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. Section 1331 by virtue of his claim under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act (MMWA), which arises under federal law, and
supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1367.

Judge Oetken notes that the MMWA only provides federal jurisdiction
where certain requirements are satisfied. Relevant here, MMWA
claims may only be brought in federal court if the amount in
controversy meets or exceeds the sum or value of $50,000 (exclusive
of interests and costs) computed on the basis of all claims to be
determined in the suit.

The Court takes judicial notice that Mazda sold the most recent
model of Bey's car, a 2021 Mazda6, new for between $25,000 and
$40,000, depending on features. Accordingly, under either New York
or Florida law, Bey's MMWA claim cannot plausibly exceed $50,000,
Judge Oetken finds. For the same reason, it follows that the
$75,000 requirement for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332 cannot be met.

With Bey's federal claims dismissed, the Court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state claims. The
Court, therefore, dismisses Bey's state law claims without
prejudice to refiling in state court.

For these reasons, the Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted,
and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos.
19 and 25 and to close this case.

The Clerk of Court is also directed to mail a copy of this opinion
and order to the pro se party.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Jan. 5,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5se64892 from
Leagle.com.


MDL 3010: Plaintiffs in Google Suit May Seal Unredacted Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
grants the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an unredacted
complaint under seal in the lawsuits titled IN RE: GOOGLE DIGITAL
ADVERTISING ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: SPX
Total Body Fitness LLC, d/b/a The Studio Empower, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, and
SKINNYSCHOOL LLC d/b/a MARIA MARQUES FITNESS and MINT ROSE DAY SPA
LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case Nos. 21-md-3010 (PKC),
1:21-cv-06870-PKC, 1:21-cv-07045-PKC (S.D.N.Y.)

District Judge P. Kevin Castel grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Leave to file the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.

The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint will be filed in
the redacted form submitted to the Court in accordance with the
Plaintiff States' yellow highlights, leaving in place redactions
only related to documents designated confidential or higher by
Google LLC pursuant to the Protective Order. The Plaintiffs were
directed to publicly file a version of the Third Amended Complaint
that conforms to the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 5, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4z97fz6u from Leagle.com.


MIAMI MASTER: Underpays Tow Truck Drivers, Rojas Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAYRON ROJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIAMI MASTER TOWING & RECOVERY INC. and ANDY
FELIZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-20091 (S.D. Fla., January 10,
2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
properly compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated tow truck
drivers at the minimum applicable hourly wage rate in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a tow truck driver
from October 28, 2022 until December 5, 2022.

Miami Master Towing & Recovery Inc. is a company that operates
towing services to automobiles, with its principal place of
business in Miami, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Nathaly Saavedra, Esq.
         Juan J. Perez, Esq.
         Jocelyn R. Rocha, Esq.
         PEREGONZA THE ATTORNEYS, PLLC
         5201 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 290
         Miami, FL 33126
         Telephone: (786) 650-0202
         Facsimile: (786) 650-0200
         E-mail: nathaly@peregonza.com
                 juan@peregonza.com
                 jocelyn@peregonza.com

MICHIGAN: District Court Refuses to Certify Class in Boussum Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MARK A. BOUSSUM, et al., Plaintiffs v.
HEIDI WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-12232 (E.D.
Mich.), Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division, issued an
Opinion and Order:

   (1) lifting stay;

   (2) denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
       appointed counsel;

   (3) denying the Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining
       order; and

   (4) directing the Plaintiffs to correct in forma pauperis
       applications.

The Plaintiffs are six "handicapped inmates" at Thumb Correctional
Facility (TCF) in Lapeer, Michigan. They have filed a pro se
civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging TCF
failed to accommodate their disabilities and, therefore, violated
their rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments;
the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12132; and
the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794.

The Plaintiffs also filed a combined motion for class certification
and appointed counsel. The motion was granted in part, and the case
was stayed to seek pro bono counsel for the Plaintiffs. The order
explained that if counsel was not obtained by Nov. 4, 2022, then
the stay would be lifted for appropriate orders. No counsel was
found.

The Plaintiffs are prisoners held in a Medically Frail Housing
(MFH) Unit at the TCF. The MFH Unit was developed to house
medically frail inmates, but the Plaintiffs claim that TCF began to
admit such inmates before it was fully prepared to meet their
housing and medical needs. They add that problems with staffing and
the MFH Unit's programming, care, and other services violate the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the
Plaintiffs' rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments.

The Plaintiffs have various disabilities, and examples of their
complaints include a lack of medical staff, missing handrails near
beds and in showers requiring mobility-impaired prisoners to carry
medical equipment up and down stairs, and the denial of the
opportunity to participate in school, work, and recreation
programming.

And, most recently, Plaintiff Boussum filed a motion for a
temporary restraining order. He newly complains that the Defendants
are "double bunking" "regular" (i.e., nondisabled) prisoners in the
MFH Unit, placing the "patients at risk to property theft,
assaults, and/or death."

Judge Ludington notes that the complaint is well drafted and
clearly lays out the Plaintiffs' allegations. Plus, Plaintiff
Boussum prepared the complaint and refers to himself as a
"paralegal." The Plaintiffs' allegations of TCF's failure to
accommodate their disabilities do not involve complex facts or
legal doctrines that would prevent them from prosecuting the case
on their own behalf.

Because the complaint does not present "exceptional circumstances"
warranting appointment of counsel, Judge Ludington denies the
Plaintiffs' motion for appointment of counsel.

A prisoner proceeding without an attorney may not represent the
interests of fellow inmates in a class action, Judge Ludington
holds. So, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification will be
denied. Judge Ludington points out that the law prohibits pro se
prisoners from representing other prisoners in class actions.

The Plaintiffs have each filed a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis.

The Court could not decide those motions until after class
certification, because filing fees are complicated in class-action
prisoner cases, Judge Ludington says. But class certification has
been resolved, so the Plaintiffs' applications will be considered
now.

The Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) provides that if
a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma
pauperis, the prisoner will be required to pay the full amount of a
filing fee. Section 1915(a) permits prisoners to make a
"downpayment" of a partial filing fee and to pay the remainder in
installments.

But the Plaintiffs did not file the required form that authorizes
withdrawal of their funds, Judge Ludington notes. For lacking the
requisite authorization form, Judge Ludington holds that the
Plaintiffs will be directed to correct the deficiency in their in
forma pauperis applications.

Finally, Plaintiff Boussum filed a motion for a temporary
restraining order. To that end, Judge Ludington explains that
Plaintiff Boussum must necessarily establish a relationship between
the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted
in the complaint.

But one of Plaintiff Boussum's arguments lacks such a relationship,
Judge Ludington finds. He asserts harm caused by the Defendants'
decision to house nondisabled inmates in the MFH Unit intended for
the medically frail and prisoners assigned to assist them. The
complaint, however, does not assert any conduct of nondisabled,
nonaide inmates. The only nondisabled inmates mentioned in the
complaint are the "inmate assistants" who assist the disabled
prisoners. But they aide the inmates, not injure them.

Because there is no relationship between the injury allegedly
caused by nondisabled, nonaide inmates and the complaint, Judge
Ludington denies Plaintiff Boussum's motion for TRO.

Accordingly, Judge Ludington ordered that the stay is lifted. The
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Appointed Counsel is
denied. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is
denied without prejudice.

Finally, Judge Ludington ordered that, on or before Feb. 3, 2023,
the Plaintiffs are directed to submit either the $350 filing fee
and $52 administrative fee (i.e., $402) or the required Prisoner's
Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs and
Authorization to Withdraw from the Trust Fund Account. If the
Plaintiffs fail to file the required documents or to pay the filing
fee and the administrative fee, then the Court must presume they
are proceeding without prepayment, assess the whole fee, and
dismiss the case for failure to prosecute. Any case dismissed under
these circumstances, will not be reinstated even if the fee is
later paid.

Judge Ludington points out that this is not a final order and does
not close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Jan. 5,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/35nw6mw9 from
Leagle.com.


MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Rodriguez Sues Over Chocolate's Deceptive Label
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00057-DMS-AHG (S.D. Cal., January 11, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for breach of implied warranties,
unjust enrichment, and violations of the California Business and
Professions Code and the California Civil Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its dark chocolate products, including Hu Organic Simple Dark
Chocolate 70% Cacao and Green & Black's Organic Dark Chocolate 70%
Cacao. The Defendant failed to disclose to consumers that the
products contained substantial levels of 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.

Mondelez Global LLC is a manufacturer of confectionary products,
with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [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
         Telephone: (619) 215-1741
         Email: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                paul@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                melanie@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                trevor@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                caroline@fitzgeraldjoseph.com

MSJ CONSULTING: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MSJ Consulting, LLC.
The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. MSJ Consulting, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00328 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2023).

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

MSJ Consulting -- https://www.msjconsult.rs/ -- provides
competitively priced professional services in a friendly and
personal manner.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATROL LLC: Faces Yamasaki Suit Over Mislabeled Memory Pills
------------------------------------------------------------
VENUS YAMASAKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATROL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00182 (N.D. Cal.,Jan. 13, 2023) alleges that the Defendant
is engaged in deceptive marketing practice in violation of the
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, in all of the Defendant's marketing
materials, it claims that the "Natrol Cognium Memory" ("Cognium
Memory") and "Natrol Cognium Memory Extra Strength" ("Cognium
Memory Extra Strength") (collectively the "Cognium Products")
provide improved memory and recall. To make matters worse, to
deceptively imply scientific significance and credibility, the
Cognium Products' packaging also states that the Cognium Products
contain the "no. 1 most clinically studied ingredient for memory,"
says the suit.

Natrol's advertising claims, however, are provably false,
misleading, and reasonably likely to deceive the public because
reliable scientific evidence, including expert opinion and
scientific studies, shows that the so-called active ingredient in
the Cognium Products, silk protein hydrolysate, is no more
effective than a placebo at improving memory, the suit alleges.

NATROL LLC wholesales and distributes prescription, proprietary
drugs, and toiletries. The Company provides beauty, digestive
health, and energy support products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest, Suite 1010
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
          Kevin Hulick, Esq.
          SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
          1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone (216) 696-3232
          Facsimile (216) 696-3924
          Email: sscott@spanglaw.com
                 khulick@spanglaw.com

NEWHERE INC: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newhere, Inc. The
case is styled as Roberta Feliz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Newhere, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00357
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2023).

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

NEwhere Inc. sells premium CBD products to customers through its
website that include CBD gummies, CBD tinctures, CBD creams and CBD
vape juices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NUEVO TULCINGO: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Vasquez Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
SOFIA VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NUEVO TULCINGO AZTECA CORP. (DBA NUEVO
AZTECA); ANGEL MOLINA and GILBERTO MOLINA, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00355 (S.D.N.Y., Jan.15, 2023) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Vasquez was employed by the Defendant as a waitress and a
bartender.

NUEVO TULCINGO AZTECA CORP.owns, operates, and controlled a
restaurant named "Nuevo Azteca" located in The Bronx, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

OK FOODS: Bid for Summary Judgment in Coffey Class Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CLARISSA COFFEY, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. OK FOODS INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-CV-02200 (W.D. Ark.), Judge P.K. Holmes, III, of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fort
Smith Division, grants OK Foods' motion for summary judgment.

The case arises from a breach of OK Foods' employee data. This
breach, which occurred in April 2020, allowed an unknown third
party to access employee data including names and Social Security
Numbers. An outside cybersecurity firm investigated the data
breach, and in April 2021, OK Foods notified current and former
employees whose personal information had been exposed. As of the
date of OK Foods' notice, no personal information had been misused
following the data breach. OK Foods provided affected employees
with a free, one-year Experian IdentityWorks membership. Ms. Coffey
is one of the affected former employees.

Ms. Coffey worked for OK Foods in early May 2016. Her time at OK
Foods lasted four days. She completed the employment process
in-person using an OK Foods computer. In doing so, she selected a
user ID and password.  She did not share those login credentials
with anyone, and nobody had access to the email Ms. Coffey gave to
OK Foods. Ms. Coffey was familiar with conducting transactions like
this online because she has executed cell phone contracts and
applied for other jobs electronically.

OK Foods uses a human resource management system called
SuccessFactors provided by third-party SAP, a multinational
software company. Its Director of Human Resources, Gary Potts,
provided a declaration detailing the SuccessFactors onboarding
system. All applicants receive an email with a link to the online
onboarding platform. The first step of the onboarding process
required applicants to agree to use a click signature to sign
documents. After agreeing to use a click signature, applicants must
sign several documents. The OK Foods arbitration agreement is one
of those documents.

Mr. Potts declared Ms. Coffey's signature on her arbitration
agreement was authentic. He based this conclusion on his
explanation of the SuccessFactors system, the signed arbitration
agreement that is part of Ms. Coffey's employment documents, and a
system log of the SuccessFactors system related to Ms. Coffey's
employment documents. Each of the documents in Ms. Coffey's file
reflects that Ms. Coffey digitally signed the forms on May 3, 2016.
The arbitration agreement indicates the parties agree the Federal
Arbitration Act will govern the enforceability of the agreement's
provisions. It also includes jury trial and class action waivers.

On June 2, 2021, Johnson sued OK Foods in the Western District of
Oklahoma. The complaint asserted claims for negligence, breach of
implied contract, breach of confidence, invasion of privacy, breach
of fiduciary duty, and breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing and included a class action allegation. Ms. Coffey
joined the case in an amended complaint filed July 29, 2021.

One day later, Mr. Johnson voluntarily dismissed his claims under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Six months later
and after briefing, the Oklahoma district court transferred the
case to this Court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) because Mr.
Johnson had been the only party who was a citizen of Oklahoma and
Ms. Coffey could not afford to appear in Oklahoma.

After the transfer, the Court denied OK Foods' motion to dismiss
and compel arbitration. At that time, it concluded that genuine
issues of material fact existed as to the formation of the
arbitration agreement because OK Foods did not present the exact
materials Ms. Coffey saw while applying and Ms. Coffey stated she
did not see the arbitration agreement. The Court bifurcated the
case, setting a first jury trial "to determine whether the parties
entered into a binding arbitration agreement."

Following additional time for discovery, which included Ms. Coffey
and Mr. Potts' depositions, OK Foods moved for summary judgment on
the issue of whether a binding arbitration agreement exists. Ms.
Coffey argues the parties lacked mutual agreement to contract and
the factual context showed OK Foods disclaimed forming a contract.

Judge Holmes opines that Ms. Coffey's arguments only provide
conjecture, speculation, or fantasy. Such arguments are
insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Ms. Coffey cannot point to
any record evidence that shows OK Foods or Mr. Morales forged her
signature. Based on the record evidence, specifically the
undisputed evidence about the SuccessFactors logs and electronic
signatures, no reasonable juror could conclude that OK Foods forged
Ms. Coffey's signature. And no reasonable juror could conclude that
Ms. Coffey did not electronically sign the arbitration agreement
based on the same undisputed evidence. Therefore, Judge Holmes
concludes the parties signed a binding arbitration agreement.

Moreover, Ms. Coffey does not dispute any of the evidence with
anything more than speculation, conjecture, and her inability to
recall signing the arbitration agreement. And as courts in this
district have previously found, failing to remember signing an
arbitration agreement is not evidence that can defeat summary
judgment. Judge Holmes thus finds that no reasonable juror could
conclude there is no binding arbitration agreement between the
parties.

Having concluded that there is a binding arbitration agreement
between the parties, the next question is whether the claims fall
within the terms of the arbitration provision. OK Foods argues that
the broad arbitration clause in the agreement covers all disputes
arising out of the data breach. Ms. Coffey did not offer any
argument on this point.

Judge Holmes finds that the parties' arbitration agreement states
any arbitration "shall be conducted in accordance with the Rules of
the AAA." Also, the agreement also explicitly reserves "questions
of arbitrability (that is whether an issue is subject to
arbitration under this agreement)" to the arbitrator. Therefore, if
there is any dispute regarding whether the claims are arbitrable,
that question is for the arbitrator. Finally, Judge Holmes dismiss
rather than stay the action. Arbitration will resolve the entire
dispute, so the matter must be dismissed.

For these reasons, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment is
granted. Judgment will be entered separately.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8m8ehc from Leagle.com.


ORGAIN LLC: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orgain, LLC. The case
is styled as Maricela Donet, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Orgain, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00365
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2023).

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

Orgain, Inc. -- https://orgain.com/ -- operates as a health
supplement store. The Company offers organic nutritional shakes,
protein powder, artificial sweeteners, bars, and oil.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OZ MANAGEMENT: Court Refuses to Approve $275K Deal in Wallis Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled DEBORAH WALLIS and TIANNA NEAL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. OZ MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., d.b.a CUSTOMER CONTACT
SERVICE INC., and DOROTHY ARMSTRONG, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-290-jdp (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denies,
without prejudice, the motion for preliminary settlement approval
to allow the parties to address several concerns.

The lawsuit is a proposed class and collective action for unpaid
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law. The Court
conditionally certified a collective in a previous order but stayed
notice to the collective at the parties' request while they
finalized a settlement. Now the parties move to certify a class
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, modify the
collective, preliminarily approve their settlement, and send notice
to the class and collective.

First, Judge Peterson finds the numbers in the proposed settlement
agreement don't add up. The total settlement fund is $275,000,
which the settlement agreement divides up as follows: $150,496.22
for members of the collectives, $7,848.38 for members of the class,
a total of $6,000 for the named Plaintiffs as incentive awards,
$91,666.67 for attorney fees, $17,260 for administration fees, and
$4,344.86 for costs. But these numbers add up to more than
$277,000, so they exceed the settlement fund. The parties will have
to resolve the discrepancy.

Second, the scope of the FLSA collective is significantly broader
than the proposed class. Specifically, the collective includes
employees, who worked for both defendants as early as April 2018,
but the proposed class is limited to employees, who worked for Oz
from Sept. 1, 2020, to March 31, 2022. There is no rule that
requires a class and collective to have the same scope, but they
are often substantially the same unless there is a difference
between federal and state and law. The parties don't identify such
a difference in the case, so they should explain why the
definitions of the class and collectives are different.

