/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230131.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, January 31, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 23

                            Headlines

ALTERRAON PHILLIPS: Arnstein Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
ANGLO AMERICAN: High Court Hears Lead Poisoning Class Suit
APOLLO ENDOSURGERY: M&A Firm Probes Merger With Boston Scientific
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Anderson Sues Over Therapists' Unpaid Wages
ASSESSOR OF FLORAL PARK: O'Connor Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.

ASSESSOR OF GREAT NECK ESTATES: Rosten Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Shannon Consumer Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Judge Tosses Suit Over Baby Food's False Ads
BESPOLITAN INC: Faces Class Suit Over Products' False Thread Counts
BLACK SREBNICK: Corzo Seeks Compliance of Document Subpoena

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Loses Bid to Merge Burbank Suit w/ Kavon Case
C. R. BARD: Joint Stipulation for Extension of Time Granted
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Rental Price Conspiracy
CARMAX INC: Faces Bendure Labor Suit in California Court
CATALINA SNACKS: Collyer Sues Over Mislabeled Snack Products

CDC LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Chavez Suit Says
CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Agrees to Settle Mislabeling Class Action Suit
CHICAGO, IL: Alley Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Vaccine Exemption Bid
CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Suit Over School Coaches' Unpaid Stipends
CHICK-FIL-A INC: Faces Class Action Over Video Data Collection

CIGNA HEALTH: R.J. et al., Seek to File Exhibits Under Seal
CIGNA HEALTH: RJ, et al., Seek to Certify Proposed Class
CINTAS CORP: Faces Laurel City Suit
CIRCA LIGHTING: Bradshaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: Ct. Modifies July 28 Scheduling Order

CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CVS PHARMACY: Keller Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
DEMERT BRANDS: Shampoo Products Contains Benzene, Shalit Alleges
DESIGNER OPTICS CORP: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
DFA DAIRY: Hernandez Suit Removed to D. Mass.

DIGNITY HEALTH: Reliance Community Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DIRECT GENERAL: Ransburg Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
DON HERRINGTON: Allowed to Leave to File Response Under Seal
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Aguilar Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
EARLY WARNING SERVICES: Lezcano Files Suit in D. Arizona

EDL GROUPS: Little Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages Owed
ELEMENTS PRODUCTION: McIntire Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
EPIC GAMES: Quebec Court Authorizes Fortnite Video Game Class Suit
EXACTECH INC: Sued Over Mislabeled Orthopedic Implant Devices
FASHION NOVA: Alcazar Seeks Approval of Class Action Notice

FATE THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 22
FEENEY BROTHERS: King Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
FESTIVAL FUN: Faces Miranda Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
FINJAN HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Amended Grier Securities Suit Upheld
FIRST NATIONAL: Summary Judgment Bids in Bezek Suit Granted in Part

FORD MOTOR: Scheduling Order Entered in Boyle Class Action
FRANCISCAN VNS: Beals Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages
FRISCO MEDICAL: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling to Texas Supreme Court
GATEWAY REHABILITATION: Suit Filed in W.D. Pennsylvania
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Oil Consumption Issues

GEO SECURE: Court Sets Deadline for Rule 26 Disclosures in Mazzei
GERBER LIFE: Loguidice, et al., Seek Leave to File Class Cert Bid
GERBER LIFE: Norman Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
GITHUB INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Copyright Class Action Suit
GLENN HAWBAKER: Packer, et al., Seek to Certify Employees Class

GLOBAL PLASMA: Court Sets Class Certification Deadlines in Garner
HAPPY GROUP: Plaintiffs Seek to Amend Class Cert Briefing Sched
HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Castillo FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Jimenez Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
HUMANS INC: Ligon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

HYATT CORP: Hicks Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
HYATT CORP: Neubecker Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
ILLINOIS FARMERS: Loses Bid for Class Cert. Order Clarification
IMPERIAL COUNTY, CA: Denial of ICSA's Bid for Class Cert. Reversed
INTEL CORP: Berkeley Suit Seeks ERISA-Protected Pension Benefits

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due March 14
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Tylenol Autism Lawsuits Consolidated Into MDL
JUUL LABS: Parties Stipulate Altria's Bid to Stay Pending Appeal
KELLOGG SALES: Jones Sues Over False and Misleading Representation
KEURIG GREEN: McClane's Request to Seal Documents Denied

KPS AFFILIATES: More Time to File Class Cert. Reply Sought
KROGER LIMITED: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Austin Suit Claims
KURA SUSHI USA: Settlement in Gomes Suit Wins Final Nod
L'OREAL USA INC: Grant Sues Over Harmful and Defective Chemicals
L'OREAL USA: Faces Class Action Over Hair Relaxers' Cancer Risk

LANGUAGE LINE: Joint Bid for Approval of Class Notice Filed
LASTPASS US: Sued Over Failure to Protect Personal Information
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Court OKs Bid to Seal Exhibit 2 in Ahmed Class Suit
LONG FENCE: Seeks Denial of Johnson Class Certification Bid
LOS DOS POTRILLOS: Castaneda Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation

LYONS MAGNUS: Radford Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
MARK CUBAN: Robertson Files Suit in D. Connecticut
MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Learned Files Suit in D. Minnesota
MERCER COUNTY, NJ: Campbell Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
MERCYFIRST INC: Manuel Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

METHODIST UNIVERSITY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MICHIGAN: $20-M Deal in Unemployment Fraud Suit Granted Final OK
MINNESOTA: Mishandles Civilly Committed Inmates, Chairse Claims
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Court Certifies Savings Plan Participant Class
MONARCH RECOVERY: Klein Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Debt

MOSAIC HEALTH: Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
NOTRE DAME COLLEGE: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NOVA HOME HEALTH: Denson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
OSMOSE UTILITIES: Corvin Suit Transferred to N.D. Ga.
OTONOMO INC: California Court Tosses Data Privacy Class Action

PIBERRY INSTITUTE: Alba Sues Over Discriminatory Practices
PLUSHCARE INC: Faces Robbins Securities Suit
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Scheduling Order Entered in North Class Suit
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Ford
PSB HOLDING: M&A Firm Continues Investigating Merger With Summit

PUBLIC STORAGE: Dupervil Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
QUALITY FIRST: Class Certification Deadlines Extended in Hoeltke
QUEENS UNIVERSITY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RACKSPACE TECHNOLOGY: Doubet Must Allege Citizenship of Each Party
RACKSPACE TECHNOLOGY: Faces Doubet Suit Over Alleged Data Breach

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Bids to Dismiss Borozny Complaint Denied
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: QuEST Can Compel Arbitration in Borozny Suit
RECOVERY REMEDIES: Filing of Class Certification Bid Extended
RECURRENT VENTURES: Discloses Info to Facebook, Carroll Suit Says
RESOLUTE CAPITAL: Cruz, et al., Seek to Stay Class Cert Deadline

REUTERS NEWS: Files Motions to Dismiss Video Privacy Class Action
SAZERAC CO: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Whiskey Labeling
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Mag. Judge Endorses Denial of Class Cert. Bid
SELECT REHABILITATION: Fails to Serve Disclosures, Suit Alleges
SHAUM'S CASABLANCA: Scheduling Order Deadlines in Jones Suit Stayed

SHOP-VAC CORP: Ex-Employee Files Class Action Over WARN Violations
SINGULARITY FUTURE: Faces Crivellaro Securities Suit
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Seibert Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
ST. LOUIS, MO: Judge Orders Remote Work Earnings Tax Refund
SWINERTON INC: Faces Amaya Suit Over Workers' Unpaid Wages

SWISSPORT SA: Fairbanks Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
T-MOBILE US: Faces Cortazal Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
TILRAY BRANDS: Faces Kasilingam Suit in NY Court Over Merger Deal
TREAN INSURANCE: M&A Firm Continues Investigating Altaris Merger
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs Allowed Leave to File Class Cert Bid

TVI INC: Faces Alvarado Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
TWITTER INC: Asks Judge to Toss Out Proposed Sex Bias Class Action
UAG ESCONDIDO A1: Esparza Suit Removed to S.D. California
UNITED STATES: Discloses Asylum Seekers' Personal Info, Suit Says
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Judge Rules Against Copyright Class Action Suit

VALLON PHARMACEUTICALS: M&A Firm Probes Merger With GRI Bio
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Hendrickson Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
WALGREEN CO: Alemnew Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
WELCH FOODS: Clevenger Slack Fill Case Removed to C.D. Cal.
WELLS FARGO: Lead Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Reply Brief

WEXFORD HEALTH: Loses Bid to Junk Blossom Suit
WORLD WRESTLING: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
ZARA USA: Dike Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
[*] U.S. Companies Across Industries Hit With VPPA Class Actions

                            *********

ALTERRAON PHILLIPS: Arnstein Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Arnstein, et al., v.
Alterraon Phillips, Esq. et al., Case No. 9:21-cv-82516 (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Aileen M. Cannon entered an order denying
without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
and appointment of class counsel.

On or before January 21, 2023 , the Plaintiffs may file a renewed
motion for class certification that complies with the Local Rules
in all respects.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act.[CC]


ANGLO AMERICAN: High Court Hears Lead Poisoning Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Amnesty International reports that the South Gauteng High Court in
Johannesburg will continue hearing a ground-breaking case brought
by Zambian children and women against the mining giant Anglo
American, seeking compensation for lead poisoning, human rights
groups announced on Jan. 23.

At the end of the 12-day hearing that opened on 20 January, the
Court will decide whether to certify this unprecedented class
action demanding that Anglo American South Africa remedy the
adverse health impacts of its mining activities in the District of
Kabwe, Zambia. If the case proceeds, it will offer a unique
opportunity for residents of Kabwe to have a day in court and
secure judicial remedies for the alleged human rights abuses
associated with Anglo American's business operations.

Amnesty International and the Southern Africa Litigation Centre
(SALC) were admitted as joint amici curiae ("friends of the court")
in August 2022 to brief the Court on international business and
human rights standards and South African constitutional law
relevant for the certification of the class action. The human
rights groups stress that South Africa's duty to regulate the
conduct of its companies extends beyond its territorial borders and
that Anglo American's responsibility to respect human rights should
inform the Court's decision to certify this class action.

"Residents of Kabwe have shown incredible resilience in pursuing
legal action against a multinational mining giant and should be
afforded the opportunity to make their case before South African
courts. Businesses have a responsibility to remediate the adverse
human rights impacts of their activities. Remediation starts with a
fair access to courts" said Candy Ofime, Researcher and Adviser on
Business and Human Rights at Amnesty International.

This lawsuit has the potential to set a key legal precedent and
fill an important accountability gap. For years, human rights
organizations have been amplifying residents of Kabwe's calls for
justice internationally. At the hearing, representatives of the
United Nations Special Procedures will also have a chance to
present legal argument regarding corporates' responsibility to
remediate harm.

SALC's Socio-Economic Rights Cluster Lead, Brigadier Siachitema,
highlighted that:

"This case is not just another class action. Its certification is
important not only to the people of Kabwe but to anyone who
suffered human rights abuses as a result of transboundary corporate
conduct by a South African company. South African courts have the
power to level the imbalance and close the accountability gap that
exists in practice. "

Amnesty and SALC are represented by the Centre for Applied Legal
Studies (CALS) and advocate Karabo van Heerden in this matter.

Background

In October 2020, residents of Kabwe brought this civil lawsuit
against Anglo American's South African subsidiary, on behalf of an
estimated 100,000 children and women, who report suffering injury
from lead exposure as a result of century-long mineral extraction
near their homes. The Court's decision of whether to certify this
class action will unequivocally affect victims' right to an
effective remedy and access to justice. The class action can only
proceed to the trial stage if the High Court in Johannesburg grants
certification of the class action.

The Kabwe lead mine -- once known as the "Broken Hill" mine -- was
allegedly operated and managed by Anglo American between 1925 and
1974 and reportedly contributed to extensive environmental
pollution in towns and communities living in the vicinity of the
mining site.

Today, experts describe Kabwe as a "sacrifice zone" and one of the
most lead-polluted places on earth. Medical studies have shown that
children from Kabwe have record-high levels of lead in their blood.
Children and pregnant women are at particular risk from lead
toxicity, which is known to cause permanent damage to internal
organs, including the brain. [GN]

APOLLO ENDOSURGERY: M&A Firm Probes Merger With Boston Scientific
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

Apollo Endosurgery, Inc. (Nasdaq: APEN), relating to its proposed
sale to Boston Scientific Corp. Under the terms of the merger, APEN
shareholders will receive $10.00 in cash per share they own. Click
here for more information:

https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/apollo-endosurgery-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as a Rising Star
and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities Litigation. He has also
been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated
Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a
significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under
Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter,
our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal
of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United
States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407
(2019). Also, we have recovered or secured over a dozen cash common
funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action
cases.

If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:

Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118 [GN]
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]

APRIA HEALTHCARE: Anderson Sues Over Therapists' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kendra Anderson, Plaintiff v. Apria Healthcare Corp., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00383 (E.D.N.Y., January 19, 2023) is a putative
collection action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other
persons similarly situated, for damages and other legal and
equitable relief against Defendant Apria Healthcare Corp. for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law,
and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay her and
similarly situated individuals the statutorily required rate of one
and a half times their hourly rate for all hours worked in excess
of 40 per workweek, and seeks to recover: (i) unpaid and
incorrectly paid wages for all hours worked in a workweek, as
required by law; (ii) unpaid overtime; (iii) liquidated damages;
(iv) interest; (v) attorneys' fees and costs; and (vi) such other
and further relief as the Court finds necessary and proper.

The Plaintiff began her employment for Defendant as a Respiratory
Therapist at its Long Island City location from February 2016 until
February 1, 2020.

Apria Healthcare Corp. is a privately owned business headquartered
in Indianapolis, Illinois which offers health care services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander M. White, Esq.
          VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
          600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7180
          Facsimile: (516) 706-0248

ASSESSOR OF FLORAL PARK: O'Connor Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Village of Floral Park, et al. The case is styled as Stuart
O'Connor, Joyce O'Connor, all other similarly situated Petitioners
on the annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioners v. The Assessor of the
Village of Floral Park, The Board of Assessment Review of the
Village of Floral Park, Respondents, Case No. 601299/2023 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Jan. 20, 2023).

The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."

Floral Park -- https://fpvillage.org/ -- is an incorporated village
in Nassau County, New York, United States, on Long Island.[BN]

The Petitioners are represented by:

          MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP
          132 Spruce St
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915


ASSESSOR OF GREAT NECK ESTATES: Rosten Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Village of Great Neck Estates, et al. The case is styled as
Theodore Rosten, Carole Rosten, all other similarly situated
Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioners v. The Assessor
of the Village of Great Neck Estates, The Board of Assessment
Review of the Village of Great Neck Estates, Respondents, Case No.
601298/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Jan. 20, 2023).

The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."

Great Neck Estates -- https://www.vgne.com/ -- is a village on the
Great Neck Peninsula in the Town of North Hempstead, in Nassau
County, on the North Shore of Long Island, in New York.[BN]

The Petitioners are represented by:

          MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP
          132 Spruce St
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Shannon Consumer Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL SHANNON, individually and on behalf of all
others similiarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC;
BAYER CORPORATION; and, ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH, INC. Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02003, was transferred from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-06016 to the proceeding.

The suit arises from the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and
omissions in placing the defective Seresto flea and tick collars
into the stream of commerce without adequate warnings of the
hazardous and neurotoxic nature of imidacloprid + flumethrin that
led to Plaintiff's and the other Class Members' pets to suffer
severe, permanent physical injuries. The Plaintiff and the other
Class Members have endured pain and suffering and have suffered
economic losses (including significant expenses for medical care
and treatment of their pets) in an amount to be determined, says
the suit.

Bayer Healthcare LLC is a German multinational pharmaceutical and
biotechnology company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl Vincent Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
          E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com

BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Judge Tosses Suit Over Baby Food's False Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that a New York federal judge has dismissed a
lawsuit accusing Beech-Nut Nutrition Co. of failing to disclose
that its baby food contains toxic heavy metals, ruling the Food and
Drug Administration has primary jurisdiction over the action.

In a Jan. 19 order, Judge David N. Hurd of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York agreed with Beech-Nut that
the plaintiffs' claims depend upon "technical and policy
considerations within the FDA's field of expertise," and that the
action is not a "garden variety" false advertising case, as argued
by plaintiffs. [GN]


BESPOLITAN INC: Faces Class Suit Over Products' False Thread Counts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey at classaction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit accuses Bespolitan, Inc. and Elegant Comfort, Inc.
of misleading consumers by falsely claiming that certain bed sheet
and pillow sets have a 1500 thread count.

The 21-page lawsuit says that marketing the products as having a
"1500 Thread Count" is "egregiously false and deceptive" in light
of regulatory testing that reportedly showed that the items' actual
thread count was significantly lower, around 180.

According to the suit, the products at issue are all Elegant
Comfort-brand bed sheet and pillow sets sold on e-commerce
websites, including Amazon.com, with a 1500-thread-count claim in
the product name. The products at issue include, but are not
limited to, the Elegant Comfort Luxury Soft 1500 Thread Count
Egyptian 4-Piece Premium Hotel Quality Wrinkle Resistant Coziest
Bedding Set, the Elegant Comfort Luxurious 1500 Thread Count
Egyptian Quality Three Line Embroidered Softest Premium Hotel
Quality 4-Piece Bed Sheet Set, the Elegant Comfort Luxury Soft Bed
Sheets Quatrefoil Pattern 1500 Thread Count Percale Egyptian
Quality Softness Wrinkle and Fade Resistant (6-Piece) Bedding Set,
and the Elegant Comfort Luxury Ultra-Soft 2-Piece Pillowcase Set
1500 Thread Count Egyptian Quality Microfiber Double
Brushed-Wrinkle Resistant, the suit states.

"Unfortunately for consumers, Defendants resort to false and
misleading advertising to boost sales of the Products and gain a
competitive edge in the market, all at the expense of unsuspecting
consumers," the case reads.

Not only do the product names that appear on Amazon.com
"unequivocally" describe the items' purportedly high thread count,
but the product information columns lower on the page double down
by stating "1500" in the "Thread Count" section, the complaint
relays.

Per the filing, consumers are willing to pay top dollar for bedding
sets with greater thread counts based on their belief that it
indicates a higher-quality product.

The plaintiff, a New York resident, ordered one of the products at
issue off Amazon in the summer of 2020, the lawsuit says. The woman
believed based on the defendants' representations that the bedding
set had a thread count of 1500, and she was not alone in being
deceived, the case contends. According to the suit, the products'
Amazon pages show numerous consumer complaints and several one- to
three-star reviews questioning the authenticity of the
1500-thread-count claims.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who
purchased any of the products listed on this page during the
applicable statute of limitations period.[GN]

BLACK SREBNICK: Corzo Seeks Compliance of Document Subpoena
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Andrew Corzo, Sia Henry, Alexander
Leo-Guerra, Michael Maerlender, Brandon Piyevsky, Benjamin Shumate,
Brittany Tatiana Weaver, and Cameron Williams, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioners v. BLACK,
SREBNICK, KORNSPAN & STUMPF, P.A., Respondent, Case No.
1:23-mc-20231-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 19, 2023), the Petitioners
request an order compelling Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf,
P.A. to comply with Petitioners' document subpoena issued in
connection with pending litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

Petitioners have brought an antitrust class action in the Northern
District of Illinois against Georgetown University and sixteen
other elite universities alleged to have engaged in price-fixing by
artificially reducing financial aid and failing to admit students
on a fully need-blind basis, as required by the Section 568
Exemption.[BN]

The Petitioners are represented by:

          Devin "Vel" Freedman, Esq.
          FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP
          1 SE 3rd Ave. Suite 1240
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (786) 924-2900
          Email: vel@fnf.law


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Loses Bid to Merge Burbank Suit w/ Kavon Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MARTIN BURBANK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BMW
OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01711-KM-ESK (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Edward S. Kiel entered an order denying the the
Defendant BMW of North America, LLC's (BMW) renewed motion to
consolidate:

  -- Kavon v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. 20-cv-15475,
     with Burbank v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No.
     21-cv-01711 under a single complaint.

Kavon and Burbank shall continue to be consolidated for purposes of
discovery and case management.

The current procedural posture of Kavon and Burbank is
significantly different from when the Initial Consolidation Motion
was pending.

Since Burbank involves a claim for the express breach of warranty,
whereas Kavon does not, Burbank is no longer completely subsumed
within Kavon.

In opposition to the Initial Consolidation Motion, the Burbank
Plaintiff had expressed concern that the Kavon Plaintiffs would not
be committed to maintaining a truly separate California subclass.

This concern arose from the Kavon Plaintiffs pleading the
California subclass in the alternative just three days before BMW's
filing of the Initial Consolidation Motion and only in the event
that the Kavon Plaintiffs' preferred nationwide class was denied.

The Burbank Plaintiff had claimed that the Kavon Plaintiffs added
the California subclass purely to aid the Initial Consolidation
Motion and worried that California class members would be
ill-served by a nationwide class because California law offers
remedies superior to the MMWA. The Burbank Plaintiff's concern for
the state law claims being "second in line" to the nationwide
claims no longer exists.

However, the Burbank Plaintiff's apprehension over the Kavon
Plaintiffs' insistence that they will not consider his express
warranty claim less-worthy of prosecution should not be brushed
aside. There may be duplicative briefing at the class-certification
and summary judgment stages and slightly more inefficiency in
proceeding with two complaints consolidated for case management and
discovery purposes.

This, however, does not outweigh the California subclass's
potential prejudice from being bunched together with different
claims of other subclasses from different states.

BMW initially moved to consolidate Kavon and Burbank through one
complaint on March 26, 2021 (Initial Consolidation Motion). While
the Kavon Plaintiffs did not oppose the Initial Consolidation
Motion, the Burbank Plaintiff specified that he opposed full
consolidation but consented to consolidation for discovery and case
management purposes only.

The Court found Kavon and Burbank to be "nearly identical class
action cases." However, since a question as to the viability of the
nationwide class in Kavon existed at that juncture, I determined
that "any consideration of consolidating the parties' complaints
for all purposes should await resolution of BMW's [anticipated]
motion to dismiss."

BMW of North America is a automotive company that manufactures
luxury and performance vehicles.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZTNuoL at no extra charge.[CC]

C. R. BARD: Joint Stipulation for Extension of Time Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORTH BREVARD COUNTY
HOSPITAL DISTRICT v. C. R. BARD, INC.; BARD ACCESS SYSTEMS, INC.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00144-RJS-JCB (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Robert J.
Shelby entered an order granting joint stipulation for extension of
time:


    1. The deadline for Defendants to file a responsive expert
       disclosure and brief in opposition to class certification
       is extended from February 10, 2023 to February 24, 2023;
       and

    2. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a rebuttal expert
       report and reply brief in support of its motion for class
       certification is extended from March 13, 2023 to March
       27, 2023.

C. R. Bard is a developer, manufacturer, and marketer of medical
technologies in the vascular medicine, urology, oncology, and
surgical specialty fields.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kD4uPW at no extra charge.[CC]

CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Rental Price Conspiracy
--------------------------------------------------------------
hotelnewsresource.com reports that several major companies that run
prominent hotels on the famous commercial strip near Las Vegas were
hit with a consumer antitrust lawsuit in federal court accusing
them of conspiring to keep hotel room rates artificially high.

The lawsuit in Nevada federal court alleged Caesars Entertainment
Inc, Treasure Island LLC, Wynn Resorts Holdings LLC and MGM Resorts
International used shared pricing algorithms to set rates instead
of making "independent pricing and supply decisions."

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a resident of Florida and a
resident of Washington state who allege they stayed in defendants'
hotel rooms, claimed the group of hotel defendants, using shared
data, could "defy supply and demand dynamics" in the hospitality
industry. [GN]

CARMAX INC: Faces Bendure Labor Suit in California Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Carmax, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended November 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 6, 2023, that on July 9, 2021, the
case captioned "Daniel Bendure v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC et al.," a putative class action, was filed in the
Superior court of California, County of San Bernardino.

The Bendure lawsuit seeks civil penalties for violation of the
Labor Code, attorneys' fees, costs, restitution of unpaid wages,
interest, injunctive and equitable relief, general damages, and
special damages.

Bendure subsequently decided not to proceed with an individual or
putative class claim, but rather filed and served a PAGA-only
complaint in the Superior court of California for the County of San
Bernardino on December 7, 2021, based on the same allegations pled
in the original complaint. CarMax filed a motion to compel
arbitration. The court has stayed all discovery until after it
rules on CarMax's motion to compel arbitration.

CarMax is a retailer of used vehicles based in Virginia.

CATALINA SNACKS: Collyer Sues Over Mislabeled Snack Products
------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN COLLYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CATALINA SNACKS INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-00296 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 20, 2023) is an action by the
Plaintiff in behalf of consumers who overpaid for misleadingly
labeled Catalina Snacks products.

According to the complaint, Catalina Snacks manufactures "keto
friendly" cereals that are sold under the brand name "Catalina
Crunch" at grocery stores throughout California and online to
California consumers. Catalina Crunch cereals come in varieties
including "Chocolate Banana", "Honey Graham", "Mint Chocolate", and
"Apple Cider Donut" (collectively, the "Products").

The labels on the Products lure in California consumers who wish to
purchase foods made from actual fruits and premium ingredients.
However, as described below, the Products do not contain the
promised ingredients. The Chocolate Banana contains no banana, the
Apple Cider Donut contains no apple, the Honey Graham contains no
honey, and the Mint Chocolate does not have mint. The Defendant's
actions are misleading and in direct violation of California law.
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated California consumers are
entitled to damages and all other remedies the Court deems
appropriate, says the suit.

CATALINA SNACKS INC. produces keto-friendly, vegan, low-carb
cereals, and sandwich cookies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Gubernick, Esq.
          GUBERNICK LAW P.L.L.C.
          10720 W. Indian School Rd.,
          Suite 19, PMB 12
          Phoenix, AZ 85037
          Telephone: (623) 252-6961
          Email: ben@gubernicklaw.com

CDC LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Chavez Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CDC LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. Case No.
2:23-cv-00076 (E.D. Wis., Jan. 20, 2023) is an action against the
Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum
wages, and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.

Plaintiff Chavez was employed by the Defendant as staff.

CDC LOGISTICS, LLC is engaged in delivery and logistics services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          James A. Walcheske, 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
          Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                 sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                 dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Agrees to Settle Mislabeling Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Dreier at Cox Media Group National Content Desk reports
that if you've purchased a Celsius drink over the past seven years,
you may be entitled to some cash.

The company was sued after promoting that it has no preservatives,
but does use citric acid, WJZ reported.

Celsius said citric acid is used as a flavor, not a preservative,
but still settled the lawsuit.

The case was Hezi v. Celsius Holdings, which was heard in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. It was case
number 1:21-CV-09892-VM.

The settlement means that if someone bought a Celsius drink or
drink mix from Jan. 1 2015 to Nov. 23, 2022, then they are entitled
to a payout.

If you have a receipt or other proof of purchase, then you can get
up to $250. But don't worry if you don't have a receipt, you can
still get $20.

The deadline to submit a claim is Feb. 1, according to a news
release.

To submit a claim, visit the class action suit's webpage.

Earlier this month, Celsius was found to have breached a contract
the company had with rapper Flo Rida, awarding him $82.6 million,
The Associated Press reported.

The entertainer said the company violated an endorsement deal.

