/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230209.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, February 9, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 30

                            Headlines

ADTALEM GLOBAL: Chamberlain Seeks Dismissal of Johnson Suit
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Settles Burleigh Labor Class Suit
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Versetto Class Suit Settlement Still Pending
ANTHEM COS: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Lazaar Suit Denied
ARGO BLOCKCHAIN: Murphy Sues Over Share Price Drop

AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Suits
AXOS FINANCIAL: Settlement in HMEPS Suit Gets Final Nod
BECTON & DICKINSON: Continues to Defend Jankowski Shareholder Suit
BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Defend Kabak Putative Class Suit
BED BATH: CEO Removed from Si Amended Complaint

BINGHAMTON PRECAST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Shara Alleges
BP EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses Claims in Gray Suit With Prejudice
CARDINAL HEALTH: Continues to Defend Pharmaceutical Antitrust Suit
CARHARTT INC: Faces Class Suit Over Use of "Session Replay" Spyware
CEDAR FAIR: Faces Age Discrimination Class Action in Ohio

COINBASE GLOBAL: Class Suit Over Unregistered Securities Dismissed
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Najaryan Alleges
DIAMOND RESORTS: Faces Sapan Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Class Suit Over Suspended Bills-Bengals Game
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif.

ELECTRO-POWER INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Otero Suit Alleges
EOG RESOURCES: Bid for Jury Trial in Brown Class Suit Granted
EYE CARE: Must Face North Carolina Data Breach Class Action
FASTAFF LLC: Fails to Pay Travel Nurses' OT Provisions Under FLSA
FIVE BELOW: Hicks Seeks Accessible Parking Lots for Disabled

HTM TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Scaptura Claims
HUNGRYROOT INC: Molenda Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal
INSPIRE HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Rawlison Alleges
INTEL CORP: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suits
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: LIBOR-Related Class Suit Dismissed

INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Securities Suit Settlement Deal Executed
KIDS TOWN INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ortiz Suit Alleges
LAGRANGE, GA: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Utility Sales Tax
LANNETT CO: Continues to Defend Drug Pricing-Related Class Suit
LANNETT CO: Ranitidine-Related Class Suit Still Pending

LUXY LIMITED: Collects Biometrics Without Consent, Massel Alleges
META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit
META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Public Nuisance-Related Suit
META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Unfair Competition Class Suit

MONARCH RECOVERY: Bid for Summary Judgment in Rocke FDCPA Suit OK'd
MOWI DUCKTRAP: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set Feb. 17
NATIONAL VISION: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 28
NESTLE USA INC: McCoy Sues Over Mislabeled Sparkling Water
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Seeks Dismissal of Youth Center Abuse Class Action

NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Sexual Abuse Victim Received Settlement
OPEN TEXT CORP: Continues to Defend Luna Class Suit
R.J. REYNOLDS: Faces Class Action in Florida Over Vuse E-cigarettes
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Court OK Settlement Over Breached Users' Privacy
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: 6th Cir. Rejects "Juridical Link" Doctrine

SANCHEZ CONCRETE: Fails to Pay Drivers' OT Wages, Sostaita Says
SIX FLAGS: Fifth Circuit Ruling in Securities Fraud Suit Discussed
SNAP INC: App Enables Dealers to Deliver Illegal Drugs, Suit Says
SOTERA HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 27
SPOTIFY TECHNOLOGY.: Continues to Defend Music Licensing Suit

SUBURBAN PROPANE: Partial Dismissal of Class Suit Under Appeal
SYNGENTA CROP: Grapperhaus Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices
T-MOBILE US : Frierson Files Suit in D. South Carolina
T-MOBILE US: Faces Data Breach Class Action Suit in Illinois
T-MOBILE USA: Can Compel Arbitration; Moreno Class Suit Stayed

TESLA INC: Investors Lost $12 Bil. Following CEO Elon Musk's Tweet
TIKTOK INC: Secretly Intercepts App Users' Info, Schulte Says
TILEBAR LLC: Vachnine Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TISHMAN SPEYER: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
UMANA CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lopez Alleges

UNIFIN INC: Mermelstein Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VISA INC:  Faces Interchange Fees-Related Class Suit
WESTMINSTER MANAGEMENT: Faces Tenants' Class Action in Maryland
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Longman Sues Over Defective Product

WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Iuliano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
[*] Volume of Securities Class Action Filings Down in 2022

                            *********

ADTALEM GLOBAL: Chamberlain Seeks Dismissal of Johnson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2023, that
Chamberlain
University's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which argues
that the plaintiff's lawsuit is preempted by Title V of the
Gramm0Leach-Bliley Act, is pending.

On March 12, 2021, Travontae Johnson, a current student of
Chamberlain, filed a putative class action against Chamberlain in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The
plaintiff claims that Chamberlain's use of Respondus Monitor, an
online remote proctoring tool for student examinations, violated
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), 740 ILCS
14/15.

More particularly, the plaintiff claims that Chamberlain required
students to use Respondus Monitor, which collected, captured,
stored, used, and disclosed students' biometric identifiers and
biometric information without written and informed consent.

The plaintiff also alleges that Chamberlain lacked a legally
compliant written policy establishing a retention schedule and
guidelines for destroying biometric identifiers and biometric
information.

The potential class purportedly includes all students who took an
assessment using the proctoring tool, as a student of Chamberlain
in Illinois, at any time from March 12, 2016 through January 20,
2021.

The plaintiff and the putative class seek damages in excess of
$50,000, attorney's fees and costs.

The plaintiff and class also seek an unspecified amount of enhanced
damages based on alleged negligent or reckless conduct by
Chamberlain.

On June 16, 2021, Chamberlain filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's
complaint.

On June 29, 2021, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

On July 19, 2021, Chamberlain filed its motion to dismiss the
amended complaint arguing that plaintiff's lawsuit is expressly
preempted by Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Chamberlain's motion is pending.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.

ADTALEM GLOBAL: Settles Burleigh Labor Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2023, that the
settlement in the Burleigh labor class suit is final after Walden
remitted an immaterial amount to the class administrator on
December 22, 2022.

On July 22, 2021, plaintiffs Cheryl Burleigh and Chad Harris (both
contributing faculty members at Walden) filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California
alleging violations of California wage and hour laws by Walden and
Laureate Education, Inc. The complaint alleges that Walden's "per
assignment" pay scale results in uncompensated work time for
plaintiffs and class members for time spent in trainings and
meetings.

Plaintiffs also allege that they were not paid for meal and rest
breaks, that they were not reimbursed for necessary business
expenses, that Walden did not provide wage statements as required
by California state law, and that they were not paid wages due upon
termination.

Plaintiffs also allege derivative claims under California's Unfair
Competition Law.

The complaint seeks restitution including pay for uncompensated
hours of work, unreimbursed business expenses and interest,
liquidated damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief,
penalties, and attorney fees and costs. Walden and Laureate have
filed a demurrer.

On January 28, 2022, the parties agreed to settle the complaint for
an immaterial amount, subject to the approval of the Superior Court
of Alameda County, California.

The Plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement on June 7, 2022.

The court issued a preliminary approval Order on July 26, 2022.

The court issued an Order of final approval to the settlement on
December 12, 2022.

Walden remitted an immaterial amount to the class administrator on
December 22, 2022.

This matter is now final.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.

ADTALEM GLOBAL: Versetto Class Suit Settlement Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2023, that the
settlement for the Versetto class suit is still pending.

On April 13, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Nicole Versetto, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, against Adtalem, DeVry University Inc., and DeVry/New
York Inc. (collectively the "Adtalem Parties") in the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The complaint was
filed on behalf of herself and three separate classes of similarly
situated individuals who were citizens of the State of Illinois and
who purchased or paid for a DeVry University program between
January 1, 2008 and April 8, 2016.

The plaintiff claimed that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and asserts causes of action under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, and Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools
Act, and claims of breach of contract, fraudulent
misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, breach of fiduciary
duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief as to
violations of state law.

The plaintiff sought compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and
statutory penalties and damages, including pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, in addition to restitution, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

The plaintiff later filed an amended complaint asserting similar
claims with a new lead plaintiff, Dave McCormick.

After discussions among the parties, the court granted a Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (the "McCormick
Settlement") on May 28, 2020.

In conjunction with the McCormick Settlement, Adtalem was required
to establish a settlement fund by placing $44.95 million into an
escrow account, which is recorded within prepaid expenses and other
current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December
31, 2022, June 30, 2022, and December 31, 2021.

Adtalem management determined a loss contingency was probable and
reasonably estimable.

As such, the Company also recorded a loss contingency accrual of
$44.95 million on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30,
2020 and charged the contingency loss within discontinued
operations in the Consolidated Statements of Income (Loss) for the
year ended June 30, 2020.

As of June 30, 2020, the Company had anticipated the potential
payments related to this loss contingency to be made from the
escrow account during fiscal year 2021.

The Company now anticipates the potential payments related to this
loss contingency to be made from the escrow account during fiscal
year 2023.

This loss contingency estimate could differ from actual results and
result in additional charges or reversals in future periods.

The court issued an order approving the McCormick Settlement on
October 7, 2020 and dismissed the action with prejudice.

On November 2, 2020, Stoltmann Law Offices filed on behalf of Jose
David Valderrama ("Valderrama"), a class member who objected to the
terms of the McCormick Settlement, a notice of appeal of the
court's order approving the McCormick Settlement.

On November 5, 2020, Richardo Peart ("Peart"), another class member
who objected to the terms of the McCormick Settlement, filed a
similar notice of appeal.

Those appeals were consolidated before the Appellate Court of
Illinois, First District and fully briefed.

The Appellate Court agreed to stay Valderrama's and Peart's appeals
of the McCormick Settlement pending the outcome of mediation
involving the objections to the McCormick Settlement.

The objections were not resolved at a mediation on February 1,
2022.

Valderrama's objection was withdrawn as part of the Stoltmann
settlement discussed below.

Peart's objection remained pending a decision by the Appellate
Court.

On May 4, 2022, the Appellate Court denied Peart’s objection and
affirmed the Circuit Court of Cook County's approval of the
McCormick Settlement.

Adtalem settled with Peart and the McCormick Settlement is now
final.

The Circuit Court of Cook County is in the process of administering
the $44.95 million settlement fund.

In addition to Valderrama, Stoltmann Law Offices represented 552
individuals ("Stoltmann Claimants") who opted out of the McCormick
Settlement and filed claims with the Judicial Arbitration and
Mediation Services, Inc. ("JAMS") alleging fraud-based claims based
on DeVry University's graduate employment statistics.

On November 2, 2021, Adtalem and the Stoltmann Law Offices
participated in a mediation to resolve the claims of the Stoltmann
Claimants.

Adtalem and the Stoltmann Law Offices have reached agreement on
settlement terms ("Stoltmann Settlement").

The Adtalem Board of Directors approved the Stoltmann Settlement.

The settlement amount, $20,375,000, was reduced by $75,000 for each
of the Stoltmann Claimants that declined to participate in the
settlement.

Of Stoltmann's 552 Claimants, six declined to participate, reducing
the settlement amount by $450,000.

On February 28, 2022, Adtalem remitted $19,925,000 to the Stoltmann
Laws Offices on behalf of the 546 participating Stoltmann
Claimants.

Of the six Stoltmann Claimants that declined to participate in the
settlement, two voluntarily dismissed their arbitrations; one
arbitration was stayed at the Claimant's request; and three
Claimants have not recommenced their arbitrations.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.

ANTHEM COS: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Lazaar Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LESLIE LAZAAR, Plaintiff v. THE ANTHEM COMPANIES,
INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-3075 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge John G. Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denies the Defendants' motion for judgment on
the pleadings.

Lazaar filed the putative Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
collective action and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class
action, alleging that the Defendants unlawfully misclassified her
and similarly situated individuals as "learned professionals"
exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA and the New
York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Defendants answered the complaint and
now move for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(c).

Anthem is a health insurance company. Empire HealthChoice and
HealthPlus HP, LLC (the "Empire Entities") are wholly-owned
subsidiaries of Anthem. Lazaar is a licensed registered nurse, or
"RN."

In her second amended complaint ("SAC"), Lazaar alleges that the
Defendants jointly employed her from approximately April 2012 to
January 2017 as a "utilization review nurse." She alleges that she
worked alongside licensed practical nurses ("LPNs") who held the
same job position and primarily performed the same work that she
did. She alleges that she exercised no discretion or independent
judgment on matters of significance, but rather that her primary
duty involved the "use of skill in applying well-established
techniques, procedures, or specific standards described in manuals
or other sources."

Lazaar alleges that she and other nurses like her routinely worked
more than forty hours per week for the Defendants, and sometimes
more than sixty hours per week, but were classified by the
Defendants as exempt from federal and state overtime laws and
therefore never received time-and-a-half overtime pay. She also
alleges that the Defendants willfully misclassified her as exempt
despite knowing that Anthem's predecessor, WellPoint, Inc., had
been a defendant in a similar misclassification lawsuit brought in
2011 by other utilization review nurses.

On Nov. 4, 2019, just under three years after she stopped working
for the Defendants, Lazaar opted into an FLSA collective action
against Anthem in Tennessee. After the court in Canaday v. The
Anthem Cos., No. 19-cv-1084 (W.D. Tenn. 2019) limited the scope of
the collective to Anthem employees in Tennessee, she filed this
action on April 13, 2022 and withdrew from Canaday the next day.

The operative SAC alleges that the Defendants violated the FLSA and
the NYLL by failing to provide overtime pay to Lazaar and all other
utilization review nurses and similarly titled employees who
primarily performed medical necessity reviews for the defendants in
New York during the relevant periods. She also alleges that the
Defendants violated the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, NYLL
Section 195(1).