Third, the settlement agreement appears to be based on an
assumption that 100 percent of potential collective members will
opt in to the collective and no potential class members will opt
out. The Court did not locate a provision in the agreement that
explains what will happen to an employee's share of the settlement
if an employee doesn't become a member of the class or collective.
Will the funds be redistributed to the remaining members of the
collective and class? Or will the unclaimed amount revert to
defendants?

Judge Peterson points out that this is a significant issue because
there are 608 potential members of the collective and only 44
members of the proposed class, and it is often the case that a
substantial number of employees do not opt in to the collective. So
the parties should clarify how the shares of excluded class and
collective members will be redistributed.

Fourth, it isn't clear how the parties allocated damages for
employees who are members of both the class and the collective.
More detail regarding the parties' reasoning is necessary.

Fifth, the Court has concerns about the proposed plan for notice to
the class. Judge Peterson notes that the first problem is that the
settlement agreement is unclear regarding what the class
administrator will do if a notice is returned as undeliverable. The
notice states only that the administrator will take "appropriate
steps" to identify an alternative address. The parties should
identify more specifically what those steps are.

A related question is whether supplemental notice is needed, Judge
Peterson says. The collectives include employees, who may have left
their employment as far back as 2018, which suggests that a
significant number of addresses will not be valid. The parties
should address the question whether a supplemental email notice is
appropriate, at least for employees, who cannot be reached by mail.
The Court approved the Plaintiffs' request for the Defendants to
provide employee email addresses, so that information should
already be available.

Judge Peterson rules that the motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement, the motion to certify the class under Rule 23, and
the motion to amend the collective are denied without prejudice.
The parties had until Jan. 19, 2023, to file renewed motions that
address the concerns identified in this order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Jan. 5,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/367k8vet from
Leagle.com.


PERFECT PLANTS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Perfect Plants
Nursery, LLC. The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Perfect Plants Nursery, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00356 (S.D.N.Y., Jan.
15, 2023).

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

Perfect Plants Nursery -- https://myperfectplants.com/ -- are a
family-owned and operated online mail-order plant nursery based out
of North Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


POSH BAKERY: Fails to Provide Rest, Meal Periods, De Sanchez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SILVIA ROMERO DE SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE POSH BAKERY INC. and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 23CV409732 (Cal. Super., Jan. 10, 2023) alleges
that Defendant failed to provide duty-free rest period and second
meal periods (for shifts of ten hours or more) as required by the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff contends that Defendants willfully failed to
consistently pay the Plaintiff and Class Members one additional
hour of pay at the respective regular rate of compensation for each
workday that a fully compliant meal period was not provided, in
violation of Labor Code sections 226.7, 512, 558 and 1198 and IWC
Wage Orders.

Accordingly, the Defendants’ time records reflect the
noncompliance with the second meal period requirement.
Defendants’ wage statements reflect a lack of meal period
premiums at the lawful rate of pay for when those second meal
periods were not provided. The Defendants allegedly required the
Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees to effectively waive or
otherwise forego their rest periods contrary to law. The Defendants
also had an unlawful policy and practice of not allowing Plaintiff
and other aggrieved employees t0 use the restroom or take water
breaks when they were working, says the suit.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as machine operator from
October 2018 to August 2022.

Posh Bakery supplies bakery products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq.
          Lauren N. Vega, Esq.
          FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC.
          3160 Camino del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 693-7727
          Facsimile: (619) 350-6855
          E-mail: nick@ferrarovega.com
                  lauren@ferrarovega.com

PREMIUM CHOICE: Johnson-Gruver Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Johnson-Gruver, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PREMIUM CHOICE INSURANCE SERVICES, Case No.
2:23-cv-00247 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 13, 2023), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
("TCPA") for making telemarketing calls to numbers on the National
Do Not Call Registry, including their own.

The Plaintiff's number has been on the National Do Not Call
Registry since 2006 and it has not been removed from the Registry
since that time. The telephone line contacted is a residential
telephone number. The Plaintiff's telephone line is registered with
her phone company as a personal line and not as associated with a
business. The Plaintiff never consented to receive calls from
Premium Choice. The Plaintiff never did business with Premium
Choice. Despite this, the Plaintiff received multiple unsolicited
telemarketing calls from the Defendant on at least November 5 and
8, 2022. The Defendant did not deny making telemarketing calls to
the Plaintiff. Instead, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff
consented to the telemarketing calls. However, the Plaintiff did
not provide her consent to the Defendant for telemarketing calls,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual and is a "person" as defined by the
TCPA.

Premium Choice Insurance Services is a corporation with its
principal place of business located in this District.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com


PREMIUM MERCHANT: Harris Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premium Merchant
Funding One, LLC. The case is styled as Tiffany Harris,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Premium Merchant Funding One, LLC doing business as: Premium
Merchant Funding, Case No. 1:23-cv-00344 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13,
2023).

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

Premium Merchant Funding (PMF) -- https://www.pmfus.com/ -- offers
merchant cash advances, small business loans, SBA loans, equipment
financing, factoring, purchase order financing and commercial
mortgages nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Liable to Retirement Plan Losses, Morales Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00118 (D.N.J., January 10, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of its fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to monitor or control
the grossly excessive compensation paid for recordkeeping services
by the Quest Diagnostics Profit Sharing Plan participants.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendant should have known of the
existence and availability of lower-cost share classes, but it
failed to disclose that options to Plan participants which caused
them to pay excessive fees when they chose the higher-cost share
class for the same funds. As a result of the Defendant's breaches
of fiduciary duties, the Plan suffered millions of dollars of
losses due to excessive costs and lower net investment returns. Had
the Defendant complied with its fiduciary obligations, the Plan
would not have suffered these losses, and Plan participants would
have had more money available to them for their retirement, says
the suit.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is a healthcare company based in New
Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Andrew Frisch, Esq.
         8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor
         Plantation, FL 33324
         Telephone: (954) 318-0268
         E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com

                - and -

         Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 223-5505
         E-mail: medelman@forthepeople.com

                - and -

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

                - and -

         Michael C. McKay, Esq.
         MCKAY LAW, LLC
         5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170
         Scottsdale, AZ 85250
         Telephone: (480) 681-7000
         E-mail: mckay@mckay.law

RADIUS GLOBAL: Tabibov Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK TABIBOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RADIUS GLOBAL SOLULTIONS LLC; CONVERGENT
OUTSOURCING, INC.; CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
700635/2023 (N.Y., Sup., Queens Cty., Jan. 11, 2023) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LLC provides debt recovery services and
customer contact solutions. The Company offers customers
relationship, healthcare revenue cycle, and delinquency management
services, as well as debt collection and account recovery
solutions. Radius Global Solutions serves customers worldwide.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christofer Merritt, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500

REALPAGE INC: Corradino Sues Over Conspiracy to Fix Housing Prices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Miller Corradino and Samantha Taylor Reyes, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC.;
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC.; BELL PARTNERS, INC.; BH MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LLC; BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST;
CONAM MANAGEMENT CORP.; CORTLAND PARTNERS, LLC; FPI MANAGEMENT,
INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; HIGHMARK RESIDENTIAL,
LLC; LANTOWER LUXURY LIVING, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY; MID-
AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; PINNACLE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LLC; RPM LIVING, LLC; UDR, INC.; and ZRS MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-20165-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 13, 2023), is brought
arises from Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and
stabilize rental housing prices in the Miami, Orlando, Jacksonville
and Tampa, Florida housing markets (the "Greater Miami Metro Area,"
"Greater Orlando Metro Area," "Greater Jacksonville Metro Area,"
and "Greater Tampa Metro Area," respectively).

The Defendants are RealPage, Inc. the developer of a software
platform called "AI Revenue Management" (previously known as
"YieldStar"), and several managers of large-scale residential
apartment buildings that used RealPage's software platform to
coordinate and agree upon rental housing pricing, among other
things, in Miami, Orlando, Jacksonville, and Tampa, Florida.

AI Revenue Management works by collecting vast amounts of
non-public data from its client property managers regarding lease
transactions, rent prices, occupancy levels, and virtually every
other possible data point that drives rent. This data is fed into
an algorithm, along with additional data collected from Defendant
RealPage's myriad other data analytics and rental management
software products. RealPage's algorithm uses that data to generate
a rental price for each of RealPage's client's available units,
which is updated daily. RealPage makes sure all of its clients know
that to maximize revenues, they must accept the software's rental
price at least 80%-90% of the time, and RealPage's "Revenue
Management Advisors" monitor clients' compliance with that
recommendation. As the allegations and evidence demonstrate,
RealPage and the property managers who use its revenue management
services constitute a price-fixing cartel, and the revenue growth
they have achieved is possible only through coordinated price
setting.

With the assurance that their competitors are respectively setting
Miami, Orlando, Jacksonville, and Tampa rental prices using the
same algorithm, each Defendant property manager could allow a
larger share of their units to remain vacant while maintaining
higher rental prices across their properties. This increased their
revenue at the expense of renters. The Defendants' strategy only
succeeded because of the pricing coordination among competing
property managers enabled by this cartel. Knowing this, Defendant
RealPage repeatedly and explicitly emphasizes that for the software
to work properly, everyone needs to accept its suggested price at
least 80%-90% of the time.

Beyond the anticompetitive exchange of nonpublic and competitively
sensitive information among competing property managers, Defendant
RealPage uses additional mechanisms to facilitate coordination
among cartel members and prevent cheating by conspiracy
participants. First, by allowing property managers to outsource
their rent-setting process, RealPage causes them to consider higher
rent prices than they ever would have before. Second, Defendant
RealPage polices cartel members by applying heavy pressure on them
to accept the algorithm's suggested price at least 80%-90% of the
time. The AI Revenue Management service includes more than its
rent-setting algorithm.

Third, the software also recommends lease renewal dates for its
clients' properties. Using Defendant RealPage's vast store of data
on lease transactions, the algorithm suggests dates that are
staggered to avoid temporary periods of oversupply resulting from
the natural ebb and flow of the market. This further reduces the
incentive for property managers to undercut would-be competitors,
which is the strongest during these temporary oversupply periods.
Fourth, Defendant RealPage facilitates direct information exchanges
between competitors and provides opportunities for direct
coordination of prices. It hosts online forums, organizes in-person
events for its clients, and maintains standing committees of cartel
members to advise on pricing strategy.

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

The Defendants' price fixing conspiracy is a per se unlawful
restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. It has
resulted in artificially inflated rent prices and a diminished
supply of rental units in each of the Greater Miami, Orlando,
Jacksonville, and Tampa Metro Areas, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs Mr. Corradino and Ms. Reyes rented a residential
unit in a property known as The Residences at the Village of
Merrick Park in Coral Gables, Florida.

RealPage provides software and services to managers of residential
rental apartments, including the YieldStar/AI Revenue Management
software.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
          Michael Criden, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Phone: (305) 357-9000
          Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
          Email: lgrossman@cridenlove.com
                 mcriden@cridenlove.com


RECUR FOREVER: Lopez Sues Over Termination Without Prior Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RECUR FOREVER, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-20092 (S.D. Fla., January 10, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to provide the
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated former employees at
least 60 days' advance notice of their terminations, as required by
the WARN Act.

Ms. Lopez was employed by the Defendant from January 2022 until her
termination without cause on or about December 7, 2022.

Recur Forever, Inc. is a retail company doing business in Florida.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Ryan D. Barack, Esq.
         KWALL BARACK NADEAU PLLC
         304 S. Belcher Road, Suite C
         Clearwater, FL 33765
         Telephone: (727) 441-4947
         Facsimile: (727) 447-3158
         E-mail: rbarack@employeerights.com

REDLINE STEEL: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Redline Steel, LLC.
The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Redline Steel, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00361 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2023).

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

Redline Steel, LLC -- https://redlinesteel.com/ -- is a customized
decor manufacturing company. The Company offers metal wall decor,
canvas art, occasion, gifts, fashion, and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RIVERS AND HILLS: Gibson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rivers and Hills
Hospitality Group LLC. The case is styled as Jason Gibson, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rivers and Hills
Hospitality Group LLC, doing business as: Wayla, Case No.
1:23-cv-00348 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2023).

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

Rivers and Hills Hospitality Group LLC doing business as Wayla --
https://www.waylanyc.com/ -- is a stylish space with a patio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Johnston, Esq.
          JOHNSTON LAW LLC
          1103 Stewart Avenue, Suite 200
          Garden City, NY 11757
          Phone: (516) 388-7611
          Email: DJ@BellLG.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Ryan Bell, Esq.
          BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 280-3008
          Fax: (212) 656-1845
          Email: jb@belllg.com


ROMAN CATHOLIC: Woman Suing Cardinal of Misconduct Reveals Identity
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that the woman who alleges she experienced
unwanted sexual touching by Canadian Cardinal Marc Ouellet has
revealed her identity, saying she wants more transparency from the
Vatican and to encourage others to come forward with their stories
of abuse.

Pamela Groleau is one of the more than 130 people taking part in a
class action lawsuit against the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of
Quebec, which includes allegations of sexual misconduct against 96
members of its clergy dating back to 1940.

"Today, I am no longer F," Groleau said in a statement to a small
group of reporters, referring to the letter used to identify her in
court documents. "I am Pamela Groleau."

Ouellet is a prominent Vatican cardinal, who has been regarded as a
potential successor to the Pope. He has denied all the allegations
against him and sued Groleau for defamation in December, seeking
$100,000 in damages.

Dominique Menard, a lawyer representing Ouellet, said in an email
his team and Ouellet are aware of Groleau revealing her identity
but said the cardinal would not be commenting "out of respect for
the legal process."

Menard added that Ouellet "maintains that he never committed the
acts of which he was accused by the plaintiff and that he never had
reprehensible acts or behaviours like those alleged against other
members of the clergy targeted by the class action. We believe that
this inappropriate association, made intentionally and for improper
purposes, is defamatory."

Groleau, who now works in a different part of the church, said she
initially wanted to conceal her identity to protect her family, her
job and her mental health, "which was put to the test at every step
of the way."

Now she says she feels that coming forward will help with her own
healing and encourage other potential victims to feel comfortable
denouncing what happened to them.

"To find the dignity that was taken from me," she said.

Groleau said she also wants the Catholic Church to recognize that
its internal process dealing with sexual abuse allegations is not
working and needs to change.

"I would like to see the church confront abuse rather than deny it
and I would like to hear the church welcome anyone who claims to be
a victim, with neutral, impartial, independent, rigourous and
professional processes," she said.

Justin Wee, one of the lawyers representing Groleau, said that when
Groleau was interviewed by the church after filing a complaint, it
had seemed more interested in her motivation for doing so rather
than hearing what she said happened to her.

"It's not a way to address a complaint of sexual abuse and that's
why she was very disappointed," Wee said in an interview .

Robert Mickens, the Rome-based editor in chief of La Croix, a
publication covering the Catholic Church, says Ouellet's defamation
suit against Groleau is an almost unprecedented move by a priest
accused of sexual misconduct.

Despite that, he said Groleau's decision to have her name published
"is quite significant," given Ouellet's high ranking within the
Catholic Church. "It gives courage to other victims or survivors of
clergy sex abuse, or those who have alleged that type of abuse," he
said.

Groleau was an intern at the Quebec archdiocese between 2008 and
2010 when she alleges Ouellet behaved inappropriately toward her,
according to court filings as part of the lawsuit, which were made
public in August.

She says the cardinal grabbed her tightly against him and caressed
her lower back during public events. Groleau, who was 24 at the
time, said the gestures made her increasingly uncomfortable.

In 2020, Groleau decided to report the incidents directly to the
archdiocese, calling Ouellet's alleged actions intrusive and
inappropriate. Following internal investigation procedures, her
letter was transmitted to the Vatican.

Groleau said she didn't hear back until the lawsuit she
participated in was made public in August. The Vatican published a
statement shortly afterward, saying it found no evidence that
warranted further disciplinary measures.

'Troubling and painful' process
She said the whole process was extremely stressful.

"I experienced that like another assault. It was very troubling and
painful, as much coming from the archdiocese as the Vatican," she
said.

She said she received intimidating anonymous letters and feared she
would lose her job.

Alain Arsenault, a partner at the law firm representing the
complainants in the lawsuit, said Groleau is the first person he
knows of to be sued for defamation after participating in a class
action against members of the Catholic Church.

The lawyer said Groleau is among up to 2,400 people in Quebec
who've participated in such class actions.

"It's the first time there's this kind of action coming from a
priest," Arsenault said.

Groleau hopes her story will inspire people, whether they are
religious or not, to demand more transparency from the Vatican.[GN]

SANOFI CONSUMER: Court Dismisses Miller Suit With Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned TODD MILLER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SANOFI CONSUMER
HEALTHCARE and CHATTEM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 22 Civ. 574
(LLS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Louis L. Stanton of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York grants the motion to dismiss
with leave to amend the complaint.

Plaintiff Todd Miller brings this putative class action against
Defendants Sanofi Consumer Healthcare and Chattem, Inc., alleging
deceptive advertising in violation of New York General Business Law
Sections 349 and 350. In his complaint, the Plaintiff also brought
a claim for unjust enrichment and sought injunctive relief;
however, the Plaintiff dismissed that claim and relief in the reply
to the Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 13,
2022, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Defendant Sanofi Consumer
Healthcare without prejudice.

The remaining Defendant, Chattem, Inc., moved to dismiss the
complaint.

Chattem manufactures, advertises, sells, and distributes
over-the-counter drugs, including Dulcolax Soft Chews Mixed Berry
and Dulcolax Liquid Cherry (together "the Products"). The Products'
labels state that the product "works naturally with your body."