"Basically, I helped birth this company, and all we was looking for
was some trustworthy people who acted as if they were family," the
entertainer told the AP. "And then when it comes down to the
success of today, they just forgot about me." [GN]

CHICAGO, IL: Alley Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Vaccine Exemption Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
Prebel Alley, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Chicago Transit Authority,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00409 (N.D. Ill., January 23, 2023) is
a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant
pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the Illinois
Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Through this action, Alley seeks to represent a class of all CTA
employees who have requested or will request religious exemptions
and accommodations from the mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy
and who have had those requests unlawfully denied. The Plaintiff
asserts that CTA did not, and does not, have any undue hardship to
justify the denial of his religious exemption/accommodation
request. He added that CTA's failure to provide him a religious
exemption/accommodation has harmed and will continue to harm him.

Plaintiff Alley was formerly a bus operator for the CTA.

CTA is an independent governmental agency which operates the U.S.
second largest public transportation system -- in Chicago and 35
surrounding suburbs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julie Herrera, Esq.
          Steve Molitor, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JULIE O. HERRERA
          159 N. Sangamon St., Ste. 200
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: (312) 479-3014
          Facsimile: (708) 843-5802
          E-mail: jherrera@julieherreralaw.com
                  smolitor@julieherreralaw.com

               - and -

          Sorin A. Leahu, Esq.
          LEAHU LAW GROUP, LLC
          53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 1527
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (847) 529-7221
          E-mail: sleahu@leahulaw.com

CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Suit Over School Coaches' Unpaid Stipends
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Haydock, writing for Cook County Record, reports that Chicago
Public Schools now finds itself at the center of a new class action
lawsuit, claiming the school system improperly refused to pay
hundreds of current and former coaches stipends they are allegedly
owed for "hundreds of hours" of work per year.

The class action lawsuit was filed by named plaintiffs Nico Ross
and Travis Mitchell, on behalf of themselves and others against the
Board of Education of the City of Chicago on Jan. 20. The lawsuit
claims violations under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act (IWPCA).

Under the IWPCA, "hours worked" includes "all the time an employee
is required to be on duty, or on the employer's premises, or at
other prescribed places of work, and any additional time . . .
required or permitted to work..."

Plaintiffs claim that CPS knowingly refused to honor an agreement
with them, and as such contends that CPS's refusal to pay its
coaches their earned compensation constitutes violation of the
IWPCA.

Ross and Mitchell, like other coaches current and former, were
hired as non-teacher coaches for various Chicago public schools.
Under the terms of their agreements, they were offered stipends as
payment in accordance with certain terms and conditions required by
CPS.

Ross and Mitchell were hired as head and assistant coaches,
respectively, for the wrestling team for Chicago Agricultural High
School in the fall of 2018, and said they were promised stipends of
$5,400 and $3,000, respectively, for their work.

Ross and Mitchell said they spent approximately 2.5 hours per day
on weekdays for training, setup and tear-down, and supervision,
plus 10-12 hours over the weekend at various meets. By January
2019, they said they had already logged about 100 hours coaching,
in addition to hours spent at meets.

As a requirement for earning their stipends, Ross and Mitchell
agreed to certain terms and conditions. Among other items, these
conditions required the team to participate in conference meets and
the varsity city championship in January; to participate in the CPL
Championship Tournament; and that the team would not forfeit more
than two dates.

In January 2019, according to the complaint, the CPS Sports
Administration informed the school principal that the team did not
have enough students on the team, and as a result, would not honor
the stipend agreement. Plaintiffs are claiming that according to
the alleged agreement, there were no mandates as to how many
wrestlers were needed to qualify for the stipend, only that the
above conditions were met.

Despite this, CPS still allegedly refused payment.

CPS allegedly offered Ross partial payment of $1,000 in lieu of
full payment. According to court documents, Ross declined the
offer. Court documents state that at that point, CPS chose to
dismiss both Ross and Mitchell without compensation.

As both Ross and Mitchell were not members of a teachers union,
they said they have no other recourse, besides a lawsuit, to
contest their dismissal.

Plaintiffs are seeking a trial by jury, payment of all unpaid wages
and damages with interest, plus attorney fees and associated
costs.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Matthew Fletcher and
Haskell Garfinkel, of The Garfinkel Group, of Chicago [GN]

CHICK-FIL-A INC: Faces Class Action Over Video Data Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Germain, writing for GizModo, reports that while Chick-fil-A
was serving you sandwiches, it was also serving up data to
Facebook's parent company Meta. According to a new lawsuit filed on
Jan. 22, the fast food chain did that in a way that violated one of
the only federal privacy laws in the United States.

Chick-fil-A has been putting out bizarre animated videos during the
Christmas season over the last four years titled "The Stories of
Evergreen Hills." We've posted a seven-minute-long example below,
which you can watch, if you're out of your mind. These low-budget
holiday masterpieces are available on YouTube, or you can check
them out on Chick-fil-A's dedicated website, evergreenhills.com.
That website caught privacy lawyers' attention due to the way it
tracks and shares data.

Like hundreds of millions of other websites, evergreenhills.com has
an embedded Meta pixel, a tracker that sends the social media
company data about who's visiting the site. Companies like
Chick-fil-A use that information to retarget people with ads and
measure how well ad campaigns are working. The plaintiffs allege
that Chick-fil-A broke a law called the Video Privacy Protection
Act (VPPA), which says you can't share personally identifiable
information about people's video viewership without their consent.

The Meta pixel doesn't typically collect your name, phone number,
or home address, but it does gather unique ID numbers that the
social media company uses to identify you and target you with ads.
According to privacy advocates, that obviously meets the criteria
for personally identifiable information, because it's information
that identifies you individually. But the aggrieved Chick-fil-A
customers will have to make that argument to the judge.

Chick-fil-A did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The privacy policy of evergreenhills.com states that the company
collects information on its visitors and may share that information
with Facebook and other social media companies.

Contrary to popular belief, there are basically no privacy laws in
the United States, especially at the federal level. The few state
laws related to data privacy, such as the California Consumer
Privacy Act, give you some rights after the data is collected, but
they generally require companies to get your consent.

But when there's video involved, you step into a legal gray area.

The VPPA is an obscure 1988 law meant to protect information about
people's video tape rentals called the Video Privacy Protection Act
(VPPA), written after the press leaked a list of failed Supreme
Court nominee Robert Bork's movie watching habits.

Three-and-a-half decades later, that law may land Chick-fil-A in
the fryer, along with a growing list of basically every company on
the planet that shows videos online.

The VPPA says that "video tape service providers" (or anyone who
offers similar services) can't disclose personally identifiable
information about what videos you watch without your informed,
written consent. If a company shares your data in violation of the
law, they owe you a $2,500, not counting potential punitive damages
and attorneys fees. When there's a class-action lawsuit with
thousands or millions of potential victims involved, that money
adds up fast.

However, it's not clear whether the structure of the internet is in
scope of the Reagan era privacy law. The multi-million dollar
question is how courts will define "personally identifiable
information."

Chick-fil-A is in good company. There has been an absolute
explosion of class-action lawsuits filed for alleged VPPA
violations over the last year or so. In October, Bloomberg Law
identified 47 different lawsuits, a number which has only grown
since, filing claims against companies including NBA, GameStop,
CNN, BuzzFeed, and Dotdash Meredith, owner of People Magazine. It
almost seems as though lawyers are trawling the web looking for
more websites to sue. It's like a meme for attorneys.

Reading the text of the law, it seems clear that sending data about
video watching that lets a company identify you is in spirit of
what Congress wanted to protect back in the ‘80s. But if that is
true, the chicken is going to hit the fan. This kind of data
sharing is just how the internet works (which is unfortunate, for
anyone who's a fan of not being spied on). There are Meta pixels
and similar tracking tools on practically every website you visit.
If every one of those websites that has videos on it broke the law,
companies could be on the hook for tens or even hundreds of
billions of dollars. [GN]

CIGNA HEALTH: R.J. et al., Seek to File Exhibits Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as R.J. et al., v. Cigna
Health & Life Insurance, Co., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-02255-EJD
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs request that the Court grant their
application to file the exhibits to the Modiano Declaration, and
those portions of Plaintiffs' class certification motion that cite
these exhibits, under seal.

The parties have entered into a protective order in this action.
The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification refers to
information designated by Defendants Cigna Health & Life Insurance,
Co.

Cigna Health offers life and health insurance services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GWJ3kw at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew M. Lavin, Esq.
          Aaron R. Modiano, Esq.
          ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP
          1775 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 677-4030
          Facsimile: (202) 677-4031
          E-mail: matt.lavin@agg.com
                  aaron.modiano@agg.com

                - and -

          David M. Lilienstein, Esq.
          Katie J. Spielman, Esq.
          DL LAW GROUP
          345 Franklin Street
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 678-5050
          Facsimile: (415) 358-8484
          E-mail: david@dllawgroup.com
                  katie@dllawgroup.com


CIGNA HEALTH: RJ, et al., Seek to Certify Proposed Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RJ, et al., v. Cigna
Health & Life Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-02255-EJD
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying the proposed Class, as well as any other such relief
that the Court deems just and proper.

The suit encompasses a putative class with more than 150,000 claims
representing more than 390,000 days of treatment for intensive
outpatient therapy for more than 8,000 individual patients at more
than 3,100 facilities. The Plaintiffs and the thousands of putative
class members were directly injured by Cigna and MultiPlan's
unlawful scheme to underpay valid, medically necessary claims
through the fraudulent and deceptive use of the Viant OPR
methodology.

The Plaintiffs and the putative class members' reimbursement claims
for out-ofnetwork, intensive outpatient therapy ("IOP") for
substance use disorders were submitted to Cigna with HCPCS code
H0015 and/or revenue code 0906.1 Within this overall group,
Plaintiffs have asserted claims under ERISA and RICO that are
appropriate for class certification.

The Plaintiffs propose the following Class Definition:

   "Any member of a health benefit plan administered or issued
   by Cigna and governed by ERISA, where the member's plan
   utilized Cigna's 'Maximum Reimbursable Charge' program for
   out-of-network benefits and whose claim(s) for intensive
   outpatient services billed with HCPCS H0015 and/or revenue
   code 0906 were priced by MultiPlan's Viant methodology,
   during the class period January 1, 2015 to the present."

Cigna Health offers life and health insurance services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 17,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HnYXpI
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew M. Lavin, Esq.
          Aaron R. Modiano, Esq.
          ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP
          1775 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 677-4030
          Facsimile: (202) 677-4031
          E-mail: matt.lavin@agg.com
                  aaron.modiano@agg.com

                - and -

          David M. Lilienstein, Esq.
          Katie J. Spielman, Esq.
          DL LAW GROUP
          345 Franklin Street
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 678-5050
          Facsimile: (415) 358-8484
          E-mail: david@dllawgroup.com
                  katie@dllawgroup.com

CINTAS CORP: Faces Laurel City Suit
------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2023, that the company is a
defendant in a purported class action lawsuit captioned "City of
Laurel, Mississippi v. Cintas Corporation No. 2," filed on March
12, 2021.

This is a contract dispute whereby plaintiffs allege that Cintas
breached its contracts with participating public agencies and seek,
among other things, contract-based damages in an unspecified
amount. In March 2022, the District Court denied Cintas' motion to
compel arbitration. Cintas' appeal from the denial of its motion is
pending.

Cintas Corporation is into men's & boys' furnishings, work
clothing, and allied garments based in Ohio.


CIRCA LIGHTING: Bradshaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Circa Lighting LLC.
The case is styled as Gary Bradshaw, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Circa Lighting LLC doing business as:
Visual Comfort & Co., Case No. 1:23-cv-00468 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 19,
2023).

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

Circa Lighting LLC doing business as: Visual Comfort & Co. --
https://www.visualcomfort.com/ -- is a premier resource of designer
lighting, with an array of light fixtures including pendant
lighting and chandeliers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel Levy, Esq.
          GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
          1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Phone: (516) 287-3458
          Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com


COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: Ct. Modifies July 28 Scheduling Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH MCGRADY,
Individually, and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated, v
COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS, INC., a Wyoming corporation, BARNEY &
GRAHAM, LLC, WESTON T. GRAHAM, CHRISTOPHER COCCIMIGLIO, and DAVID
C. COCCIMIGLIO, Case No. 1:22-cv-00100-SWS (D. Wyo.), the Hon.
Judge Kelly H. Rankin entered an order modifying initial scheduling
order dated July 28, 2022 as follows:

    -- Filing Deadline:                     April 19, 2023

    -- Response Deadline:                   May 19, 2023

    -- Hearing:                             June 21, 2023

    -- Motions to move for class            June 21, 2023
       certification are hereby set
       for oral hearing before the
       Honorable Scott W. Skavdahl on:

The parties shall appear for a telephonic status conference and be
prepared to schedule the case moving forward on July 26, 2023, at
10 a.m.

Collection Professionals provides debt collection, nsf check and
debt recovery services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J6d5oM at no extra charge.[CC]


CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Garcia, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
Case No. 1:23-cv-20216-RAR (S.D. Fla., Jan. 19, 2023), is brought
for unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and the costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees of this action under the provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in one or
more work weeks for Defendant within the 3-year statute of
limitations period between January 2020 and the present. However,
the Defendant has failed to pay time and one-half wages for the
overtime hours worked by the Plaintiff with the Defendant instead
paying hourly plus commission wages for 40 hours per week but
without time and one-half compensation for the overtime hours
worked by Plaintiff and the other similarly situated employees each
work week between January 2020 and the present, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as "Inside Loan Originators," a/k/a, "Mortgage
Loan Officers."

CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE, LLC owned and operated a nationwide mortgage
loan business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith M. Stern, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
          80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: (305) 901-1379
          Fax: (561) 288-9031
          Email: employlaw@keithstern.com


CVS PHARMACY: Keller Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------
The case styled STEVEN KELLER, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.; GARFIELD BEACH
CVS, L.L.C., CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV39558, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
January 23, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-00515 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff in the complaint alleges that the Defendants engaged
in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid
or non-exempt employees in violation of the California Labor Code
and the California Business & Professions Code.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. is an American retail corporation.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq.
          Sonia A. Vucetic, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, Twenty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501  
          E-mail: jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com
                  sonia.vucetic@morganlewis.com

DEMERT BRANDS: Shampoo Products Contains Benzene, Shalit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE COHEN SHALIT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEMERT BRANDS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. Case 0:23-cv-60106-BB (N.D. Ill., Jan. 20, 2023) is a
class action by the Plaintiff on behalf of all consumers who
purchased the Defendant's Not Your Mother's brand of dry shampoo
(the "NYM Dry Shampoos" or the "Products") alleging that it
contains dangerously high levels of the chemical benzene, a known
carcinogen that offers no therapeutic shampoo benefit.

According to the complaint, the Defendant represents that the
Products are safe for their intended use. In reality, the Products
contain significant concentrations of the toxic chemical benzene.
If the Defendant had disclosed to the Plaintiff and putative Class
Members that the Products contained or risked containing benzene
and thus risked benzene exposure during use of the Products, the
Plaintiff and putative Class Members would not have purchased the
Products or they would have paid less for the Products, says the
suit.

DEMERT BRANDS, INC. manufactures and distributes cosmetic products.
The Company provides beauty and cosmetic products for men and
women. DeMert Brands serves customers internationally. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

DESIGNER OPTICS CORP: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Designer Optics Corp.
The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Designer Optics Corp., Case No.
1:23-cv-00371 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2023).

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

Designer Optics Corp. -- https://designeroptics.com/ -- is a
relaxed store selling a range of designer reading glasses,
sunglasses, contacts & watches.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DFA DAIRY: Hernandez Suit Removed to D. Mass.
---------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERTO HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DFA DAIRY BRANDS ICE CREAM,
LLC Defendant, Case No. 2279CV00679, was removed from the Superior
Court of Massachusetts, County of Hampden, to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on January 20,
2023.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:23-cv-10139 to the proceeding.

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges DFA failed to pay him, and
others, all wages purportedly due and owing to them for their time
worked under the Massachusetts General Laws.

DFA Dairy Brands Ice Cream, LLC is a subsidiary of Dairy Farmers of
America, Inc., which manufactures and markets milk, ice cream,
butter, frozen yogurt, cream, cheese, and other dairy products for
customers in the-United States.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Diane M. Saunders, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          One Boston Place, Suite 3500
          Boston, MA 02108
          Telephone: (617) 994-5700
          E-mail: diane.suanders@ogletree.com

DIGNITY HEALTH: Reliance Community Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dignity Health. The
case is styled as Reliance Community, Inc., Golden Pathways In-home
Care Inc., Harmony Living Limited Liability Company, Reliance Care,
Inc., Reliance Group Investments LLC, Reliance Village NO. 1 LLC,
on behalf of itself and all persons similarly situated v. Dignity
Health, Teresita C. Balocating, Commonspirit Health, Sheila Vetch
D. Gulle, Isagani Mallari Sisayan, Individually and as a
Shareholder of the Young at Heart Corporation, a Partner of the
Young at Heart Partnership, a member of the Young at Heart
Unincorporated Association, and as a Trustee of: The 2018 Lillian &
Isagani; Mary Rose Jimenez, Rodolfo Jimenez, Laurenz Sisayan,
Individually and as a Shareholder of the Young at Heart
Corporation, a Partner of the Young at Heart Partnership, and as a
member of the Young at Heart Unincorporated Association; Lianna
Sisayan, Individually and as a Shareholder of the Young at Heart, a
Partner of the Young at Heart Partnership Unincorporated
Association; Lillian Meyer Trapse Sisayan, Individually as as a
Shareholder of the Young at Heart Corporation, a Partner of the
Young at Heart Partnership, a member of the Young at Heart
Unincorporated Association, and as a Trustee of: The 2018 Lillian &
Isagani; Dan Christopher Matias Robes, Janita H. Robes, Simplicio
D. Robes, Young at Heart RCFE NO. 1, INC, Young at Heart RCFE NO.
2, INC, Young at Heart RCFE NO. 3, INC, Young at Heart RCFE NO. 4,
INC, Young at Heart RCFE NO. 5, INC, Young at Heart, a Corporation,
Young at Heart, a Partnership, Young at Heart, an Unincorporated
Association, Does 1-250, Case No. 34-2023-00333390-CU-PO-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 19, 2023).

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

Dignity Health -- http://www.dignityhealth.org/-- was a
California-based not-for-profit public-benefit corporation that
operates hospitals and ancillary care facilities in three
states.[BN]

DIRECT GENERAL: Ransburg Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joesea Ransburg, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated v. Direct General Insurance Company
d/b/a Direct Auto Insurance, was removed from the Circuit Court,
Ninth, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on Jan. 19, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:23-cv-00100 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Direct General Insurance Company doing business as Direct Auto
Insurance -- https://www.directauto.com/ -- operates as an
insurance firm. The Company offers property and casualty insurance
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Donnie Marcel King, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          201 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 463-2700
          Email: donnie.king@akerman.com


DON HERRINGTON: Allowed to Leave to File Response Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Helen Roe, a minor, by and
through her parent and next friend Megan Roe; James Poe, a minor,
by and through his parent and next friend Laura Poe; and Carl Voe,
a minor, by and through his parent and next friend, Rachel Voe, v.
Don Herrington, in his official capacity as Interim State Registrar
of Vital Records and Interim Director of the Arizona Department of
Health Services, Case No. 4:20-cv-00484-JAS (D. Ariz.), the Hon.
Judge James A. Soto entered an order granting the Defendant's
motion for leave to file under seal regarding response to motion
for class certification and exhibits.

The Court further ordered directing the Clerk's Office to file
under seal the unredacted version of Defendant's Response to Motion
for Class Certification and Exhibits.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wlZeDe at no extra charge.



DXC TECHNOLOGY: Aguilar Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSEPH AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DXC TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, DXC
TECHNOLOGY SERVICES LLC, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 30-2022-01292445-OE-CXC, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on January 20, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:23-cv-00143-JWH-DFM to the proceeding.

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, nine total causes of action, eight of
which are for various violations of the California Labor Code and
one of which is for "Unfair Competition" under the California
Business & Professions Code.

DXC Technology Company is an American multinational information
technology services and consulting company.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Heather Hearne, Esq.
          THE KULLMAN FIRM, PLC
          4605 Bluebonnet Blvd., Suite A
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 906-4250
          Facsimile: (225) 906-4230
          E-mail: hdh@kullmanlaw.com

EARLY WARNING SERVICES: Lezcano Files Suit in D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Early Warning
Services LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lesly Lezcano,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Early Warning Services LLC, Bank of America NA, Bank of America
Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00115-JJT (D. Ariz., Jan. 18, 2023).

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

Early Warning Services, LLC -- https://www.earlywarning.com/ -- is
a fintech company owned by seven of the country's largest
banks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Ra O. Amen, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP - TAMPA, FL
          201 N Franklin St., 7th Fl.
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 223-0931
          Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

              - and -

          Krystal Flores
          MORGAN & MORGAN - PHOENIX, AZ
          2355 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 335
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Phone: (520) 870-7171
          Email: kflores@forthepeople.com


EDL GROUPS: Little Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages Owed
------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Little, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EDL GROUPS LLC, d/b/a "Old Captain Juicy Seafood &
Bar," and RONG LU, Case No. 3:23-cv-00028-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La., Jan.
18, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking
damages for the Defendants failure to pay the Plaintiff all minimum
wages owed while working for the Defendant paid on a hybrid
sub-minimum wage and tips basis.

The Defendants violated the FLSA by: failing to provide adequate
notice of their payment of sub-minimum wages to servers,
bartenders, and other properly tipped employees (collectively,
"tipped employees"); requiring tipped employees to spend more than
20% of their time and continuous periods of time exceeding 30
minutes at work engaged in non-tipped side work related to the
tipped profession; and requiring tipped employees to perform
non-tipped side work unrelated to the tipped profession. The
Defendants' practice of failing to pay tipped employees pursuant
the FLSA's minimum wage provision. As a result, the Defendants lose
the right to rely on the tip credit, and must compensate the
Plaintiff at the applicable federal, state, or local minimum wage
rate. Additionally, the Plaintiff is entitled to any tips the
Defendants misappropriated, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a server at the
Defendants' restaurant from March 2022 to April 2022.

The Defendants operates a restaurant known as Old Captain Juicy
Seafood & Bar.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth W. DeJean (No. 4817)
          Adam R. Credeur (No. 35095)
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
          417 W. University Ave. (70506)
          P.O. Box 4325
          Lafayette, LA 70502
          Phone: (337) 235-5294
          Fax: (337) 235-1095
          Email: kwdejean@kwdejean.com
                 adam@kwdejean.com

               - and -

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          WAGE AND HOUR FIRM, LLP
          400 N. Saint Paul Street, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 210-2100
          Fax: (469) 399-1070
          Email: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
                 marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.net


ELEMENTS PRODUCTION: McIntire Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katlyn McIntire, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ELEMENTS PRODUCTION LLC, a New York company, Case No.
1:23-cv-00360 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2023), is brought under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), arising from
Defendant's violations of the TCPA as a result of unsolicited
telemarketing text messages.

To promote its services, the Defendant engages in sending
autodialed telemarketing text messages. The Plaintiff has received
numerous unsolicited telemarketing text messages from the Defendant
without her prior express consent and despite the fact that she is
registered on the National Do-Not-Call registry. By sending
automated marketing text messages without express consent and to
consumers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, the Defendant is
harming thousands of consumers. Through this action, the Plaintiff
seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's unlawful conduct,
which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation and disruption of the daily life of countless
individuals, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual and a "person."

The Defendant is an event promoter.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Ave, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, New Jersey 07712
          Phone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@MarcusZelman.com


EPIC GAMES: Quebec Court Authorizes Fortnite Video Game Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
FASKEN disclosed that in F.N. v. Epic Games Canada, the Superior
Court of Quebec authorized a class action against the companies who
were responsible for the development and marketing of the video
game Fortnite (the "Defendants"). The class action was authorized
on behalf of:

a) all individuals in Quebec who, since September 1, 2017, have
developed an addiction, namely a loss of control over or
prioritization of gambling, which has had harmful effects on their
personal, family, social, educational, professional or other
important areas of their lives ("Group 1"); and

b) all individuals in Quebec who made in-game purchases using
Fortnite's V-BUCKS virtual currency while they were minors ("Group
2").

Liability for the marketing of a potentially addictive product is a
matter that has been previously litigated, particularly in the
context of class actions against cigarette manufacturers [1] and
owners of video lottery terminals. [2] However, this is the first
class action in Canada, and one of the first in the world, to be
allowed against a video game developer on this basis.

Moreover, this case could be the first time a Quebec court rules on
the validity of purchase of virtual items (so-called
"microtransactions") by minors without parental consent.

The class action against Epic Games invokes different legal
arguments than other class actions against video game developers in
Canada, such as the proposed class action instituted in by Gabriel
Bourgeois against several corporate defendants. In these other
class actions, the plaintiffs allege that the sale of virtual items
through a so-called "lootbox" is prohibited gambling by the
Criminal Code.

Alleged Facts
The plaintiffs' central premise that Defendants would have designed
an "addictive" game is based on the definition of "video game
disorder", that was recognized by the World Health Organization in
2018.

According to the plaintiffs, Fortnite was deliberately designed to
be a highly addictive game. In support of their allegations, the
plaintiffs cite a number of newspaper articles covering video game
addiction issues, some of which refer to Fortnite.

As for Group 2 members, the plaintiffs allege that the transactions
carried out by minors for the purchase of virtual items (skins,
weapons, armour, etc.) occurred without the authorization of their
parents or guardians. In their view, these microtransactions should
be cancelled as they allege that there is a significant discrepancy
between the amounts paid by the members and the value of the
virtual items they acquired in return.

The Defendants argued that, even at the authorization stage, the
facts alleged by the plaintiffs were insufficient, as they had not
submitted any expert report regarding the causal link between the
alleged harms and Fortnite, nor any medical records providing a
diagnosis of addiction or articles concerning the adverse effects
of video games.

The Defendants also relied on an article from the American
Psychiatric Association to the effect that there is insufficient
evidence to show that video game disorder is a distinct mental
disorder, and that more research is needed on this issue.

Decision Highlights
The Superior Court concluded that even if American psychiatrists
required more research, or if video game disorder is not yet a
recognized diagnosis in Quebec, the Plaintiffs' claims were not
frivolous or clearly without merit. The Court reached the same
conclusion with respect to the Plaintiffs' claim that gambling
addiction may affect some people with other disorders or
predispositions to a greater degree, citing the "thin skull rule"
recognized by the Court of Appeal [3] to the effect that the
defendant must take the victim as they find them at the time of the
alleged injury.

As for the lack of expertise, the Court concluded that this is not
a determining factor since expert evidence is not required at the
authorization stage of a class action, which is intended to be a
screening process based on logic and not on evidence.

In light of the above, the Court concluded that there was a serious
issue to be argued, supported by sufficient and specific
allegations as to the existence of risks or even dangers related to
Fortnite.

It should be noted that the court considered the Fortnite videogame
to be "property" within the meaning of articles 899 and 907 CCQ.
Thus, the Defendants could be held liable for the damages alleged
by the plaintiffs if it is shown that their "property" is affected
by a safety defect within the meaning of articles 1468 and 1469 CCQ
due to the lack of sufficient evidence regarding the risks and
dangers they entail and how to protect yourself from them. The
Defendants are presumed to know the risks associated with their
product as professional sellers, and the court concluded that it
would be incumbent upon it, in the event that the existence of such
risks were demonstrated, to show that the Plaintiffs knew or were
in a position to know of such risks.

It is worth mentioning that treating software as "property" for the
purposes of product liability would significantly increase the
legal risks to video game developers, both in future class actions
and in other types of civil litigation.