On Aug. 14, 2022, the Defendants answered the second amended
complaint. They admit that Anthem has employed LPNs and RNs to
conduct different types of medical necessity reviews. But they deny
that Lazaar worked alongside LPNs who worked in the same job
position or performed similar medical necessity reviews as she did.
Rather, they assert, RNs are generally expected to consult and
analyze more complex materials and requests for benefits, while
LPNs "are generally expected to perform less complex reviews. The
Defendants deny Lazaar's allegation that only LPN-level credentials
were necessary for utilization review work.

Five days after answering the complaint, the Defendants filed the
motion for judgment on the pleadings. They argue that, as an RN
performing utilization review, Lazaar was a "learned professional"
exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA and the NYLL;
that Lazaar's FLSA claims are time-barred; and that the Empire
Entities must be dismissed because Lazaar has insufficiently
alleged that the Empire Entities employed her.

The parties dispute whether Lazaar performed "work requiring
advanced knowledge," and whether this advanced knowledge was
customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized
intellectual instruction. Lazaar alleges that she worked alongside
LPNs who performed the same medical necessity reviews that she did,
that an RN license is unnecessary for the kind of utilization
review work Lazaar performed, and that her review of requests
against pre-determined guidelines and criteria did not involve the
application of clinical judgment and experience.

Judge Koeltl opines that discovery may bear out the Defendants'
contention that Lazaar primarily performed work typical of other
RNs. At this stage, however, he finds that Lazaar plausibly alleges
otherwise. The Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings on
Lazaar's FLSA claims is therefore denied.

Next, the parties agree that Lazaar's NYLL and FLSA claims rise and
fall together. Therefore, for the same reasons that the Defendants'
motion for judgment on the pleadings on Lazaar's FLSA claim is
denied, their motion for judgment on the pleadings on Lazaar's NYLL
claim is also denied.

The Defendants then argue that Lazaar's FLSA claim is time-barred.

Judge Koeltl states that the limitations period for FLSA claims is
generally two years, but a cause of action arising out of a willful
violation may be commenced within three years after the cause of
action accrued. Lazaar ended her employment in January 2017. She
tolled her claims by opting into the Canaday action on Nov. 4,
2019, just under three years later. Accordingly, if the two-year
statute of limitations applies, Lazaar's FLSA claim must be
dismissed, but if the Defendants' alleged violations were willful,
the three-year statute of limitation applies and the FLSA claim
cannot be dismissed on this basis.

The Defendants argue that "Isett's holding that nurses like Lazaar
satisfy the professional exemption renders [it] impossible" that
the defendants willfully violated the FLSA. But Isett did not hold
squarely that nurses like Lazaar are exempt. Moreover, the Court of
Appeals issued Isett in 2021, nine years after Lazaar began her
employment and four years after she ended it. The defendants cannot
claim a lack of willfulness in misclassifying Lazaar as exempt by
relying on a legal decision that postdated her employment.

The Defendants also argue that Isett v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 947
F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2020), disposes of Lazaar's claims. Isett held
that a particular "appeals nurse consultant" -- an RN who, unlike
Lazaar, reviewed denials of claims for insurance coverage -- was a
learned professional.

Judge Koeltl opines that Isett did not hold squarely that nurses
like Lazaar are exempt. Moreover, the Court of Appeals issued Isett
in 2021, nine years after Lazaar began her employment and four
years after she ended it. The Defendants cannot claim a lack of
willfulness in misclassifying Lazaar as exempt by relying on a
legal decision that postdated her employment.

Finally, Empire HealthChoice and Empire HealthPlus move to dismiss
the claims against them on the ground that they did not employ
Lazaar. Lazaar presses two theories of employer liability against
the Empire Entities: first, that the Empire Entities jointly
employed her with Anthem; and second, that the Empire Entities and
Anthem operate as a single integrated enterprise.

Judge Koeltl holds that it is "rarely appropriate" to determine
joint employer status at the summary judgment stage, let alone on a
motion for judgment on the pleadings, because of the inquiry's
fact-intensive character. At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need
only allege facts that if true, would satisfy the 'economic
reality' test for establishing employer status. Lazaar's
allegations are enough to plead sufficiently that the Empire
Entities controlled Lazaar or were operating as a single integrated
enterprise with Anthem. The Defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings dismissing the claims against the Empire Entities is
therefore denied.

In their reply, the Defendants urge that class or collective
proceedings are inappropriate because Lazaar has allegedly conceded
that exemption questions under the FLSA are inherently case-by-case
inquiries. However, Judge Koeltl need not consider arguments raised
for the first time in reply. This argument is not the basis for the
Defendants' motion and is therefore not the basis for any relief at
this time.

Judge Koeltl has considered all of the parties' arguments. To the
extent not specifically addressed, he says the arguments are either
moot or without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants'
motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied. The Clerk is
directed to close ECF No. 28.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/36ay69b8 from
Leagle.com.


ARGO BLOCKCHAIN: Murphy Sues Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------
AARON MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARGO BLOCKCHAIN PLC, PETER WALL, ALEX
APPLETON, MATTHEW SHAW, SARAH GOW, COLLEEN SULLIVAN, and MARIA
PERRELLA, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00572 (E.D.N.Y., January 26,
2023) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the
Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other
than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Argo
American Depository Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the
Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial
public offering conducted on September 23, 2021; and/or (b) Argo
securities between September 23, 2021 and October 10, 2022, both
dates inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On August 19, 2021, Argo filed a registration statement on Form F-1
with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective by the
SEC on September 22, 2021. On September 23, 2021, pursuant to the
Offering Documents, Argo conducted the IPO, issuing 7.5 million
ADSs to the public at the Offering price of $15 per ADS for
approximate proceeds of $105 million to the Company before expenses
and after applicable underwriting discounts and commissions.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Offering Documents and
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Argo was highly susceptible to and/or suffered
from significant capital constraints, electricity and other costs,
and network difficulties; (ii) the foregoing issues hampered, inter
alia, Argo's ability to mine BTC, execute its business strategy,
meet its obligations, and operate its Helios facility; (iii) as a
result, Argo's business was less sustainable than Defendants had
led investors to believe; (iv) accordingly, Argo's business and
financial prospects were overstated; and (v) as a result, the
Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the
Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to
state information required to be stated therein.

On this news, Argo's ADS price fell $0.27 per ADS, or 10.98%, to
close at $2.19 per ADS on October 11, 2022. As of the time this
Complaint was filed, Argo's ADSs continue to trade below the $15
per ADS Offering price, damaging investors, says the complaint.

As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, asserts the complaint.

Argo Blockchain PLC, together with its subsidiaries, purports to
engage in the cryptocurrency mining business worldwide, including
the mining of Bitcoin or Bitcoin equivalents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          James M. LoPiano, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jlopiano@pomlaw.com

AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Data Processing Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from ERISA class suits in the
U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey.

In May 2020, two potential class action complaints were filed
against ADP, TotalSource and related defendants in the U.S.
District Court, District of New Jersey. The complaints assert
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") in connection with the ADP TotalSource Retirement Savings
Plan's fiduciary administrative and investment decision-making.