Plaintiff Todd Miller alleges that those labels are false,
deceptive, and misleading because the Products contain synthetic
ingredients and are, therefore, not natural products. Miller
alleges that he and the putative class members were injured because
they paid a premium for the Products based on Chattem's alleged
misrepresentation that the Products were natural and were deprived
the benefit of the bargain because the Dulcolax products were not
natural.

Mr. Miller complains that despite the Products containing a number
of synthetic ingredients, the Defendants market the Products as
being natural. But the two labels, which Miller complains of,
simply state that the product "works naturally with your body."
They do not label the product as "natural."  The Complaint does not
quote any statement that the product itself was "natural," because
there is none, Judge Stanton opines.

Plaintiff Miller has not provided marketing materials that actually
express what he claims are misrepresentations, Judge Stanton says.
The label uses the word "naturally" as an adverb to describe how
the Products work. The Plaintiff misrepresents it, saying that it
describes the product. On that key point, Judge Stanton points out
the claim fails.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Jan. 5, 2023,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd346wda from Leagle.com.


SCARR PIZZA: Gibson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scarr Pizza, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Jason Gibson, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Scarr Pizza, LLC, 22 Orchard Realty Corp.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00345 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2023).

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

Scarr Pizza -- https://www.scarrspizza.com/ -- is a pizzeria with
retro looks serving pies, slices & subs made with modern
ingredients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Johnston, Esq.
          JOHNSTON LAW LLC
          1103 Stewart Avenue, Suite 200
          Garden City, NY 11757
          Phone: (516) 388-7611
          Email: DJ@BellLG.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Ryan Bell, Esq.
          BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 280-3008
          Fax: (212) 656-1845
          Email: jb@belllg.com


SCOTT & ASSOCIATES: Ostrander Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scott & Associates,
P.C. The case is styled as David Ostrander, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Scott & Associates,
P.C., Case No. 5:23-cv-00055 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 13, 2023).

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

Scott & Associates, P.C. -- https://www.spalaw.com/eng/ -- are a
law firm which provides legal collection services to a number of
national banks and other creditors holding consumer debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Abramson Sues Over Pre-Recorded Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Abramson, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated v. SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE
SERVICES INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00063-NR (W.D. Pa., Jan. 13, 2023),
is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
involving a campaign by the Defendant to telemarket services
through the use of a pre-recorded message to residential telephone
numbers.

At no point has the Plaintiff sought out or solicited information
regarding Defendant's goods and services prior to receiving the
telemarketing call at issue. The Plaintiff and the other call
recipients were harmed by these calls. They were temporarily
deprived of legitimate use of their phones because the phone line
was tied up during the telemarketing calls and their privacy was
invaded. Moreover, these calls injured Plaintiff and the other call
recipients because they were frustrating, obnoxious, annoying, were
a nuisance and disturbed the solitude of the Plaintiff and the
class.

Because telemarketing campaigns use technology capable of
generating thousands of similar calls per day, Plaintiff sues on
behalf of proposed nationwide Class of other persons who received
similar calls. A class action is the best means of obtaining
redress for the Defendant's illegal telemarketing and is consistent
both with the private right of action afforded by the TCPA., says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff received at least two pre-recorded calls on his
residential telephone line.

SelectQuote Insurance Services, Inc. offers insurance services in
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq.
          BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          403 S. Allen St., Suite 210
          State College, PA 16801
          Phone: 814-234-2626
          Email: jjackson@bower-law.com

               - and -

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (617) 485-0018
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com


SENIOR EXCHANGE: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Senior Exchange Inc.
The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Senior Exchange Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00323 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2023).

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

Senior Exchange Inc. -- https://senior.com/ -- is the parent
corporation that manages SeniorNews.com, an online source dedicated
to bringing high quality products from the top brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SERENE HOME: Underpays Home Health Aides, McNeal Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY MCNEAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SERENE HOME HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00013-TMR-CHG (S.D. Ohio, January 11, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate
the Plaintiff and similarly situated home health aides overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay
Act.

Ms. McNeal was employed by the Defendant as a home health aide
between approximately June 10, 2022 and December 30, 2022.

Serene Home Health Services, LLC is an operator of a home
healthcare agency in Dayton, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
         Rhiannon M. Herbert, Esq.
         MANSELL LAW, LLC
         1457 S. High St.
         Columbus, OH 43207
         Telephone: (614) 796-4325
         Facsimile: (614) 547-3614
         E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
                 Rhiannon@MansellLawLLC.com

SILVER & WRIGHT: Summary Judgment in Morales Class Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAMONA RITA MORALES, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants
v. SILVER & WRIGHT, LLP, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. E077797
(Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District,
Division Two, affirms the trial court's order granting Silver's
motion for summary judgment.

Morales and others (collectively Morales) filed a putative class
action against two cities -- Indio and Coachella -- and also
against Silver. The cities had retained Silver as city prosecutor
to prosecute criminal violations of their nuisance abatement codes.
Morales alleged that Silver had a direct pecuniary interest in the
attorney fees and costs that the cities collected in such cases, in
violation of due process. She sought, among other things, a refund
of all fees and fines paid, and a writ of error coram nobis to
vacate all convictions obtained by Silver.

The cities settled; they agreed to refund all fees and costs
collected by Silver, and they stipulated that the class was
entitled to coram nobis. The trial court stayed further proceedings
against the cities. Meanwhile, Penal Code section 688.5 went into
effect; it prohibits a local government from charging a criminal
defendant for the costs of prosecution. The trial court therefore
dismissed Morales's due process claims; this left standing only her
coram nobis claim against Silver.

Silver filed a motion for summary judgment, on multiple alternative
grounds. The trial court granted the motion.

Morales appeals. She contends:

     (1) By the time of the summary judgment motion, Silver was no
longer the city prosecutor for either Indio or Coachella;
therefore, it had become a nonparty, and it was not entitled to
file a motion for summary judgment.

     (2) The trial court erred by granting summary judgment while
discovery was stayed.

     (3) The trial court erred by granting summary judgment based
on Morales's failure to file a separate statement, because it was
not allowed to do so unless Silver made a prima facie showing that
it was entitled to summary judgment.

     (4) All of the grounds on which Silver moved for summary
judgment were meritless.

     (5) The trial court erred by finding that Silver was the
prevailing party for purposes of an award of costs.

The Court of Appeals has no idea why the appeal is before it. It
has no idea why Morales did not simply dismiss Silver when it
supposedly became a nonparty. It has no idea why, when Morales
wants it to declare Silver a nonparty, she has a problem with
Silver obtaining summary judgment; either way, Silver is out of the
case. On these facts, the Court of Appeals says the only difference
would seem to affect Silver's right to costs, and as far as the
record shows, the trial court has not awarded costs. In any event,
costs would seem to be de minimis as compared to the cost of
litigating the appeal.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals opines that the trial court
properly granted summary judgment because Silver was not a proper
party to Morales' coram nobis claim. It rejects Morales' other
arguments. The judgment is affirmed. Silver is awarded costs on
appeal against Morales.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/36d57zcx from Leagle.com.

O'Melveny & Myers, Sabrina Strong -- sstrong@omm.com -- Rob
Barthelmess, and Jeffrey Senning -- jsenning@omm.com; Institute for
Justice, Joshua A. House -- jhouse@ij.org -- and Jeffrey H. Redfern
-- jredfern@ij.org --  for the Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Klinedinst, Gregor A. Hensrude -- ghensrude@klinedinstlaw.com --
Robert M. Shaughnessy -- ghensrude@klinedinstlaw.com -- and Harold
C. Trimmer -- htrimmer@klinedinstlaw.com -- for the Defendant and
Respondent.


SKI-ROW INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ski-Row, Inc. The
case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Ski-Row, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00327 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2023).

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

The SKI-ROW is the first of its kind DUAL-FUNCTION High Intensity
Interval Training machine. Switch between ski training and indoor
rowing in seconds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SLEEPME INC: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sleepme, Inc. The
case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Sleepme, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00325 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2023).

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

Sleepme -- https://sleep.me/ -- is the premier sleep coaching site
for finding all of the tools and resources you need to improve your
sleep and restore your life.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SMC CORPORATION: Court Denies Downing's Bid for Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Patrick Hanlon of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, denies the
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit styled KAREN
W. DOWNING, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SMC CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01954-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind.).

Plaintiff Karen Downing alleges that her employer, SMC Corporation,
failed to pay her and other employees weekly overtime in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Indiana's wage laws.
The parties have filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment.
The Court rules that SMC is entitled to summary judgment on Ms.
Downing's state-law claims, but there are triable issues of fact on
her FLSA claim. SMC's motion is, therefore, granted in part and
denied in part, and Ms. Downing's motion is denied.

SMC manufactures and sells pneumatic components for automated
systems. Ms. Downing started working for SMC in December 2007 as a
Business Analyst II. She worked in that role until February 2017,
when she became an associate in the Inside Sales Support
department.

In that department, Ms. Downing was initially paid as an "hourly
nonexempt" employee, meaning she would receive overtime pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. In late March 2018,
SMC reclassified Inside Sales Support employees from "hourly
nonexempt" to "salary nonexempt," which still allowed overtime pay.
But SMC expected a 42-hour work week and defined overtime as
"anything over 42 hours in a week." That policy continued until
November 2019, when SMC reclassified Inside Sales Support employees
back to "hourly nonexempt" and returned to paying overtime for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Ms. Downing brought this action in July 2020, alleging that SMC
violated the FLSA, Indiana Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and Indiana
Wage Payment Statute ("IWPS") by failing to pay overtime to certain
employees, who had worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The
Court has conditionally certified a FLSA collective-action class,
and Ms. Downing has filed eleven "Consent to Representation" forms.
SMC has filed a motion to strike those forms, arguing that they are
untimely. Ms. Downing has filed a motion to certify a class for her
state-law claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

The parties have also filed cross-motions for partial summary
judgment. SMC argues that Ms. Downing's state-law claims fail as a
matter of law and that her FLSA claim cannot support liquidated
damages. Ms. Downing argues that the undisputed evidence shows that
SMC violated the FLSA.

In this case, 11 additional plaintiffs executed consent to
representation forms between September and December 2021. Counsel
filed those forms on March 25, 2022. SMC has filed a motion to
strike them as untimely filed. Ms. Downing responds that their
filing in March 2022 did not violate any deadlines.

Putting those allegations aside and forgoing speculation about why
Ms. Downing's counsel didn't file the consent forms earlier, the
Court concludes that the filing did not violate any deadline.
Moreover, SMC has not shown that it was unfairly prejudiced from
the delay between when the party plaintiffs' consent forms were
signed and when they were filed.

Judge Hanlon holds that Ms. Downing's counsel did not violate any
Court-imposed deadline by filing the consent forms on March 25,
2022, so SMC's motion to strike the consents as untimely is
denied.

Ms. Downing argues that class members are entitled to summary
judgment on FLSA liability because SMC paid them for only 40 hours
per week. She, therefore, contends that SMC owes the class members
"time and a half" for hours between 40 and 42. SMC argues that it
paid class members their base hourly wage for 42 hours of work each
week, but concedes that it did not pay the "half-time premium" on
the extra two hours worked per week.

SMC has designated evidence that it intended for the 1% raise it
provided to be in return for expecting 42 hours of work per week.
But SMC has only designated evidence of its intention--not "hard
evidence" that flatly refutes Ms. Downing's designated evidence of
SMC's practices, Judge Hanlon says.

Judge Hanlon notes that this competing evidence shows a triable
issue of fact on whether class members' salaries covered 40 hours
in a week, as the pay stubs reflect, or 42, as SMC argues. Those
factual disputes must be resolved at trial.

Next, Ms. Downing argues that she's entitled to summary judgment on
her claim that SMC violated the FLSA when it did not pay for time
not covered by paid time off for time increments less than a full
day. SMC responds that its PTO policy "was not unlawful." The only
authority that Ms. Downing cites for this alleged violation is 29
C.F.R. Section 541.602.

But that regulation applies only to "exempt" employees, while the
parties agree that the class members here were "nonexempt," Judge
Hanlon opines. The class members are, therefore, not entitled to
summary judgment on this alleged violation. The class members'
motion for summary judgment on FLSA liability is, therefore,
denied.

The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment on
whether liquidated damages are appropriate here for any FLSA
violations. SMC argues that Ms. Downing cannot recover liquidated
damages because its failure to pay the proper wage was "in good
faith" and "objectively reasonable" since it sought the advice of
legal counsel. Ms. Downing responds that class members are entitled
to liquidated damages because SMC failed to correct FLSA violations
despite having received legal advice that certain practices likely
did not comply with the FLSA.

In short, Judge Hanlon opines, SMC, like the defendants in Bankston
v. State of Illinois, 60 F.3d 1249, 1254 (7th Cir. 1995) (citing 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b)), cannot shield itself from liquidated
damages simply by asking outside counsel for advice. To be entitled
to summary judgment, SMC would have to show that it asked outside
counsel for advice and followed the advice, Judge Hanlon points
out.

However, the class members are also not entitled to summary
judgment on liquidated damages, Judge Hanlon holds. Liquidated
damages are presumptively awarded "against employers who violate
the FLSA," Bankston, 60 F.3d at 1254, but as explained, the scope
of SMC's FLSA liability is not yet determined. Moreover, as Ms.
Downing argues, "the credibility of SMC's witnesses" must be
evaluated as to "whether they were mistaken and misunderstood their
counsel's advice or acted intentionally." Those determinations are
relevant to whether liquidated damages are appropriate.

Because the reasonableness of SMC's conduct turns on factual
questions, Judge Hanlon rules that the cross-motions for summary
judgment on liquidated damages are denied.

SMC argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on Ms. Downing's
IMWL claim. She admits that she is no longer pursuing a claim under
the IMWL, so she has "abandoned the claim" and may no longer pursue
it.

SMC also argues that the undisputed evidence shows that Ms. Downing
was a salaried employee covered by the FLSA, so the IWPS does not
apply. She responds that SMC should not be able to avoid IWPS
liability based on the employees' salaried status because SMC did
not pay the Inside Sales Service employees in accordance with the
FLSA.

Since it is undisputed that Ms. Downing was eligible for overtime
under the FLSA, Judge Hanlon holds the IWPS's exemption applies.
She was, therefore, "specifically exempted" from the IWPS and can
recover only under the FLSA. SMC is entitled to summary judgment on
Ms. Downing's IWPS claim.

Accordingly, Judge Hanlon rules that SMC's motion to strike
consent-to-representation forms is denied, and Ms. Downing's motion
to file a surreply in opposition to that motion is granted. SMC's
motion for partial summary judgment is granted on her state-law
claims and otherwise denied. Ms. Downing's motion for partial
summary judgment is denied.

Because SMC is entitled to summary judgment on Ms. Downing's
state-law claims, her motion for class certification on those
claims is denied. Her motion to strike references to settlement
negotiations in the class-certification briefs, and SMC's motion to
strike portions of her reply in support of class certification are
denied as moot because the motion for class certification is denied
on other grounds and the Court did not consider those arguments.

The assigned magistrate judge is asked to hold a status conference
to discuss settlement and trial readiness.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 5, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/26haa7fd from Leagle.com.


SONEROS BAR: Faces Queliz Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
JOSE QUELIZ and ANNE CALLE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SONEROS BAR RESTAURANT,
INC., HAIRO'S PLACE INC., and JAIRO RODRIGUEZ, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00172 (E.D.N.Y., January 10, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, the New York Labor Law, and the Internal Revenue Code
including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to pay
applicable minimum wages and spread of hours wages, failure to
timely pay full amount of wages every week, and failure to provide
the required payroll notices and wage statements.

Mr. Queliz worked for the Defendants from January 4, 2019 until May
3, 2022. His primary duties include cleaning, conducting general
maintenance and repairs, receiving food and beverage deliveries,
assisting customers, and working as a line cook.

Ms. Calle worked for the Defendants as a waitress/bartender from
January 4, 2019 until June 16, 2021.

Soneros Bar Restaurant, Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator
based in Elmhurst, New York.

Hairo's Place Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator based in
Jackson Heights, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                          
         Eliseo Cabrera, Esq.
         KATZ MELINGER PLLC
         370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (212) 460-0047
         Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
         E-mail: edcabrera@katzmelinger.com

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Flight Cancellations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Bienasz at entrepreneur.com reports that outrage and
scrutiny are mounting over Southwest's widespread flight
cancellations during the holiday season, and now, there's a class
action lawsuit, inspired by the company's legendary meltdown.

The complaint, which was filed, is designed for individual
shareholders, according to Insider, and names the Dallas-based
company and several top executives as defendants. The suit is
seeking damages that have not been specified yet.

It contends that the company misled and concealed information from
investors about how Southwest's approach to scheduling, "outdated
technology," and point-to-point operations -- i.e. more direct
flights, rather than funneling customers through places like
Houston and Chicago -- could be disrupted more in severe weather.

"As flights were getting canceled around the country, it soon
emerged that the root cause behind Southwest Airlines'
cancellations was outdated and ineffective technology, in
particular, its crew scheduling system," the suit says.

Shareholder lawsuits are a fairly common occurrence. Tesla, for
example, is currently facing one over CEO Elon Musk's salary
package and his statements about Twitter in 2018.

Generally speaking, these kinds of lawsuits can deal with a
publicly traded company's legal duties to people who hold
individual stock in the company, such as disclosing risks to the
business, which affects someone's decision about whether or not to
invest.

Southwest's stock dropped from around $38 a share to about $32 from
December 14 to December 28, after flight issues emerged. As Reuters
noted, from Dec. 23 to Jan. 3, the company lost $2 billion-plus in
shareholder value.

Shareholders can sue over perceived failures to discuss risks or
share information with stockholders. This class action can include
anyone who had shares in Southwest within a certain time period,
from June 2020 to Dec. 31, 2022.

The start date was chosen, per the lawsuit, because of an article
in the Baltimore Sun that suggested a spate of delayed Southwest
flights was due to a computer system being down. It was published
in June 2020.

The idea is that when the information about the problem became
publicly available, it became a fiduciary issue that the company
did not disclose, and then made "misleading" statements about the
scheduling issues in interviews, for example.