As to the plaintiffs' claim that the Defendants deliberately
designed an addictive game, the court found that the articles and
interviews submitted by the plaintiffs did not support their claims
and were not sufficient to meet their burden of proof, however
minimal it may be at the authorization stage. The court also found
that a video game developer could not be faulted for creating an
interesting, engaging and appealing product and that there was no
evidence that the Defendants had deliberately designed an addictive
game.

As for the lesionary (i.e. unconscionable or exploitative) nature
of the purchases made by minors for virtual items, the court
concluded that paying $6,000 for "skins" (which was the case for
the son of one of the plaintiffs), raised the possibility that
there was lesion within the meaning of article 1406 CCQ, i.e., the
exploitation of minors in the context of these microtransactions.
Ultimately, the court authorized the proposed class action on the
basis of the alleged health risks and hazards to members associated
with the use of Fortnite and the alleged failure of the Defendants
to notify members of those risks and hazards in the case of Group 1
and on the basis of the alleged disproportionality between the
parties' respective benefits for the purchase of virtual items by
minors for Group 2.

Conclusion
This decision is the first time in which a Quebec court has found
that a videogame is "property" in civil law and that the companies
involved in its development or marketing are bound by the
obligations incumbent upon manufacturers of intended goods, notably
the obligation to give sufficient indications as to the inherent
risks and dangers of the property and the legal warranties against
hidden defects.

One might wonder about such a qualification, particularly in the
case of online video games such as Fortnite. Online games are often
referred to by developers as "games as a service" since they
require continuous support. This support can be financed in a
number of ways, including paid subscriptions, in-game
advertisements, or the purchase of virtual items
(microtransactions). Some might argue that a video game, and
particularly an online video game like Fortnite, is not a piece of
property, but rather a service, making the principles associated
with product liability inapplicable. This alternative qualification
is particularly relevant to game streaming services, which do not
involve the installation of a local copy of the game on the user's
device.

Additionally, the possibility that the Defendants may be found
liable for issues related to the excessive use of Fortnite by some
gamers will likely open the door to similar individual and class
actions against companies involved in the marketing of video games
or other digital content or services that have become part of
everyday life and may be used excessively by some consumers. As
with the Fortnite case, such litigation will almost certainly raise
new legal, procedural and factual issues that have not been
addressed by the courts to date.

Finally, this is the first time that a Quebec court has been called
upon to determine in the context of a class action whether it
should annul transactions entered into by minors without parental
permission for the acquisition of virtual items . In this regard,
the court's comments that the virtual items acquired by Fortnite
players have "no tangible value" is debatable. While determining
the objective value of a virtual item in a video game raises new
questions, it is not self-evident that this value is necessarily
zero or less than that of a physical item, especially in a context
where the game allows the exchange of virtual items between
players. After all, video games themselves are virtual items that
have significant value.

The authors will follow the progress of this case and the
development of jurisprudence concerning the liability of companies
in the video game industry with great interest. If you have any
questions about the issues raised above, please contact one of the
authors. [GN]

EXACTECH INC: Sued Over Mislabeled Orthopedic Implant Devices
-------------------------------------------------------------
JONI DELOACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXACTECH, INC.; and EXACTECH U.S., INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00420 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2023) is an
action by the Plaintiff for personal injuries and damages suffered
as a direct and proximate result of the use of an unreasonably
dangerous device, the Exactech Novation GXL liner (hereinafter "the
Product").

According to the complaint, the Product was used in the Plaintiff's
right total hip arthroplasty to treat her severe osteoarthritis of
the right hip joint. The Defendants used irradiated
ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene ("UHMWPE") plastic in the
Product. UHMWPE has been used clinically in joint implants due to
its low friction, high wear resistance, good toughness, high impact
strength, high resistance to corrosive chemicals, excellent
biocompatibility, and low cost, says the suit.

However, there is an unacceptably low stability of oxidation of
polyethylene. Consequently, two stabilization strategies were
developed and adopted in order to minimize post-irradiation
oxidative ageing: one involved post-irradiation melting of the
polyethylene ("remelting"), while the other included a thermal
treatment, but at a temperature below complete melting of the
crystallites ("annealing"). The rationale for the protocol was to
eliminate or reduce an increased rate of oxidation of the polymer.
The Product was neither remelted nor annealed, leading to the
premature wear of the Product, the onset of the Plaintiff's
osteolysis and the need for the Plaintiff's revision surgery, the
suit asserts.

In reliance upon the Defendants' alleged false and fraudulent
misrepresentations, through her physicians and healthcare
providers, the Plaintiff was induced to, and did, reasonably rely
upon the Defendants' misrepresentations regarding the safety and
efficacy of the Product, thereby sustaining severe and permanent
personal injuries and damages.

EXACTECH, INC. develops, manufactures, markets, and sells
orthopedic implant devices and related surgical instrumentation.
The Company offers biologic materials, hip, knee, extremities,
foot, ankle replacement systems. Exactech serves customers
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Nigh, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, RAFFERTY,
          PROCTOR, BUCHANAN, O'BRIEN,
          BARR & MOUGEY, P.A
          316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435-7013
          Facsimile: (850) 435-7020
          Email: dnigh@levinlaw.com

FASHION NOVA: Alcazar Seeks Approval of Class Action Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN ALCAZAR, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FASHION NOVA,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case
No. 4:20-cv-01434-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order approving:

    (a) KCC Class Action Services as notice administrator,

    (b) the Stipulated Notice of Class Certification, filed
        concurrently herewith, and

    (c) the Class Notice Plan developed by KCC to give notice to
        the legally blind members of the Classes.

In sum, the Class Notice provides more than adequate information
concerning the nature of action, the definition of the Classes
certified, that Class Members may enter an appearance through
another attorney if they so desire, that the Court will exclude
from the Class any Class Member who requests exclusion, the time
and manner for requesting exclusion, and the binding effect of a
class judgment on Class Members.

The proposed Notice, the method, and the schedule for notifying the
Classes of the pendency of the action as a class action meet the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. 26 P. 23 and due process, and
constitute the best notice practicable under the circumstances.

Fashion Nova is an American fast fashion retail company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DsybKv at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
          Carolin K. Shining, Esq.
          Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  cshining@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com

FATE THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 22
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder
rights law firm, on Jan. 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Fate Therapeutics, Inc. ("Fate" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
FATE) securities between April 2, 2020 and January 5, 2023,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Fate investors have until March 22,
2023 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

If you suffered a loss on your Fate investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/Fate-Therapeutics-Inc/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On January 5, 2023, after the market closed, Fate announced that it
had terminated its collaboration and option agreement for
cell-based cancer immunotherapies with Johnson & Johnson's Janssen,
and that all collaboration activities would be wound down in the
first quarter of 2023.

On this news, Fate's stock price fell $6.76, or 61.5%, to close at
$4.24 per share on January 6, 2023, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) the Janssen Collaboration Agreement was less sustainable
than Fate had represented to investors; (2) accordingly, certain
the clinical programs, milestone payments, and royalty payments
associated with the Janssen Collaboration Agreement could not be
relied upon as future revenue sources; (3) as a result, Fate had
overstated the impact of the Janssen Collaboration Agreement's on
Fate's long-term clinical and commercial profitability; and (4) as
a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Fate securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than March 22, 2023
to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member
of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may
retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]

FEENEY BROTHERS: King Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Feeney Brothers
Excavation, LLC. The case is styled as Andrew King, individually,
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Feeney Brothers
Excavation, LLC, Case No. 2384CV00150 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk
Cty., Jan. 19, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Torts."

Feeney Brothers Utility Services -- https://feeneybrothers.com/ --
is a diversified utility contractor providing services to the
natural gas, electric, and telecommunications industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean C. Flaherty, Esq.
          KECHES LAW GROUP
          2 Lakeshore Center
          Bridgewater, MA 02324

               - and -

          John T. Martin, Esq.
          KECHES LAW GROUP
          100 Front St
          Worcester, MA 01608

               - and -

          M. Weaver, Esq.
          KECHES LAW GROUP
          2 Granite Ave Suite 400
          Milton, MA 02186

FESTIVAL FUN: Faces Miranda Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN MIRANDA, Plaintiff v. FESTIVAL FUN PARKS, LLC and DOES 1 to
25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV01262 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., January 19, 2023) is a class action brought by the
Plaintiff, on behalf of all other similarly situated aggrieved
employees, due to Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices and
policies in violation of the California Labor Code, and the Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

The suit alleges the Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiff and
other aggrieved employees with the minimum wages to which they were
entitled to for work performed "off the clock"; failure to provide
the requisite 30-minute, uninterrupted meal periods for every five
hours of work throughout their employment; failure to provide
10-minute rest periods for every four hours of work, or majority
portion thereof, throughout their employment; failure to pay
employees all wages due to them within any time period; failure to
pay earned and due wages upon separation of employment; failure to
keep accurate and complete payroll records; and failure to
reimburse incurred necessary, business-related expenses and costs.

The Plaintiff initially started working for Festival Fun Parks in
May 2022 as a tram driver at Raging Waters in San Dimas,
California.

Festival Fun Parks, LLC owns and operates theme parks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harout Messrelian, Esq.  
          MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
          500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 484-6531
          Facsimile: (818) 956-1983  
          E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com

FINJAN HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Amended Grier Securities Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: FINJAN HOLDINGS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION.
ROBERT GRIER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FINJAN HOLDINGS, INC., and
PHILIP HARTSTEIN, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-16702 (9th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the
district court's dismissal of Grier's second amended complaint.

Finjan holds itself out as a "cybersecurity" company. It develops
security technologies for mobile devices and invests in
intellectual property related to mobile and computer security.
However, Finjan does not use this intellectual property to produce
any products of its own. Instead, Finjan derives most of its
revenue from lawsuits accusing others of infringing on its
intellectual property or from extracting licenses for use of the
intellectual property under threat of a patent infringement
lawsuit.

In the summer of 2020, the board of directors of Finjan, struck a
deal with Fortress Investment Group LLC for Fortress to purchase
all Finjan shares at $1.55 per share. Finjan's shareholders
subsequently approved the deal.

On June 29, 2020, Grier, a Finjan shareholder at the time of the
sale, then sued Finjan, its CEO Philip Hartstein, and members of
the Finjan board of directors, alleging that revenue predictions
and share-value estimations sent by Finjan management to
shareholders before the sale had been false. He alleged that Finjan
management knowingly provided deflated numbers to create the
appearance that the sale price offered by Fortress was a good
bargain for Finjan shareholders, thereby to convince shareholders
to accept the sale.

Grier alleged that Finjan management was afraid of a hostile
takeover of Finjan by a third party known as Party B, which he
alleged would have removed Finjan management from their employment
positions. In the deal with Fortress, however, Finjan management
retained their positions. Thus, he alleged that Finjan management
had a motive to provide deflated revenue projections and estimated
share values to shareholders: to keep their jobs at Finjan after
the sale to Fortress.

Grier based his claim on Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78n(e), which
prohibits the use of false or misleading statements in connection
with a tender offer.

The district court ordered that two related class actions filed by
other Finjan shareholders be consolidated with Grier's and ordered
Grier to file a consolidated amended complaint. Grier filed the
amended complaint, which the district court dismissed with leave to
amend.

Grier then filed a second amended complaint, now the operative
pleading. Grier's second amended complaint brought claims against
Finjan and Hartstein, but not the other members of Finjan's board
of directors. On Sept. 13, 2021, the district court dismissed the
second amended complaint without leave to amend and entered final
judgment. On Oct. 12, 2021, Grier timely filed a notice of appeal.

The Ninth Circuit explains that in Varjabedian v. Emulex Corp., 888
F.3d 399 (9th Cir. 2018), there are significant differences between
Section 14(e) and Section 10(b) -- the securities fraud provision
most commonly addressed in our jurisprudence that deals generally
with falsities in the purchase and sale of securities. It says
Section 14(e) and relevant Supreme Court precedent have established
four elements for Grier's claim.

Grier must plausibly allege that (1) Finjan management did not
actually believe the revenue projections/share-value estimations
they issued to the Finjan shareholders ("subjective falsity"), (2)
the revenue projections/share-value estimations did not reflect the
company's likely future performance ("objective falsity"), (3)
shareholders foreseeably relied on the revenue
projections/share-value estimations in accepting the tender offer,
and (4) shareholders suffered an economic loss as a result of the
deal with Fortress.

The Ninth Circuit finds that the district court characterized
Grier's claim as sounding in fraud and applied three heightened
pleading standards. It then dismissed Grier's first amended
complaint with leave to amend for failure to plead sufficient
factual material to support the requisite inference of subjective
falsity. Grier filed a second amended complaint, which the district
court dismissed on the same grounds, this time without leave to
amend.

The Ninth Circuit reviews a district court's dismissal under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure de novo. It finds
that the district court held that the subjective falsity element of
Grier's claim requires allegations of a conscious, fraudulent
state-of-mind, also called "scienter." Thus, the district court
required that Grier's allegations include enough factual material
to create a "strong inference" of subjective falsity.

However, the Ninth Circuit opines that the subjective falsity
required by Section 14(e) is not equivalent to the scienter
requirement referenced in 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(b)(2)(A) nor that
required by, for example, Section 10(b). Therefore Grier's
allegations need provide only enough factual material to create a
"reasonable inference" -- not a "strong inference" -- of subjective
falsity, in addition to various particularity requirements.

Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit holds that Grier's allegations do
not create even a "reasonable inference" of subjective falsity. It
is not reasonable to infer from the allegations of the second
amended complaint that Finjan management believed that the sale
price was too low. Thus, Grier failed sufficiently to allege
subjective falsity, a critical element of his claim.

For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's
dismissal of Grier's second amended complaint despite the district
court's erroneous application of a "strong inference" requirement
for subjective falsity.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 20, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yt9a98dn from Leagle.com.

Juan E. Monteverde -- jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com -- (argued),
Monteverde & Associates PC, New York, New York, for the
Plaintiff-Appellant.

James L. Jacobs -- jjacobs@gcalaw.com -- (argued) and Valerie M.
Wagner -- vwagner@gcalaw.com -- GCA Law Partners LLP, Mountain
View, California, for the Defendants-Appellees.


FIRST NATIONAL: Summary Judgment Bids in Bezek Suit Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JILL BEZEK, et al., Plaintiffs v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK
OF PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, Civil No. SAG-17-2902 (D. Md.), Judge
Stephanie A. Gallagher of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland:

   a. grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's Motion
      for Summary Judgment and Decertification;

   b. grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' cross
      motion for summary judgment;

   c. grants the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a surreply;
      and

   d. grants the parties motions to seal certain exhibits.

Plaintiffs Jill Bezek and Michelle Harris represent a class of
borrowers who had a federally related loan serviced by First
Mariner Bank. They assert that First Mariner and its employees
violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12
U.S.C. Sections 2601-2617, by referring loans to a title services
provider, Genuine Title, in exchange for kickbacks. The Defendant
is the successor in interest to First Mariner by and through its
merger with Howard Bank.

At the time of the relevant events, First Mariner was a Maryland
corporation and independently owned bank. Genuine Title was a title
services company operating in Maryland. Bezek and Harris are
Maryland residents who refinanced their mortgages with First
Mariner. They allege that, from 2009 through 2014, First Mariner
brokers referred 276 loans (including their own) to Genuine Title
for title settlement services as part of an illegal kickback
scheme. As explained by Genuine Title's former president, Jay
Zukerberg, and another Genuine Title employee, Brandon Glickstein,
part of Genuine Title's regular business model included the payment
of cash kickbacks, marketing credits, and other things of value to
lenders in exchange for their referring loans to Genuine Title.

The Plaintiffs' refinance loans with First Mariner were both
originated by Anthony Sergi, a loan officer at First Mariner's
Ellicott City and White Marsh branches. In a sworn declaration,
Sergi stated that in late 2009 or early 2010, he started receiving
payments from Genuine Title in exchange for loan referrals.

The Plaintiffs' loans were referred to Genuine Title by Sergi,
after they both declined to choose their own title companies.
Bezek's refinance loan closed in December 2010. Genuine Title
charged her $1,675 for title services. That total included (among
other charges) $910 in title exam and abstract fees, as well as
$480 for title insurance. Harris' loan closed in October 2012.
Genuine Title charged her $1,802.12 for title services. That total
included $1,200 in title exam and abstract fees, as well as $267.12
for title insurance.

The Plaintiffs also introduced evidence indicating that other First
Mariner employees, in addition to Sergi, accepted cash kickbacks or
other items of value from Genuine Title in exchange for referring
loans.

In a Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on Oct. 2, 2020, the Court
granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class pursuant to Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, the
Plaintiffs received certification of the following class of
individuals (the "First Mariner Class") who allegedly suffered harm
under RESPA as a result of the alleged kickback scheme between
First Mariner and Genuine Title.

The Court also rejected the Defendant's argument that the
Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, concluding that the
Plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts indicating that they
suffered an actual injury-in-fact—namely, that they were
overcharged for title services as a result of the kickback scheme.
However, it noted that as more factual development occurs, it may
become clear that the Plaintiffs were not overcharged for title and
settlement services, and therefore the Defendant may continue to
challenge the Plaintiffs' Article III standing as this litigation
proceeds, particularly at the summary judgment stage.

The Defendant has filed a motion asking this Court to grant summary
judgment in its favor on all claims and to decertify the class
previously certified on Oct. 2, 2020. The Plaintiffs oppose the
motion and seek partial summary judgment establishing the
Defendant's successor liability and identifying the class
membership. The parties have also filed motions to seal certain
exhibits pursuant to existing confidentiality orders. Finally, the
Plaintiffs have filed a motion for leave to file a surreply, which
the Defendant has opposed.

As a preliminary matter, Judge Gallagher begins by analyzing the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a surreply. The Plaintiffs
contend that a surreply is necessary to address three arguments
raised for the first time in the Defendant's reply in support of
its motion for summary judgment and decertification: (1) that the
Plaintiffs abandoned or waived their claim that Bezek and Harris
have standing; (2) that an exhibit submitted by the Plaintiffs
purporting to show the 80th percentile cost of title services in
various states is inadmissible; and (3) that Sergi, the First
Mariner employee who originated the Plaintiffs' loans, was employed
in a different capacity and at a different First Mariner branch
than one identified by the Defendant during the relevant time
period.

Judge Gallagher agrees with the Plaintiffs that a surreply is
necessary to properly address these new theories and assertions
presented in the Defendant's reply brief. In particular, she finds
that the first and second issues are central to the parties'
dispute over whether the Plaintiffs have introduced sufficient
evidence to establish Article III standing. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a surreply is granted.

Judge Gallagher then turns to the motions for summary judgment.
First, the Defendant seeks summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
individual claims on two grounds: First Mariner cannot be held
vicariously liable for the kickbacks accepted by the Plaintiffs'
loan officer, Sergi; and the Plaintiffs lack standing because they
have not introduced admissible evidence showing that they suffered
an injury-in-fact as a result of the kickbacks.

Judge Gallagher finds that (i) the Plaintiffs have pointed to
evidence indicating that Sergi's illegal referrals occurred within,
or were incidental to, his general line of work with First Mariner;
and (ii) the record evidence is sufficient to allow a reasonable
factfinder to conclude that Sergi's illegal referrals were made, at
least in some in part, for First Mariner's benefit. Hence, the
Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment on this issue.

Judge Gallagher further finds that the Chart is relevant evidence
and is an admissible business record pursuant to Rule 803(6). Of
course, it will be up to a factfinder to ultimately determine how
much weight to afford the Chart -- alongside any other evidence the
Plaintiffs seek to rely on -- in determining whether the Plaintiffs
were overcharged for their title services as a result of Sergi's
kickback arrangement. For the purposes of summary judgment,
however, the Plaintiffs have set forth by affidavit or other
evidence specific facts that, when taken as true, establish an
injury-in-fact sufficient to support Article III standing.

Second, the Defendant and the Plaintiffs have both moved for
summary judgment on issues regarding the First Mariner Class
claims. The Defendant seeks summary judgment on the claims of 54
class members, arguing that the Plaintiffs have not shown any
evidence of a RESPA violation with respect to those members'
claims. The Plaintiffs, in turn, have cross-moved for summary
judgment cementing the 276 loans that comprise the First Mariner
class.

Judge Gallagher finds that issuing a judgment on the scope of the
First Mariner Class is unnecessary at this stage so she declines to
delineate the specific scope of the First Mariner Class at this
stage of the litigation. She further finds that the Defendant is
entitled to summary judgment with respect to the class claims of 54
First Mariner Class members. So, she grants summary judgment to the
Defendant on certain of the First Mariner Class claims. However,
she denies summary judgment on the remainder of the disputed class
claims, including those relating to the White Marsh and Eldersburg
branches.

Third, the Defendant seeks summary judgment on the method of
calculating damages for a RESPA violation. The Defendant argues
that the Plaintiffs' RESPA damages are limited to three times the
amount that each borrower was overcharged for title and settlement
services as a result of the alleged kickbacks. The Plaintiffs, on
the other hand, argue that the plain language of the statute
entitles them to treble the amount of all settlement services
charged by Genuine Title, regardless of whether a specific charge
was actually increased as a result of the kickback.

Judge Gallagher agrees with the Defendant that pursuant to Section
2607(d)(2), the damages the Plaintiffs may seek are treble the
amount (if any) that they were overcharged by Genuine Title as a
result of the alleged illegal kickbacks. Therefore, the Defendant
is entitled to summary judgment on this issue.

Fourth, the Plaintiffs seek summary judgment establishing the
Defendant's successor liability for the Plaintiffs' claims against
First Mariner. In opposition, the Defendant does not attempt to
argue that it did not expressly assume First Mariner's RESPA
liability when it merged with First Mariner's successor in
interest, Howard Bank.

Judge Gallagher opines that the under the plain terms of the merger
agreement, the Defendant at that time expressly assumed "all the
liabilities" of Howard Bank -- including Howard Bank's liability
for the Plaintiffs' and the First Mariner Class's RESPA claims,
which it assumed as part of its merger with First Mariner. The
Plaintiffs are thus entitled to summary judgment on the issue of
whether the Defendant, as First Mariner's successor in interest,
can be held liable for the Plaintiffs' and the class's RESPA
claims, should they ultimately be proven.

In addition to seeking summary judgment on the issues discussed,
the Defendant's motion asks the Court to decertify the First
Mariner Class. Specifically, it asserts that circumstances have
changed significantly since the Court certified the First Mariner
Class in October 2020, such that the class can no longer satisfy
the requirements of Rule 23.

Judge Gallagher holds that the Plaintiffs have introduced evidence
sufficient to create a genuine dispute that the loans were referred
to Genuine Title pursuant to an illegal kickback scheme. Thus, the
relative breadth of the First Mariner Class provides no basis for
decertification. She further holds that none of the supposedly
changed circumstances identified by the Defendant destroy
predominance or otherwise require decertification of the First
Mariner Class. Therefore, the Defendant's motion to decertify is
denied.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gallagher grants the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Leave to File a Surreply. She grants in part and denies
in part the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and
Decertification. She says although the Defendant is entitled in
partial summary judgment, she denies the remainder of the motion
(including its request to decertify the First Mariner Class.

Judge Gallagher grants in part the Plaintiffs' cross motion for
partial summary judgment on the issue of successor liability and
denies in part on the issue of class membership. Finally, she
grants the parties' respective motions to seal certain exhibits
which are subject to confidentiality orders issued by the Court.

A separate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 20, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5a3pwe9u from Leagle.com.


FORD MOTOR: Scheduling Order Entered in Boyle Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH BOYLE, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated. v. FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-11545-GCS-KGA
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge George Caram Steeh entered a
scheduling order as follows:

  -- Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures:          January 26, 2023

  -- Deadline for Completion of          October 16, 2023
     Fact Discovery:

  -- Plaintiff’s Motion for Class        December 1, 2023
     Certification, and expert
     witness disclosures:

  -- Defendant's Opposition to           January 22, 2024
     Class Certification and
     expert witness
     disclosures in opposition:

  -- Defendant's Daubert Motion(s),      January 22, 2024
     if any, challenging Plaintiff’s
     Expert(s):

  -- Plaintiff’s Reply in support        March 1, 2024
     of Motion for Class
     Certification:

Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automobile
manufacturer.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wlkPeN at no extra charge.[CC]

FRANCISCAN VNS: Beals Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
LISA ANN BEALS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FRANCISCAN VNS HOME CARE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00137-TWP-MG (S.D. Ind., January 23, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees' overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Indiana Wage Payment Act.

Plaintiff Beals was employed by Defendant beginning in June 2017
and voluntarily resigned her employment on December 7, 2022. She
was employed as an hourly occupational therapist providing home
health therapy services to Defendant's clients.

Franciscan VNS Home Care, Inc. provides home health care, nursing
care, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy,
infusion therapy and other home health services in Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert F. Hunt, Esq.
          Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. HUNT, LLC
          1905 South New Market Street, Suite 168
          Carmel, IN 46032
          Telephone: (317) 743-0614
          Facsimile: (317) 743-0615
          E-mail: rfh@indianwagelaw.com
                  rob@indianawagelaw.com

FRISCO MEDICAL: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling to Texas Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRISCO MEDICAL CENTER, LLP, et al. are taking an appeal to the
Supreme Court of Texas from an appeals court ruling affirming in
part a trial court order granting class certification in the
lawsuit entitled Paula Chestnut and Wendy Bolen, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Frisco
Medical Center, LLP, et al., Defendants, Case No. DC-19-07283, in
the 191st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial
Court.

The Plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit against the
Defendants in May 2019, complaining of the Defendants' unfair,
false, misleading and deceptive practice of charging emergency care
patients an evaluation and management services fee without
providing notification of their intention to charge such a fee for
the patient's emergency room (ER) visit.

The trial court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification regarding emergency medical care fees.

The Defendants filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals, Fifth
District of Texas, under Case No. 05-22-00058-CV, asserting that
the trial court erred because (1) Texas Rule of Civil Procedure
42's class certification requirements were not met; (2) the class
definition is improper; and (3) the order's trial plan is
insufficient.

On Nov. 7, 2022, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order's Rule
42(d)(1) certification of a Rule 42(b)(2) class action as to the
three "discrete issues" of (1) "whether the Defendants have a duty
to inform ER patients of the Defendants' separate Facility Fee
prior to such charge being incurred"; (2) "whether the language in
the Defendants' form contract with patients provides a promise or
agreement by patients to pay a separate Facility Fee for their ER
visits; and (3) "whether the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active
Labor Act (EMTALA) prohibits the Defendants from disclosing their
intention to charge a separate ER Facility Fee to emergency room
patients prior to the Fee being incurred." The Court reversed the
trial court's order as to class certification regarding all other
claims and issues and remanded this case to the trial court for
further proceedings.

The appellate case is captioned Frisco Medical Center, LLP, a Texas
Limited Liability Partnership, and Texas Regional Medical Center,
LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company vs. Paula Chestnut and Wendy
Bolen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Case No. 23-0039, in the Supreme Court of Texas, filed on January
17, 2023. [BN]

GATEWAY REHABILITATION: Suit Filed in W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gateway
Rehabilitation Center. The case is styled as Lieutenant John Doe,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Gateway Rehabilitation Center, Case No. 2:23-cv-00093-WSH (W.D.
Pa., Jan. 18, 2023).

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

Gateway Rehab -- https://www.gatewayrehab.org/ -- continues to be
recognized as a leader in treatment-restoring the lives of
thousands of people every year and renewing hope for their families
and loved ones.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: (215) 592-1500
          Fax: (215) 592-4663
          Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Oil Consumption Issues
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Lopez, writing for GM Authority, reports that a new class
action lawsuit was recently filed against GM in regard to alleged
oil consumption issues with the automaker's naturally aspirated
2.4L I4 LEA gasoline engine.