The complaints seek statutory and other unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees. These claims are
still in their early stages and the Company is unable to estimate
any reasonably possible loss, or range of loss, with respect to
these matters.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.

Automatic Data Processing, Inc. is a technology company based in
New Jersey.

AXOS FINANCIAL: Settlement in HMEPS Suit Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------
Axos Financial Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2023, that the District
Court for the Southern District of California issued an order that
grants final approval for the settlement of the HMEPS class suit.

On October 15, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit, Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and
brought in United States District Court for the Southern District
of California (the "Golden Case").

On November 3, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a second
putative class action lawsuit, Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al,
and also brought in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California (the "Hazan Case").

On February 1, 2016, the Golden Case and the Hazan Case were
consolidated as In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case #: 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC (the "HMEPS Class Action"), and the
Houston Municipal Employees Pension System was appointed lead
plaintiff.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company and other named defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose
wrongful conduct that was alleged in a complaint filed in
connection with a wrongful termination of employment lawsuit filed
on October 13, 2015 (the "Employment Matter") and that as a result
the Company's statements regarding its internal controls, as well
as portions of its financial statements, were false and misleading.


On April 13, 2022, the parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement. The Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement was
submitted to the District Court for approval on April 15, 2022.

On June 8, 2022, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and scheduled a hearing with respect to final approval
of the settlement for October 7, 2022.

On October 14, 2022, the District Court entered an order granting
final approval of such settlement.

The settlement was reached because the parties were able to
negotiate terms within available insurance coverage and reach a
stipulation that specifically provides that (i) all amounts due in
connection with the settlement be paid exclusively by the insurers
and that defendants have no direct liability in connection
therewith, (ii) no wrongdoing be attributed to Axos, its management
or its directors, (iii) the settlement is not to be construed as
conceding or evidencing the truth or validity of any claim or
allegation made by plaintiffs, and (iv) the defendants shall be
deemed to have agreed, or otherwise be required, to modify, amend
or restate any business practices, policies, procedures, regulatory
filings or financial records, as a result thereof.

Axos Financial, Inc. is a bank holding company based in Nevada.

BECTON & DICKINSON: Continues to Defend Jankowski Shareholder Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Becton Dickinson & Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Jankowski putative shareholder
derivative suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

On November 2, 2020, a putative shareholder derivative action
captioned Jankowski v. Forlenza, et al., Civ. No. 2:20-cv-15474,
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
by a shareholder, derivatively on behalf of the Company, against
certain of the Company's directors and officers.

The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
violations of sections 10(b), 14(a) and 21D of the Exchange Act,
and insider trading.

The complaint principally alleges that the Company made misleading
statements regarding AlarisTM infusion pumps in a proxy statement
and other SEC filings.

A second derivative action was filed on January 24, 2021, and the
two actions were consolidated.

In March 2021, the Company received letters from two additional
shareholders which, in general, mirrored the allegations in the
derivative actions, and demanded, among other things, that the
Board of Directors pursue claims against members of management for
claimed breaches of fiduciary duties. Consistent with New Jersey
law, the Board appointed a special committee to review the
allegations and demands in the derivative actions and demand
letters.

Following an investigation, the special committee determined that
no action was warranted, and rejected the shareholders’ demands,
communicating its determination to counsel for the shareholders.

On January 10, 2023, one of the two shareholders referenced above
filed a separate derivative action that: (i) is generally
consistent with the shareholder letter and the two prior actions;
and (ii) purports to challenge the reasonableness of the special
committee's process and determination.

The Company believes that is has strong defenses to these claims
and intends to defend itself vigorously.

Becton & Dickinson is an American multinational medical technology
company that manufactures and sells medical devices, instrument
systems, and reagents.

BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Defend Kabak Putative Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Becton Dickinson & Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Kabak putative class suit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On February 27, 2020, a putative class action captioned Kabak v.
Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al., Civ. No. 2:20-cv-02155 (SRC)
(CLW), now captioned Industriens Pensionsforsikring v. Becton,
Dickinson and Company, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of
its officers. The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf
of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock from November 5, 2019 through
February 5, 2020, asserts claims for purported violations of
Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act") and Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks, among other things,
damages and costs.

The complaint alleges that defendants concealed certain material
information regarding AlarisTM infusion pumps, allegedly rendering
certain public statements about the Company's business, operations
and prospects false or misleading, thereby allegedly causing
investors to purchase stock at an inflated price.

After an initial without prejudice dismissal, the plaintiff filed
amended pleadings, which the Company in turn moved to dismiss.

Ultimately, the court permitted certain aspects of the case to
proceed.

An answer with affirmative defenses was thereafter filed on October
3, 2022.

Discovery has commenced and plaintiff’s motion for class
certification was filed on January 17, 2023.

The Company believes that it has strong defenses to the allegations
that were not dismissed and it intends to defend itself
vigorously.

Becton & Dickinson is an American multinational medical technology
company that manufactures and sells medical devices, instrument
systems, and reagents.

BED BATH: CEO Removed from Si Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending November 26, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2023, that CEO Gustavo Anal
was removed as defendant in an amended complaint filed in November
2022, reducing claims against the Company and shortening the class
period.

On August 23, 2022, a putative securities class action and
shareholder derivative action was filed against the Company,
Gustavo Arnal (the Company's former Chief Financial Officer), and
certain third parties in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia. The case, which is captioned Si v. Bed Bath &
Beyond Corp., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02541, asserts claims of
breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, and
violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's
securities from March 25, 2022 through August 18, 2022.

The Complaint alleges that certain of the Company disclosures about
the Company's revenue and proposed divestments, as well as other
disclosures made by certain of its investors about their holdings,
during the putative class period were materially false or
misleading.

The Company is still evaluating the complaint, which is subject to
amendment, but based on current knowledge the Company believes the
claims are without merit.

In November, 2022 an amended complaint was filed which removed Mr.
Arnal as a defendant, shortened the class period and reduced the
claims against the Company.

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

BINGHAMTON PRECAST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Shara Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
HOLLY SHARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BINGHAMTON PRECAST & SUPPLY CORP.; and JAY
ABBEY, Defendants., Case No. 3:23-cv-00135-LEK-ML (N.D.N.Y., Jan.
30, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Shara was employed by the Defendants as a sales
estimator.

BINGHAMTON PRECAST & SUPPLY CORP. manufactures construction
material. The Company specializes in manufacturing of precast
concrete products for heavy highway and general construction
industry. Binghamton Precast & Supply serves clients in the State
of New York and Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth Katz
          Katz Melinger PLLC
          370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 460-0047
          Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
          Email: kjkatz@katzmelinger.com

BP EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses Claims in Gray Suit With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL GRAY v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET
AL. SECTION: D (1), Civil Action No. 17-4336 (E.D. La.), Judge
Wendy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana grants:

   a. BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of
      Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook; and

   b. the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

Before the Court is the Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation
Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook filed by
Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America Production
Co., and BP p.l.c. as well as the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Holdings,
LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") have joined in both
motions. The Plaintiff opposes both Motions. The Defendants have
filed Replies in support of their Motions.