Southwest, unlike most airlines, uses a point-to-point system. It
gives customers more direct flights, which has contributed to its
growth, per The Dallas Morning News.

But, most major airlines operate on a hub and spoke system that
funnels most flights through major airports.

The difference is, as the outlet notes, that crew members operating
Southwest flights are more likely than other airlines to be
scattered all over the place, rather than stranded at a central
hub, making rescheduling more complicated. This can be fine in
normal times but increases issues during weather delays, it noted.

Southwest was also apparently using old software. "It's been an
open secret within Southwest for some time, and a shameful one,
that the company desperately needed to modernize its scheduling
systems," an op-ed writer said in The New York Times in late
December.

So, when the historical winter storm hit the middle of the U.S., it
hit Southwest the hardest. On December 26, the carrier canceled 71%
of its flights, for example.

Related: 'Nightmare': Customers 'In Tears' As Southwest Cancels
Over 70% of Flights, Prompting Probe By Department of
Transportation

The company has since offered affected customers 25,000 Rapid
Rewards points. The Department of Transportation and the Senate
have promised inquiries and hearings, in the case of the latter.

CEO Bob Jordan gave an interview to Reuters where he acknowledge
the company will have to "rebuild trust" with customers and
employees and somehow fix the issue.

"I have put everything on the table here because it just can't
happen again," he told the outlet. He also said he was not worried
about being ousted over the issue.

The firm leading the class action, Johnson Fistel, called on other
investors in the company to join the suit in a press release
posted. It declined to comment in response to a call from
Entrepreneur.

Securities-related suits, like this one, are often knocked out in
the early stages, however.

"We don't have anything to share at this time regarding the pending
litigation," Southwest wrote in an email to Entrepreneur. It
pointed to prior statements about the weather issues.

"I've said it before, but I can't say it enough how sorry I am for
the impact these challenges have had on our Employees and our
Customers. We have a long and proud record of delivering on
expectations, and when we fall short, we aim to do the right
thing," Jordan said in an earlier company statement. [GN]

SPRINLY INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sprinly, Inc. The
case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Sprinly, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00362 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2023).

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

Sprinly -- https://sprinly.com/ -- is ranked the #1 fastest-growing
organic plant-based brand in the US, including the #2 food brand
and #113 overall across all industries on the Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STABILITY AI: Andersen Sues Over Copyright Infringement
-------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. STABILITY AI LTD.,
a UK corporation; STABILITY AI, INC., a Delaware corporation;
MIDJOURNEY, INC., a Delaware corporation; DEVIANTART, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00201 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 13,
2023), is brought against Defendants for direct and vicarious
copyright infringement under the violation of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act, (the "DMCA"); violation of Plaintiffs'
statutory and common law rights of publicity, violation of Unfair
Competition law and declaratory relief.

Stable Diffusion is a software product--an AI Image Product, refers
to as allegedly AI-based image generation products that were
created, maintained, marketed, sold, and/or distributed by
Defendants, namely Stable Diffusion, the Midjourney Product,
DreamStudio, and DreamUp--maintained and sold by Stability.
Stability downloaded or otherwise acquired copies of billions of
copyrighted images without permission to create Stable Diffusion,
including Plaintiffs'. These images are defined as "Training
Images." A "Training Image" is an image, or image paired with a
descriptive text caption, that is included among the training data
for a machine-learning process. Training images are often gathered
through web scraping. For its training data, Stable Diffusion has
taken billions of Training Images scraped from public websites.

By training Stable Diffusion on the Training Images, Stability
caused those images to be stored at and incorporated into Stable
Diffusion as compressed copies. Stability made them without the
consent of the artists and without compensating any of those
artists. When used to produce images from prompts by its users,
Stable Diffusion uses the Training Images to produce seemingly new
images through a mathematical software process. These "new" images
are based entirely on the Training Images and are derivative works
of the particular images Stable Diffusion draws from when
assembling a given output. Ultimately, it is merely a complex
collage tool.

These resulting derived images compete in the marketplace with the
original images. Until now, when a purchaser seeks a new image "in
the style" of a given artist, they must pay to commission or
license an original image from that artist. Now, those purchasers
can use the artist's works contained in Stable Diffusion along with
the artist's name to generate new works in the artist's style
without compensating the artist at all. As used herein, the phrase
"in the style of," refers to a work that others would accept as a
work created by that artist whose "style" was called upon, not the
general category of work, such as fantasy or impressionism. Only a
very small number of incredibly talented artists are capable of
this same feat for a single other artist (i.e., reproducing art
that is convincingly in that artist's style), let alone for
countless other artists. AI Image Products do so with ease by
violating the rights of millions of artists.

All AI Image Products operate in substantially the same way and
store and incorporate countless copyrighted images as Training
Images. The Defendants, by and through the use of their AI Image
Products, benefit commercially and profit richly from the use of
copyrighted images. The harm to artists is not hypothetical—works
generated by AI Image Products "in the style" of a particular
artist are already sold on the internet, siphoning commissions from
the artists themselves. The Plaintiffs and the Class seek to end
this blatant and enormous infringement of their rights before their
professions are eliminated by a computer program powered entirely
by their hard work, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are full-time artists, cartoonists and
illustrators.

Stability AI Ltd. is a UK corporation with its principal place of
business located in London, England.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
          Christopher K.L. Young, Esq.
          Elissa A. Buchanan, Esq.
          Travis Manfredi, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                 czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com
                 cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
                 eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com
                 tmanfredi@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew Butterick, Esq.
          1920 Hillhurst Avenue, #406
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Phone: (323) 968-2632
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          Email: mb@buttericklaw.com


STANDARD FUEL: Barber Suit Remanded to Wayne County Circuit Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LARRY BARBER, et al., Plaintiffs v. STANDARD FUEL
ENGINEERING COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-11601 (E.D.
Mich.), Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, grants the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand to Wayne County Circuit Court.

The Plaintiffs filed several personal injury lawsuits in Wayne
County Circuit Court alleging that they or their decedents
developed mesothelioma, lung cancer, or asbestosis as a result of
exposure to asbestos contained in the products of over 100
defendants. It is uncontested that these claims were exclusively
based in state law. The Plaintiffs' complaints alleged exposure to
asbestos both before and after Dec. 5, 1980, subject to further
discovery.

Multiple defendants in those actions, including Standard and
Spence, settled with the Plaintiffs and were dismissed from the
Plaintiffs' actions.

The Plaintiffs later learned that the Defendants' insurer intended
to report the settlements to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS) as involving post-1980 asbestos exposures. Under
Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of
2007 (MMSEA Section 111), the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, 42
U.S.C. Section 1395y (MSPA), requires that insurers report certain
details of any settlement arising out of asbestos exposure to CMS.
An insurer who fails to comply with the reporting requirements may
be subject to a civil money penalty of up to $1,000 for each day of
noncompliance with respect to each claimant.

As authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 1395y(b)(8)(H), CMS allows for
an exception to this reporting obligation when all of multiple
criteria are satisfied, including that exposure, ingestion, or an
implant on or after Dec. 5, 1980, has not been claimed in the most
recently amended operative complaint (or comparable supplemental
pleading) and/or specifically released.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for injunctive relief in Wayne
County, arguing that the Defendants were bound by their settlement
agreements establishing that there were no post-1980 exposures. The
motion sought to enjoin the Defendants from reporting the
settlements to CMS, arguing that the Defendants had no duty under
any scenario to report pre-1980 exposure.

The Defendants filed a response arguing that -- because the
Plaintiffs' most recent complaints alleged that asbestos exposure
occurred both pre- and post-1980 -- they had a duty to report the
settlements to CMS under Section 1395y(b) regardless of whether
discovery revealed only pre-1980 asbestos exposure. They
subsequently filed notices of removal to this Court, asserting
federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. They
request that the Court determines whether they have a duty under
the MSPA, its implementing regulations, and statutorily permitted
CMS guidelines.

More specifically, the Defendants request that the Court determines
the extent of their duty, if any, under federal law to report the
settlements in the underlying actions to CMS where the complaints
allege post-1980 asbestos exposure, despite the fact that discovery
has not revealed post-1980 asbestos exposure, and determine whether
the discovery brochures generally utilized in asbestos litigation,
and used in the underlying cases, constitute a 'comparable
supplemental pleading' under the CMS directive, such that there is
no duty to report.

Before the Court is a motion to remand these cases to Wayne County
Circuit Court filed by the Plaintiffs in each of seven asbestos
personal injury actions.

The Plaintiffs are Larry Barber (deceased) and Lana Barber as the
personal representative for his estate (Case No. 22-11601, Barber
et al. v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company, et al.); Earl Beatty
(deceased) and Carol Beatty as the personal representative for his
estate (Case No. 22-11604, Beatty et al. v. Standard Fuel
Engineering Company); Donald and Cynthia Esper (Case No. 22-11609,
Esper et al. v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company, et al.); Robert
McCaul (deceased) and Scott McCaul as the personal representative
for his estate (Case No. 22-11602, McCaul et al. v. Standard Fuel
Engineering Company, et al.); Gladys Henni as personal
representative for the estate of Carl Henni (Case No. 22-11608,
Henni v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company); Robert Kachman as
personal representative for the estate of Nicholas Kachman (Case
No. 22-11610, Kachman v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company); and
Elaine Walczyk as personal representative for the estate of Richard
Walczyk (Case No. 22-11611, Walczyk et al. v. Standard Fuel
Engineering Company). Standard Fuel is a Defendant in all seven
actions, and Spence is a Defendant in Barber and McCaul.

The Defendants submit that the Court has federal-question
jurisdiction because the Plaintiffs' state-law claims implicate
substantial federal issues under Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc.
v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005). Under the substantial
federal question doctrine, a state-law claim invokes
federal-question jurisdiction if (i) the state-law claim
necessarily raises a stated federal issue, (ii) the federal issue
is actually disputed and substantial, and (iii) the federal issue
is one which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any
congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial
responsibilities.

The Plaintiffs contend that 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3) merely
refers to the timeliness of a removal filing, whereas 28 U.S.C.
Section 1441(a) establishes whether or not a case is removable.
They insist that original federal question jurisdiction is
determined based upon a plaintiff's cause of action.

Judge Goldsmith explains that the statute on which the Defendants
rely allows for removal when a paper filed subsequent to a
complaint makes it "ascertainable" that the district court has
original jurisdiction. This could occur if a case were not
removable at the outset, but was rendered removable by virtue of a
change in the parties or other circumstance revealed in a
newly-filed 'paper.' In Rea v. Michaels Stores Inc., 742 F.3d 1234,
1238, the Ninth Circuit finds change in law that disallowed
plaintiffs from disclaiming recovery over a certain amount meant
that plaintiffs' claims newly satisfied the Class Action Fairness
Act's amount-in-controversy requirement, thus allowing for removal
under Section 1446(b)(3).

Judge Goldsmith holds that courts have rejected the argument
presented by the Defendants: that the filing of a subsequent paper
can create federal question jurisdiction under Section 1446(b)(3)
even where plaintiffs' claims do not raise a federal issue. He says
the Defendants have made no argument that the Plaintiffs' state-law
claims necessarily raise a stated federal issue, leaving the Court
with no choice but to remand the Plaintiffs' actions. Any federal
law issue that the settlement may raise has nothing to do with the
elements that the Plaintiffs would have had to have proven to
establish their claims, as those claims are undisputedly based on
state law.

Having failed to identify a federal issue necessarily raised by the
Plaintiffs' claims, Judge Goldsmith holds that the Defendants have
not met their burden of establishing that the Court has
jurisdiction, and thus, remand is required. Therefore, he grants
the Plaintiffs' motion and remands the Plaintiffs' actions to Wayne
County Circuit Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4shky2cu from Leagle.com.


STANDARD FUEL: Beatty Suit Remanded to Wayne County Circuit Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EARL L. BEATTY, et al., Plaintiffs v. STANDARD FUEL
ENGINEERING COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 22-11604 (E.D. Mich.),
Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, grants the Plaintiffs'
motion to remand to Wayne County Circuit Court.

The Plaintiffs filed several personal injury lawsuits in Wayne
County Circuit Court alleging that they or their decedents
developed mesothelioma, lung cancer, or asbestosis as a result of
exposure to asbestos contained in the products of over 100
defendants. It is uncontested that these claims were exclusively
based in state law. The Plaintiffs' complaints alleged exposure to
asbestos both before and after Dec. 5, 1980, subject to further
discovery.

Multiple defendants in those actions, including Standard and
Spence, settled with the Plaintiffs and were dismissed from the
Plaintiffs' actions.

The Plaintiffs later learned that the Defendants' insurer intended
to report the settlements to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS) as involving post-1980 asbestos exposures. Under
Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of
2007 (MMSEA Section 111), the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, 42
U.S.C. Section 1395y (MSPA), requires that insurers report certain
details of any settlement arising out of asbestos exposure to CMS.
An insurer who fails to comply with the reporting requirements may
be subject to a civil money penalty of up to $1,000 for each day of
noncompliance with respect to each claimant.

As authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 1395y(b)(8)(H), CMS allows for
an exception to this reporting obligation when all of multiple
criteria are satisfied, including that exposure, ingestion, or an
implant on or after Dec. 5, 1980, has not been claimed in the most
recently amended operative complaint (or comparable supplemental
pleading) and/or specifically released.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for injunctive relief in Wayne
County, arguing that the Defendants were bound by their settlement
agreements establishing that there were no post-1980 exposures. The
motion sought to enjoin the Defendants from reporting the
settlements to CMS, arguing that the Defendants had no duty under
any scenario to report pre-1980 exposure.

The Defendants filed a response arguing that -- because the
Plaintiffs' most recent complaints alleged that asbestos exposure
occurred both pre- and post-1980 -- they had a duty to report the
settlements to CMS under Section 1395y(b) regardless of whether
discovery revealed only pre-1980 asbestos exposure. They
subsequently filed notices of removal to this Court, asserting
federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. They
request that the Court determines whether they have a duty under
the MSPA, its implementing regulations, and statutorily permitted
CMS guidelines.

More specifically, the Defendants request that the Court determines
the extent of their duty, if any, under federal law to report the
settlements in the underlying actions to CMS where the complaints
allege post-1980 asbestos exposure, despite the fact that discovery
has not revealed post-1980 asbestos exposure, and determine whether
the discovery brochures generally utilized in asbestos litigation,
and used in the underlying cases, constitute a 'comparable
supplemental pleading' under the CMS directive, such that there is
no duty to report.

Before the Court is a motion to remand these cases to Wayne County
Circuit Court filed by the Plaintiffs in each of seven asbestos
personal injury actions.

The Plaintiffs are Larry Barber (deceased) and Lana Barber as the
personal representative for his estate (Case No. 22-11601, Barber,
et al. v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company, et al.); Earl Beatty
(deceased) and Carol Beatty as the personal representative for his
estate (Case No. 22-11604, Beatty et al. v. Standard Fuel
Engineering Company); Donald and Cynthia Esper (Case No. 22-11609,
Esper et al. v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company, et al.); Robert
McCaul (deceased) and Scott McCaul as the personal representative
for his estate (Case No. 22-11602, McCaul et al. v. Standard Fuel
Engineering Company, et al.); Gladys Henni as personal
representative for the estate of Carl Henni (Case No. 22-11608,
Henni v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company); Robert Kachman as
personal representative for the estate of Nicholas Kachman (Case
No. 22-11610, Kachman v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company); and
Elaine Walczyk as personal representative for the estate of Richard
Walczyk (Case No. 22-11611, Walczyk et al. v. Standard Fuel
Engineering Company). Standard Fuel is a Defendant in all seven
actions, and Spence is a Defendant in Barber and McCaul.

The Defendants submit that the Court has federal-question
jurisdiction because the Plaintiffs' state-law claims implicate
substantial federal issues under Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc.
v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005). Under the substantial
federal question doctrine, a state-law claim invokes
federal-question jurisdiction if (i) the state-law claim
necessarily raises a stated federal issue, (ii) the federal issue
is actually disputed and substantial, and (iii) the federal issue
is one which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any
congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial
responsibilities.

The Plaintiffs contend that 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3) merely
refers to the timeliness of a removal filing, whereas 28 U.S.C.
Section 1441(a) establishes whether or not a case is removable.
They insist that original federal question jurisdiction is
determined based upon a plaintiff's cause of action.

Judge Goldsmith explains that the statute on which the Defendants
rely allows for removal when a paper filed subsequent to a
complaint makes it "ascertainable" that the district court has
original jurisdiction. This could occur if a case were not
removable at the outset, but was rendered removable by virtue of a
change in the parties or other circumstance revealed in a
newly-filed 'paper.' In Rea v. Michaels Stores Inc., 742 F.3d 1234,
1238, the Ninth Circuit finds change in law that disallowed
plaintiffs from disclaiming recovery over a certain amount meant
that plaintiffs' claims newly satisfied the Class Action Fairness
Act's amount-in-controversy requirement, thus allowing for removal
under Section 1446(b)(3).

Judge Goldsmith holds that courts have rejected the argument
presented by the Defendants: that the filing of a subsequent paper
can create federal question jurisdiction under Section 1446(b)(3)
even where plaintiffs' claims do not raise a federal issue. He says
the Defendants have made no argument that the Plaintiffs' state-law
claims necessarily raise a stated federal issue, leaving the Court
with no choice but to remand the Plaintiffs' actions. Any federal
law issue that the settlement may raise has nothing to do with the
elements that the Plaintiffs would have had to have proven to
establish their claims, as those claims are undisputedly based on
state law.

Having failed to identify a federal issue necessarily raised by the
Plaintiffs' claims, Judge Goldsmith holds that the Defendants have
not met their burden of establishing that the Court has
jurisdiction, and thus, remand is required. Therefore, he grants
the Plaintiffs' motion and remands the Plaintiffs' actions to Wayne
County Circuit Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ysftz9e3 from Leagle.com.