According to a recent report from Car Complaints, GM knowingly sold
vehicles equipped with the atmospheric 2.4L I4 LEA despite
knowledge of the engine's oil consumption issues. The lawsuit
alleges that the engine introduces an excessive amount of oil into
the combustion champers, leading to low oil levels, low oil
pressure, engine knock, and fouled spark plugs, among other
issues.

The lawsuit includes all current and former owners or lessees of
2014 through 2017 model year Chevy Equinox and GMC Terrain
crossovers equipped with the 2.4L I4 LEA engine who reside in or
purchased their vehicle in Missouri.

According to the lawsuit, Missouri plaintiff Rachel Buchholz
purchased a new 2015 Chevy Equinox LT and began to notice the
excessive oil consumption in November of 2021. The plaintiff
apparently lost engine power when reversing out of a parking space,
and although she managed to restart to vehicle, the Equinox lost
power again while driving on the highway.

After a third power loss, the plaintiff brought her vehicle to the
dealer. A technician allegedly told her that the 2.4L I4 LEA was
known for consuming excessive oil. After discussing the issue with
the dealer further, the plaintiff was told to bring her vehicle in
for an oil change every 2,500 to 3,000 miles, and that in order to
permanently fix the issue, she would need to replace the engine at
a cost of $9,500.

After asking if GM would pay for the engine replacement under
warranty, she was asked to bring her vehicle in for an oil
consumption test every 500 miles. After a few tests, dealers
technicians said that the engine had a failed piston ring, and that
the repair would cost $2,200, $1,900 of which was the Plaintiff's
responsibility.

The latest 2.4L Ecotec class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Western
Division). The plaintiff is represented by Williams Dirks Dameron
LLC.

The 2.4L I4 LEA has been the subject of several other lawsuits
against GM in the past, including a lawsuit filed last year, in
2021, and in 2019. [GN]

GEO SECURE: Court Sets Deadline for Rule 26 Disclosures in Mazzei
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS MAZZEI, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated, and on behalf of the
public v. GEO SECURE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01347-AWI-CDB
(E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order setting deadline for Rule
26 disclosures and requiring parties to file a joint status
report.

The Court held an off the record scheduling conference on January
12, 2023, at which Attorney Nidah Farishta appeared on behalf of
Plaintiffs and Attorney Amanda C. Koziol appeared on behalf of
Defendant.

During the conference, the parties agreed that scheduling the case
should be delayed for a brief time. Based on the parties'
representations and agreement during the conference.

   1. The parties shall exchange the initial disclosures
      required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) on or before February
      10, 2023, but no further discovery, motion or other
      pretrial scheduling will be set at this time.

   2. The parties shall meet and confer and file a joint report
      that summarizes the status of any settlement discussions
      on or before February 27, 2023. The report shall describe
      any efforts undertaken or ongoing to pursue private
      mediation.

   3. If the parties do not wish to pursue any of the settlement
      options described above, the parties shall include in
      their joint report a proposed class certification
      discovery and motion briefing and hearing schedule.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GITJmI at no extra charge.[CC]



GERBER LIFE: Loguidice, et al., Seek Leave to File Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPHINE LOGUIDICE and
EMILIE NORMAN, v. GERBER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
7:20-cv-03254-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs seek leave to file
their Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 motion for class certification.

Gerber provides juvenile and family life insurance products to
middle-income families along with medical insurance to small- and
medium-sized businesses.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 16, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iMRxCE at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          Natalie Lyons, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
                  nlyons@cohenandmalad.com

                - and -

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH &
          JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Ave.
          Suite 200, Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com

                - and -

          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          Amanda Rosenberg, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          Facsimile: (202) 615-3948
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  arosenberg@kalielgold.com

                - and -

          James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 558-5500
          E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com

GERBER LIFE: Norman Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPHINE LOGUIDICE and
EMILIE NORMAN v. GERBER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
7:20-cv-03254-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff Emilie Norman files a
motion to file motion for class certification under seal.

While the Plaintiff disagrees with the designation, the motion and
supporting documents are nearly entirely comprised of information
that has been marked by the Defendant as Confidential under
governing protective order in this case, such that redaction would
be futile and there is good cause to place the filings entirely
under seal.

Gerber Life provides juvenile and family life insurance products to
middle-income families along with medical insurance to small- and
medium-sized businesses.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QUzlDY at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          Natalie Lyons, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (316) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
                  nlyons@cohenandmalad.com

                - and -

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH &
          JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com

                - and -

          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          Amanda Rosenberg, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street NW, 14th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone:(202) 350-4783
          Facsimile: (202) 615-3948
          E-mail:jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                 arosenberg@kalielgold.com

                - and -

          James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone:(212) 558-5500
          E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com

GITHUB INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Copyright Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco at lawstreetmedia.com reports that defendants
GitHub and Microsoft moved to dismiss a copyright lawsuit filed by
two anonymous software developers alleging that the companies used
developers' software code to create an AI-based coding assistance
product called Copilot. The defendants assert that the plaintiffs
neither have standing to bring the suit nor that their claims have
substantive merit.

The case centers on what the defendants call a "transformative
technology," a product of their OpenAI project, a high-profile
non-profit artificial intelligence research company, which
Microsoft recently promised to pump billions into, TechCrunch
reported. "Copilot is a coding assistant tool that crystallizes the
knowledge gained from billions of lines of public code, harnessing
the collective power of open-source software and putting it at
every developer's fingertips," the motion to dismiss said.

The plaintiffs, by contrast, label the defendants' actions as
"software piracy on an unprecedented scale" and seek over $9
billion in damages. They claim that without consent, authorization,
or licensure, the defendants used the plaintiffs' and putative
class members' software code stored in a GitHub repository code to
build and train Copilot.

The suit states claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,
the Lanham Act, the business practice, consumer protection, and
privacy laws of California as well as for tortious conduct in
connection with the defendants' alleged mishandling of data. The
developers demand an injunction in addition to damages.

Now, the defendants respond that the plaintiffs' requested
"multibillion-dollar windfall" makes no sense as they willingly
shared software as open-source. The "anonymous detractors'"
lawsuit, the defendants said, threatens to undermine open-source
principles and halt significant advancements in collaboration and
progress.

The defendants pressed the court to toss the suit on grounds that
the plaintiffs fail to identify themselves and fail to allege that
they suffered any actual or threatened injury at the hands of
GitHub or Microsoft sufficient to give rise to a legitimate
dispute. "There is no case or controversy here -- only an
artificial lawsuit brought by anonymous Plaintiffs built on a
remote possibility that they will fail to be associated with an
AI-generated code snippet that could in theory be connected to
copyrightable aspects of their source code," the motion ventured.

In addition, the defendants argued for dismissal for failure to
state a claim on the basis that the plaintiffs' causes of action
are legally foreclosed, deficient because the factual allegations
required to support the underlying elements are missing or
implausible, or both.

As to the plaintiffs' fraud-based claim, the motion says that in
addition to falling short of the Federal Rules' heightened
specificity requirement, the economic loss rules bars recovery.
Based on the defendants' reading, the plaintiffs' claim is merely
that GitHub "failed to honor its representations," which is really
a breach of contract claim, and thus barred by the economic loss
rule.

The dismissal hearing is scheduled for May 4 before Judge Jon S.
Tigar.

The plaintiffs are represented by The Joseph Saveri Law Firm LLP
and Matthew Butterick and Microsoft and Github by Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. [GN]

GLENN HAWBAKER: Packer, et al., Seek to Certify Employees Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESTER PACKER SR., LESTER
PACKER II, and SHAWN DYROFF, individually and situated, on behalf
of the GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC. BENEFIT PLAN, v. GLENN O. HAWBAKER,
INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFGLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC., the PLAN
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC. BENEFIT PLAN, and JOHN
DOES 1-20, Case No. 4:21-cv-01747-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following class pursuant to Federal Rules
      of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1) as follows:

      "All current and former hourly wage employees who worked
      on prevailing wage contracts at Hawbaker within the
      Commonwealth of Pennsylvania during the period September
      1, 2012 through December 31, 2018;"

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs as representatives of the
      certified Class; and

   3. appointing Edelson Lechtzin LLP and Donovan Litigation
      Group, LLC as Class Counsel.

Glenn O. Hawbaker is a leader in heavy construction services and
products.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 16,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XkYtpR
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
          EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
          411 S. State Street, Suite N-305
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Telephone: (215) 867-2399
          E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
                  medelson@edelson-law.com

                - and -

          Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
          DONOVAN LITIGATION GROUP, LLC
          1885 Swedesford Road
          Malvern, PA 19355
          Telephone: (610) 647-6067
          E-mail: mdonovan@donovanlitigationgroup.com

GLOBAL PLASMA: Court Sets Class Certification Deadlines in Garner
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Garner v. Global Plasma
Solutions Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00665 (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge
Stephanos Bibas entered an order setting class certification
deadlines/hearings as follows:

  -- Dispositive and class-certification motions are due on
     October 16, 2023.

  -- Opposition briefs are due November 13, 2023, and reply
     briefs are due November 27, 2023.

Judge Bibas suggested that the Plaintiff's counsel consider
associating with other lawyers who can assist in moving the case
forward. The Court will be less willing to grant further
extensions, the Judge adds.

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product
Liability.[CC]

HAPPY GROUP: Plaintiffs Seek to Amend Class Cert Briefing Sched
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN RUSOFF, et al.,
v. THE HAPPY GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-08084-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order amending the
class certification briefing schedule by continuing all filing
deadlines and related dates by approximately 6 weeks.

The Plaintiffs are optimistic that Defendant will

    (a) promptly provide a firm date by which it will produce
        the responsive documents, and

    (b) agree to a reasonable extension of time depending on the
        production date, and if such an agreement is reached, it
        can be communicated to the Court via stipulation or
        notice of non-opposition.

Pursuant to Rule 7-11 of the Northern District of California Civil
Local Rules, the Plaintiffs bring this administrative motion to
amend the class certification briefing schedule by continuing all
filing deadlines and related dates by approximately 6 weeks.

The current deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class
certification, and the non-expert discovery cutoff, is February 28,
2023.

The parties attended a discovery conference involving a dispute
over their ESI protocol, and in particular, the custodians and
search terms. After receiving briefing, and holding a hearing, on
January 5, 2023, Judge Cisneros issued an order requiring the
Defendant to produce documents in accordance with a search string
protocol.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XE8xKi at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Abiri, Esq.
          CUSTODIO & DUBEY, LLP
          445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 593-9095
          E-mail: abiri@cd-lawyers.com

                - and -

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

HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Castillo FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Fabiola Castillo, Norma Ortiz Martinez,
individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v.
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Does 1 through 10, Case No.
30-02022-01291348 was removed from the Orange County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Jan. 19, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-00117 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Hoag -- http://www.hoag.org/-- is a not-for-profit regional health
care delivery network in Orange County, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joshua R. Mino, Esq.
          GODES & PREIS, LLP
          300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1420
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (949) 468-0051
          Fax: (949) 872-2281
          Email: jmino@gaplegal.com


HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Jimenez Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Teresa Jimenez, individually, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons v. Horizon Actuarial Services,
LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-04550 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia on Jan. 19, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00285-MLB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC --
https://www.horizonactuarial.com/ -- is a leading consulting firm
that specializes in providing innovative actuarial solutions to
multiemployer benefit plans.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bethany A. Vasquez, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR-SF CA
          101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 593-9621
          Fax: (415) 644-0978

               - and -

          John Joseph Sullivan, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          3 WTC, 175 Greenwich Street, Ste. 55th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 453-3729
          Fax: (646) 461-2073
          Email: jsullivan@cozen.com

               - and -

          Max E. Kaplan, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 665-4682
          Email: mkaplan@cozen.com


HUMANS INC: Ligon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Humans, Inc. The case
is styled as Denette J. Ligon, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Humans,
Inc. doing business as: Flip, Case No. 1:23-cv-00451 (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 19, 2023).

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

Humans, Inc. doing business as Flip -- https://flip.shop/ -- offers
world's best beauty products, makeup, and skincare.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HYATT CORP: Hicks Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------
The case styled JESSE HICKS, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HYATT CORPORATION, a
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
S-CV-0049601, was removed from the Superior Court of California for
the County of Placer to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California on January 23, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-at-00060 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor
policies and practices in violation of the California Labor Code.

Hyatt Corporation is an American multinational hospitality company
headquartered in the Riverside Plaza area of Chicago, Illinois that
manages and franchises luxury and business hotels, resorts, and
vacation properties.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian P. Long, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
          Telephone: (213) 270-9600
          Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
          E-mail: bplong@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Michael Afar, Esq.
          Michael A. Sigall, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: mafar@seyfarth.com
                  msigall@seyfarth.com

HYATT CORP: Neubecker Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled EDWARD NEUBECKER, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. HYATT CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2022-00050362-CU-OE-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court for the County of San Diego to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on January 19, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00104-BTM-NLS to the proceeding.

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, eight total causes of action, six of
which are for various violations of the California Labor Code, one
is for "Unfair Competition" under the California Business &
Professions Code, and another one for civil penalties pursuant to
Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act.

Hyatt Corporation is an American multinational hospitality company
headquartered in the Riverside Plaza area of Chicago,
Illinois.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian P. Long, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
          Telephone: (213) 270-9600
          Facsimile: (213) 270-9601  
          E-mail: bplong@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Michael Afar, Esq.
          Michael A. Sigall, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: mafar@seyfarth.com
                  msigall@seyfarth.com

ILLINOIS FARMERS: Loses Bid for Class Cert. Order Clarification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAQUERIA EL PRIMO LLC,
VICTOR MANUEL DELGADO JIMENEZ, MITCHELLE CHAVEZ SOLIS, BENJAMIN
TARNOWSKI, EL CHINELO PRODUCE, INC., and VIRGINIA SANCHEZ-GOMEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE,
FARMERS GROUP, INC., TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS INSURANCE
COMPANY, INC., and MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
0:19-cv-03071-JRT-ECW (D. Minn.),  the Hon. Judge John R. Tunheim
entered an order that the Defendants' motion for clarification of
Orders on Class Certification and Class Notice or, in the
Alternative, for Amendment of the Orders is denied.

The Court said, "Because the Court did not intend to set an end
date for class membership, and because the ongoing nature of the
Damages Class does not make it unascertainable, the Court will deny
the Defendants' motion."

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, initiated this class action in 2019. The Defendants sell
automobile insurance in Minnesota.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants entered into confidential
contracts with certain health care providers under which the
providers agreed not to bill the Defendants for any treatment
provided to individuals insured by the Defendants.

According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants did not disclose these
agreements to the Defendants' policyholders or to the public. The
Plaintiffs allege that these limitations violate Minnesota law and
the terms of the policy contracts.

In addition to the damages, the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory
judgment that any contractual provision limiting coverage
guaranteed either by the insurance policies or Minnesota law is
void, and an injunction prohibiting Defendants from enforcing any
limitations that violate the policy terms or Minnesota law.

However, Rule 60(a) does provide the Court with the power to fix an
apparent typographical mistake in the Damages and Injunctive
Classes, which does not alter the composition of the classes.

The classes will therefore read as follows:

   -- Damages Class

      "All persons or entities that purchased an insurance
      policy on or after January 17, 2013, within the State of
      Minnesota from any of the Defendant Insurers that provided
      for medical expense benefits under Minnesota's No Fault
      Act.

   -- Injunctive Class

      "All persons or entities that purchased an insurance
      policy on or after January 17, 2013, within the State of
      Minnesota from any of the Defendant Insurers that provided
      for medical expense benefits under Minnesota's No Fault
      Act, and who maintain that policy.

In the alternative, the Defendants argue that the lack of an end
date makes the class unascertainable and urge the Court to amend
the certified Damages Class to add an end date. The Court disagrees
and will deny the motion.

The Eighth Circuit has not specifically addressed the issue of
whether an ongoing class action can be ascertainable, instead it
adheres to a rigorous analysis of the Rule 23 requirements, which
includes that a class "must be adequately defined and clearly
ascertainable.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wisevu at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anne T. Regan, Esq.
          Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
          HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC
          8050 West Seventy-Eighth Street
          Edina, MN 55439

                - and -

          David W. Asp, Esq.
          Derek C. Waller, Esq.
          Jennifer Jacobs, Esq.
          Kristen G. Marttila, Esq.
          Stephen Matthew Owen, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401

                - and -

          Paul J. Phelps, Esq.
          SAWICKI & PHELPS
          5758 Blackshire Path,
          Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076

The Defendant is represented by:

          Emily C. Atmore, Esq.
          John Katuska, Esq.
          Marc A. Al, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES LLP
          33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402

                - and -

          Timothy W. Snider, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES LLP
          760 Southwest Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000
          Portland, OR 97205


IMPERIAL COUNTY, CA: Denial of ICSA's Bid for Class Cert. Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IMPERIAL COUNTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants v. COUNTY OF IMPERIAL, et al., Defendants
and Respondents, Case No. D079274 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals
of California for the Fourth District, Division One, reverses the
order denying class certification.

The County is governed by a Board of Supervisors consisting of five
elected members. The Board of Supervisors possesses the exclusive
legal authority to provide for the compensation of its employees
and must exercise that authority by ordinance or resolution. This
authority includes the provision of retirement benefits to county
employees. Under this authority, the County established the
Imperial County Employees' Retirement System (ICERS), which
operates under the County Employee Retirement Law of 1937 (Section
31450, et seq.; CERL).

ICERS, in turn, is administered by its own board, the ICERS Board
of Retirements (ICERS Board), which possesses the sole and
exclusive fiduciary responsibility over the assets of ICERS and the
sole and exclusive responsibility to administer the system in a
manner that will assure prompt delivery of benefits and related
services to the participants and their beneficiaries.

The goal of defined benefit, public pension plans, like ICERS, is
to ensure payment of all vested, promised benefits to members, both
those currently retired and those who will retire in the future.
Two types of costs must be paid each year to fund the system
retirement benefits of County employees: normal cost and the
amortized payment of the unfunded actuarial accrued liability
(UAAL). Normal cost is the amount projected to be needed to pay
retirement benefits for services rendered by active members for the
current year. The UAAL constitutes the difference between the
actuarial accrued liability and the actuarial value of system
assets.

When the U.S. economy went into recession in 2007, retirement
systems, including ICERS, were impacted. In response to weaknesses
in the state's retirement programs revealed by the economic
downturn, the Legislature enacted the Public Employees' Pension
Reform Act (Sections 7522-7522.74, PEPRA), which went into effect
in 2013. According to ICERS, before and after the passage of PEPRA,
the unfunded liability attributable to the enhanced benefit for
safety members continued to grow. During this time both those
safety members eligible for the 3% at 50 benefit (Legacy members)
and PEPRA members "were assessed a pro-rata share of the UAAL cost
associated" with that enhanced benefit. Beginning in 2019, through
MOUs ratified by the County, the County "agreed to pay the UAAL
cost for PEPRA members" while Legacy members were "required to
continue to pay for the UAAL cost associated with the benefit."

The Plaintiffs, six individuals employed by the County of Imperial,
and the three unions representing them (the Imperial County
Sheriff's Association (ICSA), the Imperial County Firefighter's
Association (ICFA), and the Imperial County Probation and
Corrections Peace Officers' Association (PCPOA)), brought a class
action lawsuit against the County of Imperial, the Imperial County
Employees' Retirement System, and the System's Board alleging that
the defendants were systematically miscalculating employee pension
contributions.

After two years of failed mediation, the Plaintiffs filed a motion
for class certification under Code of Civil Procedure section 382.
The trial court denied the motion, finding that the conflicting
interests of two primary groups of employees, those hired before
the effective date of the Public Employee Pension Reform Act (Gov.
Code, Section 7522, et seq., PEPRA) and those hired after,
precluded the court from certifying a class. It found that because
the employees hired before PEPRA took effect were entitled to an
enhanced pension benefit unavailable to those hired after, the two
groups' interests were antagonistic and the community of interest
among the proposed class members required for certification could
not be met. It also concluded the proposed class representatives
had failed to show they could adequately represent the class.

On appeal from that order, the Plaintiffs contend that insufficient
evidence supports the trial court's finding that there was an
inherent conflict among the class members that precluded class
certification and that the court's legal reasoning on this factor
was flawed. They also argue they should have been afforded an
opportunity to show they can adequately represent the interests of
the class.

The Court of Appeals disagrees with the trial court's reasoning
concerning the community of interest among the proposed class and
agrees with the Plaintiffs they should be provided an opportunity
to demonstrate their adequacy. It opines that the Plaintiffs' class
action complaint does not seek to invalidate the MOUs or change the
benefits promised to any ICERS safety member. Rather, it asks the
court to adjudicate the proper rates of contribution under the law
and to prevent the County from requiring safety members to
contribute to UAAL costs related to the enhanced safety benefit,
which the Plaintiffs contend is the sole responsibility of the
County. In light of the actual claims asserted, the trial court's
focus on the outcome advanced by the County in its determination of
whether common issues predominate over any individual ones was
improper.

The trial court's finding that there was not a sufficient community
of interest among the proposed class is reversed. On remand, if the
court determines that the proposed class representatives are
adequate, the court is directed to grant the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and to create subclasses for the four groups of
class members identified during the certification proceedings --
Legacy and PEPRA safety members of ICERS and Legacy and PEPRA
retirees -- and to appoint appropriate class counsel for each
subclass.

The Court of Appeals also opines that the Plaintiffs did not
provide declarations from the proposed class representatives to
support a finding that they could fulfill their obligations to the
class or subclasses. Thus, the court's conclusion that the
Plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden on this issue was
supported by substantial evidence. The lack of an adequate class
representative, however, does not justify the denial of the class
certification motion. Instead, the trial court must allow the
Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint to name a
suitable class representative," or in this case submit declarations
from the proposed class representatives in support of their claim
of adequate representation.

On remand, the Court of Appeals directs the trial court to permit
the Plaintiffs to submit supplemental declarations from the
proposed class representatives for the court's consideration.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reverses the order denying class
certification and remands the matter to the trial court with
directions to allow the proposed class representatives to file
supplemental declarations addressing their adequacy to serve in
this role. Thereafter, if the trial court approves of the class
representatives, the court is directed to grant the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, including the creation of the
subclasses identified in the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 20, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2mas5w7f from Leagle.com.

Mastagni Holstedt, David E. Mastagni -- davidm@mastagni.com --
Nathan Senderovich, and Melissa M. Thom -- mthom@mastagni.com --
for the Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Hanson Bridgett, Raymond F. Lynch -- rlynch@hansonbridgett.com --
Adam W. Hofmann -- ahofmann@hansonbridgett.com -- and Matthew J.
Peck -- mpeck@hansonbridgett.com -- for Defendant and Respondent
County of Imperial.

Olson Remcho, Christopher W. Waddell -- cwaddell@olsonremcho.com --
Deborah B. Caplan -- dcaplan@olsonremcho.com -- and Benjamin N.
Gevercer -- bgevercer@olsonremcho.com -- for Defendants and
Respondents Imperial County Employees' Retirement System and Board
of the Imperial County Employees' Retirement System.


INTEL CORP: Berkeley Suit Seeks ERISA-Protected Pension Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Berkeley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Intel Corporation and the Administrative
Committee of the Intel Minimum Pension Plan, Defendants, Case No.
5:23-cv-00343 (N.D. Cal., January 23, 2023) is a civil enforcement
action brought under sections 502(a)(2) and 502(a)(3) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 concerning
Defendants' violations of ERISA's anti-forfeiture and joint and
survivor annuity requirements with respect to the Intel Minimum
Pension Plan.

The Plaintiff and the Class are vested participants in the Intel
Plan, which denies them their full ERISA-protected pension
benefits. Specifically, Plaintiff and Class members receive pension
benefits in the form of a joint and survivor annuity -- a benefit
that pays an annuity both to the participant for their life and for
the life of the participant's surviving spouse. In determining the
amount of Plaintiff's and Class members' joint and survivor
annuities, however, Defendants employed actuarial assumptions 40
years out of date. That means Plaintiff and Class members receive
less than the "actuarial equivalent" of their vested accrued
benefit, contrary to ERISA, says the suit.

The complaint asserts that Intel Plan violates the law with respect
to the default form of pension provided to married participants.
For these individuals, when the Plan converts a single life annuity
to a joint and survivor annuity, it uses a mortality table that is
40 years out of date, despite massive increases in life expectancy
in the intervening decades. As a result, these participants and
beneficiaries receive significantly less than the actuarial
equivalent of their single life annuity, in violation of ERISA's
requirements, the suit asserts.

The Plaintiff is a participant in the Intel Plan. He worked for
Intel for over 33 years, where he served in various positions
within the corporation.

Intel Corporation is a Santa Clara, California-headquartered
technology company that designs and manufactures semiconductor
chips.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
          Daniel R. Sutter, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave. NW Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20005  
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com
                  dsutter@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Shaun P. Martin, Esq.
          5998 Alcala Park, Warren Hall 109C
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 260-2347
          Facsimile: (619) 260-7933
          E-mail: smartin@sandiego.edu

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due March 14
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in International Business
Machines Corporation ("IBM" or the "Company") IBM of a class action
securities lawsuit.

The lawsuit on behalf of IBM investors has been commenced in the
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. Affected investors purchased or otherwise acquired certain
International Business Machines Corporation securities between
January 18, 2018 and October 16, 2018. Follow the link below to get
more information and be contacted by a member of our team:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ibm-class-action-submission-form?prid=35851&wire=5

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

International Business Machines Corporation NEWS - IBM NEWS

CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: (i) 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 (ii) 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.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in IBM
during the relevant timeframe, you have until March 14, 2023 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
Discuss your rights with our legal team without cost or
obligation.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ibm-class-action-submission-form?prid=35851&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi &
Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases.
Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex
securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our
clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in
ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the
top securities litigation firms in the United States.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Tylenol Autism Lawsuits Consolidated Into MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald V. Miller, Jr., in an article for Lawsuit Information
Center, disclosed that new medical research has recently shown that
using Tylenol (acetaminophen) during pregnancy can increase the
risk of having a child with autism. This has prompted many parents
to file product liability lawsuits against acetaminophen retailers
and manufacturers for failing to warn about the dangers of using
Tylenol during pregnancy.

The Tylenol autism lawsuits have been consolidated into a class
action MDL. In this post, we will look back at how the Tylenol
autism litigation has unfolded and discuss the latest developments
in this ongoing mass tort.

Tylenol During Pregnancy and Autism
Tylenol is the iconic brand name for acetaminophen, one of the most
commonly used medications in the world. Acetaminophen has always
enjoyed a reputation as a safe, harmless over-the-counter drug.
Millions of people use it daily, including many pregnant women who
view it as the safest choice for pain relief during pregnancy.

Over the last ten years, however, a growing tide of scientific
research has established that regular use of acetaminophen during
pregnancy can disrupt fetal development and increase the risk of
neurologic conditions such as autism.

These growing concerns among the scientific community culminated in
the publication of a Consensus Statement by a large group of
doctors warning the larger medical community about the risks of
acetaminophen use during pregnancy.

Research Prompts Tylenol Autism Lawsuits
The publication of the Consensus Statement article in 2021 called
attention to the link between autism and prenatal exposure to
acetaminophen. This soon led to the first product liability
lawsuits by parents alleging that their child developed autism from
Tylenol during pregnancy.

Throughout 2021, the number of Tylenol autism lawsuits slowly began
to increase. By the end of the year, however, there were still only
a limited number of cases pending in courts across the country.
That changed during the first half of 2022 as increased awareness
led many more parents to bring Tylenol lawsuits.