The case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico in 2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf
Coast. On Jan. 11, 2013, District Judge Carl J. Barbier, who
presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out of the
Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical
Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "MSA"). However,
certain individuals, referred to as "B3" plaintiffs, either opted
out of or were excluded from the MSA. Plaintiff Michael Gray opted
out of the MSA and, accordingly, is a B3 plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed this individual action against Defendants on
April 29, 2017 to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a
result of the oil spill. For approximately eighteen months in 2010
and 2011, he worked as a beach cleanup worker, tasked with cleaning
up oil and oil-covered debris from the beaches and coastal areas
near Gulfport, Pascagoula, Horne Island, Cat Island, and Ocean
Springs, Mississippi.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' negligence and
recklessness in both causing the Gulf oil spill and subsequently
failing to properly design and implement a clean-up response caused
him to suffer myriad injuries including allergic rhinitis, cough,
nasal congestion, chest congestion, URI, hypertension, rash,
dizziness, headaches, decreased vision, blurriness, digestive
problems, and nausea. Specifically, he seeks to recover economic
damages, personal injury damages -- including damages for past and
future medical expenses and for pain and suffering -- punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.

To help support his claims that exposure to the chemicals present
in the oil spilled by the Defendants caused his particular health
symptoms, the Plaintiff offers the report and testimony of Dr.
Cook. Dr. Cook is a retired Navy physician with expertise
specifically as an occupational and environmental physician. Dr.
Cook's Report is not tailored directly to the Plaintiff's claims;
rather, Dr. Cook's generic causation Report has been utilized by
numerous B3 plaintiffs, including many plaintiffs currently before
this Court as well as in other cases before other sections of the
Court. Accordingly, Dr. Cook's Report pertains only to general
causation and not to specific causation.

The Defendants filed the instant Motion in limine and Motion for
Summary Judgment on Nov. 28, 2022. In their Motion in limine, they
contend that Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying due to,
inter alia, Dr. Cook's failure to identify the harmful level of
exposure capable of causing Plaintiff's particular injuries for
each chemical that Plaintiff alleges to have been exposed to.
Because Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying, the Defendants
argue, the Court should grant their Motion for Summary Judgment as
the Plaintiff is unable to establish general causation through
expert testimony, a necessary requirement under controlling Circuit
precedent.

In response, the Plaintiff argues that Dr. Cook's Report satisfies
the Daubert standards for reliability and relevancy and, therefore,
that summary judgment is inappropriate.

Judge Vitter states that failure to properly identify the level of
exposure to a particular chemical at which harmful effects occur
necessarily renders a general causation opinion unreliable and,
thus, inadmissible. The Court has previously considered the June
21, 2022 version of Dr. Cook's Report offered by the Plaintiff,
finding that the Report fails to meet the Daubert standards for
reliability and helpfulness to the trier of fact. For the same
reasons set forth in detail in that Order and Reasons, she
determines that the Plaintiff has failed in his burden of
establishing the reliability and relevance of his expert's report
and finds it appropriate to grant the Defendants' Motion in limine
to exclude Dr. Cook's Report.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff lacks expert testimony on general
causation. Without expert testimony, which is required to prove
general causation, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a
genuine dispute of material fact regarding his claims that his
injuries were caused by exposure to oil. Thus, the Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted as they are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law due to the Plaintiff's failure to
establish general causation.

In view of the foregoing, Judge Vitter grants the Defendants'
Daubert Motion and their Motion for Summary Judgment. He dismisses
the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2023 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bd6rmhtd from Leagle.com.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Continues to Defend Pharmaceutical Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the generic pharmaceutical pricing
antitrust class suit in the the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In December 2019, pharmaceutical distributors including Cardinal
Health Inc. were added as defendants in a civil class action
lawsuit filed by indirect purchasers of generic drugs, such as
hospitals and retail pharmacies.

The indirect purchaser case is part of a multidistrict litigation
consisting of multiple individual class action matters consolidated
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The indirect purchaser plaintiffs allege that pharmaceutical
distributors encouraged manufacturers to increase prices, provided
anti-competitive pricing information to manufacturers and
improperly engaged in customer allocation.

In May 2020, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss.

In July 2022, the indirect purchasers filed an amended complaint
and in August 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
intended complaint.

The Company is vigorously defending itself in this matter.

Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services
and products company in the United States and internationally. It
provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that
enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems,
pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and
physician offices. Cardinal Health, Inc. was founded in 1979 and
is
headquartered in Dublin, Ohio.



CARHARTT INC: Faces Class Suit Over Use of "Session Replay" Spyware
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that
Carhartt faces a proposed class action that claims the apparel
company tracked, recorded, and stored without consent the online
communications of website visitors.

According to the 24-page complaint, Carhartt utilized web-tracking
software to capture the communications of Carhartt.com visitors,
with the technology enabling the retailer to monitor users'
movements in real-time and store the data for playback. The
tracking software used by the defendant is more powerful than
normal website cookies or analytics tools because it can intercept
and transmit a user's every interaction with a web page, the
lawsuit explains.

In spite of users' reasonable expectation of privacy, Carhartt
"intentionally" tapped visitors' electronic communications without
consent, the suit charges. The spyware technology at issue allows
the defendant to observe and record movements on the page "as if
someone is looking over Plaintiff's or a Class Members' shoulder
with a camera set to record," the case says.

The use of "session replay" spyware allows the company to monitor
and record all user interactions with its site, including cursor
movements, keystrokes, search requests, content viewed, and any
information entered onto a page, the complaint relays. In short,
the spyware enables Carhartt to observe the entirety of a user's
visit to its website in real-time, the filing adds.

Per the lawsuit, the purpose of "session replay" technology, like
the kind allegedly used by the defendant and provided by Quantum
Metric or another third party, is to keep tabs on how a website
itself operates. The suit contends, however, that the sheer amount
of information intercepted from visitors to the site indicates that
the goal of using the software was in fact to gain insight into
consumers' preferences and habits for commercial gain.

Like other users of Carhartt.com, the plaintiff, a resident of San
Diego, reasonably assumed that his visit to site would be private,
in large part because he was not given any chance to consent to the
online monitoring, the case claims.

Further, aside from alleged legal violations and invasion of
privacy, the storage of visitors' communications also puts their
personal information at risk of exposure to third parties, the
complaint stresses.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who
visited Carhartt.com and whose online communications were
intercepted and/or recorded without consent. [GN]

CEDAR FAIR: Faces Age Discrimination Class Action in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------
Working Solutions NYC reports that the Cedar Point amusement park
in Sandusky, Ohio has been hit with a collective class action
complaint from a former employee who alleged the company
"indisputably" discriminated against older workers in a recent
policy change. The amusement park updated its policy on subsidized
housing, which has routinely been offered to seasonal employees as
an incentive to work on the shorelines of Lake Erie, and opted to
limit the housing's availability to younger workers. The company's
new policy makes subsidized housing exclusive to workers between
the ages of 18 to 29.