STANDARD FUEL: Esper Suit Remanded to Wayne County Circuit Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONALD ESPER, et al., Plaintiffs v. STANDARD FUEL
ENGINEERING COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 22-11609 (E.D. Mich.),
Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, grants the Plaintiffs'
motion to remand to Wayne County Circuit Court.

The Plaintiffs filed several personal injury lawsuits in Wayne
County Circuit Court alleging that they or their decedents
developed mesothelioma, lung cancer, or asbestosis as a result of
exposure to asbestos contained in the products of over 100
defendants. It is uncontested that these claims were exclusively
based in state law. The Plaintiffs' complaints alleged exposure to
asbestos both before and after Dec. 5, 1980, subject to further
discovery.

Multiple defendants in those actions, including Standard and
Spence, settled with the Plaintiffs and were dismissed from the
Plaintiffs' actions.

The Plaintiffs later learned that the Defendants' insurer intended
to report the settlements to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS) as involving post-1980 asbestos exposures. Under
Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of
2007 (MMSEA Section 111), the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, 42
U.S.C. Section 1395y (MSPA), requires that insurers report certain
details of any settlement arising out of asbestos exposure to CMS.
An insurer who fails to comply with the reporting requirements may
be subject to a civil money penalty of up to $1,000 for each day of
noncompliance with respect to each claimant.

As authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 1395y(b)(8)(H), CMS allows for
an exception to this reporting obligation when all of multiple
criteria are satisfied, including that exposure, ingestion, or an
implant on or after Dec. 5, 1980, has not been claimed in the most
recently amended operative complaint (or comparable supplemental
pleading) and/or specifically released.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for injunctive relief in Wayne
County, arguing that the Defendants were bound by their settlement
agreements establishing that there were no post-1980 exposures. The
motion sought to enjoin the Defendants from reporting the
settlements to CMS, arguing that the Defendants had no duty under
any scenario to report pre-1980 exposure.

The Defendants filed a response arguing that -- because the
Plaintiffs' most recent complaints alleged that asbestos exposure
occurred both pre- and post-1980 -- they had a duty to report the
settlements to CMS under Section 1395y(b) regardless of whether
discovery revealed only pre-1980 asbestos exposure. They
subsequently filed notices of removal to this Court, asserting
federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. They
request that the Court determines whether they have a duty under
the MSPA, its implementing regulations, and statutorily permitted
CMS guidelines.

More specifically, the Defendants request that the Court determines
the extent of their duty, if any, under federal law to report the
settlements in the underlying actions to CMS where the complaints
allege post-1980 asbestos exposure, despite the fact that discovery
has not revealed post-1980 asbestos exposure, and determine whether
the discovery brochures generally utilized in asbestos litigation,
and used in the underlying cases, constitute a 'comparable
supplemental pleading' under the CMS directive, such that there is
no duty to report.

Before the Court is a motion to remand these cases to Wayne County
Circuit Court filed by the Plaintiffs in each of seven asbestos
personal injury actions.

The Plaintiffs are Larry Barber (deceased) and Lana Barber as the
personal representative for his estate (Case No. 22-11601, Barber,
et al. v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company, et al.); Earl Beatty
(deceased) and Carol Beatty as the personal representative for his
estate (Case No. 22-11604, Beatty et al. v. Standard Fuel
Engineering Company); Donald and Cynthia Esper (Case No. 22-11609,
Esper, et al. v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company, et al.); Robert
McCaul (deceased) and Scott McCaul as the personal representative
for his estate (Case No. 22-11602, McCaul et al. v. Standard Fuel
Engineering Company, et al.); Gladys Henni as personal
representative for the estate of Carl Henni (Case No. 22-11608,
Henni v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company); Robert Kachman as
personal representative for the estate of Nicholas Kachman (Case
No. 22-11610, Kachman v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company); and
Elaine Walczyk as personal representative for the estate of Richard
Walczyk (Case No. 22-11611, Walczyk, et al. v. Standard Fuel
Engineering Company). Standard Fuel is a Defendant in all seven
actions, and Spence is a Defendant in Barber and McCaul.

The Defendants submit that the Court has federal-question
jurisdiction because the Plaintiffs' state-law claims implicate
substantial federal issues under Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc.
v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005). Under the substantial
federal question doctrine, a state-law claim invokes
federal-question jurisdiction if (i) the state-law claim
necessarily raises a stated federal issue, (ii) the federal issue
is actually disputed and substantial, and (iii) the federal issue
is one which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any
congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial
responsibilities.

The Plaintiffs contend that 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3) merely
refers to the timeliness of a removal filing, whereas 28 U.S.C.
Section 1441(a) establishes whether or not a case is removable.
They insist that original federal question jurisdiction is
determined based upon a plaintiff's cause of action.

Judge Goldsmith explains that the statute on which the Defendants
rely allows for removal when a paper filed subsequent to a
complaint makes it "ascertainable" that the district court has
original jurisdiction. This could occur if a case were not
removable at the outset, but was rendered removable by virtue of a
change in the parties or other circumstance revealed in a
newly-filed 'paper.' In Rea v. Michaels Stores Inc., 742 F.3d 1234,
1238, the Ninth Circuit finds change in law that disallowed
plaintiffs from disclaiming recovery over a certain amount meant
that plaintiffs' claims newly satisfied the Class Action Fairness
Act's amount-in-controversy requirement, thus allowing for removal
under Section 1446(b)(3).

Judge Goldsmith holds that courts have rejected the argument
presented by the Defendants: that the filing of a subsequent paper
can create federal question jurisdiction under Section 1446(b)(3)
even where plaintiffs' claims do not raise a federal issue. He says
the Defendants have made no argument that the Plaintiffs' state-law
claims necessarily raise a stated federal issue, leaving the Court
with no choice but to remand the Plaintiffs' actions. Any federal
law issue that the settlement may raise has nothing to do with the
elements that the Plaintiffs would have had to have proven to
establish their claims, as those claims are undisputedly based on
state law.

Having failed to identify a federal issue necessarily raised by the
Plaintiffs' claims, Judge Goldsmith holds that the Defendants have
not met their burden of establishing that the Court has
jurisdiction, and thus, remand is required. Therefore, he grants
the Plaintiffs' motion and remands the Plaintiffs' actions to Wayne
County Circuit Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5646s2nu from Leagle.com.


STANDARD FUEL: Henni Suit Remanded to Wayne County Circuit Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARL HENNI, et al., Plaintiffs v. STANDARD FUEL
ENGINEERING COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 22-11608 (E.D. Mich.),
Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, grants the Plaintiffs'
motion to remand to Wayne County Circuit Court.

The Plaintiffs filed several personal injury lawsuits in Wayne
County Circuit Court alleging that they or their decedents
developed mesothelioma, lung cancer, or asbestosis as a result of
exposure to asbestos contained in the products of over 100
defendants. It is uncontested that these claims were exclusively
based in state law. The Plaintiffs' complaints alleged exposure to
asbestos both before and after Dec. 5, 1980, subject to further
discovery.

Multiple defendants in those actions, including Standard and
Spence, settled with the Plaintiffs and were dismissed from the
Plaintiffs' actions.

The Plaintiffs later learned that the Defendants' insurer intended
to report the settlements to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS) as involving post-1980 asbestos exposures. Under
Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of
2007 (MMSEA Section 111), the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, 42
U.S.C. Section 1395y (MSPA), requires that insurers report certain
details of any settlement arising out of asbestos exposure to CMS.
An insurer who fails to comply with the reporting requirements may
be subject to a civil money penalty of up to $1,000 for each day of
noncompliance with respect to each claimant.

As authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 1395y(b)(8)(H), CMS allows for
an exception to this reporting obligation when all of multiple
criteria are satisfied, including that exposure, ingestion, or an
implant on or after Dec. 5, 1980, has not been claimed in the most
recently amended operative complaint (or comparable supplemental
pleading) and/or specifically released.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for injunctive relief in Wayne
County, arguing that the Defendants were bound by their settlement
agreements establishing that there were no post-1980 exposures. The
motion sought to enjoin the Defendants from reporting the
settlements to CMS, arguing that the Defendants had no duty under
any scenario to report pre-1980 exposure.

The Defendants filed a response arguing that -- because the
Plaintiffs' most recent complaints alleged that asbestos exposure
occurred both pre- and post-1980 -- they had a duty to report the
settlements to CMS under Section 1395y(b) regardless of whether
discovery revealed only pre-1980 asbestos exposure. They
subsequently filed notices of removal to this Court, asserting
federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. They
request that the Court determines whether they have a duty under
the MSPA, its implementing regulations, and statutorily permitted
CMS guidelines.

More specifically, the Defendants request that the Court determines
the extent of their duty, if any, under federal law to report the
settlements in the underlying actions to CMS where the complaints
allege post-1980 asbestos exposure, despite the fact that discovery
has not revealed post-1980 asbestos exposure, and determine whether
the discovery brochures generally utilized in asbestos litigation,
and used in the underlying cases, constitute a 'comparable
supplemental pleading' under the CMS directive, such that there is
no duty to report.

Before the Court is a motion to remand these cases to Wayne County
Circuit Court filed by the Plaintiffs in each of seven asbestos
personal injury actions.

The Plaintiffs are Larry Barber (deceased) and Lana Barber as the
personal representative for his estate (Case No. 22-11601, Barber
et al. v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company, et al.); Earl Beatty
(deceased) and Carol Beatty as the personal representative for his
estate (Case No. 22-11604, Beatty et al. v. Standard Fuel
Engineering Company); Donald and Cynthia Esper (Case No. 22-11609,
Esper et al. v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company, et al.); Robert
McCaul (deceased) and Scott McCaul as the personal representative
for his estate (Case No. 22-11602, McCaul et al. v. Standard Fuel
Engineering Company, et al.); Gladys Henni as personal
representative for the estate of Carl Henni (Case No. 22-11608,
Henni v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company); Robert Kachman as
personal representative for the estate of Nicholas Kachman (Case
No. 22-11610, Kachman v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company); and
Elaine Walczyk as personal representative for the estate of Richard
Walczyk (Case No. 22-11611, Walczyk et al. v. Standard Fuel
Engineering Company). Standard Fuel is a Defendant in all seven
actions, and Spence is a Defendant in Barber and McCaul.

The Defendants submit that the Court has federal-question
jurisdiction because the Plaintiffs' state-law claims implicate
substantial federal issues under Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc.
v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005). Under the substantial
federal question doctrine, a state-law claim invokes
federal-question jurisdiction if (i) the state-law claim
necessarily raises a stated federal issue, (ii) the federal issue
is actually disputed and substantial, and (iii) the federal issue
is one which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any
congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial
responsibilities.

The Plaintiffs contend that 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3) merely
refers to the timeliness of a removal filing, whereas 28 U.S.C.
Section 1441(a) establishes whether or not a case is removable.
They insist that original federal question jurisdiction is
determined based upon a plaintiff's cause of action.

Judge Goldsmith explains that the statute on which the Defendants
rely allows for removal when a paper filed subsequent to a
complaint makes it "ascertainable" that the district court has
original jurisdiction. This could occur if a case were not
removable at the outset, but was rendered removable by virtue of a
change in the parties or other circumstance revealed in a
newly-filed 'paper.' In Rea v. Michaels Stores Inc., 742 F.3d 1234,
1238, the Ninth Circuit finds change in law that disallowed
plaintiffs from disclaiming recovery over a certain amount meant
that plaintiffs' claims newly satisfied the Class Action Fairness
Act's amount-in-controversy requirement, thus allowing for removal
under Section 1446(b)(3).

Judge Goldsmith holds that courts have rejected the argument
presented by the Defendants: that the filing of a subsequent paper
can create federal question jurisdiction under Section 1446(b)(3)
even where plaintiffs' claims do not raise a federal issue. He says
the Defendants have made no argument that the Plaintiffs' state-law
claims necessarily raise a stated federal issue, leaving the Court
with no choice but to remand the Plaintiffs' actions. Any federal
law issue that the settlement may raise has nothing to do with the
elements that the Plaintiffs would have had to have proven to
establish their claims, as those claims are undisputedly based on
state law.

Having failed to identify a federal issue necessarily raised by the
Plaintiffs' claims, Judge Goldsmith holds that the Defendants have
not met their burden of establishing that the Court has
jurisdiction, and thus, remand is required. Therefore, he grants
the Plaintiffs' motion and remands the Plaintiffs' actions to Wayne
County Circuit Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2cb765s5 from Leagle.com.


STANDARD FUEL: Kachman Suit Remanded to Wayne County Circuit Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT KACHMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. STANDARD FUEL
ENGINEERING COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 22-11610 (E.D. Mich.),
Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, grants the Plaintiffs'
motion to remand to Wayne County Circuit Court.

The Plaintiffs filed several personal injury lawsuits in Wayne
County Circuit Court alleging that they or their decedents
developed mesothelioma, lung cancer, or asbestosis as a result of
exposure to asbestos contained in the products of over 100
defendants. It is uncontested that these claims were exclusively
based in state law. The Plaintiffs' complaints alleged exposure to
asbestos both before and after Dec. 5, 1980, subject to further
discovery.

Multiple defendants in those actions, including Standard and
Spence, settled with the Plaintiffs and were dismissed from the
Plaintiffs' actions.

The Plaintiffs later learned that the Defendants' insurer intended
to report the settlements to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS) as involving post-1980 asbestos exposures. Under
Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of
2007 (MMSEA Section 111), the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, 42
U.S.C. Section 1395y (MSPA), requires that insurers report certain
details of any settlement arising out of asbestos exposure to CMS.
An insurer who fails to comply with the reporting requirements may
be subject to a civil money penalty of up to $1,000 for each day of
noncompliance with respect to each claimant.

As authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 1395y(b)(8)(H), CMS allows for
an exception to this reporting obligation when all of multiple
criteria are satisfied, including that exposure, ingestion, or an
implant on or after Dec. 5, 1980, has not been claimed in the most
recently amended operative complaint (or comparable supplemental
pleading) and/or specifically released.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for injunctive relief in Wayne
County, arguing that the Defendants were bound by their settlement
agreements establishing that there were no post-1980 exposures. The
motion sought to enjoin the Defendants from reporting the
settlements to CMS, arguing that the Defendants had no duty under
any scenario to report pre-1980 exposure.

The Defendants filed a response arguing that -- because the
Plaintiffs' most recent complaints alleged that asbestos exposure
occurred both pre- and post-1980 -- they had a duty to report the
settlements to CMS under Section 1395y(b) regardless of whether
discovery revealed only pre-1980 asbestos exposure. They
subsequently filed notices of removal to this Court, asserting
federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. They
request that the Court determines whether they have a duty under
the MSPA, its implementing regulations, and statutorily permitted
CMS guidelines.

More specifically, the Defendants request that the Court determines
the extent of their duty, if any, under federal law to report the
settlements in the underlying actions to CMS where the complaints
allege post-1980 asbestos exposure, despite the fact that discovery
has not revealed post-1980 asbestos exposure, and determine whether
the discovery brochures generally utilized in asbestos litigation,
and used in the underlying cases, constitute a 'comparable
supplemental pleading' under the CMS directive, such that there is
no duty to report.

Before the Court is a motion to remand these cases to Wayne County
Circuit Court filed by the Plaintiffs in each of seven asbestos
personal injury actions.

The Plaintiffs are Larry Barber (deceased) and Lana Barber as the
personal representative for his estate (Case No. 22-11601, Barber,
et al. v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company, et al.); Earl Beatty
(deceased) and Carol Beatty as the personal representative for his
estate (Case No. 22-11604, Beatty et al. v. Standard Fuel
Engineering Company); Donald and Cynthia Esper (Case No. 22-11609,
Esper et al. v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company, et al.); Robert
McCaul (deceased) and Scott McCaul as the personal representative
for his estate (Case No. 22-11602, McCaul et al. v. Standard Fuel
Engineering Company, et al.); Gladys Henni as personal
representative for the estate of Carl Henni (Case No. 22-11608,
Henni v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company); Robert Kachman as
personal representative for the estate of Nicholas Kachman (Case
No. 22-11610, Kachman v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company); and
Elaine Walczyk as personal representative for the estate of Richard
Walczyk (Case No. 22-11611, Walczyk et al. v. Standard Fuel
Engineering Company). Standard Fuel is a Defendant in all seven
actions, and Spence is a Defendant in Barber and McCaul.

The Defendants submit that the Court has federal-question
jurisdiction because the Plaintiffs' state-law claims implicate
substantial federal issues under Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc.
v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005). Under the substantial
federal question doctrine, a state-law claim invokes
federal-question jurisdiction if (i) the state-law claim
necessarily raises a stated federal issue, (ii) the federal issue
is actually disputed and substantial, and (iii) the federal issue
is one which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any
congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial
responsibilities.

The Plaintiffs contend that 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3) merely
refers to the timeliness of a removal filing, whereas 28 U.S.C.
Section 1441(a) establishes whether or not a case is removable.
They insist that original federal question jurisdiction is
determined based upon a plaintiff's cause of action.

Judge Goldsmith explains that the statute on which the Defendants
rely allows for removal when a paper filed subsequent to a
complaint makes it "ascertainable" that the district court has
original jurisdiction. This could occur if a case were not
removable at the outset, but was rendered removable by virtue of a
change in the parties or other circumstance revealed in a
newly-filed 'paper.' In Rea v. Michaels Stores Inc., 742 F.3d 1234,
1238, the Ninth Circuit finds change in law that disallowed
plaintiffs from disclaiming recovery over a certain amount meant
that plaintiffs' claims newly satisfied the Class Action Fairness
Act's amount-in-controversy requirement, thus allowing for removal
under Section 1446(b)(3).