Tylenol Autism Class Action Lawsuit Created
By the summer of 2022, the number of Tylenol autism product
liability lawsuits pending in federal courts across the country had
increased significantly. This prompted a group of plaintiffs to
file a motion in June 2022 asking the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to consolidate all of the Tylenol
autism cases into a new "class action" MDL.

In October 2022, the JMPL granted the motion, and the Tylenol
autism new class action MDL was established titled In Re:
Acetaminophen - ASD/ADHD MDL No. 3043. The class action MDL for the
acetaminophen cases was assigned to Judge Denise Cote in the
Southern District of New York.

Denial of Walmart's Motion to Dismiss Leads to Increased Attention
One of Judge Cote's first significant actions in the new class
action MDL was to deny a motion to dismiss filed by defendant
Walmart. Walmart's motion argued that the Tylenol autism lawsuits
were precluded under the federal preemption doctrine (a common
defense in mass torts involving drugs).

Judge Cote ruled that preemption was not applicable because the FDA
labeling laws did not prevent Walmart from voluntarily adding a
warning about use during pregnancy to its Equate-brand
acetaminophen. Judge Cote emphasized that under the FDA rules,
manufacturers still must enhance their warning labels to ensure
they are adequate.

Judge Cote's decisive ruling on this point generated a lot of
optimism for the plaintiffs and sparked renewed interest in the
litigation from plaintiffs' lawyers across the country. A
noticeable increase in lawyer advertising for Tylenol autism
lawsuits promptly filed the ruling. Our law firm does not
advertise. But we get a lot of people, maybe like you, who become
aware of the litigation from advertising and then come here.
Because they are unimpressed with a 30-second television ad, they
want to know if the science supports a Tylenol lawsuit seeking
compensation for their child and their family.

MDL Judge Sets Fast Pace
By mid-December 2022, just two months after the acetaminophen
autism class action was created, it became clear that MDL Judge
Denise Cote would move the litigation along quickly. After making
appointments to the plaintiffs' executive committee, Judge Cote set
a series of reasonably prompt deadlines for submitting proposed
discovery plans which will get 2023 off to a running start.

Class Action Expands
When the acetaminophen autism class action MDL was created in
October 2022, only 18 cases were initially pending. By mid-January
2023, however, there were 104 pending cases in the Tylenol autism
MDL. The number of pending cases is expected to increase
dramatically throughout 2023. By the end of the year, we could
easily see the number of pending cases approaching 500.

The MDL judge has already taken two steps to facilitate filing new
cases in the MDL. First, she issued an Order allowing new incoming
Tylenol autism cases to be filed directly in the MDL rather than
being filed in home districts and transferred in. Second, she
approved a Short Form Complaint. So the engine is in place for this
litigation to grow as it should. [GN]

JUUL LABS: Parties Stipulate Altria's Bid to Stay Pending Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Juul Labs, Inc., Marketing, Sales
Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, Case No.
3:19-md-02913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate regarding
Altria's motion to stay pending appeal:

   1. Altria's Motion to Stay Pending Altria's Appeal from the
      Court's June 28, 2022 Class Certification Decision, shall
      be deemed withdrawn without prejudice;

   2. The Altria Defendants' objections to the Plaintiffs'
      proposed use of a combined settlement and pendency notice
      at this time (but not the Altria Defendants' objections to
      the form of the Plaintiffs' proposed class notices or the
      Plaintiffs' proposed notice plan), shall be deemed
      withdrawn without prejudice.

In addition, the current deadlines in the Class case shall be
extended by 160 days, as set forth below:

            Event                   Current         Proposed
                                   Deadline          Deadline

  Exchange of Class Case-         Feb. 3, 2023     July 13, 2023
  Specific Expert Rebuttal
  Reports

  Close of Class Case-Specific    Feb. 14, 2023    July 24, 2023
  Expert Discovery

  Motions for Summary Judgment    Mar. 13, 2023    Aug. 19, 2023
  and Daubert Motions

  Summary Judgment and            Apr. 10, 2023    Sep. 18, 2023
  Daubert Oppositions

  Trial Plan Briefs (10-page      Apr. 21, 2023    Sep. 28, 2023
  double-spaced limit per side)

  Trial Plan Response Brief       Apr. 28, 2023    Oct. 5, 2023
  (5-page double-spaced limit
  per side)

  Summary Judgment and            May 1, 2023      Oct. 6, 2023
  Daubert Replies

  Exchange of Civil Local         May 1, 2023      Oct. 6, 2023
  Rule 16-10(b)(7), (8),
  (9), and (1) Materials

Juul Labs is an American electronic cigarette company that spun off
from Pax Labs in 2017.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3D4OoFl at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sarah R. London, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
          BERNSTEIN
          275 Battery Street, Fl. 29
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000

                - and -

          Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California St., Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800

                - and -

          Dean Kawamoto, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Ave., Ste. 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900

                - and -

          Ellen Relkin, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 558-5500

The Defendants are represented by:

          John C. Massaro, Esq.
          David E. Kouba, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          601 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
          Washington D.C. 20001
          Telephone: (202) 942-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 942-5999
          E-mail: john.massaro@arnoldporter.com
                  david.kouba@arnoldporter.com

KELLOGG SALES: Jones Sues Over False and Misleading Representation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dameka Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kellogg Sales Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-00049
(W.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2023), is brought seeking damages and an
injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading
representation that a bowl of Smart Start gets a roughly equal
amount of its 11 grams of protein from cereal and added milk
("Product").

Recent studies have highlighted the role of protein in regulating
metabolism and weight management, along with maintaining stable
bodily functions in the aging process. Aware of these benefits, a
growing number of consumers are seeking foods with significant
amounts of protein. According to Nielsen, the marketplace has
responded to this demand, as annual sales for products touting
their protein content exceeds $16 billion.

The Product's prominent claim of "11g of Protein" appeals to these
consumers, who realize a significant percentage, or 6 grams, come
from added milk. However, the representation that the Product
contains an almost equivalent amount of protein, 5 grams, from the
cereal, is misleading, shown by the Nutrition Facts on the side
panel.

Though the first and second columns confirm the front label
representations that the cereal by itself and with added milk
contain five and six grams of protein per serving, their percentage
contributions to the Product's protein content is significantly
different from what consumers expect. This is shown by how the
cereal's five grams of protein are equivalent to four percent of
this nutrient's Daily Value ("% DV") while the eleven grams, with
added milk, is 16%. The six grams of protein from added milk
supplies 12% of the daily value for protein in contrast to the 4%
from the cereal alone.

In contrast to the front label indicating the protein contribution
from the cereal and milk is roughly equivalent, the former provides
only 25% of the Product's protein content while 75% is provided by
milk. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at a premium price, $4.49 for 18.2 oz (515g)
excluding tax and sales, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Product at stores including but not
necessarily limited to Walmart.

Kellogg's is one of the largest food manufacturers in the
world.[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


KEURIG GREEN: McClane's Request to Seal Documents Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve
Coffee Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:14-mc-02542-VSB (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered an order denying McClane
Company, Inc.'s request to seal documents because they have not
overcome the burden imposed by the stringent test for sealing or
redacting materials under the First Amendment.

The parties shall submit the joint status letter directed by this
Opinion & Order by February 16, 2023.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the
motions at Docs. 1405, 1411, 1416, 1746, 1755, 1759, 1765, 1774,
1788, 1789, 1799, and 1822.

Each of these documents are filed in connection with motions for
summary judgment and Doc. 1778-53 also appears in Daubert motions.


McClane asserts that the information in the proposed redactions
"references McLane's proprietary business practices and strategies,
such as methods for measuring demand, creating forecasts, and
placement of orders for its customers."

Personal Information of Current and Former Employees McLane
requests to redact the phone numbers and email address of various
individual employees that appear in exhibits supporting Plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment, Keurig's motion for summary judgment,
and oppositions to these motions.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kyYkAD at no extra charge.[CC]


KPS AFFILIATES: More Time to File Class Cert. Reply Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson-Cradle v. KPS
Affiliates Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01052-PGG-SLC (S.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for a one-week extension of time to
file a reply in further support of motion for conditional
certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective.

Specifically, the Plaintiff request an extension from January 17,
2023, to January 27, 2023 to file reply in further support.

The Plaintiff is requesting this relief for two reasons.

  -- First, undersigned counsel is currently involved in a
     multi-day arbitration and has been unable to review the
     Defendants' opposition or discuss same with the named
     Plaintiff.

  -- Second, when the Court granted the Defendants' request for
     an extension of time to file their opposition to the
     motion, the undersigned calendared the deadline for the
     reply date incorrectly.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 16, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZVLNaL at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amit Kumar, Esq.
          William Cafaro, Esq.
          Andrew S. Buzin, Esq.
          Louis M. Leon, Esq.
          Matthew S. Blum, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM CAFARO
          108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 583-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 583-7401
          Email: akumar@cafaroesq.com
                 bcafaro@cafaroesq.com
                 lleon@cafaroesq.com
                 mblum@cafaroesq.com

KROGER LIMITED: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Austin Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD AUSTIN, DEBORAH WINSTON, SHARON SIMPSON and LORI DALTON,
individually and on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. KROGER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I MID ATLANTIC
MARKETING AREA, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00048 (E.D. Va.,
January 19, 2023) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay its
employees legally required wages and overtime premiums in violation
of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Wage Payment
Law, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, the Virginia Minimum Wages
Act, the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act, and the
West Virginia Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Standards for
Employees Act.

Plaintiff Austin was employed by Kroger as a drug general manager
backup in Appomattox, Virginia while Plaintiff Winston was hired as
a drug/GM clerk in Mechanicsville, Virginia.

Plaintiffs Simpson and Dalton were employed by Kroger as a clerk in
the cheese shop in Charleston, West Virginia and as a head deli
baker in Saint Albans, West Virginia, respectively.

Kroger Limited Partnership owns and operates a chain of Kroger
retail grocery stores in Virginia and West Virginia, among other
states.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rachel Nadas, Esq.
          Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
          HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
          1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 200K
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 899-2991
          E-mail: rnadas@hfajustice.com

               - and -

          Martha Guarnieri, Esq.
          HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
          1727 Snyder Avenue
          Philadelphia, PA 19145
          Telephone: (215) 422-3478
          E-mail: mguarnieri@hfajustice.com

KURA SUSHI USA: Settlement in Gomes Suit Wins Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------
Kura Sushi USA, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 5, 2023, that final approval of
a class action settlement has been approved on November 18, 2022.

On May 31, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed by a
former employee, Brandy Gomes, in Los Angeles County Superior
court, alleging violations of California wage and hour laws. On
July 9, 2020, the plaintiff's counsel filed a first amended class
action complaint to add Jamar Spencer, another former employee, as
a plaintiff to this action.

In addition, the first amended class action complaint added new
causes of action alleging violations of California wage and hour
laws including a cause of action brought under the California
Private Attorney General Act. On August 7, 2020, the company filed
its answer to the first amended complaint, generally denying the
allegations in the complaint. In May 2021, a joint stipulation was
filed requesting a delay in the class certification hearing date to
March 3, 2022, and a mediation was scheduled for September 24,
2021.

During the mediation, a settlement was agreed upon in the amount of
$1.75 million. The company recorded an accrued liability of $1.78
million, including an estimated $30 thousand in employer payroll
taxes, related to this settlement within general and administrative
expenses in the statements of operations during the fiscal year
ended August 31, 2021.

The court granted final approval of the settlement on November 18,
2022. In December 2022, pursuant to the court's order granting
final approval of the settlement, the company deposited $1.78
million into an account controlled by a settlement administrator
for disbursement to class participants and other parties to the
litigation. A final report regarding the distribution of settlement
funds is due on July 6, 2023, and a non-appearance case review is
scheduled for July 13, 2023.

Kura Sushi USA is a technology-enabled Japanese restaurant concept
based in California.


L'OREAL USA INC: Grant Sues Over Harmful and Defective Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shelby J. Grant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. L'OREAL USA, INC., L'OREAL USA PRODUCTS, INC.; SOFT
SHEEN-CARSON, LLC; SOFT SHEEN/CARSON, INC.; and SOFT SHEEN/CARSON
(W.I.), INC., "L'OREAL" or "SOFT SHEEN"; STRENGTH OF NATURE GLOBAL,
LLC, a/k/a STRENGTH OF NATURE, LLC, and BEAUTY BELL ENTERPRISES,
LLC, d/b/a/ HOUSE OF CHEATHAM, INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-00260-MDL
(D.S.C., Jan. 18, 2023), is brought on behalf of similarly situated
consumers who purchased chemical hair straightening and/or hair
relaxers products (the "Products") that were harmful and defective
because they contained known endocrine disrupting chemicals that
increased the risk of various diseases and illnesses, including
cancer, and which were formulated, designed, manufactured,
marketed, advertised, distributed, and sold by the Defendants.

This action arises out of 2011 diagnosis of breast cancer and 2013
fibroid diagnosis which was directly and proximately caused by her
regular and prolonged exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals
found in the Products.

The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants for claims
arising from the direct and proximate result of the Defendants,
their directors, agents, heirs and assigns, and/or their corporate
predecessors' negligent, willful, and wrongful conduct in
connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the products.

The Products are defective because each contains the presence of
endocrine disrupting chemicals that have known to increase the risk
of cancer and other diseases for decades. Yet despite the presence
of this knowledge the Defendants represented that the Products were
safe and effective for their intended use.

Feasible alternative formulations, designs, and materials were
available to the Defendants at the time the Products were
formulated, designed, and manufactured. Indeed, other manufacturers
formulate, produce, and sell non-defective hair straightening
products with formulations that do not include endocrine disrupting
chemicals that increase the risk of cancer and disease. Use of such
dangerous chemicals in the Defendants' Products is clearly
avoidable.

The Defendants did not notify Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers of the Products' increased risk of cancer and disease
through its product labels, the ingredients list, other packaging,
advertising, or in any other manner, violating state and federal
law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Calhoun Falls, South
Carolina who purchased and used the Defendants' Products.

L'Oreal USA is the premier distributor and part of the L'Oreal
family and has several locations within South Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Aaron Jophlin, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Phone: (843) 546-2408
          Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                 ajophlin@belllegalgroup.com
                 gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

               - and -

          Danielle Ward Mason, Esq.
          BULLOCK WARD MASON LLC
          4915 N. Main Street #426
          Acworth, GA 30101
          Main: (833) BWM-LAW1
          Direct: (770) 202-4603
          Email: danielle@bwmlaw.com


L'OREAL USA: Faces Class Action Over Hair Relaxers' Cancer Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Lindsay, writing for CBC News, reports that Shamara
Hutchinson was just 15 years old when she learned she had ovarian
cancer.

"It was terrifying," the resident of Port Coquitlam, B.C., told
CBC. "I thought getting the cancer diagnosis was a death
sentence."

More than a decade later, thanks to punishing chemotherapy
treatments in her teenage years, Hutchinson says she has "for the
most part" fully recovered.

Now 27, she recently learned that cancers like hers have been
linked to certain chemicals in the hair relaxers and straighteners
she used regularly for years before her diagnosis.

"I was like, wow . . . if these products do have cancer-causing
chemicals in them, it's a real possibility that this is the
causation of my illness," she said.

Hutchinson, a social work student, is one of two representative
plaintiffs in a proposed class action lawsuit against cosmetics
giant L'Oreal, which produces the popular Dark & Lovely line of
relaxers, and other manufacturers of these products, including
Strength of Nature and Dabur USA.

The notice of claim, filed in B.C. Supreme Court earlier this
month, alleges these products "are dangerous, defective and not fit
for purpose."

None of the allegations have been proven in court and the claim has
not been certified as a class action. The defendants have yet to
file responses.

Similar claims have been filed in a number of U.S. states,
including California and Illinois, but this is believed to be the
first in Canada. The plaintiffs' lawyer, Richard Chang, said
additional suits are expected in other provinces soon.

'We didn't know we shouldn't use it'
Hair relaxers are mainly marketed to and used by Black women. They
work by damaging the protein structure of the hair to remove
natural texture, and need to be re-applied every few months as the
hair grows out.

They can also cause serious burns, which allows the chemicals to
absorb more easily into the scalp, the claim says.

The second representative plaintiff in the lawsuit is 32-year-old
Elle Wayara of Vancouver, who spoke to CBC while recovering from
surgery to remove four fibroids from her uterus. These
non-cancerous tumours, which can cause severe pain and menstrual
irregularities, have also been linked to hair relaxers and
straighteners.

She remembers learning about the potential connections between
these products and certain health problems, and speaking with Black
friends who were also dealing with reproductive system issues.

"It's surprising, not surprising, shocking, not shocking, and also
just sad, because how many illnesses could have been avoided had we
not used it -- because we didn't know we shouldn't use it," Wayara
said. [GN]

LANGUAGE LINE: Joint Bid for Approval of Class Notice Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK ROUSE, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. LANGUAGE LINE
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00204-DGK (W.D. Mo.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order approving the Notice of class
action, notice procedures, and consent to join form, and directing
that Notice be provided to class members:

The Notice of Lawsuit for Unpaid Wages shall be issued to
individuals who were or are employed by the Defendant in the role
of Implementation Specialists from July 22, 2019, to the present.

Kevin C. Koc of the Meyers Law Firm LC shall serve as Class
Counsel, and Plaintiff Derek Rouse shall serve as the Class
Representative.

The Parties have selected Analytics Consulting LLC to act as the
Third Party Administrator. The Third Party Administrator will be
responsible for administering the Notice and for receiving and
submitting any Consent to Join forms completed by Class Members.

By February 1, 2023, the Defendant's counsel will provide the Third
Party Administrator with the names, last known mailing addresses,
last-known personal email addresses, and Social Security numbers
for all Class Members. Defendant's counsel will provide Class
Counsel with the names and last known mailing address for all
Putative Class Members.

Putative Class Members will be able to return the Consent to Join
Form electronically, by email, by the first-class mail or
facsimile.

Language Line Services offers telecommunications and technology
interpreter services.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3GGJkYAat no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin C. Koc, Esq.
          THE MEYERS LAW FIRM LC
          503 One Main Plaza, 4435 Main Street
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 444-8500
          Facsimile: (816) 444-8508
          E-mail: kkoc@meyerslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kyle B. Russell, Esq.
          Ariel L. Gutovitz, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          7101 College Blvd, Suite 1200
          Overland Park, KS 66210
          Telephone: (913) 981-1018
          Facsimile: (913) 981-1019
          E-mail: Kyle.Russell@jacksonlewis.com
                  Ariel.Gutovitz@jacksonlewis.com

LASTPASS US: Sued Over Failure to Protect Personal Information
--------------------------------------------------------------
R. Andre Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LASTPASS US LP, and GOTO TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC., Case
No. 1:23-cv-10122-PBS (D. Mass., Jan. 18, 2023), is brought arising
out of the Defendants' failure to protect its customers' private
and personal information during two related data breaches that
began in August 2022 ("LastPass Data Breaches" or "Data
Breaches").

The Defendants' failure to protect its customers' data is
particularly egregious in light of their business of providing
cloud security technology. The Defendant LastPass is a software
company that provides its registered users with tools to store and
protect their passwords, a security dashboard, dark web monitoring,
and other services that are purchased by the Defendants' customers
to protect their personal information. Indeed, the sole reason that
the Plaintiff and the Class Members used LastPass and provided
Defendants with their personally identifiable information ("PII")
was to have their passwords and PII protected and minimize the risk
of data breaches.

But the Defendants failed to provide the services that they
promised and that the Plaintiff and the Class Members purchased.
The Plaintiff and the Class Members provided their PII to the
Defendants in order to improve the security of their personal data.
However, rather than protect that data, the Defendants implemented
lax data privacy and security protocols. Thus, not only did data
thieves gain access to a cloud-based storage service used by the
Defendants, steal access and decryption keys, and then copy the PII
of the Plaintiff and the Class Members, but when the Defendants
learned about the first Data Breach in August 2022, they failed to
timely or effectively remediate the breach. This allowed the data
thieves to gain further unauthorized access using the information
it initially compromised.

Even then, the Defendants waited months to be fully transparent
with the Plaintiff and the Class Members. It was not until November
30, 2022, that Defendants provided notice that the Data Breaches
resulted in the exfiltration of PII and until December 22,
2022--four months after the initial Data Breach--that Defendants
finally revealed the full extent of the Data Breaches.

The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of himself
and all those similarly situated to address Defendants' failure to
provide Class Members with the service they contracted
for--protection of their PII. The Plaintiff also brings this action
to address the Defendants' failure to provide timely and adequate
notice to the Plaintiff and the Class Members of the Data Breaches,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and citizen of the State of New
York.

LastPass is a software company that describes itself as "leading
the way in password security and identity management for personal
and business digital safety."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
          Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Esq.
          Christina L. Gregg, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MS 02109
          Phone: (617) 542-8300
          Email: pegan@bermantabacco.com
                 norenstein@bermantabacco.com
                 cgregg@bermantabacco.com

               - and -

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Ave., Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Phone: (858) 914-2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
          Email: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
                 achang@bottinilaw.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Court OKs Bid to Seal Exhibit 2 in Ahmed Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ahmed, et al., v. Liberty
Mutual Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-30056 (D. Mass.), the
Hon. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni entered an order granting motion to
seal Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Joel D. Rohlf in Support of
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).

Liberty Mutual is an American diversified global insurer and the
sixth-largest property and casualty insurer in the United
States.[CC]






LONG FENCE: Seeks Denial of Johnson Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTWANE JOHNSON,
individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities
similarly situated. v. LONG FENCE AND HOME, LLLP, Case No.
8:22-cv-01045-DLB (D. Md.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter
an order denying class certification, pursuant to Rule 23(d)(1)(D)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiff's allegation that Long Fence routinely violates the
Telephone Consumer Protect Act ("TCPA") by cold calling a large
swath of consumers with pre-recorded voice messages is factually
untrue, the Defendant contends.

In reality, Long Fence does not cold call consumers at all. The
only reason Plaintiff received any calls from Long Fence is because
an employee miskeyed one digit of its customer's phone number and
that customer submitted repeated requests about a roof, resulting
in inadvertent calls to Plaintiff's one-digit-off number instead.
As such, this is not a case where liability to the proposed class
(which is defined as everyone Long Fence called) can be established
in one fell swoop. Rather, hundreds of thousands of mini-trials
would need to be conducted as to each putative class member in
order to determine if there is even a single person who is
similarly situated to Plaintiff, the Defendant adds

Long Fence provides general contracting services.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 16, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3CXecmJat no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          John A. Bourgeois, Esq.
          Bradley M. Strickland, Esq.
          KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A.
          One South Street, Suite 2600
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 752-6030
          Facsimile: (410) 539-1269
          E-mail: jbourgeois@kg-law.com
                  bstrickland@kg-law.com

                - and -

          Ryan D. Watstein, Esq.
          Joshua Y. Joel, Esq.
          KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP
          171 17th Street NW, Suite 1550
          Atlanta, GA 30363
          Telephone: (404) 400-7300
          Facsimile: (404) 400-7333
          E-mail: rwatstein@kcozlaw.com
                  jjoel@kcozlaw.com

LOS DOS POTRILLOS: Castaneda Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------------
GLADIS CASTANEDA on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOS DOS POTRILLOS LLC, LOS DOS
POTRILLOS HIGHLANDS RANCH LLC, LOS DOS POTRILLOS LITTLETON LLC, LOS
DOS POTRILLOS PARKER LLC, LOS DOS POTRILLOS COCINA Y
CANTINA-NORTHGLENN LLC, LOS DOS POTRILLOS COCINA Y
CANTINA-SOUTHLANDS LLC, JOSE LUIS RAMIREZ, LUIS RAMIREZ, and DANIEL
RAMIREZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00162 (D. Colo., January 19,
2023) seeks actual and liquidated damages, front pay, economic
damages, compensatory damages, equitable relief and punitive
damages for Defendants' violation of the applicable wage and
anti-retaliation laws of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado
Minimum Wage Act, and the Colorado Wage Claim Act.

Plaintiff Castaneda was employed by Defendants as a server from
approximately May, 2017 through approximately October 12, 2022.

The Defendants are engaged in the Mexican restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandt Milstein, Esq.
          MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC
          2400 Broadway, Suite B
          Boulder, CO 80304
          Telephone: (303) 440-8780
          E-mail: brandt@milsteinturner.com

LYONS MAGNUS: Radford Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lyons Magnus, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Karen Radford, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Lyons Magnus, LLC, TRU Aseptics,
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00088-SAB (E.D. Cal., Jan. 19, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Lyons -- https://www.lyonsmagnus.com/ -- develops and markets
quality products with innovative packaging to meet the needs of
Foodservice.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lirit Ariella King, Esq.
          Marcus Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley Grombacher, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP
          31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Phone: (805) 270-7100
          Fax: (805) 270-7589
          Email: lking@bradleygrombacher.com
                 mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                 kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com


MARK CUBAN: Robertson Files Suit in D. Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mark Cuban, et al.
The case is styled as Pierce Robertson, Rachel Gold, Sanford Gold,
Rahil Sayed, Christopher Ehrentraut, Todd Manganiello, Dan Newsom,
William Ayer, Anthony Dorn, Dameco Gates, Marshall Peters, Edwin
Garrison, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Mark Cuban, Dallas Basketball Limited doing business as: Dallas
Mavericks, Defendants; Stephen Ehrlich, Movant; Case No.
3:23-mc-00001-MEG (D. Conn., Jan. 18, 2023).

The nature suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Motion to
Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order.

Mark Cuban -- https://markcubancompanies.com/ -- is an American
billionaire entrepreneur, television personality, and media
proprietor.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew S. Tripolitsiotis, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Phone: (914) 749-8364
          Email: mtripolitsiotis@bsfllp.com

The Movant is represented by:

          Daniel Schwartz, Esq.
          DAY PITNEY LLP
          One Stamford Plaza
          263 Tresser Blvd.
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Phone: (203) 977-7536
          Fax: (203) 399-5899
          Email: dlschwartz@daypitney.com

              - and -

          Helen Harris, Esq.
          DAY PITNEY LLP-STMFD
          One Canterbury Green
          201 Broad Street
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Phone: (203) 977-7300
          Fax: (203) 977-7301

              - and -

          Matthew J. Letten, Esq.
          DAY PITNEY LLP
          242 Trumbull Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: (860) 275-0565
          Email: mletten@daypitney.com


MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Learned Files Suit in D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The McClatchy
Company. The case is styled as Eryn Learned, Rhett Fussell, Dennis
Montalbano, Iris Sheehan, Douglas Sheets, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. The McClatchy Company, Case
No. 0:23-mc-00007-LIB (D. Minn., Jan. 19, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Motion to Compel.

The McClatchy Company -- https://www.mcclatchy.com/ -- commonly
referred to as simply McClatchy, is an American publishing company
incorporated under Delaware's General Corporation Law and based in
Sacramento, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raina Borrelli, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson St., Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone: (608) 237-1775
          Fax: (608) 509-4423
          Email: raina@turkestrauss.com


MERCER COUNTY, NJ: Campbell Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The County of Mercer,
et al. The case is styled as Joyelle Campbell, Clayton Boyd,
individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated
v. THE COUNTY OF MERCER; ERNA L. CRAIG, both individually and in
her official capacity as Warden of the Mercer County Jail; MAC
MCDUFFIE, both individually and in his official capacity as Deputy
Warden of Safety of the Mercer County Jail; JOSEPH REICHARD, both
individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Warden of
Operations of the Mercer County Jail, Case No. 2:23-cv-00099-LPL
(W.D. Pa., Jan. 19, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Mercer County -- https://www.mercercounty.org/ -- is a county
located in the U.S. state of New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          707 Grant Street, Suite 125
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 281-7229
          Fax: (412) 281-4229
          Email: arihn@peircelaw.com


MERCYFIRST INC: Manuel Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Manuel, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Mercyfirst, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00354 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2023),
is brought to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages,
liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York State Labor Law and their supporting New York
State Department of Labor regulations.