A 65-year-old former employee and current resident of Glendale,
California sued Cedar Point owner-operator Cedar Fair LP and its
subsidiary, Magnum Management Corp., in Ohio federal court. His
complaint alleged that the attempt to offer subsidized housing only
to younger workers explicitly violates the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act.

What is the Age Discrimination in Employment Act?
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) was enacted by
Congress in 1967 and signed into law by President Lyndon B.
Johnson. It is a federal law that forbids employment discrimination
against anyone 40 years or older. The Act deters the exclusion of
older workers from jobs by making it illegal to erroneously reject
candidates or fire them based on their age.

The Act does create a narrow carve out for establishing "that the
age limitation is a bona fide occupational qualification necessary
to the performance of the duties of the position." But employee
benefits, such as those offered to the seasonal workers of Cedar
Park amusement park, may not be sanctioned by age.

Calculating Damages
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulates the
"remedies for employment discrimination." Compensatory damages may
be paid out to reimburse affected individuals for costs associated
with their discrimination, such as medical expenses or compensation
for mental anguish and inconvenience. Punitive damages may also be
charged to an employer as a form of financial punishment.

There are limits on the size of compensatory damages, which vary
based on the size of an employer. They are as follows:

For employers with 15-100 employees, the limit is $50,000.
For employers with 101-200 employees, the limit is $100,000.
For employers with 201-500 employees, the limit is $200,000.
For employers with more than 500 employees, the limit is $300,000.

Age discrimination is a serious violation of federal and state law.
Employment attorneys like those at the Law Office of Christopher Q.
Davis know the right questions to ask. Don't hesitate to reach out
for a free case evaluation and get a better understanding of your
rights. [GN]

COINBASE GLOBAL: Class Suit Over Unregistered Securities Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nelson Wang, Cheyenne Ligon of CoinDesk reports Judge dismisses
proposed class-action lawsuit alleging coinbase sold unregistered
securities in the case-captioned Underwood vs. Coinbase Global.

The customers also accused Coinbase of failing to register as a
broker-dealer.
U.S. District Court Judge Paul Engelmayer has rejected claims in a
proposed class action by customers who claim Coinbase sold them
unregistered securities and also failed to register as a
broker-dealer, according to a filing on Wednesday.

The case is Underwood vs. Coinbase Global in the Southern District
of New York. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong was also named as a
defendant.

The New York-based judge decided to toss out the lawsuit after
finding that the plaintiff's claims made in their amended complaint
filed last March "added numerous allegations that directly
contradicted their initial Complaint. "

Though the dismissal of the Underwood class action suit is a
victory for Coinbase, the publicly-traded U.S.-based crypto
exchange is still playing whack-a-mole with other class action
cases in various states, including Georgia and New Jersey. [GN]

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Najaryan Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
GARNIK NAJARYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 23STCV01869 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., Jan.
27, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and
rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Najaryan was employed by the Defendant as staff.

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC. provides management services to
office, industrial, commercial, and residential properties. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
          Christine Harmandayan, Esq.
          KOUL LAW FIRM
          3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 761-5484
          Facsimile:(818)561-3938
          Email: nazo@koullaw.com
                christine@koullaw.com

DIAMOND RESORTS: Faces Sapan Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL SAPAN, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. DIAMOND RESORTS HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-00147
(C.D. Cal., Jan. 24, 2023) contends that the Defendant promotes and
markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unwanted telephone
calls, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

These cold calls are made to massive lists of phone numbers in the
United States with no regard for whether these numbers have been
registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry (DNC) or not. In
just a short ten-week time span from January 17, 2019 to March 6,25
2019, Diamond Resorts transmitted ten telemarketing calls to Mr.
Sapan’s residential phone (310-444-1999) to try to sell its
services. Mr. Sapan never gave any Diamond Resorts or any other
person, agent, employee or entity associated with Diamond Resorts
express written permission to call him, nor does he have an
established business relationship nor personal relationship with
Diamond Resorts or any other person, agent, employee or entity
associated with Diamond Resorts, says the suit.

Diamond Resorts has intentionally violated the TCPA in a so-far
successful attempt to sell financial and/or mortgage packages for
years, the suit contends.

The Plaintiff was a resident of the County of Orange, State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Reichman, Esq.
          Justin Prato SBN, Esq.
          PRATO & REICHMAN, APC
          3675 Ruffin Road, Suite 220
          San Diego, CA 92123
          Telephone: (619) 683-7971
          E-mail: chrisr@prato-reichman.com
                  justinp@prato-reichman.com

DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Class Suit Over Suspended Bills-Bengals Game
------------------------------------------------------------------
Renay C. Hamilton, Esq., of McLane Middleton, in an article for
Mondaq, report that online sports betting in Massachusetts is set
to launch in the first quarter of 2023. As excitement continues to
build around the rollout of online sports betting in Massachusetts,
consumers, spectators, legal experts and fantasy and sports betting
companies will need to keep an eye out for legal issues that may
arise following the cancellation, suspension or postponement of
sports games.

Following the cancellation of the Buffalo Bills-Cincinnati Bengals
game on January 2, 2023, fantasy football players are now suing
DraftKings for unlawfully cancelling their contest entries in
fantasy football contests. According to the ClassAction.org
article, a New York contestant who participated in the $20K Two
Point Conversion and the NFL Showdown 15K Four-Point Stance
contests allege that he was in first and second place respectively
when DraftKings unlawfully canceled the contest entries following
the suspension of the Bills-Bengals game. According to the suit,
DraftKings' terms of use state that if the NFL declares a game
'suspended' then the statistics generated prior to such suspension
will count. The suit further states that although the New York
contestant's entries were refunded, the contestant was also
entitled to the winnings earned prior to the suspension of the
game.

The class action looks to represent contestants who entered into
the NFL Showdown and Flash Draft contests offered by DraftKings and
whom were indicated as winners at the time the game was suspended.
[GN]

DXC TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On August 20, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, against the Company, directors of the Company, and a former
officer of the Company, among other defendants.

The action asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and is premised on allegedly
false and/or misleading statements, and alleged non-disclosure of
material facts, regarding the Company's prospects and expected
performance.

The putative class of plaintiffs includes all persons who acquired
shares of the Company’s common stock pursuant to the offering
documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the April 2017 transaction that formed DXC.

The State of California action had been stayed pending the outcome
of the substantially similar federal action filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The federal action was dismissed with prejudice in December 2021.

Thereafter, the state court lifted the stay and entered an order
permitting additional briefing by the parties.

In March 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the
Company moved to dismiss.

In August 2022, the Court granted the Company’s motion to
dismiss, but permitted Plaintiffs to amend and refile their
complaint.

In September 2022, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which the Company moved to dismiss. In January 2023, the Court
issued an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.

The Court has scheduled a case management conference in February
2023 to discuss how the matter will progress.

The Company believes that the final remaining lawsuit described
above is also without merit, and intends to vigorously defend it.

DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). DXC
Technology Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in
Tysons, Virginia.


ELECTRO-POWER INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Otero Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT OTERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ELECTRO-POWER INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00104-NJ (E.D. Wis., Jan 27, 2023) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Otero was employed by the Defendant as fabricator.