Judge Goldsmith holds that courts have rejected the argument
presented by the Defendants: that the filing of a subsequent paper
can create federal question jurisdiction under Section 1446(b)(3)
even where plaintiffs' claims do not raise a federal issue. He says
the Defendants have made no argument that the Plaintiffs' state-law
claims necessarily raise a stated federal issue, leaving the Court
with no choice but to remand the Plaintiffs' actions. Any federal
law issue that the settlement may raise has nothing to do with the
elements that the Plaintiffs would have had to have proven to
establish their claims, as those claims are undisputedly based on
state law.

Having failed to identify a federal issue necessarily raised by the
Plaintiffs' claims, Judge Goldsmith holds that the Defendants have
not met their burden of establishing that the Court has
jurisdiction, and thus, remand is required. Therefore, he grants
the Plaintiffs' motion and remands the Plaintiffs' actions to Wayne
County Circuit Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8p58rz from Leagle.com.


STANDARD FUEL: McCaul Suit Remanded to Wayne County Circuit Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT L. McCAUL, et al., Plaintiffs v. STANDARD FUEL
ENGINEERING COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-11602 (E.D.
Mich.), Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, grants the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand to Wayne County Circuit Court.

The Plaintiffs filed several personal injury lawsuits in Wayne
County Circuit Court alleging that they or their decedents
developed mesothelioma, lung cancer, or asbestosis as a result of
exposure to asbestos contained in the products of over 100
defendants. It is uncontested that these claims were exclusively
based in state law. The Plaintiffs' complaints alleged exposure to
asbestos both before and after Dec. 5, 1980, subject to further
discovery.

Multiple defendants in those actions, including Standard and
Spence, settled with the Plaintiffs and were dismissed from the
Plaintiffs' actions.

The Plaintiffs later learned that the Defendants' insurer intended
to report the settlements to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS) as involving post-1980 asbestos exposures. Under
Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of
2007 (MMSEA Section 111), the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, 42
U.S.C. Section 1395y (MSPA), requires that insurers report certain
details of any settlement arising out of asbestos exposure to CMS.
An insurer who fails to comply with the reporting requirements may
be subject to a civil money penalty of up to $1,000 for each day of
noncompliance with respect to each claimant.

As authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 1395y(b)(8)(H), CMS allows for
an exception to this reporting obligation when all of multiple
criteria are satisfied, including that exposure, ingestion, or an
implant on or after Dec. 5, 1980, has not been claimed in the most
recently amended operative complaint (or comparable supplemental
pleading) and/or specifically released.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for injunctive relief in Wayne
County, arguing that the Defendants were bound by their settlement
agreements establishing that there were no post-1980 exposures. The
motion sought to enjoin the Defendants from reporting the
settlements to CMS, arguing that the Defendants had no duty under
any scenario to report pre-1980 exposure.

The Defendants filed a response arguing that -- because the
Plaintiffs' most recent complaints alleged that asbestos exposure
occurred both pre- and post-1980 -- they had a duty to report the
settlements to CMS under Section 1395y(b) regardless of whether
discovery revealed only pre-1980 asbestos exposure. They
subsequently filed notices of removal to this Court, asserting
federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. They
request that the Court determines whether they have a duty under
the MSPA, its implementing regulations, and statutorily permitted
CMS guidelines.

More specifically, the Defendants request that the Court determines
the extent of their duty, if any, under federal law to report the
settlements in the underlying actions to CMS where the complaints
allege post-1980 asbestos exposure, despite the fact that discovery
has not revealed post-1980 asbestos exposure, and determine whether
the discovery brochures generally utilized in asbestos litigation,
and used in the underlying cases, constitute a 'comparable
supplemental pleading' under the CMS directive, such that there is
no duty to report.

Before the Court is a motion to remand these cases to Wayne County
Circuit Court filed by the Plaintiffs in each of seven asbestos
personal injury actions.

The Plaintiffs are Larry Barber (deceased) and Lana Barber as the
personal representative for his estate (Case No. 22-11601, Barber
et al. v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company, et al.); Earl Beatty
(deceased) and Carol Beatty as the personal representative for his
estate (Case No. 22-11604, Beatty et al. v. Standard Fuel
Engineering Company); Donald and Cynthia Esper (Case No. 22-11609,
Esper et al. v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company, et al.); Robert
McCaul (deceased) and Scott McCaul as the personal representative
for his estate (Case No. 22-11602, McCaul et al. v. Standard Fuel
Engineering Company, et al.); Gladys Henni as personal
representative for the estate of Carl Henni (Case No. 22-11608,
Henni v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company); Robert Kachman as
personal representative for the estate of Nicholas Kachman (Case
No. 22-11610, Kachman v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company); and
Elaine Walczyk as personal representative for the estate of Richard
Walczyk (Case No. 22-11611, Walczyk et al. v. Standard Fuel
Engineering Company). Standard Fuel is a Defendant in all seven
actions, and Spence is a Defendant in Barber and McCaul.

The Defendants submit that the Court has federal-question
jurisdiction because the Plaintiffs' state-law claims implicate
substantial federal issues under Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc.
v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005). Under the substantial
federal question doctrine, a state-law claim invokes
federal-question jurisdiction if (i) the state-law claim
necessarily raises a stated federal issue, (ii) the federal issue
is actually disputed and substantial, and (iii) the federal issue
is one which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any
congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial
responsibilities.

The Plaintiffs insist that original federal question jurisdiction
is determined based upon a plaintiff's cause of action.

Judge Goldsmith explains that the statute on which the Defendants
rely allows for removal when a paper filed subsequent to a
complaint makes it "ascertainable" that the district court has
original jurisdiction. This could occur if a case were not
removable at the outset, but was rendered removable by virtue of a
change in the parties or other circumstance revealed in a
newly-filed 'paper.' In Rea v. Michaels Stores Inc., 742 F.3d 1234,
1238, the Ninth Circuit finds change in law that disallowed
plaintiffs from disclaiming recovery over a certain amount meant
that plaintiffs' claims newly satisfied the Class Action Fairness
Act's amount-in-controversy requirement, thus allowing for removal
under Section 1446(b)(3).

Judge Goldsmith holds that courts have rejected the argument
presented by the Defendants: that the filing of a subsequent paper
can create federal question jurisdiction under Section 1446(b)(3)
even where plaintiffs' claims do not raise a federal issue. He says
the Defendants have made no argument that the Plaintiffs' state-law
claims necessarily raise a stated federal issue, leaving the Court
with no choice but to remand the Plaintiffs' actions. Any federal
law issue that the settlement may raise has nothing to do with the
elements that the Plaintiffs would have had to have proven to
establish their claims, as those claims are undisputedly based on
state law.

Having failed to identify a federal issue necessarily raised by the
Plaintiffs' claims, Judge Goldsmith holds that the Defendants have
not met their burden of establishing that the Court has
jurisdiction, and thus, remand is required. Therefore, he grants
the Plaintiffs' motion and remands the Plaintiffs' actions to Wayne
County Circuit Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/475th5cr from Leagle.com.


STANDARD FUEL: Walczyk Suit Remanded to Wayne County Circuit Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELAINE WALCZYK, et al., Plaintiffs v. STANDARD FUEL
ENGINEERING COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 22-11611 (E.D. Mich.),
Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, grants the Plaintiffs'
motion to remand to Wayne County Circuit Court.

The Plaintiffs filed several personal injury lawsuits in Wayne
County Circuit Court alleging that they or their decedents
developed mesothelioma, lung cancer, or asbestosis as a result of
exposure to asbestos contained in the products of over 100
defendants. It is uncontested that these claims were exclusively
based in state law. The Plaintiffs' complaints alleged exposure to
asbestos both before and after Dec. 5, 1980, subject to further
discovery.

Multiple defendants in those actions, including Standard and
Spence, settled with the Plaintiffs and were dismissed from the
Plaintiffs' actions.

The Plaintiffs later learned that the Defendants' insurer intended
to report the settlements to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS) as involving post-1980 asbestos exposures. Under
Section 111 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of
2007 (MMSEA Section 111), the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, 42
U.S.C. Section 1395y (MSPA), requires that insurers report certain
details of any settlement arising out of asbestos exposure to CMS.
An insurer who fails to comply with the reporting requirements may
be subject to a civil money penalty of up to $1,000 for each day of
noncompliance with respect to each claimant.

As authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 1395y(b)(8)(H), CMS allows for
an exception to this reporting obligation when all of multiple
criteria are satisfied, including that exposure, ingestion, or an
implant on or after Dec. 5, 1980, has not been claimed in the most
recently amended operative complaint (or comparable supplemental
pleading) and/or specifically released.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for injunctive relief in Wayne
County, arguing that the Defendants were bound by their settlement
agreements establishing that there were no post-1980 exposures. The
motion sought to enjoin the Defendants from reporting the
settlements to CMS, arguing that the Defendants had no duty under
any scenario to report pre-1980 exposure.

The Defendants filed a response arguing that -- because the
Plaintiffs' most recent complaints alleged that asbestos exposure
occurred both pre- and post-1980 -- they had a duty to report the
settlements to CMS under Section 1395y(b) regardless of whether
discovery revealed only pre-1980 asbestos exposure. They
subsequently filed notices of removal to this Court, asserting
federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. They
request that the Court determines whether they have a duty under
the MSPA, its implementing regulations, and statutorily permitted
CMS guidelines.

More specifically, the Defendants request that the Court determines
the extent of their duty, if any, under federal law to report the
settlements in the underlying actions to CMS where the complaints
allege post-1980 asbestos exposure, despite the fact that discovery
has not revealed post-1980 asbestos exposure, and determine whether
the discovery brochures generally utilized in asbestos litigation,
and used in the underlying cases, constitute a 'comparable
supplemental pleading' under the CMS directive, such that there is
no duty to report.

Before the Court is a motion to remand these cases to Wayne County
Circuit Court filed by the Plaintiffs in each of seven asbestos
personal injury actions.

The Plaintiffs are Larry Barber (deceased) and Lana Barber as the
personal representative for his estate (Case No. 22-11601, Barber,
et al. v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company, et al.); Earl Beatty
(deceased) and Carol Beatty as the personal representative for his
estate (Case No. 22-11604, Beatty et al. v. Standard Fuel
Engineering Company); Donald and Cynthia Esper (Case No. 22-11609,
Esper et al. v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company, et al.); Robert
McCaul (deceased) and Scott McCaul as the personal representative
for his estate (Case No. 22-11602, McCaul et al. v. Standard Fuel
Engineering Company, et al.); Gladys Henni as personal
representative for the estate of Carl Henni (Case No. 22-11608,
Henni v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company); Robert Kachman as
personal representative for the estate of Nicholas Kachman (Case
No. 22-11610, Kachman v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company); and
Elaine Walczyk as personal representative for the estate of Richard
Walczyk (Case No. 22-11611, Walczyk et al. v. Standard Fuel
Engineering Company). Standard Fuel is a Defendant in all seven
actions, and Spence is a Defendant in Barber and McCaul.

The Defendants submit that the Court has federal-question
jurisdiction because the Plaintiffs' state-law claims implicate
substantial federal issues under Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc.
v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005). Under the substantial
federal question doctrine, a state-law claim invokes
federal-question jurisdiction if (i) the state-law claim
necessarily raises a stated federal issue, (ii) the federal issue
is actually disputed and substantial, and (iii) the federal issue
is one which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any
congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial
responsibilities.

The Plaintiffs contend that 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3) merely
refers to the timeliness of a removal filing, whereas 28 U.S.C.
Section 1441(a) establishes whether or not a case is removable.
They insist that original federal question jurisdiction is
determined based upon a plaintiff's cause of action.

Judge Goldsmith explains that the statute on which the Defendants
rely allows for removal when a paper filed subsequent to a
complaint makes it "ascertainable" that the district court has
original jurisdiction. This could occur if a case were not
removable at the outset, but was rendered removable by virtue of a
change in the parties or other circumstance revealed in a
newly-filed 'paper.' In Rea v. Michaels Stores Inc., 742 F.3d 1234,
1238, the Ninth Circuit finds change in law that disallowed
plaintiffs from disclaiming recovery over a certain amount meant
that plaintiffs' claims newly satisfied the Class Action Fairness
Act's amount-in-controversy requirement, thus allowing for removal
under Section 1446(b)(3).

Judge Goldsmith holds that courts have rejected the argument
presented by the Defendants: that the filing of a subsequent paper
can create federal question jurisdiction under Section 1446(b)(3)
even where plaintiffs' claims do not raise a federal issue. He says
the Defendants have made no argument that the Plaintiffs' state-law
claims necessarily raise a stated federal issue, leaving the Court
with no choice but to remand the Plaintiffs' actions. Any federal
law issue that the settlement may raise has nothing to do with the
elements that the Plaintiffs would have had to have proven to
establish their claims, as those claims are undisputedly based on
state law.

Having failed to identify a federal issue necessarily raised by the
Plaintiffs' claims, Judge Goldsmith holds that the Defendants have
not met their burden of establishing that the Court has
jurisdiction, and thus, remand is required. Therefore, he grants
the Plaintiffs' motion and remands the Plaintiffs' actions to Wayne
County Circuit Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2fxt8u82 from Leagle.com.


STAR SNACKS LLC: Colburn Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Star Snacks LLC. The
case is styled as Deborah Colburn, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Star Snacks LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-00056-SGC (N.D. Ala., Jan. 13, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Star Snacks -- https://starsnacks.net/ -- is a leading manufacturer
and distributor of high-quality branded nuts, trail mixes & dried
fruits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles M. Thompson, Esq.
          CHARLES M. THOMPSON PC
          101 Mohawk Drive
          Trussville, AL 35173
          Phone: (205) 995-0068
          Fax: (866) 610-1650
          Email: CMTLAW@aol.com


STARK'S VACUUM: Genwright Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stark's Vacuum, Inc.
The case is styled as Thomas Genwright, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Stark's Vacuum, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00358 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2023).

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

Stark's Vacuum, Inc. -- https://starks.com/ -- is a family-run
vacuum retailer also offering hand vacs, carpet cleaners &
accessories, plus repairs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STATOIL USA: Class Settlement in Rescigno Suit Wins Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANGELO R. RESCIGNO, SR., AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF
CHERYL B. CANFIELD, Plaintiff v. STATOIL USA ONSHORE PROPERTIES
INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:16-85 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Malachy
E. Mannion of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania grants:

   a. the Plaintiff's motion for Final Approval of Class Action
      Settlement and Plan of Allocation, and

   b. the Plaintiff's motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and
      Service Award to Plaintiff and Class Representatives.

The Order is in accordance with the Court's memorandum issued this
same day.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc6bm2e9 from Leagle.com.


STEEL RIVER: Systems Failed to Protect Consumer Info, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey at classaction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit accuses Steel River Systems, LLC of failing to
protect consumers' personal information from a "massive and
preventable" data breach between May and July 2022.

According to the 27-page lawsuit, the debt collection company
discovered in mid-July that its network had been accessed by an
unauthorized third party but later learned the breach had begun
more than a month before in late May. The suit relays that the
"highly confidential" information compromised during the
cyberattack included consumers' names, Social Security numbers and
financial account information.

The case charges that the defendant "recklessly" and "negligently"
failed to take reasonable precautions to secure the personally
identifiable information (PII) in its network servers—data that
was allegedly being stored "unprotected."

The filing also takes issue with Steel River Systems' delayed
notification of victims, contending that although the ransomware
attack was discovered in July, the defendant did not begin
informing those impacted until December, five months later.

The letter sent to victims gives only "basic details" of the
cyberattack along with suggestions from Steel River Systems about
the next steps, the suit claims. The case stresses that those
affected are still "in the dark" as to what precise data was
disclosed, how the cybercriminals gained access and what steps the
company is taking to safeguard consumers' information in the
future.

The complaint alleges that the data breach could have been
prevented had the company adequately protected its network and
properly encrypted the sensitive information stored therein.

"Defendant's willful failure to abide by these duties was wrongful,
reckless, and grossly negligent in light of the foreseeable risks
and known threats," the filing reads.

By collecting and storing consumers' personal information, the
defendant is legally obliged to protect that data from unauthorized
disclosure, the lawsuit claims.

Like other consumers, the plaintiffs, residents of Virginia and
California, entrusted their confidential personal information to
Steel River Systems with the expectation that the company would
properly safeguard it, the case charges. As a result of the data
breach, the plaintiffs now face a life-long threat of identity
theft, fraud, and other illegal activity, the suit argues.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States whose
personal and/or financial information was compromised by the data
breach discovered by Steel River Systems in July 2022, including
those who received notice of the breach.[GN]

SUN VALLEY: Pineda Suit Parties to File Case Disposition by March 6
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LETICIA PINEDA, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUN VALLEY PACKING, L.P.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00169-ADA-EPG (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California directs the parties to make a
filing regarding the disposition of this case by March 6, 2023.

On Jan. 31, 2020, the Defendant removed this putative class action
from state court, which alleges various wage, hour, and other
labor-related claims under the California Labor Code, as well as a
representative action claim for civil penalties under the Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA).

The Court has held off on setting a case schedule based on the
parties' request and representations about engaging in serious
settlement negotiations. Now before the Court is the parties' joint
status report, which states that, following mediation, the
Defendant has accepted the Plaintiff's settlement offer and the
parties are now in the process of drafting and finalizing the
settlement documents.

Upon review of the parties' joint status report, the Court order
that:

   1. by no later March 6, 2023, the parties will make a filing
      regarding the disposition of this case, e.g., a stipulation
      for voluntary dismissal, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), or a
      motion for preliminary approval of a class action
      settlement; and

   2. given that the Plaintiff has asserted class and
      representative claims, if the parties believe that a
      stipulation for voluntary dismissal is appropriate, they
      should include legal authority for why their claims may be
      resolved without further Court approval.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 5, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2ew9wp4n from Leagle.com.


TIKTOK INC: Bravo Sues Over Interception of Private Communications
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anibeth Bravo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TIKTOK, INC. and BYTEDANCE, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-00225 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 13, 2023), is brought against
Defendants for surreptitiously intercepting the private electronic
communications of users of TikTok's social media application (the
"TikTok app") and its integrated website browser (the "in-app
browser") without their consent.