The Defendants had a policy and practice commonly known as "time
shaving". Specifically, whenever the Plaintiff, and other similarly
situated employees, would work over 35 hours per week, the
Defendants would only start paying for any additional hours work
performed above 40 hours per week. As a result, the Defendants
would force the Plaintiff to work "off-the clock" for 5 hours each
week, on weeks where they performed over 40 hours of work per week.
The Defendants also had a policy and practice of failing to
lawfully pay the Plaintiff for per diem work. Specifically,
whenever the Plaintiff would perform per diem work, the Defendants
would only pay 7 hours of per diem pay, per month, regardless of
the amount of hours actually worked per week. As a result,
Defendants would force the Plaintiff to perform uncompensated per
diem work, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a case manager at the Defendant's
social service agency.

Mercyfirst, Inc. is a domestic not-for-profit corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


METHODIST UNIVERSITY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Methodist
University, Inc. The case is styled as James Murphy, for himself
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. The
Methodist University, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00444 (S.D.N.Y., Jan.
18, 2023).

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

Methodist University -- https://www.methodist.edu/ -- is a private
university that is historically related to the North Carolina
Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church and located in
Fayetteville, North Carolina.[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

MICHIGAN: $20-M Deal in Unemployment Fraud Suit Granted Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rose White, writing for mlive, reports that Michigan will soon
start paying out $20 million to workers falsely accused of
unemployment fraud.

On Jan. 19, the Michigan Court of Claims approved a settlement that
resolves a class-action lawsuit filed against the Michigan
Unemployment Insurance Agency in 2015. The settlement was reached
between Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and the law firm
Pitt, McGehee, Palmer, Bonanni & Rivers in October 2022.

Payments are estimated to go out between Aug. 19 and Sept. 8.

"I am grateful to the court for agreeing that the compensation
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and that it satisfies
all due process requirements," Nessel said in a statement.

Workers sued the state after about 40,000 people were falsely
accused of fraud between 2013 and 2015. The Michigan unemployment
system, known as MiDAS, flagged thousands of accounts, prompting
the agency to garnish wages and seize tax refunds.

More than $20 million in refunds were issued to those affected.

But Brauserman v. Unemployment alleged the agency violated due
process rights by intercepting tax refunds, garnishing wages and
forcing claimants to repay benefits.

"While this settlement cannot undo the hardships these residents
faced, it does secure the long overdue relief that they deserve,"
Nessel said.

Only claimants who meet the definition of the settlement class will
be eligible for money from the state.

It covers claimants who received a determination or redetermination
of "intentional misrepresentation" between Oct. 1, 2013 and August
31, 2015 through the agency's auto adjudication process. They also
must have faced collections after March 9, 2015.

A notice of settlement will be mailed to known class members on
Feb. 1.

This will provide contact information, a table of important dates
and a list of documents that need to be submitted for the
settlement. Completed registration forms should be submitted by
April 5 and claim forms by April 14.

Class counsel and the unemployment agency put together a list that
identifies everyone who is eligible and the money they lost because
of wrongful collection.

Those on the class list can automatically join the settlement. If
they agree with the dollar amount on the list and submit a claim
form, no further action will be needed.

Workers who dispute the settlement can attend a court hearing on
Feb. 12, but this will not change the award amount.

Anyone who believes they qualify for the settlement but does not
receive a notice can find it from the Attorney General,
Unemployment Insurance Agency, Class Counsel, and Claims
Administrator websites. They can then submit documentation to see
if they are eligible for an award.

Class members can also opt out by April 5.

The Michigan Court of Claims appointed Michael L. Pitt, Jennifer L.
Lord, Kevin M. Carlson, Bayan Jaber, and Beth M. Rivers as counsel
for the settlement class. They can be reached by phone at
248-658-0014 or email.

The Michigan unemployment agency is currently facing two other
class-action lawsuits alleging due process violations.

A lawsuit filed in January claims the state unlawfully demanded
pandemic benefits back and collected on overpayments caused by
agency error. An August lawsuit says the unemployment agency froze
payments for thousands of workers during the pandemic without
providing an appeals process. [GN]

MINNESOTA: Mishandles Civilly Committed Inmates, Chairse Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
O'Shea Chairse, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. State of Minnesota Department of Human
Services and Minnesota Commissioner of Human Services Jodi
Harpstead, in her official and individual capacities, Defendants,
Case No. 27-CV-23-960 (Minn. Dist., 4th Judicial, Hennepin Cty.,
January 23, 2023) challenges the failure of the State of Minnesota
Department of Human Services to comply with Minn. Stat. which
requires DHS to transfer civilly committed inmates to a
state-operated treatment facility within 48 hours of their civil
commitment.

On October 17, 2022, the Plaintiff was civilly committed as a
person who posed a risk of harm due to a mental illness and a
chemically dependent person to the Commissioner of Human Services.
The Commissioner of Human Services did not transfer Plaintiff to a
state-run facility within 48 hours of his civil commitment on
October 17. Instead, he remained in the Hennepin County Jail until
December 5, 2022 when his caseworker was able to have him admitted
into New Way Treatment Center. During his time in Hennepin County
Jail, he was denied his mental health medications and was kept in a
suicide unit where he was only allowed out of his cell for short
periods to shower or use the telephone, says the suit.

The Plaintiff and others similarly situated allegedly suffered
unlawful incarceration, lack of access to mental health therapy and
treatment, use of force, diminished quality and enjoyment of life,
and psychological trauma and distress.

Department of Human Services is an agency of the State of
Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zorislav R. Leyderman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ZORISLAV R. LEYDERMAN
          222 South 9th Street, Suite 1600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 876-6626
          E-mail: zrl@ZRLlaw.com

               - and -

          Tim Phillips, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TIM PHILLIPS
          331 Second Avenue South, Suite 400
          TriTech Center
          Minneapolis, MN 55401    
          Telephone: (612) 470-7179
          E-mail: tim@timphillipslaw.com

MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Court Certifies Savings Plan Participant Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE MILLS et al., v.
MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01813-SB-GJS (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr. entered an order
granting motion for class certification:

   "All participants of the Molina Salary Savings Plan from
   March 18, 2016 through October 26, 2020 who invested in a
   flexPATH Index target date fund through an individual Plan
   account, and their beneficiaries, excluding Defendants."

The Court finds that certification of this class is appropriate
under Rule 23(a) and (b)(1). The named Plaintiffs have Article III
standing to bring the remaining claims in this action because each
Plaintiff was a participant in the Plan during the relevant period,
invested in at least one of the flexPATH funds through an
individual Plan account, and claims injuries that can be redressed
through a judgment in favor of the class.

The proposed class contains thousands of members, making joinder of
all members impracticable. Plaintiffs' claims challenge
Defendants' acts in connection with the investment options offered
to Plan participants.

These claims raise questions of law and fact common to the class,
including whether Defendants were fiduciaries of the Plan with
respect to the conduct alleged, whether Defendants breached any
applicable fiduciary duties, and whether the Plan suffered losses
as a result. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of other
class members, and Plaintiffs appear to be adequate representatives
of the class. Thus, the requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied.

The Plaintiffs are Michelle Mills, Coy Sarell, Chad Westover, Brent
Aleshire, Barbara Kershner, Paula Schaub, and Jennifer Silva,
participants in the Molina Salary Savings Plan.

Finally, the Court approves the appointment of Plaintiffs' retained
counsel, Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP, who appear to be competent
and experienced.

Molina Healthcare is a managed care company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wDWHVb at no extra charge.[CC]

MONARCH RECOVERY: Klein Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Debt
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MONARCH RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 501929/2023
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., Jan. 19, 2023), is brought under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as a result of the Defendant's
engagement in unlawful collection of debt.

Some time prior to March 6, 2022, Plaintiff allegedly incurred an
obligation to non-Party Synchrony Bank. Synchrony contracted with
Defendant Monarch to collect the alleged debt. Defendant Monarch
collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to have
been incurred for personal, family, or household purposes on behalf
of creditors using the United States Postal Services, telephone,
and internet.

On a date better known by Defendant Monarch, Defendant Monarch sent
Plaintiff a collection letter regarding the debt owed to Synchrony.
The Letter is not dated. There is no way to determine from the
Letter which date "today" and "now" refer to, as the Letter is not
dated. The Plaintiff was thereby misled as to the status of the
subject debt, for it was not associated with a particular date. It
is common practice to date official letters. Letters that lack a
date make them seem illegitimate. The fact that Defendant did not
date the letter and yet attempted to define the subject debt based
on a nebulous date was suspicious, misleading, and out of character
for a legitimate debt collection. Therefore, Defendant's omissions
cast a negative shadow over its debt collection practice in
general.

Defendant's actions caused Plaintiff to expend time, in reliance on
the improper content of the letter and lack of consistent sensible
information, to ascertain what his options and possible responses
could or should be. Defendant's collection efforts with respect to
the debt caused Plaintiff to suffer concrete and particularized
harm, inter alia, because the FDCPA provides Plaintiff with the
legally protected right not to be misled or treated unfairly with
respect to any action for the collection of any consumer debt.
Defendant's deceptive, misleading, and unfair representations
and/or omissions with respect to its collection efforts were
material misrepresentations that affected and frustrated
Plaintiff's ability to intelligently respond to Defendant's
collection efforts because Plaintiff could not adequately or
informatively respond to Defendant's demand for payment of this
debt, says the complaint.

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

Monarch is a "debt collector."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOSAIC HEALTH: Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Doe, Jane Doe, individually on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Mosaic Health System doing
business as: Mosaic Life Care, Heartland Regional Medical Center,
Case No. 22BU-CC01774 was removed from the Circuit Court of
Buchanan County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri on Jan. 18, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-06008-HFS to the
proceeding.

The nature suit is stated as Other P.I.

Mosaic -- https://mosaichealth.org/ -- is an integrated regional
health system with primary operations located in Saint Joseph,
Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen M. Gorny, Esq.
          Christopher David Dandurand, Esq.
          THE GORNY LAW FIRM LC
          4330 Belleview Avenue, Ste. 200
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Phone: (816) 756-5071
          Fax: (816) 756-5067
          Email: steve@gornylawfirm.com
                 chris@gornylawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Colby Millard Everett, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1801 California Street, Suite 4400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: (303) 861-0600
          Fax: (303) 861-7805
          Email: ceverett@bakerlaw.com


NOTRE DAME COLLEGE: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Notre Dame
College. The case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. The Notre Dame
College, Case No. 1:23-cv-00445 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2023).

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

Notre Dame College -- https://www.notredamecollege.edu/ -- is a
liberal arts college located in Cleveland, Ohio.[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


NOVA HOME HEALTH: Denson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Constance Denson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Nova Home Health Services, LLC, Hussein Abdirahman,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00109 (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 19, 2023), is brought as a
result of the Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"), by virtue of
the Defendants' practice, policy and procedure of failing to pay
non-exempt employees overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek and/or minimum wages and wages for hours
traveling between work sites during the workday.

The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and similarly-situated
employees overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a single
workweek when they worked on separate jobs and/or jobsites, or
simply refused to pay overtime, and issued employees a check with
for "straight time" hours for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek, in violation of the FLSA. The Defendants refused to pay
overtime at a rate of one- and one-half times the usual hourly rate
for any work hours in excess of 40 per workweek for travel time, in
violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from November of 2020
through the present date as a Home health Aide.

The Defendants provide home health care services to clients
throughout northeast Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John F. Burke, III, Esq.
          BURKES LAW, LLC
          55 Public Square, Suite 2100
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone 216-455-5980
          Fax 888-588-5663
          Email: john@BurkesLaw.net


OSMOSE UTILITIES: Corvin Suit Transferred to N.D. Ga.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled Timothy Corvin, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. OSMOSE UTILITIES SERVICES, INC., Case
No. 1:22-cv-02060-JPW, was transferred from the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
on Jan. 23, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Georgia assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00012-TCB to the proceeding.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case was initially
filed from the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County before it
was removed to the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 29,
2022.

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

Osmose Utilities Services, Inc., provides utility and
telecommunications equipment services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com

OTONOMO INC: California Court Tosses Data Privacy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin L. Bryan, Esq. and Kyle R. Dull, Esq., of Squire Patton
Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
disclosed that a federal court in California dismissed a complaint
concerning allegations that Otonomo, a data broker that partnered
with car manufacturers, "used electronic devices in [drivers'] cars
to send real-time GPS location data directly to [defendant],"
allowing Otonomo to track drivers' location in real-time.

Plaintiff in the case was a resident of California who alleged that
her data was being "tracked and exploited by Otonomo." The core
allegations in the Complaint concern Plaintiff's contention that
Otonomo "is a data broker that secretly collects and sells
real-time GPS location information from more than 50 million cars
throughout the world, including from tens of thousands in
California." More specifically, Plaintiff asserted that Otonomo
collaborates with its clients, who are automobile manufacturers
that install electronic devices in the vehicles they manufacture.
Plaintiff alleged that Otonomo partnered with car manufacturers "to
use electronic devices in their cars to send real-time GPS location
data directly to Otonomo through a secret ‘always on' cellular
data connection."

Plaintiff asserted that "[b]y secretly tracking the locations of
consumers in their cars, Otonomo has violated and continues to
violate the California Invasion of Privacy Act (‘CIPA'), which
specifically prohibits the use of an "electronic tracking device to
determine the location or movement of a person" without consent."
The Complaint pled a single claim under CIPA for violation of
Section 637.7. Plaintiff sought to represent a putative class
comprised of "[a]ll California residents who own or lease a vehicle
and whose GPS data has been collected by Otonomo".

By way of reference, Section 637.7 provides that:

(a) No person or entity in this state shall use an electronic
tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person.

(b) This section shall not apply when the registered owner, lessor,
or lessee of a vehicle has consented to the use of the electronic
tracking device with respect to that vehicle.

(c) This section shall not apply to the lawful use of an electronic
tracking device by a law enforcement agency.

(d) As used in this section, "electronic tracking device" means any
device attached to a vehicle or other movable thing that reveals
its location or movement by the transmission of electronic
signals.

Cal. Penal Code Sec. 637.7 (West 2022). CIPA is a heavily litigated
statute that has been relied upon recently by plaintiffs in privacy
class actions involving a number of recent tracking-related claims
and technologies. However, Plaintiff's application of CIPA Section
637.7 to a built-in component of a vehicle (as opposed to a
standalone device) was one of first impression.

Otonomo moved to dismiss the Complaint, raising three purported
fundamental deficiencies with Plaintiff's claim. First, Plaintiff
did not allege an "electronic tracking device" "attached to" his
car as the terms are used in CIPA. Second, Plaintiff did not allege
that Otonomo "determine[s] the location or movement of" Plaintiff.
And finally, Plaintiff did not allege that he did not consent to be
tracked. The Court found Otonomo's arguments persuasive, dismissing
the Complaint with prejudice.

In regard to Otonomo's first argument, violation of CIPA Section
637.7 requires that the location or movement of a person be
determined by an "electronic tracking device." Cal. Penal Code Sec.
637.7(a). Additionally, an "electronic tracking device" is defined
as a device "attached to a vehicle . . . that reveals its location
or movement." Cal. Penal Code Sec. 637.7(d). The Court took notice
of other CIPA precedent which examined the statue's legislative
history to find that "the statute governs electronic tracking
devices placed on vehicles or other movable things." As such, the
Court ruled, "that the ‘device' must be a separate device that is
attached, or placed, onto an automobile by the alleged wrongdoer."
On this basis, Plaintiff's CIPA claim had to be dismissed. The
Court observed that this result was consistent with concessions
made by Plaintiff's counsel at oral argument, which included that
the device at issue "is a component part of Plaintiff's vehicle
that is not removable by Plaintiff, nor was the Plaintiff able to
obtain his vehicle without [it]."

The Court was also persuaded by Otonomo's argument that, at most,
Otonomo merely received data about the location of vehicles. This
was insufficient under Section 637.7 of CIPA which prohibits the
use of "an electronic tracking device to determine the location or
movement of a person." Cal Penal Code Sec. 637.7(a). This was
because, the Court explained, "[t]he wording of the statute
explicitly prohibits tracking the location or movement of a person,
not a vehicle." In this instance, the complaint was devoid of
allegations that Otonomo obtained personal information of the
drivers of these vehicles. Furthermore, Plaintiff did not allege
that Otonomo received Plaintiff's personal information from
manufacturers, that would possess this information. On this basis
as well Plaintiff's claim independently failed.

Finally, the Court also adopted Otonomo's argument regarding
Paintiff's failure to allege that he did not consent to the device
installed in his car being used to track him. Notably, Section
637.7 is not violated "when the registered owner, lessor, or lessee
of a vehicle has consented to the use of the electronic tracking
device with respect to that vehicle." Cal. Penal Code Sec.
637.7(b).

In this case, the Complaint did not include an allegation that
Plaintiff did not consent to being tracked by his vehicle's
manufacturer. This was a fundamental deficiency also requiring the
Complaint's dismiss because CIPA Section 637.7 "is not violated if
any consent is given to the vehicle being tracked," (emphasis
supplied). This required that, in order to plead a cognizable
claim, Plaintiff had to allege the lack of consent with respect to
both Otonomo and his vehicle manufacturer—which he did not. In so
ruling, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's contention that consent did
not need to be pled, as it was an affirmative defense, ruling
instead that consent was "an element of the statute."

Because the Court found that Plaintiff could not plausibly allege
other facts that the device at issue was an electronic tracking
device within the meaning of CIPA, Plaintiff's claim was dismissed
with prejudice. Had Plaintiff's interpretation of CIPA been adopted
by the Court in this case, it would have dramatically expanded the
scope of the statute. Additionally, it could have also potentially
limited the services provided to drivers on a daily basis due to
perceived litigation risk.

As Otonomo's motion pointed out, "Otonomo's receiving vehicle GPS
data through its contracts with car manufacturers and fleet
managers. . .[was] used for things like roadside assistance,
emergency location, vehicle theft protection, real-time weather and
hazard notifications, and traffic flow management." At bottom,
Plaintiff in this case sought to create liability under CIPA for
any entity that receives GPS data from car manufacturers derived
from features the car manufacturers themselves built into the
vehicles. The Court was prudent in this case to reject such an
expansion of CIPA. It remains to be seen, however, how similar
claims brought in future filed cases are treated and if this first
ruling is adopted in other litigations. [GN]

PIBERRY INSTITUTE: Alba Sues Over Discriminatory Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
PILAR ALBA, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. PIBERRY INSTITUTE, INC., MARION CARBERRY
and VORICK PICOU, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-20228 (S.D. Fla.,
January 19, 2023) is an action for money damages which arises out
of Plaintiff's employment relationship with the Defendants, during
which Plaintiff was subjected to sex, race, and national origin
discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981;
battery; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent
infliction of emotional distress; negligent training and
supervision; and negligent retention.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a medical assistant
instructor from April 27, 2021, until her wrongful termination on
September 7, 2021.

Throughout her employment, Corporate Defendant and its employees
continuously harassed Plaintiff because of her sex, race and
national origin. Particularly, Dr. Picou constantly made
inappropriate comments and unwelcomed sexual advances toward
Plaintiff. Despite Plaintiff's rejection, Dr. Picou continued to
repeatedly make inappropriate advances toward Plaintiff, including
but not limited to touching Plaintiff without her consent and in an
unsolicited, unwanted and sexual manner, says the suit.

Piberry Institute, Inc. is a nursing school in Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tanesha W. Blye, Esq.
          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com
                  msaenz@saenzanderson.com

PLUSHCARE INC: Faces Robbins Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------
Accolade, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended November 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 9, 2023, that on May 8, 2021, a
purported class action complaint captioned "Robbins v. PlushCare,
Inc. et al.," was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the company's wholly owned
subsidiary, PlushCare, Inc.

The complaint, as amended, alleges that certain of PlushCare's
subscription payment practices violate California and other state
automatic renewal laws and the Federal Electronic Funds Transfer
Act, among other claims, arising from allegations that PlushCare
failed to provide adequate disclosures to members. The lawsuit
seeks restitution of subscription fees, statutory damages for each
violation, subject to trebling, reasonable attorneys' fees, and
injunctive relief.

Accolade, Inc. provides personalized, technology-enabled solutions
based in Washington State.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Scheduling Order Entered in North Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORTH v. PORTFOLIO
RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-20190 (D.N.J.),
the Hon. Magistrate Judge Jessica S Allen entered a scheduling
order as follows:

  -- The Plaintiff shall file the stipulated Amended Complaint
     on or around January 24, 2023.

  -- The Defendant shall file its answer within 14 days
     thereafter.

  -- The parties shall continue to negotiate the terms of a
     Stipulation regarding certain aspects of Class
     Certification.

  -- The parties shall submit a joint status letter on or before
     February 16, 2023.

  -- A Telephone Status Conference is scheduled for February 28,
     2023 at 2:00 p.m. and the Court will circulate the
     connection information in advance.

PRA Group is a publicly traded global debt buyer based in Norfolk,
Virginia.[CC]

PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Ford
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL J. FORD, v.
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-04147-JHS
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joel H. Slomsky entered an order
granting the Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Deadlines, Defendant's
Response to the Motion, and Plaintiff's Reply.

The Court further ordered the Scheduling Order dated November 9,
2022 is vacated and substituted as follows:

   1. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be
      filed by April 17, 2023.

   2. The Plaintiff's Class Certification Expert Disclosures
      shall be served upon opposing counsel by April 17, 2023.

   3. The Plaintiff's Class Certification Expert Depositions
      shall be completed by May 15, 2023.

   4. The Defendant's Opposition to Class Certification shall be
      filed by June 15, 2023.

   5. The Defendant's Challenges to Plaintiff's Class
      Certification Experts shall be filed by June 15,
      2023.

   6. The Defendant's Class Certification Expert Disclosures
      shall be served upon opposing counsel by June 15, 2023.

   7. The Defendant's Class Certification Expert Depositions
      shall be completed by July 17, 2023.

   8. The Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Class
      Certification shall be filed by July 30, 2023.

   9. The Plaintiff's Challenges to Defendant's Class
      Certification Experts shall be filed by July 30, 2023.

  10. Following a ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Class
      Certification, additional discovery may be ordered.

Progressive Specialty offers property, casualty, life, and health
insurance services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HnViI8 at no extra charge.[CC]

PSB HOLDING: M&A Firm Continues Investigating Merger With Summit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

PSB Holding Corp. (OTC: PSBP), relating to its proposed merger with
Summit Financial Group, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, PSPB
shareholders will receive 1.2347 shares of Summit per share they
own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/psb-holding-corp. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as a Rising Star
and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities Litigation. He has also
been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated
Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a
significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under
Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter,
our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal
of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United
States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407
(2019). Also, we have recovered or secured over a dozen cash common
funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action
cases.

If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:

Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118 [GN]
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]

PUBLIC STORAGE: Dupervil Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Dupervil, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Public Storage, Case No. 1:23-cv-00388 (E.D.N.Y., Jan.
19, 2023), is brought as a result of the Defendant's violation of
the New York State Labor Law ("NYLL") by not paying their Manual
Workers on a timely and weekly basis as required.

The Plaintiff and the proposed class were employed as relief
managers, customer service representatives, and custodians at
Defendant's self-storage facilities in New York performing physical
labor, and being paid bi-weekly. The Plaintiff and other Manual
Workers need to be paid weekly to keep up with day-to-day expenses
such as housing and transportation costs, groceries, utilities, and
other regular bills, and in order to obtain the full value of their
earned wages as due. Because of Defendant's improper compensation
policies, the Plaintiff was deprived of timely and weekly pay, in
direct violation of the NYLL. This pattern of conduct was
continuous throughout Plaintiff's employment. The Defendant's
unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and consistent,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from March 2016 to
December 2022.

The Defendant is the largest brand of self-storage services in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810,
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 718-669-0714
          Email: mgangat@gangatpllc.com


QUALITY FIRST: Class Certification Deadlines Extended in Hoeltke
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYCE HOELTKE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
QUALITY FIRST HOME IMPROVEMENT, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-01823-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order
extending the class certification deadlines as follows:

                                     Deadline       30-Day
                                                    Extension

  Depositions Completed by        Jan. 12, 2023    Feb. 13, 2023

  All Expert Discovery            Jan. 12, 2023    Feb. 13, 2023
  Completed by

  Motion for Class Certification  Mar. 16, 2023    Apr. 28, 2023
  Heard by

Quality First provides building products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WtP5if at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD,
          A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com

                - and -

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

                - and -

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (617) 485-0018
          Facsimile: (508) 318-810
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amy L. Pierce, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &
          SMITH LLP
          2020 West El Camino Avenue, Ste 700
          Sacramento, CA 95833
          Telephone: (916) 646-8210
          Facsimile: (916) 564-5444
          E-mail: Amy.Pierce@lewisbrisbois.com

QUEENS UNIVERSITY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Queens University Of
Charlotte. The case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Queens University
Of Charlotte, Case No. 1:23-cv-00446 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2023).

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

The Queens University of Charlotte -- https://www.queens.edu/ -- is
a private university in Charlotte, North Carolina.[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


RACKSPACE TECHNOLOGY: Doubet Must Allege Citizenship of Each Party
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOUBET CONSULTING, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v.
RACKSPACE TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 23-CV-00526 (JLR)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York orders the Plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint properly alleging the citizenship of each party
to the action no later than Feb. 1, 2023.

On Jan. 23, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in which they
invoked the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Although the
Plaintiffs state that diversity exists because some of the
Plaintiffs and Class members and the Defendant are citizens of
different states the Complaint does not contain any allegations
about the Defendant's citizenship.

Plaintiff Doubet Consulting is plead as a citizen of New York and
Plaintiff GL2 Partners, Inc. as a citizen of Texas. However, there
is no information about the Defendant's citizenship.

Judge Rochon explains that under CAFA, as under the traditional
rule, the party asserting subject matter jurisdiction has the
burden of proving it. She says the Plaintiff cannot establish
minimal diversity since the complaint lacks any information about
the citizenship of the Defendant.

If, by Feb. 1, 2023, the Plaintiffs do not file an amended
complaint establishing the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction, the
Court will dismiss the case without prejudice and without further
notice to any party.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yz8f8man from Leagle.com.


RACKSPACE TECHNOLOGY: Faces Doubet Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOUBET CONSULTING, LLC; and GL2 PARTNERS, INC., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RACKSPACE
TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00526 (S.D.N.Y., Jan.
21, 2023) is a class action suit against the Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") and other
proprietary and highly confidential data (collectively, "Sensitive
Data") stored within the Defendant's information network, to
properly maintain its Hosted Exchange environment so as to provide
continuous email service, and notify the Plaintiffs and Class
Members of outages so as to not unreasonably interfere with their
access to their Sensitive Data.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that as a result of the
Defendant's failure to take reasonable steps to adequately protect
the PII and Sensitive Data of current and former clients, the
Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII and Sensitive Data is now on the
internet for anyone and everyone to acquire, access, and use for
unauthorized purposes for the foreseeable future.

The Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security
procedures has resulted in ongoing harm to the Plaintiffs and Class
Members, who will continue to experience a lack of data security
for the indefinite future and remain at serious risk of identity
theft and fraud that would result in significant monetary loss and
loss of privacy, as well as disruption of their business
operations, loss of hosted exchange services and permanent loss of
countless e-mails and other stored data, says the suit.

RACKSPACE TECHNOLOGY, INC. provides information technology
services. The Company offers colocation, managed cloud and hosting,
compliance assistance, enterprise security, and data protection
services. Rackspace Technology serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marc J. Held, Esq.
          Philip M. Hines, Esq.
          HELD & HINES, L.L.P.
          2004 Ralph Avenue
          Brooklyn, NY 11234
          Telephone: (718) 531-9700
          Email: mheld@heldhines.com
                 phines@heldhines.com

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Bids to Dismiss Borozny Complaint Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TARAH KYE BOROZNY, ANTHONY DeGENNARO, RYAN GLOGOWSKI,
ELLEN McISAAC, SCOTT PRENTISS, ALEX SCALES, AUSTIN WAID-JONES,
NICHOLAS WILSON, and STEVEN ZAPPULLA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION; AGILIS ENGINEERING, INC.;
BELCAN ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC; CYIENT, INC.; PARAMETRIC SOLUTIONS,
INC.; and QUEST GLOBAL SERVICES-NA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-1657-SVN (D. Conn.), Judge Sarala V. Nagala of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut denies the
Outsourcing Defendants' and Pratt & Whitney's motion to dismiss the
operative complaint.

In this antitrust putative class action, eight named Plaintiffs
have alleged, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, that six corporate Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to
restrain trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1, by secretly agreeing to restrict their
competition in the recruitment and hiring of aerospace engineers
and other skilled workers in the jet propulsion systems industry.

The initial complaint, filed on Dec. 14, 2021, was the first of
what would ultimately become 31 separate lawsuits filed against
substantially the same Defendants. These actions followed the
unsealing of criminal antitrust charges against several executives
who worked for various Defendants during the relevant time period.
Each of the civil suits was consolidated into the present action.

Following consolidation, the Court appointed interim class counsel
to lead the putative class and gave counsel the opportunity to file
a consolidated amended complaint (the "CAC"). The CAC was filed on
May 5, 2022. The present motions to dismiss were filed in response
to the CAC.

In the CAC, it is alleged that in the aerospace industry, Pratt &
Whitney is a "major player" with significant sway over the market.
In addition to hiring its own Aerospace Workers, Pratt & Whitney
used outsourcing to supplement its labor force. In an outsourcing
relationship, Pratt & Whitney would issue a "Statement of Work"
detailing the requirements of a particular project, and other
outsourcing firms would bid on the project. It would then accept
one of the bids and that outsourcing firm would enter an agreement
with it to allocate some of the outsourcing firm's own employees to
work on the project, often alongside its direct employees. Each of
the Outsourcing Defendants were among the firms that would bid on
such jobs.

According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants' alleged conspiracy not
to hire or recruit each other's employees began at least as early
as 2011, but was kept secret from the Defendants' employees due to
its illegality and negative impact on their employees' compensation
and career options. The goal of this conspiracy was for the
Defendants to enrich themselves by colluding to suppress the
compensation of their Aerospace Workers. This goal was accomplished
by severely limiting, if not entirely eliminating, competition for
employees between the Defendants.

By having the ability to refuse to outsource work to the
Outsourcing Defendants if they broke the rules of the conspiracy,
Pratt & Whitney was able to wield a certain degree of leverage over
the Outsourcing Defendants in effectuating this conspiracy. The
Plaintiffs allege that Pratt & Whitney also, however, was an equal
competitor for aerospace labor vis-a-vis the Outsourcing
Defendants. For that reason, the Plaintiffs contend that the
conspiracy was an anticompetitive agreement among horizontal
competitors.

The Plaintiffs generally allege that this conspiracy impacted the
market for Aerospace Workers by suppressing labor competition and,
in turn, compensation. During the time the actions were taking
place, the Defendants were competing for a limited number of
qualified Aerospace Workers. Were it not for the alleged
conspiracy, the Defendants would have been required to compete
against each other in order to recruit, hire, and retain top
aerospace engineers and other skilled workers, including by
directly soliciting competitors' employees with better offers.
Instead, they, as horizontal competitors in the market for
Aerospace Workers, were able to keep wages artificially low by
refusing to break ranks and compete with one another over
employees.

If the Defendants were instead free to hire employees from each
other at will, this would have led to upward pressure on
compensation as they competed to hire top talent away from their
competitors, while also making efforts to retain their own
employees. Unfortunately, according to the Plaintiffs, the
Defendants entered into the alleged conspiracy, which successfully
stifled competition, suppressed compensation for Aerospace Workers,
and eliminated new employment opportunities for those employees.
This, they believe, constitutes a violation of the Sherman Act and
entitles them to recover damages.

The Outsourcing Defendants and Pratt & Whitney have separately
moved to dismiss the operative complaint. Both motions to dismiss
argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege conduct
that is appropriately deemed a per se antitrust violation; having
failed to plead an alternative "rule of reason" claim, the
Defendants argue, the complaint must be dismissed. The Outsourcing
Defendants' motion to dismiss also contends that the complaint
fails to adequately allege a conspiracy under the Sherman Act, and
that it fails to include allegations sufficient to implicate Cyient
and Parametric Solutions in any such conspiracy. The Plaintiffs
contend that the conduct alleged in the complaint appropriately
states both a per se violation of the antitrust laws and a
violation of those laws under the rule of reason.

Judge Nagala states that the main dispute in the Defendants'
motions is whether the actions alleged in the CAC state a per se
violation of the Sherman Act. The Defendants mount numerous attacks
on the CAC, discussing why the allegations therein are not
appropriate for per se treatment under the Sherman Act.

First, Judge Nagala finds that contrary to the Defendants'
arguments, the complaint in the instant action alleges a horizontal
conspiracy to restrain trade, such that it is plausible the conduct
at issue could constitute a per se violation of the Sherman Act.

Second, she finds that the CAC adequately alleges a potential claim
for a per se violation of the Sherman Act. A final determination of
whether the instant case in fact presents a per se violation, or
whether it must be analyzed under the rule of reason, is more
appropriate on a motion for summary judgment. Thus, she denies the
Defendants' request to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim alleging a per
se violation of the Sherman Act.

Third, Judge Nagala finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately
alleged a plausible market. She further finds that the Plaintiffs
have alleged that the Defendants entered a conspiracy that had the
effect of actually reducing the compensation paid to them. Thus,
the Plaintiffs have adequately, although inartfully, pleaded an
antitrust claim under the rule of reason.

Fourth, Judge Nagala finds that the CAC contains numerous detailed
conspiracy allegations and the Plaintiffs have successfully pleaded
direct evidence of a conspiracy. She also finds that the CAC
alleges behavior that would plausibly contravene each Defendant's
self-interest in the absence of similar behavior by rivals. It is
clear that the CAC contains more than enough evidence, whether
direct or circumstantial, to state a claim for relief at this stage
of the proceeding.

Finally, Judge Nagala holds that while Cyient and Parametric
Solutions may believe there is an innocent explanation to all of
the actions, the allegations of the CAC plausibly demonstrate that
they participated in the conspiracy at issue. Thus, the Plaintiffs
have alleged sufficient factual material to implicate Cyient and
Parametric Solutions.

For the reasons she discussed, Judge Nagala denies the Defendants'
motions to dismiss in their entirety.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 20, 2023 Ruling & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3e2z7ykh from Leagle.com.


RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: QuEST Can Compel Arbitration in Borozny Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TARAH KYE BOROZNY, ANTHONY DeGENNARO, RYAN GLOGOWSKI,
ELLEN McISAAC, SCOTT PRENTISS, ALEX SCALES, AUSTIN WAID-JONES,
NICHOLAS WILSON, and STEVEN ZAPPULLA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION; AGILIS ENGINEERING, INC.;
BELCAN ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC; CYIENT, INC.; PARAMETRIC SOLUTIONS,
INC.; and QUEST GLOBAL SERVICES-NA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:21-CV-1657-SVN (D. Conn.), Judge Sarala V. Nagala of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut grants QuEST's
motion to compel arbitration and stays all QuEST Plaintiffs' claims
against QuEST pending resolution of arbitration.

In the antitrust putative class action, eight named Plaintiffs have
alleged, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
that six corporate Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to restrain
trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1, by secretly agreeing to restrict their competition in
the recruitment and hiring of aerospace engineers and other skilled
workers in the jet propulsion systems industry.

QuEST has moved for an order compelling Plaintiffs Borozny,
Glogowski, and Waid-Jones, who are former employees of QuEST, to
arbitrate their claims against QuEST pursuant to arbitration
agreements each employee entered into with QuEST at the start of
their employment.

The initial complaint, filed on Dec. 14, 2021, was the first of
what would ultimately become 31 separate lawsuits filed against
substantially the same Defendants. Each of these suits was
consolidated into the present action. Following consolidation, the
Court appointed interim class counsel to lead the putative class,
and gave such counsel the opportunity to file a consolidated
amended complaint (the "CAC"). The CAC was filed on May 5, 2022.
The present motion to compel arbitration was filed by QuEST in
response to the CAC.

The Plaintiffs, aerospace engineers and employees, have brought a
putative class action lawsuit, alleging the Defendants, aerospace
engineering firms and employers, entered "no-poach" agreements such
that none of the Defendants would hire current employees from any
of the other Defendants. This, the Plaintiffs claim, resulted in
artificially depressed wages for numerous highly skilled workers in
the aerospace industry. The present motion, however, has a far
narrower focus.

Three of the named Plaintiffs were employees of QuEST during the
relevant time period. It is undisputed that, when they began their
employment with QuEST, each of the QuEST Plaintiffs entered into an
arbitration agreement with QuEST.

Despite that these clauses were undisputedly in the QuEST
Plaintiffs' employment agreements, they initiated the suit naming
as a Defendant, among others, QuEST. QuEST believes that these
arbitration clauses require the QuEST Plaintiffs to arbitrate their
claims and now moves to compel such arbitration under Section 4 of
the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA").

The parties agree that an enforceable arbitration agreement exists.
Further, they agree that the subject matter of the case is covered
by the arbitration agreement. Thus, Judge Nagala must decide only
certain narrower questions. Specifically, the parties contest: (a)
whether the Court or the arbitrator should rule on the availability
of class arbitration and, relatedly, if this question is for the
Court to decide, whether the QuEST Plaintiffs can bring a class
arbitration; (b) whether the QuEST Plaintiffs should be required to
commence arbitration within a given period of time; and (c) what
must be done with the QuEST Plaintiffs and QuEST itself in this
litigation once the QuEST Plaintiffs' claims against QuEST are sent
to arbitration.

First, Judge Nagala must determine whether the Court or the
arbitrator should decide if the QuEST Plaintiffs can arbitrate as a
class. Given the broad language of the arbitration agreement, as
well as the agreement's incorporation of the AAA rules, including
the Supplementary Rules, she holds that the arbitrator should
determine whether class arbitration is permissible. Thus, she does
not take up this issue at this time. For the avoidance of doubt,
her opinion makes no finding as to whether class arbitration is or
is not appropriate; she simply holds that such a decision should be
made by the arbitrator.

Next, QuEST requests that if the Court grants the motion to compel
arbitration and stays the QuEST Plaintiffs' arbitrable claims, it
should also require the QuEST Plaintiffs to begin any forthcoming
arbitration within 30 days of the Order. This request is supported
by only a single citation to a Southern District of New York
decision, which in turn cites no authority for its ruling. The
QuEST Plaintiffs argue that there is nothing in the arbitration
agreement that would permit, let alone require, the Court to direct
that arbitration must be commenced within any timeframe, and that
they may file an arbitration at any time within any applicable
statute of limitations under the applicable arbitration rules.

Judge Nagala agrees with the QuEST Plaintiffs. She says QuEST's
request finds no footing in the arbitration agreement itself. To
the contrary, the arbitration agreement itself, by incorporation of
AAA rules, contains an express timeframe for the filing of claims:
the statute of limitations period. The Court is not free to change
that agreement. Further, to the extent there are any disputes over
the timeliness of the commencement of the arbitration, such
disputes are for the arbitrator to decide. For these reasons,
QuEST's request that the Court requires the commencement of
arbitration within 30 days of the Order is denied.

Having discussed each of QuEST's requests, Judge Nagala turns to a
request made by the QuEST Plaintiffs. The QuEST Plaintiffs request
that the Court makes clear that any order of arbitration applies
only to the QuEST Plaintiffs' claims against QuEST and no other
claims or defenses. QuEST does not appear to contest this
invitation. Further, it has made no argument why any of the
non-QuEST Plaintiffs' claims against QuEST, or the QuEST
Plaintiffs' claims against the non-QuEST Defendants, would be
impacted in any way by the arbitration agreement at issue. Thus,
for the avoidance of doubt, Judge Nagalas Order relates only to the
QuEST Plaintiffs' claims against QuEST. The QuEST Plaintiffs'
claims against the non-QuEST Defendants will continue, as will the
non-QuEST Plaintiffs' claims against QuEST.

The final issue Judge Nagala must take up in connection with this
motion is whether to stay or dismiss the QuEST Plaintiffs' claims
against QuEST. While the parties' positions on the issue were less
than clear in their respective briefs, their positions were
clarified at oral argument. QuEST requests that the Court dismisses
these claims, while the QuEST Plaintiffs request that the Court
stay its claims against QuEST while allowing the remaining claims
to proceed.

Given that the QuEST Plaintiffs have requested a stay, Judge Nagala
must grant this request. The parties have not provided the Court
any authority to the contrary and, when questioned about this at
oral argument, both QuEST and the QuEST Plaintiffs conceded that if
a stay were requested by either of them, the Court would be
required to grant such a request. Given that the QuEST Plaintiffs
have requested a stay, the Court lacks the discretion to dismiss
the claims, and must instead stay them.

For these reasons, Judge Nagala grants QuEST's motion to compel
arbitration. All claims by the QuEST Plaintiffs against QuEST are
stayed pending resolution of arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 20, 2023 Ruling & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc7ccpr9 from Leagle.com.


RECOVERY REMEDIES: Filing of Class Certification Bid Extended
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON DOUGLAS, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. RECOVERY REMEDIES
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-05018-ELR-RDC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon.
Judge Regina D. Cannon entered an order granting:

   -- the Defendant's Consent Motion for Extension of Time to
      File Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, and

   -- the Plaintiff's Consent Motion for Extension of Time to
      File Motion for Class Certification.

In the former, the Defendant requests an extension of time from
January 12, 2023 through February 2, 2023 to answer or otherwise
respond to Plaintiff's complaint. This is Defendant's first request
for an extension, and Plaintiff does not object.

In the latter, the Plaintiff requests an extension of time to file
her motion for class certification from March 20, 2023 to a date to
be determined by the Court following the entry of the parties'
Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan.

The Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's
complaint on or before February 2, 2023.

Recovery Remedies is a company that operates in the Financial
Services industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wiTJoz at no extra charge.[CC]



RECURRENT VENTURES: Discloses Info to Facebook, Carroll Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH CARROLL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RECURRENT VENTURES INC., a Delaware
corporation d/b/a OUTDOORLIFE.COM; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00122-WQH-AHG (S.D. Cal.,
January 23, 2023) arises from the Defendants' actions of secretly
reporting users' details to Facebook in violation of the Video
Privacy Protection Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of rental, sale, or
delivery of prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio
visual materials through the website outdoorlife.com. Specifically,
Defendants' business model involves monetizing instances in which
consumers watch videos.

According to the complaint, the Defendant discloses information
which allows Facebook (and any ordinary person) to identify a
user's video-watching behavior. When a visitor watches a video on
outdoorlife.com while logged into Facebook, Defendants compel a
visitor's browser to transmit the c_user cookie to Facebook. The
c_user cookie contains that visitor's unencrypted Facebook ID. By
disclosing to Facebook the event data and identifiers of web
visitors, including Plaintiff, Defendant knowingly disclosed their
personally identifiable information to a third-party, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff is an individual consumer advocate who watched a
video on the website.

Recurrent Ventures Inc. is a digital media company who owns,
operates, and/or controls the website, outdoorlife.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

RESOLUTE CAPITAL: Cruz, et al., Seek to Stay Class Cert Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL D. CRUZ, et al,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
RESOLUTE CAPITAL PARTNERS LTD, LLC, et al., Case No.
3:22-cv-02349-E (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs request the Court stay
the deadline to move for class certification, or alternatively to
continue it 120 days.

The Plaintiffs are Paul Jeffrey D. Cruz, Heather and Bryant Smith,
Rohit Khanolkar, Sharon Gardner, Arlen Leiner, Lisa Leiner, Margie
Brown, Richard Brown, Gary Burl, Bryce Ching, Cindy Y. Su, Joan
Cohen, Joseph Cohen, Roger Connolly, Glenn Crawford, Ali Haider,
Robert Jefferson, David Komar, Lauren A. Laplante-Rottman, Sean
McWilliams, Michael Mueller, Vasudeva Muttavarapu, Douglas Myers,
Martha Park, Komran Rashidov, Norman Schack, Ross Springer, Lynette
Taylor, Alberto A. Curiel Alfocea, and Kevin Wilson,

This purported Class Action was filed on October 19, 2022. Local
Rule 23.2 provides that within 90 days of filing a class action
complaint, an attorney for the plaintiff must move for
certification.

90 Days from the filing of the Complaint is January 17, 2023. There
are currently multiple pending Motions to Dismiss in this matter.
Several Defendants' responsive pleadings are not due until after
the date to move for certification. This includes but is not
limited to Defendants HomeBound Resources, LLC, Ted Etheredge, The
2x5, LLC, Foundations Investment Advisers, LLC.

Discovery cannot commence with pending Motions to Dismiss and
responsive pleadings still due. Due to the pending motions,
outstanding responsive pleadings, and inability to conduct
discovery, it is not yet practicable to determine certification.

Resolute Capital is a debt and equity investment firm.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kBuX0j at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          212 W. Spring Valley Road,
          Richardson, TX 75081
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


REUTERS NEWS: Files Motions to Dismiss Video Privacy Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco, writing for Law Street, reports that two motions
submitted by global news outlet Reuters News & Media Inc. requested
the dismissal of a Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) suit over
its alleged tracking of the plaintiff's online video watching
history on Reuters' website.

The motion to dismiss claims that in addition to pleading
deficiencies, the VPPA is unconstitutional. The preemptive motion
to strike says the class action allegations must fall as all
putative class members agreed to waive their collective action
claims through their use of Reuters.com or having signed up for a
Reuters newsletter.

The case, like others filed in the last year, bases its claims off
"a statute that famously stems from the disclosure of information
about the video rental history of the family of Judge Robert H.
Bork."

Decades after enactment, and in the current digital, web-based age
where few video rental stores exist, claimants, like the Reuters
subscriber now assert that websites offering video content
illegally share their users' viewing and personally identifiable
information with Facebook through a tracking pixel, which Reuters
calls "an industry-standard tracking tool."

In the Southern District of New York suit, Reuters points out that
the VPPA allegations acknowledge that the media giant plainly
disclosed its use of pixels to users and the complaint expressly
pleaded that it was the plaintiff's own web browser—not
Reuters—that actually transmitted the data to Facebook.

The dismissal motion claims that as such, the complaint falters
every step of the way. For example, the motion says Reuters is not
a "video-tape service provider" under the law's plain language.

"Indeed, the U.S. government has explained in another action that
the VPPA ‘does not apply to news organizations, advocacy groups,
or other entities whose mission is to publicize information of
public import,'" the brief says, quoting from an intervention
motion filed by the United States in defense of the VPPA's
constitutionality in a suit filed by users of the Patreon content
creation platform.

Further, Reuters' motion contends that as applied, the VPPA
unconstitutionally restricts commercial speech in violation of the
First Amendment. In the Patreon case, the government responded to a
similar challenge, claiming the VPPA withstands the intermediate
scrutiny analysis applicable to regulations of commercial speech,
while acknowledging that in some cases, it could prohibit
non-commercial disclosures.

Reuters' motion to strike class allegations, made before the
affirmative filing of a motion for class certification, asserts
that the terms agreed to by all putative class members foreclose
their right to bring a collective action. Reuters concludes that as
a matter of law, the plaintiff cannot act as a class representative
as she fails to be an adequate one and because she cannot satisfy
the Federal Rules' numerosity requirement.

The plaintiff is represented by Bailey & Glasser LLP and Peiffer
Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise LLP. Reuters is represented by Baker &
Hostetler LLP. [GN]

SAZERAC CO: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Whiskey Labeling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Newman at  sciotopost.com reports that short mini bottles of
Fireball sold in grocery stores, gas stations and liquor stores
don't actually contain any Whiskey according to a class action
lawsuit filed.

In a new lawsuit, a customer represented by Sheehan claims the
similar bottles at different stores make it misleading for those
who purchase the cinnamon-flavored alcohol.

Fireball whisky's producer Sazarec is being sued for $5 million
dollars

The lawsuit alleges those who pick up the item in a grocery store
would not even realize the word "Whisky" was missing from the small
bottle.

Fireball at the top of the bottle is known to be a cinnamon
flavored Whiskey, though on the bottle it does say malt beverage in
the small letters at the bottom arguing they are trying to trick
consumers.

The mini bottles are sold at .99 cents which is a good price for a
whisky shot but higher for a flavored malt beverage, That's one of
the main points of the lawsuit.

Fireball is accused of directly marketing and representing the
bottles as whisky instead of a malt beverage, as the lawsuit claims
fraud and negligent misrepresentation of its product.

The class action suit is asking for the damages and for Fireball to
change its "practices" along with any punitive damages. [GN]

SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Mag. Judge Endorses Denial of Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAUREAN PROCH, v. MAT
KING, D. FLEMING, R. OLEJINK, K. ADAMS, SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-12141-LJM-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Magistrate
Judge Patricia T. Morris recommends that the Court deny the
Plaintiff's motion for class action certification.

Taurean Proch, who is currently confined at the St. Clair County
Jail, filed this pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. section 1983
alleging that the jail instituted a "de facto ban on inmates
receiving correspondence" starting in August 2022.

Specifically, Proch cites a jail policy where, with limited
exception, "only plain postcards are accepted by the facility and
anything else will be returned to sender."

Proch also alleges that that officials at the St. Clair County Jail
return or destroy nonconforming letters without notifying inmates
and providing inmates an opportunity to appeal their decision.

Yet pro se plaintiffs are not categorically prohibited from
representing a class. Courts reason that incarcerated, pro se
litigants cannot represent class actions, only because they
presumptively lack the competence to maintain a class action on
behalf of their fellow inmates.

Securus is a technology communications firm serving department of
corrections facilities and incarcerated individuals across the
country.

A copy of the Court's recommendation dated Jan. 17, 2022 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kzYp6R at no
extra charge.[CC]

SELECT REHABILITATION: Fails to Serve Disclosures, Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN,
CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, and JUSTIN LEMBKE, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. SELECT REHABILITATION LLC,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order sanctioning the Defendant for their willful
failure to serve its initial disclosures, including an award of the
Plaintiff's attorney's fees for necessitating motions on this
matter, and any other sanctions the court deems just and proper.

Select Rehab has never served its initial disclosures. After
numerous communications attempting to obtain the same, the
Defendant still refused to serve its Rule 26 initial disclosures,
the Plaintiffs contend.

On December 18, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their First Motion To
Compel Defendant to Serve and Complete their Rule 26 Initial
Disclosures. Instead of completing its Rule 26 initial disclosures
as required by the Federal Rules, and the scheduling Order in this
case, due to the prejudice, the Plaintiffs were forced to seek an
Order of the Court to compel Defendant to do what it is required as
a party in this action.

Select Rehabilitation provides physical, occupational and speech
therapy, proprietary optical scanning and electronic medical
records.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XAn5un at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
          6916 W. Linebaugh Ave, Suite #101
          Tampa, FL 33625
          Telephone: (813) 639-9366
          Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
          E-mail: Mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com

SHAUM'S CASABLANCA: Scheduling Order Deadlines in Jones Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jones, et al., v. Shaum's
Casablanca, Case No. 6:22-cv-02307 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Timothy
M. Cain entered an order granting joint motion to stay scheduling
order deadlines until a ruling on motion to certify class.

The Court says, "Within seven days of the ruling on motion, the
parties shall jointly submit to chambers a proposed amended
scheduling order."

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

SHOP-VAC CORP: Ex-Employee Files Class Action Over WARN Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Beauge, writing for PennLive, reports that certification as a
class action is sought for the federal lawsuit that accuses the
former Shop-Vac Corp. and its successor Great Star Tools USA Inc.
of violating the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
(WARN).

The suit in U.S. Middle District Court results from Shop-Vac on
Sept. 15, 2020, ceasing operations abruptly. The WARN Act requires
a 60-day written notice to employees before a shutdown.

One of the approximately 400 employees affected by the shutdown,
Candice Gair, filed suit seeking unpaid wages, benefits, bonuses,
accrued vacation pay and pension contributions for the 60 days
required under the WARN Act.

She filed an amended complaint to include Great Star which on Dec.
23, 2020, entered into an asset purchase agreement with the
manufacturer of wet/dry residential, commercial and industrial
vacuum cleaners.

That complaint claims Great Star, which is part of Hangzhous Great
Star Industrial Co. headquartered in Hangzhous, China, is liable
for Shop-Vac's WARN Act violations.

Gair, who was in the accounts receivable department, in her motion
for class action filed on Jan. 23 notes the commonality of claims
by those who lost their jobs.

Shop-Vac contends in response to the suit it was not required to
give 60 days' notice of the terminations because it was a
"faltering company" and because the layoffs were caused by
"unforeseeable business circumstances" caused by the COVID-19
pandemic.

Prior to Sept. 15, 2020, Shop-Vac says it was actively seeking
capital and if financing had been obtained the shutdown would have
been avoided or postponed.

Great Star, which claims is not a legal successor to Shop-Vac, also
cites the "faltering company" exception to WARN and the
unforeseeable business circumstances.

Great Star acknowledges it agreed to lease certain Shop-Vac
employees (reportedly 142) including the corporate controller,
plant manager and director of human resources.

Shop-Vac describes itself as a "hollowed out shell" unable to
adequately recompense its unsecured creditors such as Gair and WARN
class members.

Gair's complaint points out Great Star is selling nearly all the
same products to the same customers under the same name as did
Shop-Vac.

Shop-Vac was a family-owned business established in 1953 as an
offshoot of Craft Tool Co. Its headquarters, production, warehouse
and distribution operations were at three locations in
Williamsport.

Several years before the shutdown Shop-Vac closed its plant in
Binghamton, New York, and established a subsidy in Shenzhen,
China.

Shop-Vac denies these allegations in Gair's complaint:

The China operation was established to produce product to satisfy
mass-market retailers like Walmart and Lowe's.

Discount retail chains pressed for lower prices that challenged
Shop-Vac's margins so it decided to move its low-end production to
Hanoi, Vietnam.

The company had been relatively debt-free until that point with
J.P. Morgan providing it operating capital in a $50 million
revolving credit facility.

The entire credit was effectively drawn down from 2018 and 2020 due
to investment and supply chain problems.

U.S.-made goods continued to be profitable but not overseas items
sold to the discount retailers. [GN]

SINGULARITY FUTURE: Faces Crivellaro Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Singularity Future Technology Ltd. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report
reported on December 28, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 5, 2023, that on December 9, 2022,
Piero Crivellaro, purportedly on behalf of the persons or entities
who purchased or acquired publicly traded securities of the company
between February 2021 and November 2022, filed a putative class
action against the company and other defendants in the United
States District court for the Eastern District of New York,
alleging violations of federal securities laws related to alleged
false or misleading disclosures made by the company in its public
filings.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, plus interest, costs,
fees, and attorneys' fees.