ELECTRIC POWER, INC. provides electrical services. The Company
offers switchgear maintenance, acceptance testing, hemp shield
testing, monitoring, and repairs. Electric Power serves customers
in the State of Virginia. [BN]

          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
          Fax: (262) 565-6469
          E-Mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

EOG RESOURCES: Bid for Jury Trial in Brown Class Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HUNTER BROWN AND RONALD ALBRITTON Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. EOG
RESOURCES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-CV-0116 KG/GBW (D.N.M.),
Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico grants the Defendant's Motion for a Jury
Trial.

Plaintiffs Brown and Albritton brought suit in February 2022,
alleging that EOG violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA") by failing to pay
overtime compensation. They also seek to bring an FLSA collective
action and a Rule 23 class action under the NMMWA on behalf of
certain "water consultants." They did not demand a jury trial
either in their complaint or within 14 days of the Answer. EOG
similarly did not make a jury demand in its Answer or within 14
days. Three months after the deadline passed, EOG filed the instant
Motion for a jury trial.

The Plaintiffs argue that the Motion should be denied because the
Defendants did not show a good reason for their failure to timely
demand a jury trial. They rely particularly on the following quote:
"It would not be an abuse of discretion to deny relief pursuant to
Rule 39(b) when the failure to make a timely jury demand results
from nothing more than the mere inadvertence of the moving party."

The Plaintiffs, however, did not quote the full sentence, which
clarifies that the Eleventh Circuit in Nissan Motor Corp. in USA.
v. Burciaga, 982 F.2d 408, 409 (10th Cir. 1992), intended that
holding to be harmonious with the general "strong and compelling
reasons" to deny standard. Just because denial of a motion for a
jury trial for mere inadvertence may not be an abuse of discretion
does not make denial mandatory, nor does it flip the burden from
the "strong and compelling"-reasons-to-deny standard to a
good-reasons-to-grant standard

Judge Gonzales finds no strong or compelling reason to deny the
request for a jury trial. The Plaintiffs did not argue that a jury
trial would prejudice them, so he deems the issue conceded. As for
delays, discovery has not begun, class certification is pending,
there is no operative scheduling order, and no Rule 16 scheduling
conference has been held nor even noticed. Granting a jury trial
now will surely not disrupt or delay the case in any way. Thus,
finding no prejudice to the

The Plaintiffs and finding no delay will occur, Judge Gonzales
determines the constitutional right to a jury trial outweighs the
value of timely invocation of the right and there is no compelling
reason to deny a jury trial. He, therefore, grants the Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/fncybpuw from
Leagle.com.


EYE CARE: Must Face North Carolina Data Breach Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Eye Care
Leaders Holdings LLC must face a proposed class action alleging it
negligently failed to protect the personal health information of
more than 3 million eye-care patients.

Kimberly Farley, Chad Forrester, and Kimberly Sandvig alleged
damages with enough factual specificity to survive ECL's motion to
dismiss, Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the US District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina said in a ruling docketed on Jan.
31.

The plaintiffs alleged their information was stolen during four
data breaches that hit ECL during 2021. Their lawsuit brought
claims of negligence, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and
breach of fiduciary duty. [GN]


FASTAFF LLC: Fails to Pay Travel Nurses' OT Provisions Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Seshaseyee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FASTAFF, LLC, and U.S. Nursing Corporation, Case No.
1:23-cv-00211-KLM (D. Colo., Jan. 24, 2023) seeks declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, interest, and a
reasonable attorney's fee and costs as a result of Defendants'
policies and practice of failing to pay proper overtime
compensation under the the air Labor Standards Act.

Accordingly, the Defendants regularly scheduled the Plaintiff and
other travel nurses to work approximately 48 hours per week. The
Defendants allegedly regularly failed to pay Plaintiff for the time
she worked performing charting and administrative work after her
shift ended, says the suit.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as an hourly-paid travel
nurse from January 2020 until January 2022. The Plaintiff and the
other travel nurses' primary responsibilities were traveling to
different hospital locations, providing medical services to
patients and charting patient statuses.

Fastaff provides staffing services to travel nursing markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

FIVE BELOW: Hicks Seeks Accessible Parking Lots for Disabled
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that A California man
alleges in a class action that some of discount retailer Five
Below's locations in the state unlawfully lack accessible parking
lots and restrooms in the case-captioned Chris Hicks, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Five Below, Inc., Case
No.: 22STCV38125.

A California man alleges in a proposed class action that some of
discount retailer Five Below's locations in the state unlawfully
lack accessible parking lots and restrooms.
According to the 26-page lawsuit, the retailer has run afoul of
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, a state law which prohibits
businesses from discriminating based on disability and requires
that they provide to individuals with disabilities full access to
their public facilities and services. The plaintiff, who uses a
wheelchair, claims he was denied equal access to the defendant's
stores as a result of the company's near-uniform failure to comply
with state accessibility standards, the suit alleges.

The plaintiff, who the case describes as a T-7 incomplete
paraplegic who requires a wheelchair for mobility, experienced
discrimination at a Five Below location that he visited in
September 2022, the case says. Per the complaint, the man was
unable to park in a handicap-accessible parking space because the
store's parking lot lacked the required number of accessible
parking spots and did not have posted signs deterring the use of
such spaces by individuals without a disability.

Inside the store, the plaintiff was unable to use the restroom
without assistance given that the door required too much force to
open and did not remain open long enough for him to enter
unassisted with his wheelchair, the filing says. Further, the
plaintiff could not use the toilet because the stall door did not
have an accessible lock system that would allow him to close and
lock it, the lawsuit relays. As the suit tells it, the man was also
unable to wash his hands because the pipes underneath the sink were
exposed, which he feared would burn his legs, and the paper towel
dispenser was out of reach.

According to the suit, all buildings constructed or altered in
California after July 1, 1970 must comply with state physical
accessibility standards. The plaintiff believes Five Below will
maintain its allegedly discriminatory practices given that the
retailer has "failed to bring existing stores into compliance for
over twenty (20) years" and has expanded to new locations that are
also purportedly out of step with state standards, the case says.

The complaint alleges that the following Five Below locations in
California violate state law by failing to provide
nondiscriminatory access to individuals with disabilities:

2 South Garfield Ave., Alhambra, CA
802 W. Arrow Hwy., San Dimas, CA
2444 Foothill Blvd., La Verne, CA
2700 E. Workman St., Ste. B, West Covina, CA
1134 S. Harbor Blvd., Fullerton, CA
2226 E. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA
586 Euclid St., Anaheim, CA
9921 Chapman Ave., Garden Grove, CA
18309 Brookhurst St., Suite 5, Fountain Valley, CA
8371 La Palma Ave., Buena Park, CA
1785 Alameda St., Compton, CA
14350 Ocean Gate Ave., Hawthorne, CA
13, 8512-A Painter Ave., Whittier, CA
8850 Washington Blvd., Pico Rivers, CA
886 W. Beverly Blvd., Montebello, CA
2401 Via Campo, Montebello, CA
10653 Valley Blvd., El Monte, CA
39180 10+ St. W, Palmdale, CA
24355 Magic Mountain Pkwy., Santa Clarita, CA
25670 The Old Rd., Stevenson Ranch, CA
1555 Simi Town Center Way, Simi Valley, CA
19881 Rinaldi St., Porter Ranch, CA
7880 Van Nuys Blvd., Panorama City, CA
5545 E. Steams St., Long Beach, CA

The lawsuit looks to represent any mobility-impaired and/or
wheelchair-bound individuals residing in California who have
patronized any of the Five Below locations listed on this page and
who have been denied equal access to the stores' goods, services,
facilities, and/or accommodations at any time before January 27,
2023. [GN]

HTM TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Scaptura Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS SCAPTURA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. HTM TRANSPORTATION, LLC; and HTM
ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00134-DNH-ML
(N.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff Scaptura was employed by the Defendants as driver.