The Defendants intercept these private electronic communications in
violation of the Federal Wire Tap Act, by embedding JavaScript code
into the third-party websites that are accessed using TikTok's
in-app browser, which enables Defendants to track users' mouse
movements, clicks, keystrokes (e.g., text being entered into an
information field or text box), URLs of web pages visited, and
other electronic communications in real time (collectively,
"Website Communications").

TikTok's in-app browser was specifically designed to insert
JavaScript code into any third-party website that users access
while using the in-app browser. The inserted JavaScript code, in
turn, intercepts, records, and copies all Website Communications
made by the user while interacting with the third-party website
accessed using TikTok's in app browser This includes, among other
things, every click, keystroke, or mouse movement made by the user
while interacting with the third-party website. Neither the TikTok
user nor the third-party website which the user visited consents to
the insertion of this JavaScript code.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
class of all natural persons in the United States whose Website
Communications were intercepted by Defendants while using the
TikTok in-app browser to visit third-party websites, and seeks all
civil remedies provided under the Federal Wire Tap Act, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Illinois residing in
Cook County, Illinois.

ByteDance, Inc. is corporation organized and existing under the
laws of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Phone: (212) 643-0500
          Email: mreese@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Kevin Laukaitis
          LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC
          737 Bainbridge Street #155
          Philadelphia, PA 19147
          Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com


TIKTOK INC: Faces Smith Suit Over Alleged Illegal Wiretapping
-------------------------------------------------------------
CINNAMON SMITH; ALISON PAIGE; MARRCHELLE TANZYMORE; and CAROLYN
SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. TIKTOK INC.; and BYTEDANCE INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00134 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 10, 2023) alleges violation of the
Federal Wiretap Act, the Massachusetts Wiretap Act, the Maryland
Wiretap Act, and the Missouri Wiretap Act.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants
intercepted the electronic communications of users of the TikTok
app when they link to third-party websites in the TikTok app.

The Defendants employ JavaScript computer code ("Session Replay
Code") to track users' every move as they browse the Internet from
within the TikTok app. As users browse a third-party website from
within the TikTok app, they do so via TikTok's in-app web browser,
with no option to use the mobile phone's default web browser, and
the Session Replay Code intercepts and records the user's
electronic communications. These communications encompass their
keystrokes, clicks, scrolling and swiping finger movements, text
being entered into an information field or text box (even when
never sent to the website), and/or other electronic communications
as they occur in real time ("Website Communications"). Moreover,
the third-party websites did not consent in any way that private
communications from visitors to those websites be intercepted by
TikTok, just because the visitor happens to link to the website
from within the TikTok app, says the suit.

TIKTOK INC. operates as a free service and social media application
for creating and sharing short mobile videos. The Company provides
a fully realized platform for connecting individuals to a vibrant
community of content creators. TikTok serves customers worldwide.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Steven P. Sukert, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON
          WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Email: sukert@kolawyes.com
                 ostrow@kolawyers.com
                 streisfeld@kolawyers.com

               - and -

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

TWITTER INC: Gerber Files Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Twitter, Inc. The
case is styled as Stephen Gerber, individually and on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Twitter, Inc., Case
No. 4:23-cv-00186-KAW (N.D. Cal., Jan. 13, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Twitter, Inc. -- https://twitter.com/ -- is an American social
media company based in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
          WESTERMAN LAW CORP
          16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 685
          Encino, CA 91436
          Phone: (213) 505-3090
          Fax: (310) 775-9777
          Email: jwesterman@jswlegal.com


TWITTER INC: Workers Forced to Drop Suit Over Severance Packages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Blumberg at Bloomberg News reports that Twitter Inc. won a
ruling forcing laid-off workers fighting the company over their
severance packages to pursue their claims in individual arbitration
rather than through a class-action lawsuit.

Hundreds of workers who were laid off by Elon Musk after he bought
the social media company in October have already filed arbitration
claims.

A San Francisco federal judge ruled that the workers are obligated
under their contracts to go through arbitration, in which private
judges resolve disputes in closed-door hearings.

An attorney who said she's filed at least 300 such claims said the
process could be costly for Twitter.

"Insisting that workers file claims one by one has backfired for
many companies our firm has taken on," lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan
said in a statement. "These companies think they can make employees
just go away and not assert their rights by using arbitration
clauses, but we have made them sorry about what they wished for."
[GN]

UNITED HEALTH: Faces Mitchell Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL MITCHELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED HEALTH CENTERS OF THE SAN JOAQUIN
VALLEY and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-at-00020 (E.D. Cal., January 11, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the California Labor Code, and California's Business and
Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to
pay overtime, failure to provide compliant meal breaks and
premiums, failure to timely pay wages on separation, failure to
furnish accurate itemized wage statements, and unlawful business
practices.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a staff accountant on
or about March 2, 2015.

United Health Centers of the San Joaquin Valley with its principal
place of business located at 3875 W. Beechwood Avenue, Fresno,
Fresno County, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Jenny D. Baysinger, Esq.
         Robert J. Wassermann, Esq.
         MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
         2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
         Stockton, CA 95207
         Telephone: (209) 477-3833
         Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
         E-mail: jbaysinger@mayallaw.com
                 rwassermann@mayallaw.com

UNITED MEDICAL: N.D. Mississippi Tosses Norwood Suit W/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Debra M. Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Mississippi, Greenville Division, dismisses without
prejudice the lawsuit styled PATRICE NORWOOD, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED
MEDICAL RECOVERY, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
4:21-CV-134-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss.).

On United Medical Recovery, LLC's motion, the Court dismissed
Patrice Norwood's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
but allowed Norwood a period of time to seek leave to amend her
complaint. Norwood obtained leave to amend but did not file the
amended complaint until two days after the deadline set by the
Court, and did not file a motion to extend the deadline until the
day after she filed the untimely amended complaint.

Because Norwood has failed to show excusable neglect warranting an
extension to amend, her motion for an extension will be denied; the
amended complaint will be stricken; Judge Brown says this case will
be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction; and the Defendant's remaining motions--which all seek
dismissal--will be denied as moot.

On Oct. 19, 2021, Patrice Norwood, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in
the Court against United Medical Recovery, LLC ("UMR"), and "John
Does 1-25." The complaint alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA") based on a Dec. 15, 2020,
collection letter UMR sent to her.

After receiving an extension to respond to the complaint, UMR
timely filed an answer on Dec. 28, 2021. Five weeks later, on Feb.
1, 2022, UMR filed a Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) and 56, asserting
that (1) Norwood lacked Article III standing, and (2) the complaint
failed to state a claim.

In a Sept. 6, 2022 Opinion and Order, the Court granted UMR's
motion to the extent it sought dismissal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and denied it without prejudice in all other respects.
However, because the Court's conclusion that Norwood failed to
carry her burden of showing standing to bring her claims relied on
the Fifth Circuit's decision in Perez v. McCreary, Veselka, Bragg &
Allen, P.C., 45 F.4th 816 (5th Cir. 2022), and "the parties did not
have the benefit of the ... guidance in Perez at the time of
briefing," the Court allowed Norwood 14 days to seek leave to amend
her complaint to address the jurisdictional deficiencies. The Court
cautioned Norwood that if she failed to seek leave to amend or if
amendment was found to be futile, a final judgment would be
entered.

Ms. Norwood filed a timely motion for leave to file an amended
complaint. On Oct. 6, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Jane M.
Virden granted the motion for leave as unopposed. Judge Virden
ordered Norwood to file her proposed amended complaint on the
docket within two (2) business days. Norwood did not do so.

On Oct. 13, 2022, UMR moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41 based on Norwood's failure to comply with the
October 6 order. Norwood filed an amended complaint later the same
day. The next day, Norwood filed a Motion for Extension of Deadline
to File Amended Complaint.

On Oct. 20, 2022, UMR filed (1) a Combined Motion to Dismiss and
Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time
to File Amended Complaint, and (2) a Rebuttal Memorandum in Support
of Motion to Dismiss and Opposing Plaintiff's Motion for Extension
of Time to File Amended Complaint. Because the Local Rules do not
allow a response to include a counter-motion, the Clerk of Court
instructed UMR to refile the motion to dismiss as a separate docket
entry from the response in opposition.

UMR filed on Oct. 21, 2022, an Amended and Corrected Motion to
Dismiss Opposing Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File
Amended Complaint. Three days later, on Oct. 24, UMR filed a
"rebuttal memorandum" in support of its amended motion to dismiss.
That same day, it filed an Article III Motion to Dismiss Amended
Complaint or for Summary Judgment, and an accompanying memorandum
brief.

On Nov. 3, 2022, Norwood filed an untimely response to UMR's
October 13 Rule 41 motion to dismiss. UMR replied. On Nov. 15,
2022, Norwood filed an untimely response to UMR's October 24 motion
to dismiss or for summary judgment. UMR filed a reply, and
memorandum brief.

Because the Court dismissed the initial complaint for lack of
jurisdiction and because the amended complaint was filed after the
deadline set by Judge Virden, the Court will first address whether
an extension is warranted.

Ms. Norwood asserts that due to inadvertence of counsel, the
deadline to file the amended complaint was overlooked; UMR would
not be prejudiced by an extension of time because they were already
on notice of the substance of her Amended Complaint; and she would
be prejudiced by not allowing the extension due to the statute of
limitations.

UMR responds that Norwood does not contest its showing of prejudice
in its Rule 41 motion to dismiss; the unexplained excusable neglect
is not supported by any affidavit, declaration, or other
explanation; there is no supporting case law or other authority
cited; and well-settled law does not permit the Court to grant the
requested relief. Norwood did not reply.

Judge Brown finds that the two-day delay had little to no impact on
the judicial proceedings and there is no indication Norwood acted
in bad faith. But while Norwood argues UMR would not be prejudiced
by the two-day delay, she failed to respond to UMR's argument that
it would be prejudiced if she is allowed to pursue her claims since
the statute of limitations under the FDCPA has expired. Regardless
of whether these factors weigh in favor of allowing an extension,
the Court finds an extension unwarranted because missing a deadline
due to "inadvertence of counsel" is insufficient to show excusable
neglect.

Since she has not shown her failure to timely file the amended
complaint was due to excusable neglect, Norwood's request for an
extension is denied, Judge Brown holds. And because the amended
complaint is untimely, it will be stricken and the case will be
dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction in accordance
with the Court's September 6 ruling.

Given the Court's determination that the case will be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction, Judge Brown holds that all remaining motions
will be denied as moot.

Accordingly, Norwood's motion for extension is denied. The amended
complaint is stricken. The case is dismissed without prejudice for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. UMR's remaining motions are
denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Jan. 5,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7bywfcb from
Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Employment Authorization Docs' Fee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IVANNA SENECHKO, et al. v. THE UNITED STATES, Case No.
1:23-cv-00032-EJD (Fed. Cl., Jan. 10, 2023) is a class action
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals
who have been incorrectly and unlawfully charged a filing fee by
the United
States Citizenship and Immigration Service.

USCIS is a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
for employment authorization documents that should have been
statutorily without cost to them, at a time in which they were
particularly vulnerable and without the means to secure the
document that they did not legally need.

On August 17, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their original complaint
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Plaintiffs alleged that USCIS improperly refused to treat
Ukrainian refugees as authorized to work immediately and collected
filing fees for the production of an employment authorization
document in the amount of $410 per applicant contrary to the
rights, privileges and benefits provided pursuant to the Additional
Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022.

The Plaintiffs' civil action sought declaratory and injunctive
relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to enjoin the
USCIS from continuing to:

    1. deprive eligible applicants from work authorization
incident
       to status, and

    2. charge unlawful fees in connection with Plaintiffs' filing
       their initial Application for Employment Authorization
       (EAD).

In the APA case before the district court for the Northern District
of Illinois, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary
Injunction on September 14, 2022, and a Motion for Class
Certification on September 29, 2022 with the District Court.

USCIS sought five extensions of time to engage in settlement
negotiations.

On November 21, 2022, USCIS issued new policy via its website,
announcing that beneficiaries paroled into the United States under
Uniting for Ukraine are employment authorized incident to parole
and that individuals applying for an employment authorization
document would not be charged for their initial application.

Through November 21, 2022, the United States government continued
to unlawfully expropriate fees from eligible Ukrainian refugees
seeking working authorization during the pendency of the APA
litigation.

In 2022, DHS, through USCIS, illegally exacted $80,000,000 or more
from refugees admitted to the United States under the Ukrainian
Refugee Act who were unlawfully charged a $410 fee for production
of an employment authorization document that it has conceded
was improperly exacted.

The Plaintiff includes Tetiana Martiushenko, Serhii Dorosh, Uliana
Dorosh, Mykhail Dorosh, Stepan Mykhayliv, Olha Mykhayliv, Roman
Mykhailiv, Iana Veremchuk, Demian Veremchuk, Olha Yunyk, Maryna
Boyko, Yuliia Soltys, Oleksandr Preobrazhenskyi, Nataliia Stashuk,
Darya Zalyvadna, Ruslan Antoniuk, Eduard Strelchenko, Kateryna
Zhykharska, Yuliia Zaiets, Zhyhalov Mykola, Veronika Zolotova,
Stanislav Astakhov, and Alona Astakhova.

United States is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of
North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending
the nation’s presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles H. Kuck, Esq.
          KUCK BAXTER LLC
          365 Northridge Rd., Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30350
          Telephone: (404) 949-8154
          E-mail: ckuck@immigration.net

UNITED STATES: Only Six Plaintiffs Remain in Save Our Children Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Southern Division, orders that only the
following individuals remain as Plaintiffs in the case, SAVE OUR
CHILDREN TRUTH COMMISSION, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 7:22-CV-178-FL (E.D.N.C.):
Keona Bradley, Raymond Sipult, Glenda Cody, Russ Cody, Cecelia
Evertez and Laurie Reynolds.

The action commenced on Oct. 11, 2022, upon filing of a complaint
by the pro se Plaintiffs asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983, and other federal and state common law claims, for violation
of civil rights arising out of child custody proceedings held in
various states and localities. The Plaintiffs are asserted to be an
organization and a number of individuals proceeding pro se as
parents of children involved in those child custody proceedings.
Defendants are asserted to be the United States and federal
government officials, as well as numerous state and local
officials, municipalities, and organizations.

The Plaintiffs seek damages exceeding $1 billion, as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief ordering the Defendants to
restore and enforce the Plaintiffs' rights to have custody of their
children and to stop oppressing families and detaining their
children under the guise of child welfare.

On Dec. 7, 2022, the Court dismissed the following Plaintiffs for
failure to prosecute on the basis that they did not timely correct
deficiencies on notices of self-representation or financial
disclosure statements: Dmtri Cash, Lisa Cash, David Mines, Robert
Lisby, Jr., Stephanie Humphrey, Kenya Cloud, Desiree Peterson,
Elizabeth Andrews, Joe Steinke, Wilniesa Turner, Elani Wells, Gail
Turner, Destiny Feather, Jon Eifer, Amanda Hunt, Smilee Lawson,
Brandee Ritsema, and Kristen Clark-Hassel.

In addition, the Court directed each Plaintiff to file individually
by Dec. 28, 2022, a response to its order confirming he or she is
acting on his or her own behalf, with the particular intention of
being involved personally in the instant action, and not on behalf
of any other plaintiff. It provided notice that a Plaintiff's
failure to file a response to this order within the time provided
will result in dismissal of the action on behalf of such plaintiff
for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with the Court's
orders and rules of the Court.

On Dec. 28, 2022, the following six pro se Plaintiffs filed a
response to the Court's order, including the confirmation required
therein: Keona Bradley, Raymond Sipult, Glenda Cody, Russ Cody,
Cecelia Evertez, and Laurie Reynolds. These six pro se Plaintiffs
thus are the only Plaintiffs remaining in the case. Judge Flanagan
expresses no opinion on the viability of their claims or on whether
they have met personal jurisdictional requirements to proceed with
such claims.

All other remaining Plaintiffs named in the complaint did not
respond to the Court's order as directed, and are thus dismissed
for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court's
order: Save Our Children Truth Commission, Melody Rodgers, Malachi
Chapman, Tijana Vidanovic, Teresa Goin, Mohogany Hunter, Natasha
Loach, Renesha Tomlin, Shanequa B. Austin, Keshia Holliman, Keshia
Horton, William O'Dell, Emily O'Dell, Kristina Singleton Baldwin,
Sally Borghese, Alan Meddows, Christina Anderson, Deanna Robinson,
Latasha Woolridge, Jessica Kirby, Connie Ford, Wilniesa Turner,
Elani Wells, Queena Hackney, Joy Tyler, Barbara Mast, Gerri F Hood,
Steven Bradley, Moose Bradley, Ronisha Peters, Tina Brandon, Heidi
Davis, Kathrine Thomas, Stephanie Humphrey, Brenda Blue, Daniel
Blue, and Loribeth Aaron.

In addition, former Plaintiff Kristen Clark-Hassell filed notice of
self-representation on Dec. 21, 2022 and former plaintiff Brandee
Ritsema filed a motion for leave to file exhibit on Dec. 30, 2022.
However, these former plaintiffs were dismissed by the Court's Dec.
7, 2022, order, and the instant filings do not provide cause to
reconsider that dismissal. In addition, the instant filings do not
include the requisite confirmation required by the Court's Dec. 7,
2022, order. Therefore, Judge Flanagan says these former plaintiffs
remain dismissed, and accordingly denies the motion for leave to
file exhibit.

Also before the Court are motions to intervene under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 24(a) and (b), filed by the following
individuals pro se: Dana Davis, Lora Byers, Kimberly Vifinkle,
Ocerine Cooper, Malibu Smith, Karla Johnson, Sara Ybarra-Johnson,
and Amanda Hunt.