Singularity Future Technology Ltd. is into the arrangement of
transportation of freight & cargo based in New York.


SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Seibert Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MATT SEIBERT, an individual on behalf of himself,
and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff v. SS&C TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., a Delaware corporation, INTRALINKS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
CGC-22-602536, was removed from the Superior Court in the State of
California for the County of San Francisco to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on January
19, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00279 to the proceeding.

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, 11 total causes of action, nine of which
are for various violations of the California Labor Code, one is for
"Unfair Competition" under the California Business & Professions
Code, and another one for civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act.

SS&C Technologies, Inc. is a provider of cloud-based software and
solutions for the financial and healthcare industries.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Julie A. Totten, Esq.
          Frank N. Zalom, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000
          Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
          Telephone: (916) 447-9200
          Facsimile: (916) 329-4900
          E-mail: jatotten@orrick.com
                  fzalom@orrick.com

               - and -
  
          Annie H. Chen, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2700
          Los Angeles, CA, 90071
          Telephone: (213) 629-2020
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2499
          E-mail: annie.chen@orrick.com

ST. LOUIS, MO: Judge Orders Remote Work Earnings Tax Refund
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Drew, writing for St. Louis Business Journal, reports that a
Circuit Court decision could make "tens of thousands" of workers
who didn't live in the city of St. Louis eligible for a refund from
the city's earnings tax if they worked from home during the
pandemic for a city-based employer, a plaintiff's attorney said on
Jan. 20.

On Jan. 19, Circuit Court Judge Jason Sengheiser ordered the city's
Collector of Revenue, Gregory Daly, to refund $8,361 plus interest
to six employees who lived outside the city but were working
remotely for employers within the city limits in 2020. Their wages
were taxed under the city's 1% earnings tax.

Sengheiser said Daly's office had paid refunds for remote hours
worked in previous years, but rejected those requests for 2020.

"So beginning in tax year 2020, despite no changes in the Earning
Tax law, the collector stopped issuing refunds for work conducted
outside of the city, unless the work was done while traveling, a
distinction that was not previously made," the ruling said.

Attorney Mark Milton, who represents the six plaintiffs with
co-counsel W. Bevis Schock, said they are evaluating whether to
seek class-action status for nonresident taxpayers. Circuit Court
Judge Christopher McGraugh in January 2022 denied the case
class-action status because state law already allows taxpayers to
obtain a refund of earnings tax paid under protest. Milton,
however, said he's considering asking the state Court of Appeals to
reverse that ruling.

"To have every single person affected by this file small claims or
individual lawsuits would be insane," Milton said.

If a class-action lawsuit prevailed, that could blow a massive hole
in the city's budget. The earnings tax generates more than $150
million per year, and the lawsuit estimated that nonresidents pay
about 75% of the total.

A spokesperson for Daly said a decision has not been made on
whether to appeal Sengheiser's decision. The spokesperson initially
said it's too late now for a nonresident taxpayer to file for a
refund for tax year 2020. Later on Jan. 19, the spokesperson, Susan
Ryan of SC Ryan Consulting LLC, said she had misspoken earlier.
Ryan said in a filing as part of the lawsuit, Daly's office said
those who filed a refund request for tax year 2020 still could be
eligible, depending on the lawsuit's outcome.

Under the statute, anyone who would want to file for a refund for
tax year 2021 would have until April 18 to file that paperwork, she
said. There isn't a deadline for those who want to file for a
refund for tax year 2020, Ryan said, adding that Daly's office is
encouraging people to also file by April 18.

Ryan said she didn't have a figure for the number of people who did
request refunds for tax years 2020 and 2021 and were rejected. [GN]

SWINERTON INC: Faces Amaya Suit Over Workers' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
ALEX AMAYA, individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. SWINERTON INCORPORATED, a California
Corporation; M D BUILDERS INC., a California Corporation; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV01256 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 19, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to provide employment
records; failure to pay overtime and double time; failure to
provide rest and meal periods; failure to pay minimum wage; failure
to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage
statements; failure to pay reporting time wages; failure to pay
split shift wages; failure to pay all wages earned on time; failure
to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation; failure to
reimburse necessary, business-related expenses; and failure to
provide notice of paid sick time and accrual.

Representative Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job
title laborer on June 7, 2020 until July 13, 2022.

Swinerton Incorporated is a commercial construction company that
provides services in the United States for commercial office,
retail, multi-family residential, hospitality, healthcare,
education, energy, and the entertainment sectors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SWISSPORT SA: Fairbanks Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled ISAIAH E. FAIRBANKS, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SWISSPORT SA, LLC; and DOES
1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV25505, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on January 19, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-00407 to the proceeding.

On August 8, 2022, Plaintiff Fairbanks commenced this lawsuit
against Swissport SA asserting, on behalf of himself and a putative
class of similarly situated employees, eight causes of action for
(1) failure to pay minimum wages, (2) failure to provide meal
periods, (3) failure to permit rest breaks, (4) failure to
reimburse business expenses, (5) failure to timely pay wages during
employment, (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements, (7)
failure to timely pay all wages owed at separation of employment,
and (8) unfair business practices, in violation of the California
Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code.

SWISSPORT SA, LLC is a provider of airport ground services and air
cargo handling.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kenneth D. Sulzer, Esq.
          Matthew Scholl, Esq.
          Kelsey E. Link, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 909-7775
          E-mail: kzulzer@constangy.com
                  mscholl@constangy.com
                  klink@constangy.com

T-MOBILE US: Faces Cortazal Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE CORTAZAL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. T-MOBILE US, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01220-TKW-HTC (N.D. Fla., Jan. 21,
2023) is a class action for damages against the Defendant for its
failure to exercise reasonable care in securing sensitive personal
information including without limitation, unencrypted and
unredacted name, contact and demographic information, and date of
birth (collectively, "personal identifiable information" or
"PII").

According to the complaint, on or about January 20, 2023, news
became public that a widespread data breach involving sensitive
PII. The number of individuals affected has been estimated to
impact 37 million customers by Defendant, however, because
Defendant is one of the largest technology companies, the breach
could have involved hundreds of millions of users. The Defendant
discovered that files on its network were accessed and acquired by
the unauthorized actor (the "Data Breach"), says the suit.

The Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was unencrypted and
unredacted PII and was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and
careless acts and omissions.

As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and the Class Members
are at an imminent risk of identity theft. Plaintiff and Class
Members have suffered numerous actual and concrete injuries as a
direct result of the Data Breach, including: (a) invasion of
privacy; (b) financial costs incurred mitigating the materialized
risk and imminent threat of identity theft; (c) loss of time and
loss of productivity incurred mitigating the materialized risk and
imminent threat of identity theft; (d) financial costs incurred due
to actual identity theft; (e) loss of time incurred due to actual
identity theft; (f) loss of time heeding Defendant's warnings and
following its instructions in the Notice Letter; (g) the loss of
benefit of the bargain (price premium damages), to the extent Class
Members paid Defendant for services; (h) deprivation of value of
their PII; and (i) the continued risk to their Sensitive
Information, which remains in the possession of Defendant, and
which is subject to further breaches, so long as Defendant fails to
undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect Plaintiff's
and Class Members' Sensitive Information, the suit asserts.

T-MOBILE US, INC. is a wireless network operator. The Company
offers wireless voice, messaging, and data services. T-Mobile US
serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
          Caitlyn P. Miller, Esq.
          AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
          17 East Main Street, Suite 200
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 202-1010
          Facsimile: (850) 916-7449
          E-mail: baylstock@awkolaw.com

TILRAY BRANDS: Faces Kasilingam Suit in NY Court Over Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tilray Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 9, 2023, that in May 4, 2020,
Ganesh Kasilingam filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, against Tilray Brands,
Inc., Brendan Kennedy and Mark Castaneda, on behalf of himself and
a putative class, seeking to recover damages for alleged violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


The complaint alleges that Tilray and the individual defendants
overstated the anticipated advantages of the company's revenue
sharing agreement with Authentic Brands Group (ABG), announced on
January 15, 2019, and that the plaintiff suffered losses when
Tilray's stock price dropped after Tilray recognized an impairment
with respect to the ABG deal on March 2, 2020. On August 6, 2020,
the court entered an order appointing Saul Kassin as Lead Plaintiff
and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Lead Counsel.

Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 5, 2020, which
asserts the same Sections 10(b) and 20(a) claims against the same
defendants on largely the same theory, and includes new allegations
that Tilray's reported inventory, cost of sales, and gross margins
in its financial reports during the class period were false and
misleading because Tilray improperly recorded unsellable "trim" as
inventory and understated the cost of sales for its products.

On September 27, 2021, the U.S. District court entered an Opinion
and Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint
in the Kasilingam litigation. On December 3, 2021, the lead
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging similar claims
against Tilray and Brendan Kennedy.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on February
2, 2022. On September 28, 2022, the court granted in part and
denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint. On October 12, 2022, the company filed a motion for
reconsideration and/or interlocutory appeal of this court decision.


Tilray Brands, Inc. is a global cannabis-lifestyle and consumer
packaged goods company based in Ontario.


TREAN INSURANCE: M&A Firm Continues Investigating Altaris Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

Trean Insurance Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: TIG), relating to its proposed
acquisition by affiliates of Altaris, LLC. Under the terms of the
agreement, TIG shareholders are expected to receive $6.15 in cash
per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/trean-insurance-group-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as a Rising Star
and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities Litigation. He has also
been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated
Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a
significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under
Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter,
our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal
of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United
States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407
(2019). Also, we have recovered or secured over a dozen cash common
funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action
cases.

If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:

Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118 [GN]
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]

TUFIN SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs Allowed Leave to File Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: TUFIN SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-05646 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Gregory H. Woods entered an order granting Plaintiffs leave
to file a motion for class certification.

  -- The deadline for Plaintiffs to file and serve their motion
     for class certification is February 16, 2023.

  -- The Defendants' opposition is due within 30 days after
     service of the Plaintiffs' motion.

  -- The Plaintiffs' reply, if any, is due within 14 days after
     service of Defendants' opposition.

The nature of suit state securities fraud.

Tufin is a security policy management company specializing in the
automation of security policy changes across hybrid platforms while
improving security and compliance.[CC]

TVI INC: Faces Alvarado Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
LESBIA ALVARADO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TVI INC. d/b/a SAVERS, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00362 (E.D.N.Y., January 19, 2023) alleges that the
Defendant violated Section 191 of the New York Labor Law by paying
Plaintiff and similarly situated manual workers' wages on a
biweekly basis.

Plaintiff Alvarado worked as a clothing sorter and hanger in the
Production Department of Defendant's thrift shop located in West
Hempstead, New York from approximately September 2017 to December
2022. Throughout her employment, Alvarado and all other clothing
sorters and hangers at all Savers locations in New York State spent
more than 25% of their work time performing duties that were
physical in nature, such as bending, lifting, standing, carrying,
walking, sorting, hanging, and organizing. Despite this, Savers
paid all Manual Workers on a biweekly basis, says the suit.

The Defendants' practice and policy of paying Alvarado her wages
earned more than seven days after the end of the workweek injured
Alvarado by robbing her of the ability to invest her money earlier
as she pleased, such as by paying bills earlier or depositing her
money into an interest-earning account, the suit alleges.

TVI INC., d/b/a Savers, headquartered in Bellevue, Washington, is a
privately held for-profit thrift store retailer offering second
hand merchandise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Colin Mulholland, Esq.
          COLIN J. MULHOLLAND, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
          30–97 Steinway, St., Ste. 301–a
          Astoria, NY 11103
          Telephone: (347) 687–2019
          E-mail: cmulhollandesq@gmail.com

               - and -

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
          488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583–9500
          E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
                  cuadra@pechmanlaw.com

TWITTER INC: Asks Judge to Toss Out Proposed Sex Bias Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner at  money.usnews.com reports that Twitter Inc has
asked a federal judge to toss out a proposed class action claiming
the company targeted female employees during its recent mass
layoffs, saying the plaintiffs failed to identify any actual
discrimination.

Twitter said the December lawsuit fails to allege that company
managers who decided which workers would lose their jobs used
discriminatory criteria or made comments showing bias against
women, in a filing in San Francisco federal court.

Twitter laid off about 3,700 workers in November after the company
was acquired by Elon Musk. The lawsuit claims the company axed 57%
of its female workers compared to 47% of men.

But the complaint "does nothing but quote a few stray tweets from
Elon Musk that have no tie to the [layoffs] or any employment
policy or practice at Twitter," the company's lawyers wrote in the
motion.

Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represents the plaintiffs, said Twitter's
claims lack merit.

"We have a very serious case of sex discrimination based on a
combination of striking statistical disparities between the
proportion of women and men who were laid off, as well as clearly
biased views of the company's new owner, Elon Musk," Liss-Riordan
said in an email.

Liss-Riordan has filed three other lawsuits against Twitter
stemming from the layoffs, including claims that the company did
not give workers the advance notice required by law and failed to
pay promised severance.

A San Francisco federal judge sent the lawsuit involving advance
notice to individual arbitration.

Liss-Riordan has also filed arbitration demands making similar
claims on behalf of 1,000 former Twitter employees.

The case is Strifling v. Twitter Inc, U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, No. 4:22-cv-07739.[GN]

UAG ESCONDIDO A1: Esparza Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Miguel Esparza, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. UAG Escondido A1 Inc. doing
business as: acuraofescondido.com; Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 37-02022-00047997-CU-MT-CIL was removed from the Superior
Court, San Diego County, California, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California on Jan. 19, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00102-DMS-KSC to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Acura of Escondido -- https://www.acuraofescondido.com/ -- is your
full-service new and used car dealership in the Escondido,
California area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
          4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (949) 706-6464
          Fax: (949) 706-6469
          Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
                 vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John Boggs, Esq.
          FINE, BOGGS & PERKINS LLP
          80 Stone Pine Rd., Ste 210
          Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
          Phone: (650) 712-8908
          Fax: (650) 712-1712
          Email: jboggs@employerlawyers.com


UNITED STATES: Discloses Asylum Seekers' Personal Info, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ASYLUM SEEKERS TRYING TO ASSURE THEIR SAFETY (made up of 21
Plaintiffs using pseudonyms ROE# 1-21) v. TAE D. JOHNSON, in his
official capacity as Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity
as Secretary of Homeland Security c/o Office of the General
Counsel; MERRICK GARLAND, in his official capacity as Attorney
General of the United States; and JOHN DOE 1, in their official
capacity as employee of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00163 (D.D.C., January 19, 2023) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, alleging that the Defendants published the
private data of Plaintiffs and other noncitizens in, or formerly
in, ICE custody to their public-facing website in violation of the
Privacy Act of 1974, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Accardi
Doctrine, and the Equal Protection Principles Embedded in the Fifth
Amendment.

The Plaintiffs are natives of Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador,
France, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, and Nicaragua. Some
are currently detained by Defendant ICE at the Aurora Detention
Center in Aurora, Colorado; Central Arizona Correctional Florence
Detention Center in Florence, Arizona; the El Paso Service
Processing Center, in El Paso, Texas; the Eloy Detention Center in
Eloy, Arizona; and the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin,
Georgia. Some Plaintiffs, including ROE #2 and ROE #13, have been
released from custody for now. The Plaintiffs, and other similarly
situated noncitizens (6,252 total), came to the United States to
seek asylum and were detained in ICE custody. Many were fleeing
torture or persecution in their countries of origin.

According to the complaint, the Defendants, in violation of the
law, published the private data of Plaintiffs and other noncitizens
in, or formerly in, ICE custody to their public-facing website. The
uploaded data included their names, countries of origin, dates of
birth, A-numbers, and locations of detention in the United States.
The disclosure identified all individuals as asylum seekers who had
initially been in expedited removal proceedings. The Defendants'
action put Plaintiffs, and other noncitizens in, or formerly in,
ICE custody in danger, both today and in the future. Many of them
came to the United States to flee gang violence, government
retaliation, and persecution on the basis of protected grounds,
says the suit.

Defendant Tae D. JOHNSON, is sued in his official capacity as the
Acting Director of ICE. He is responsible for ICE's policies,
practices, and procedures, including those relating to the
detention and detention conditions of immigrants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Curtis Lee Morrison, Esq.
          MORRISON URENA, L.C.
          8910 University Lane Suite 400
          Santa Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (323) 489-5688
          E-mail: curtis@morrisonurena.com

UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Judge Rules Against Copyright Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
hitsdailydouble.com reports that a federal judge has ruled against
a class-action lawsuit request, led by John Waite, that attempted
to allow hundreds of UMG artists to join forces and sue for the
rights to their master recordings.

Waite's case focused on copyright law's "termination right," which
grants authors control over their original work. But rightsholders
overwhelmingly structure contracts for sound recordings as
works-for-hire, which aren't subject to termination rights.

Judge Lewis Kaplan denied Waite's request, noting, "The
individualized evidence and case-by-case evaluations necessary to
resolve those claims make this case unsuitable for adjudication on
an aggregate basis." [GN]

VALLON PHARMACEUTICALS: M&A Firm Probes Merger With GRI Bio
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

Vallon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: VLON), relating to its
proposed merger with GRI Bio, Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, VLON shareholders are expected to own approximately 17%
of the combined company. Click here for more information:

https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/vallon-pharmaceuticals-inc. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2017-2019 as a Rising Star
and in 2022 as a Super Lawyer in Securities Litigation. He has also
been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated
Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a
significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under
Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter,
our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal
of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United
States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407
(2019). Also, we have recovered or secured over a dozen cash common
funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action
cases.

If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:

Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118 [GN]
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Hendrickson Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARK HENDRICKSON, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated and/or aggrieved employees of Defendants in the
State of California, Plaintiff v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC.; and
DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2022-00049939-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on January 20, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00110-AJB-DEB to the proceeding.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff pursues six causes of action based on
an alleged "systematic pattern of the California Labor Code and IWC
Wage Order violations" toward Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees in California. The Plaintiff asserts these
alleged violations which include, but are not limited to (a)
failure to provide compliant recovery periods; (b) failure to
prevent heat related illnesses; (c) failure to maintain accurate
records; (d) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
and (e) failure to timely pay all wages due during and upon
separation of employment.

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. is a retailer that operates grocery
stores, supermarkets, hypermarkets, department and discount stores,
and neighborhood markets.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ryan C. Bykerk, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1840 Century Park East, 19th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586-7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
          E-mail: bykerkr@gtlaw.com

WALGREEN CO: Alemnew Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------
The case styled ABRAHAM ALEMNEW, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated Plaintiff v. WALGREEN CO.; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22CV408479, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Santa Clara to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on January 20, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00309 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against
Defendant on behalf of himself and the putative class: (1) failure
to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage; (2) failure to
pay overtime wages for daily overtime worked; (3) failure to
authorize or permit meal periods; (4) failure to authorize or
permit rest periods; (5) failure to pay wages for accrued paid sick
days at the regular rate of pay; (6) failure to timely pay earned
wages during employment; (7) failure to provide complete and
accurate wage statements; (8) failure to pay all wages timely upon
separation of employment; and (9) unfair business practices.

Walgreen Co. provides online medical products. The Company sells
prescription refills, health info, contact lenses, and other
products.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq.
          Christopher J. Archibald, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
          1920 Main Street, Suite 1000
          Irvine, CA 92614-7276
          Telephone: (949) 223-7000
          Facsimile: (949) 223-7100
          E-mail: allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com
                  christopher.archibald@bclplaw.com

WELCH FOODS: Clevenger Slack Fill Case Removed to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DARREN CLEVENGER and DAVID BLOOM, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELCH
FOODS INC., A COOPERATIVE; PIM BRANDS, INC., formerly THE PROMOTION
IN MOTION COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
30-2022-01298406-CU-BT-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
January 20, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:23-cv-00127-CJC-JDE to the proceeding.

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on December 21, 2022, alleging claims
against Defendants under the California Unfair Competition Law, on
behalf of a putative class based on Defendants' purported use of
packaging containing non-functional slack fill to sell various
varieties of Welch's Fruit Snacks sold in 8, 10, 18, 22, 80 and 90
count boxes.

Welch Foods Inc. produces and markets grape products.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel S. Silverman, Esq.
          Bryan J. Weintrop, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 229-9900
          Facsimile: (310) 229-9901  

WELLS FARGO: Lead Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Reply Brief
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-04494-GHW-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Lead
Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order concerning the deadline
for them to file their reply brief in further support of class
certification, including any accompanying rebuttal expert reports
and exhibits.

Lead Plaintiffs request a 60-day extension of the deadline to file
their reply brief in support of class certification, and Defendants
consent to the request.

By way of background, Defendants served their opposition to the
Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on December 23,
2022. The Defendants' opposition brief attached a 244-page expert
report and 39 exhibits, including deposition testimony of seven
witnesses.

To adequately respond to Defendants' opposition, the Lead
Plaintiffs intend to submit rebuttal expert reports and conduct
rebuttal depositions. In addition, the Lead Plaintiffs anticipate
attaching a number of exhibits to their reply brief in support of
class certification that the Bank's regulators only recently
authorized the Bank to produce and which raise potential
confidential supervisory information implications that will need to
be discussed with Defendants and the Bank's regulators prior to
submission to the Court

Wells Fargo provides investment banking services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kzZEDh at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Lead Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020,

               - and -

          Laura Posner, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN
          1100 New York Ave NW 5th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005

WEXFORD HEALTH: Loses Bid to Junk Blossom Suit
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAURUS BLOSSOM,
individually and for others similarly situated, v. WEXFORD HEALTH
SOURCES, INC., and DR. VIPIN SHAH, Case No. 3:22-cv-00361-NJR (S.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel entered an order
denying the Defendants' motions to dismiss.

The parties are directed to meet and confer and prepare a joint
discovery schedule. A scheduling conference will be set by separate
notice.

Dr. Vipin Shah filed a motion to join Wexford's motion to dismiss.
Blossom filed responses to both motions. Wexford and Dr. Shah seek
to dismiss the class action claim in the Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Alternatively, they argue that the class action allegations should
be stricken pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).

Although Defendants cite to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)
and 12(f) to dismiss Blossom's class claims, the Court finds that
Defendants' motions fail under those standards. Rule 12(b)(6) is to
decide the adequacy of the complaint. Gibson v. City of Chicago,
910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir. 1990). In order to survive a Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the complaint must allege enough
factual information to "state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face" and "raise a right to relief above the speculative
level."

Blossom's Complaint alleges that Wexford had a policy of refusing
to prescribe Tramadol even when it met the standard of care. This
refusal amounted to deliberate indifference and caused Blossom and
"others similarly situated" harm. Although
Blossom does not define the "others similarly situated" in his
Complaint, Rule 8 only requires that the complaint contain a short
and plain statement regarding the Court'sjurisdiction, "a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief," and a demand for relief.

Wexford Health is a healthcare services company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZTNlBJ at no extra charge.[CC]


WORLD WRESTLING: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (NYSE: WWE)
resulting from allegations that WWE may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased WWE securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7052 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.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On June 15, 2022, The Wall Street Journal
published an article entitled "WWE Board Probes Secret $3 Million
Hush Pact by CEO Vince McMahon, Sources Say" which revealed that
"[t]he board of World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. [] is
investigating a secret $3 million settlement that longtime chief
executive Vince McMahon agreed to pay to a departing employee with
whom he allegedly had an affair, according to documents and people
familiar with the board inquiry." The article further revealed,
among other things, that "[t]he board's investigation, which began
in April, has unearthed other, older nondisclosure agreements
involving claims by former female WWE employees of misconduct by
Mr. McMahon and one of his top executives, John Laurinaitis, the
head of talent relations at WWE, the people said." On this news,
WWE's stock price fell $2.31 per share, or 3.4%, to close at $64.87
per share on June 16, 2022, the next full trading day.

On June 17, 2022, before trading hours, WWE issued a press release
entitled "WWE(R) & Board of Directors Joint Release" which
announced that "a Special Committee of the Board is conducting an
investigation into alleged misconduct by its Chairman and CEO
Vincent McMahon and John Laurinaitis, head of talent relations, and
that, effective immediately, McMahon has voluntarily stepped back
from his responsibilities as CEO and Chairman of the Board until
the conclusion of the investigation." On this news, WWE's stock
fell $2.36 per share, or 3.6%, to close at $62.51 per share on June
17, 2022.

On July 22, 2022, Vince McMahon announced his retirement from WWE.

On July 25, 2022, WWE filed with the SEC a current report on Form
8-K which announced, among other things, that "[t]he Company has
made a preliminary determination that certain payments that Vince
McMahon agreed to make during the period from 2006 through 2022
(including amounts paid and payable in the future), and that were
not recorded in the WWE consolidated financial statements, should
have been recorded as expenses in the quarters in which those
agreements were made (the "Unrecorded Expenses")[,]" which "[a]s of
the date hereof, the Company has identified Unrecorded Expenses
totaling approximately $14.6 million." The report further announced
that "the Company currently anticipates that it will revise its
previously issued financial statements to record the Unrecorded
Expenses in the applicable periods for the years ended December 31,
2019, 2020 and 2021, as well as the first quarter of 2022[.]"
Finally the report also announced that "[t]he Company has also
received, and may receive in the future, regulatory, investigative
and enforcement inquiries, subpoenas or demands arising from,
related to, or in connection with these matters."

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

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

ZARA USA: Dike Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------
The case styled GINIKA DIKE, an individual, and on behalf of
herself all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZARA USA, INC.
a New York Corporation; INDITEX USA LLC, a New York Corporation;
and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22CV024086,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on January 23, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00342 to the proceeding.

In her Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims for alleged violations
of the California Labor Code on behalf of herself and all current
and former non-exempt California employees alleged to be "similarly
situated" to herself. In particular, Plaintiff alleges Defendants'
failure to pay minimum wages and compensation for all hours worked,
failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to timely
pay all wages due upon the termination of employment. The Plaintiff
also asserts derivative class action claims for "unfair
competition" under California Business and Professions Code.

Zara USA, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells apparel and fashion
products.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Adam R. Rosenthal, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          12275 El Camino Real, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130-4092
          Telephone: (858) 720-8900
          Facsimile: (858) 509-3691
          E-mail: arosenthal@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Tyler J. Johnson, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
          E-mail: tjjohnson@sheppardmullin.com

[*] U.S. Companies Across Industries Hit With VPPA Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam D. Bowser, Esq., of Eva J. Pulliam, Esq., of ArentFox Schiff
LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, disclosed that the
newest old privacy law being weaponized in consumer class actions
is the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), a Reagan-era law passed
in the wake of Judge Robert Bork's video rental history being
leaked to the press.

The VPPA imposes liability on companies "engaged in the business .
. . of rental, sale, or delivery of prerecorded video[s]" when they
knowingly disclose personally identifiable information related to a
consumer and their video viewing history.

We know what you're thinking:

But what does this have to do with my company? We don't sell or
rent videos, and we're not a streaming company.

Here's the catch: according to several recently filed complaints
against companies not in the content distribution business, these
companies are allegedly violating the VPPA by using a tracking
pixel on their websites, displaying videos related to their
products or services, and permitting that tracking pixel to
communicate with third parties. After a small amount of VPPA class
actions against streaming companies lost steam several years ago,
this latest variant of VPPA lawsuits is targeting companies across
industries, from news outlets, sports organizations, consumer
products companies, and more. Relief under the VPPA may include
actual or liquidated damages of at least $2,500, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other equitable relief. [GN]


                            *********

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 ***