Judge Flanagan finds that the movants have not met the requirements
for intervention of right, under Rule 24(a). For the same reasons,
in her discretion finds no basis for permissive intervention.
Furthermore, with respect to permissive intervention, intervention
in the manner now asserted will unduly delay and prejudice the
adjudication of the original parties' rights. Multiplying existing
claims in this case by additional claims of proposed intervenors
arising out of jurisdictions throughout the country will not
promote just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this action.
Therefore, the movants have not met the requirements for
intervention.

Furthermore, because of the form nature of the motions to intervene
in the case, as well as the proliferation of repetitive filings,
with substantial issues concerning pro se individuals and
organization attempting to act on behalf of others and a purported
class action, Judge Flanagan cautions that any future filings in
the nature of the instant motions to intervene are subject to
summary denial on the basis of her Order.

Based on the foregoing, in accordance with the Court's Dec. 7, 2022
order, only the following individuals remain as Plaintiffs in the
case: 1) Keona Bradley, 2) Raymond Sipult, 3) Glenda Cody, 4) Russ
Cody, 5) Cecelia Evertez, and 6) Laurie Reynolds. All other
Plaintiffs named in the complaint are dismissed for failure to
prosecute and failure to follow the Court's orders. In addition,
Judge Flanagan denies the pending pro se motions to intervene,
motion to add defendant, motion for leave to file new evidence, and
motion for default judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ctx34nrs from Leagle.com.


WALMART INC: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Johnson Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEVIN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. WALMART INC.,
Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 21-16423 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's
denial of Walmart's motion to compel arbitration of Johnson's
claims asserted against it.

Johnson brought the putative class action for breach of contract
and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing arising out
of a lifetime tire balancing and rotation service agreement that he
purchased from a Walmart Auto Care Center.

In July 2018, Johnson purchased a set of tires from Walmart.com,
Walmart's online platform. By making an online purchase, Johnson
agreed to the Walmart.com Terms of Use. Section 20 of the Terms of
Use contains a mandatory arbitration provision requiring that all
disputes arising out of or related to these Terms of Use or any
aspect of the relationship between you and Walmart will be resolved
through final and binding arbitration.

Johnson had the tires shipped to and installed at a Walmart Auto
Care Center in Texas. While waiting for his tires to be installed,
he purchased a lifetime tire balancing and rotation service
agreement from a Walmart employee at a separate, additional cost.
Johnson received these tire services once in 2019 but was later
denied service on several occasions in 2020 at multiple Walmart
Auto Care Centers across Texas, Arizona, and California. After
Walmart declined to service his tires, Johnson commenced this
putative class action in September 2020.

In December 2020, Walmart moved to compel individual arbitration of
the dispute pursuant to the arbitration provision of the Terms of
Use. The district court denied Walmart's motion. It found that the
plain meaning of the Terms of Use precluded applicability of the
arbitration provision to in-store purchases. Walmart appealed
challenging the district court's ruling. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 9 U.S.C. Section 16(a)(1)(C). The Ninth Circuit reviews
de novo a district court's denial of a motion to compel
arbitration.

On appeal, Walmart maintains that because Johnson agreed to the
arbitration provision of the Terms of Use when he purchased a set
of tires from Walmart.com, those Terms encompass this lawsuit,
which concerns his in-store purchase of a tire servicing agreement.
By Walmart's logic, the Terms of Use trigger the existence of an
independent, broad arbitration agreement between Walmart and users
of Walmart Sites that applies to any interaction between Walmart
and the customer, regardless of whether the dispute arises out of
an online purchase or any provision of the Terms of Use. Walmart
points to the language of the arbitration provision, which reaches
disputes that "arise out of or relate to" the Terms of Use or any
aspect of the customer's relationship with Walmart, and argues that
the introductory provisions, which state that the Terms of Use
govern "access to and use of all Walmart Sites," are independent.

The Ninth Circuit agrees with the district court that Johnson
contests the existence, not the scope, of an arbitration agreement
that would encompass the dispute. As the party seeking to compel
arbitration, Walmart bears the burden of proving the existence of
an agreement to arbitrate by a preponderance of the evidence.
Walmart agrees that Johnson did not consent to an arbitration
agreement at the time he purchased the Service Agreement at the
Walmart Auto Care Center. Nonetheless, it argues that Johnson's
in-store purchase is subject to the same pre-existing arbitration
agreement that he accepted when he purchased tires from Walmart.com
and agreed to the Terms of Use.

Section 2 of the FAA requires arbitration of controversies that
arise out of a contract containing a valid, enforceable arbitration
provision. But Johnson's claim against Walmart does not arise out
of the contract containing the arbitration agreement; it arises out
of an entirely separate transaction at a Walmart store. Thus, only
if the Service Agreement itself is subject to the Terms of Use does
an agreement to arbitrate claims arise out of that in-store
purchase.

Because it concludes that the existence of an arbitration agreement
is at issue and thus the presumption in favor of arbitrability does
not apply, the Ninth Circuit uses general state-law principles of
contract interpretation to decide whether a contractual obligation
to arbitrate exists. It must, therefore, interpret the meaning of
individual arbitration clauses "in connection with the rest of the
agreement" and "not detached portions thereof."

The Ninth Circuit finds that the Terms of Use have a clear,
delineated purpose -- to regulate use of Walmart's online resources
and content. The introductory text of the Terms of Use provides:
"These Terms of Use govern your access to and use of all Walmart
Sites." The agreement's provisions, therefore, apply only to a
consumer's use of and access to Walmart Sites.

A Walmart Auto Care Center is not a "Walmart Site" under this
definition. Moreover, the Terms of Use cover subject matter such as
online user accounts, the content of Walmart Sites and their use,
monitoring of user activity on Walmart Sites, the placing of online
transactions, and the shipping and delivery of online orders. No
provision of the Terms of Use addresses any form of in-store
engagement with Walmart.

Walmart argues that Johnson's two purchases are merely interrelated
contracts in an ongoing series of transactions such that the
arbitration agreement of the first necessarily applies to the
second. The Ninth Circuit states that where two contracts are
"separate," the lack of an arbitration clause means disputes over
the agreement are not subject to arbitration. But where two
contracts are merely interrelated contracts in an ongoing series of
transactions, an arbitration provision in one contract could apply
to subsequent contracts.

The two contracts -- though they involve the same parties and the
same tires -- are separate and not interrelated. Therefore, the
arbitration agreement in the first does not encompass disputes
arising from the second.

For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit affirms.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yvwwcypt from Leagle.com.

Aileen M. McGrath -- amcgrath@akingump.com -- (argued), Michael J.
Stortz -- mstortz@akingump.com -- and Michael J. Weisbuch --
mweisbuch@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, San
Francisco, California; Pratik A. Shah -- pshah@akingump.com -- Akin
Gump stauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, D.C; Pratik A. Shah, Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, D.C., for the
Defendant-Appellant.

Kenneth H. Yoon -- kyoon@yoon-law.com -- (argued) and Stephanie E.
Yasuda -- syasuda@yoonlaw.com -- Yoon Law APC, Los Angeles,
California, for the Plaintiff-Appellee.

Brian J. Malloy, The Brandi Law Firm, San Francisco, California,
for Amicus Curiae Consumer Attorneys of California.


WEEK PUBLICATIONS: $5.1M Class Deal in Moeller Suit Wins Prelim. OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH MOELLER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE WEEK PUBLICATIONS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-10666 (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 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 Moeller alleges the
Defendant improperly disclosed "detailed information" about her
subscription to The Week, leading to "a barrage of unwanted junk
mail."

In December 2021, former Lead Plaintiff Colin Custard sued
Defendant for violating Michigan's PPPA, alleging that, on or
before July 30, 2016, Defendant disclosed information about its
subscribers' personal reading history and habits without their
consent. In November 2022, Lead Plaintiff Elizabeth Moeller
replaced Custard in a Second Amended Complaint making the same
allegations.

After successful mediation in October 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, her
$5,000 service award will be reduced to $1,000 and the $4,000
difference will be distributed pro rata among Settlement Class
Members.

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 $5,082,870 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 The
Week for delivery to a Michigan street address, and who subscribed
to such publication between Dec. 17, 2015, and July 30, 2016.

Judge Ludington finds that the Class meets the Rule 23(a) and Rule
23 (b) requirements; the Agreement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate; and the proposed notice plan is the most practicable way
under the circumstances to provide individual notice to the Class.

Accordingly, Judge Ludington grants the Lead Plaintiff's Unopposed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, as
amended by her 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 The Week for delivery to a Michigan street address,
and who subscribed to such publication between Dec. 17, 2015, and
July 30, 2016."

For settlement purposes only, Judge Ludington appoints Lead
Plaintiff Elizabeth Moeller as the Class Representative, Bursor &
Fisher, P.A. as the Class Counsel; and JND Legal Administration as
the Class Administrator.

The Proposed Settlement Agreement, as amended by ECF No. 22
(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 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.

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 Attorney's 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 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 4:00 p.m. (EDT)

Judge Ludington's Opinion and 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/3rsz7m8y from Leagle.com.


WONG KWONG: Navor Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
HERMINIO NAVOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WONG KWONG HOP INC. (DBA WONG KWONG HOP) and
SONAM D. WANGCHUK, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00203 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 11, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure
to provide notice at time of hiring, and failure to provide
accurate wage statements.

Mr. Navor was employed by the Defendants as a restaurant staff from
2016 until November 2022.

Wong Kwong Hop Inc., doing business as Wong Kwong Hop, is a
restaurant owner and operator based in Queens, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                          
         Lina Stillman, Esq.
         STILLMAN LEGAL PC
         42 Broadway, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 203-2417

WV PARKWAYS: Fourth Circuit Vacates Dismissal of Monaco Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BLAZINE MONACO, Plaintiff-Appellant v. WV PARKWAYS
AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-1230 (4th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacates the district
court's dismissal of Monaco's putative class action.

Monaco appeals the district court's dismissal of her putative class
action against the Parkways Authority, in which she alleges that
the Parkways Authority improperly collected fees. And the Parkways
Authority appeals the district court's holding that it was not
entitled to sovereign immunity under the United States or West
Virginia Constitutions.

But before the Fourth Circuit can turn to these questions, it must
assure itself that it has subject-matter jurisdiction. Monaco
relies on the Class Action Fairness Act for jurisdiction. Yet that
jurisdictional grant does not apply when the primary defendants are
governmental entities against whom the district court may be
foreclosed from ordering relief. That is the situation in the case,
so it must be dismissed.

In 2018, Monaco drove through four separate cash toll booths on the
West Virginia Turnpike. Because she had no cash on hand, Monaco
passed through without paying the tolls. Nor did she pay the tolls
on her own after her trip. So six weeks later, the West Virginia
Parkways Authority sent Monaco an "Unpaid Toll Violation Notice."
That notice explained that she now owed $138: $8 in unpaid tolls,
$120 in administrative fees, and a $10 notice fee. Monaco paid the
$138 but then filed a putative federal class-action suit against
the Parkways Authority.

In her suit, Monaco alleged that the Parkways Authority unjustly
enriched itself by collecting the administrative and notice fees in
violation of West Virginia law. She claimed that the Parkways
Authority's fees violated West Virginia's Electronic Toll
Collection Act and Administrative Procedure Act.

The Parkways Authority moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that it
was immune from suit under the United States and West Virginia
Constitutions, and that, in any event, the fees were properly
assessed under its Enabling Act. The district court granted the
Parkways Authority's motion. It rejected the Parkways Authority's
immunity arguments but concluded that the fees were proper under
the Parkways Authority's Enabling Act. Yet nobody questioned
whether the district court had diversity jurisdiction in the first
place.

After reading the briefs, the Fourth Circuit questioned whether it
had jurisdiction over the suit and asked the parties to address the
issue at oral argument.

Monaco alleged in her complaint that there was jurisdiction under
the Class Action Fairness Act. That Act expanded diversity
jurisdiction over certain interstate class actions.

As always, when interpreting a statute, the Fourth Circuit starts
with its text. Section 1332(d)(5)(A) states that the Act's
jurisdictional grant "shall not apply to any class action in which
. . . the primary defendants are States, State officials, or other
governmental entities against whom the district court may be
foreclosed from ordering relief." This language raises three
questions: (1) Who are the primary defendants? (2) Are they
governmental entities? and (3) May the district court be foreclosed
from ordering relief against them?

The Fourth Circuit concludes that the Parkways Authority is the
only, and thus "primary," Defendant. And it is a "governmental
entity." The Parkways Authority's sovereign-immunity claim is
strong enough to conclude that the district court "may be
foreclosed from ordering relief" against it. So Section
1332(d)(2)'s jurisdictional grant "shall not apply." Since that is
the only provision that Monaco relies on to establish jurisdiction
over her putative class action, the district court lacked
jurisdiction to hear it.

The Fourth Circuit concludes that Section 1332(d)(5)(A) bars
jurisdiction under Section 1332(d)(2) of the Class Action Fairness
Act. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court must be
vacated, and the case remanded to the district court with
directions to dismiss without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/54bubknr from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Patrick J. Perotti -- pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- DWORKEN &
BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A., Painesville, Ohio, for the Appellant.

Stuart A. McMillan -- smcmillan@bowlesrice.com -- BOWLES RICE, LLP,
Charleston, West Virginia, for the Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Nicole T. Fiorelli -- nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com -- DWORKEN
& BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A., Painesville, Ohio; Stephen G. Skinner,
SKINNER LAW FIRM, Charleston, West Virginia, for the Appellant.

Peter G. Markham -- pmarkham@bowlesrice.com -- BOWLES RICE LLP,
Charleston, West Virginia, for the Appellee.


XCEL ENERGY: Arandell Class Suit Stayed Pending Appeal Resolution
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, ARANDELL CORPORATION, MERRICK'S, INC., SARGENTO
FOODS, INC., BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION, CARTHAGE COLLEGE, and
LADISHCO., INC, Plaintiffs v. XCEL ENERGY INC., NORTHERN STATES
POWER COMPANY, CANTERA GAS COMPANY, LLC, CMS ENERGY CORPORATION,
CMS ENERGY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, DYNERGY ILLINOIS, INC.,
DYNERGY GP INC., DYNERGY MARKETING & TRADE, E PRIME, INC., THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC., WILLIAMS POWER COMPANY now known as
WILLIAMS GAS MARKETING, INC., WILLIAMS MERCHANT SERVICES COMPANY,
INC., and DMT G.P. L.L.C., Defendants. NEWPAGE WISCONSIN SYSTEM
INC., Plaintiff v. CMS ENERGY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, CMS
ENERGY CORPORATION, CANTERA GAS COMPANY, LLC formerly known as CMS
FIELD SERVICES, INC., XCEL ENERGY INC., NORTHERN STATES POWER
COMPANY, DYNERGY ILLINOIS INC., DMT G.P. L.L.C., DYNERGY GP INC.,
DYNERGY MARKETING & TRADE, E PRIME, INC., THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES,
INC., WILLIAMS POWER COMPANY, INC., and WILLIAMS MERCHANT SERVICES
COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case Nos. 07-cv-076-jdp, 09-cv-240-jdp
(W.D. Wis.), Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Wisconsin:

   a. grants the Defendants' motion to stay the case pending
      resolution of the interlocutory appeal, except for
      proceedings related to the settlement with the Williams
      Defendants;

   b. grants the Defendants' motion for leave to file a reply in
      support of their motion to stay; and

   c. denies the Plaintiffs' motion for a status conference to
      set a trial date.

The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 has been granted and is now on appeal.

Three motions are before the Court: the Defendants' motion to stay
the case pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal, the
Plaintiffs' motion for a status conference to set a trial date, and
the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a class
settlement with a group of Defendants, the Williams Defendants.

Judge Peterson begins with the motion for stay pending appeal. Four
factors are pertinent to the matter: (1) whether the stay applicant
has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the
merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured
absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially
injure the other parties interested in the proceedings; and (4)
where the public interest lies.

Judge Peterson finds that the court of appeals granted the
Defendants' request for interlocutory review, which suggests some
chance of success on the merits. It limited the issue to whether
the district court had properly assessed the Plaintiffs' expert
evidence in certifying the class. But that's a critical issue, and
at this point, Judge Peterson says it seems that there is a chance
that the court of appeals would remand to this Court for a fuller
assessment of the Plaintiffs' experts. The Plaintiffs' expert
evidence might ultimately pass muster, even if the court of appeals
calls for more rigorous scrutiny on remand.

But Judge Peterson considers the Defendants to have made a
substantial enough showing of likely success on appeal to move to
the other factors. Because it is a class action, both sides and the
Court would expend substantial resources moving the case along.
Some of that effort would be wasted if the class certification
decision is ultimately reversed. More important, class action
status gives the Plaintiffs a lot of leverage; the Defendants would
be unfairly disadvantaged if they had to proceed with the case now
under the assumption that they faced a class action, only to have
class action status revoked. Plaintiffs have identified no special
harm that they would face, other than the inevitable indeterminate
delay that comes in waiting for the court of appeals decision.

Judge Peterson concludes that the Defendants face the potential for
irreparable harm, and that the balance of hardships tips in favor
of them. It is an important case, but it involves long-past
misdeeds and injuries. He sees no substantial impairment of the
public interest in waiting for the decision from the court of
appeals. He agrees with the Plaintiffs that the case has languished
a long time and that "stay" is usually a four-letter word when it
comes to case management. But this is one of those cases where
taking the chance of doing it over is worse than dragging it out.

Judge Peterson grants the Defendants' motion and stays most
proceedings pending resolution of the Defendants' appeal. He also
denies the Plaintiffs' request for a status conference.

There is one exception. The Plaintiffs reached a settlement with
the Williams Defendants after the Defendants moved for the stay
pending appeal. Judge Peterson will address the motion to approve
that settlement in a separate order.

Thus, the Defendants' motion to stay the case pending resolution of
their interlocutory appeal is granted, except for proceedings
related to the settlement with the Williams Defendants. He grants
the Defendants' motion for leave to file a reply in support of
their motion to stay. Lastly, he denies the Plaintiffs' motion for
a status conference.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 6, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/46a6dxzn from Leagle.com.



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***