HTM TRANSPORTATION LLC is a freight shipping trucking company.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan G. Files, Esq.
          GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
          The White House
          7030 E. Genesee Street
          Fayetteville, NY 13066
          Telephone: (315) 314-8000
          Facsimile: (315) 446-7521
          Email: rfiles@gclawoffice.com

HUNGRYROOT INC: Molenda Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal
----------------------------------------------------------------
LISA MOLENDA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HUNGRYROOT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00678 (S.D.N.Y., January 26, 2023) seeks damages,
restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs based on Defendant's alleged unlawful
conduct, for violation of the California's Unfair Competition Law,
False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and Automatic
Renewal Law, and for conversion, unjust enrichment/restitution,
negligent misrepresentation, and fraud.

The putative class action lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiff, on
behalf of all California purchasers, against the Defendant for
engaging in an illegal "automatic renewal" scheme with respect to
its subscription plans for HungryRoot through its website at
https://www.hungryroot.com/ and on its mobile application.

The Plaintiff alleges that when consumers sign up for HungryRoot
Subscriptions at the HungryRoot Website or on the HungryRoot App,
Defendant actually enrolls consumers in a program that
automatically renews customers' HungryRoot Subscriptions from
month-to-month or year-to-year and results in monthly or annual
charges to the consumer's credit card, debit card, or third party
payment account. In doing so, however, Defendant fails to provide
the requisite disclosures and authorizations required to be made
pursuant to California's Automatic Renewal Law, says the
Plaintiff.

HungryRoot, Inc. is a food subscription service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com

               - and -

          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Julia K. Venditti, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
                  jvenditti@bursor.com

               - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
          Telephone: (313) 303-3472
          E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
          Zoe T. Aaron, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          405 E 50th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (630) 796-0903
          E-mail: hbryson@milberg.com
                  zaaron@milberg.com

INSPIRE HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Rawlison Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
SYLVIA RAWLISON and DAVID WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. INSPIRE HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.
7:23-cv-00608 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 24, 2023) seeks to recover damages
for delinquent wage payments made to workers who qualify as manual
laborers and who were employed by the Defendant between June 10,
2016 1 and the present, pursuant to New York Labor Law.

The Defendant has allegedly compensated all its employees on a
bi-weekly basis, regardless of whether said employees qualified as
manual laborers under the NYLL. The Defendant has at no time during
the Relevant Period been authorized by the New York State
Department of Labor Commissioner to compensate its employees who
qualify as manual laborers on a bi-weekly basis, in contravention
of NYLL Article 6 section 191, the lawsuit claims.

Ms. Rawlison and Mr. Williams were employed by the Defendant at its
Wappingers Falls, New York location during the relevant period.
They typically perform physical tasks for more than 25% of their
respective workdays, as their responsibilities including serving as
kitchen personnel, which meant they cooked and served meals, washed
dishes, set up the dining room, and other similar kitchen/service
related tasks.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550

INTEL CORP: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------
Intel Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period
ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 26, 2023, that the Company intends to defend
itself from the consumer class suits in the U.S., Canada and
Argentina.

As of January 25, 2023, consumer class action lawsuits against
Intel were pending in the United States, Canada, and Argentina.

The plaintiffs, who purport to represent various classes of
purchasers of the Company's products, generally claim to have been
harmed by Intel's actions and/or omissions in connection with the
security vulnerabilities and assert a variety of common law and
statutory claims seeking monetary damages and equitable relief.

In the United States, class action suits filed in various
jurisdictions were consolidated for all pretrial proceedings in the
United States District Court for the District of Oregon, which
entered final judgment in favor of Intel in July 2022 based on
plaintiffs' failure to plead a viable claim.

Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals.

In Canada, an initial status conference has not yet been scheduled
in one case pending in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario,
and a stay of a second case pending in the Superior Court of
Justice of Quebec is in effect.

In Argentina, Intel Argentina was served with, and responded to, a
class action complaint in June 2022.

Additional lawsuits and claims may be asserted seeking monetary
damages or other related relief.

The Company disputes the pending claims described above and intend
to defend those lawsuits vigorously.

Intel Corporation offers computing, networking, data storage, and
communication solutions worldwide. It operates through Client
Computing Group, Data Center Group, Internet of Things Group,
Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group, Programmable Solutions Group,
and All Other segments. The company was founded in 1968 and is
based in Santa Clara, California.

INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: LIBOR-Related Class Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intercontinental Exchange Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2023, that the
Second Circuit dismissed a LIBOR-related class suit due to lack of
jurisdiction.

In 2019, three virtually identical purported class action
complaints were filed in the Southern District against ICE and
several of its subsidiaries, including ICE Benchmark Administration
Limited, or IBA, collectively referred to as the ICE Defendants, as
well as 18 multinational banks and various of their respective
subsidiaries and affiliates, or the Panel Bank Defendants, by,
respectively, Putnam Bank, a savings bank based in Putnam,
Connecticut; two municipal pension funds affiliated with the City
of Livonia, Michigan; and four retirement and benefit funds
affiliated with the Hawaii Sheet Metal Workers Union.

IBA is the administrator for various regulated benchmarks,
including the ICE LIBOR benchmark that is calculated daily based
upon the submissions from a reference panel (which includes the
Panel Bank Defendants).

The plaintiffs sought to litigate on behalf of a purported class of
all U.S.-based persons or entities who transacted with a Panel Bank
Defendant by receiving a payment on an interest rate indexed to a
one-month or three-month USD LIBOR-benchmarked rate during the
period from 2014 to 2019.

The plaintiffs alleged that the ICE Defendants and the Panel Bank
Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to set the LIBOR benchmark at
artificially low levels, with an alleged purpose and effect of
depressing payments by the Panel Bank Defendants to members of the
purported class.

Subsequent to the filing of the individual complaints, the various
plaintiffs referenced above filed a consolidated amended complaint
against the ICE Defendants and the Panel Bank Defendants.

As with the individual complaints, the consolidated amended
complaint asserted a claim for violations of the Sherman and
Clayton Antitrust Acts and sought unspecified treble damages and
other relief.

The ICE Defendants and the Panel Bank Defendants filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

In 2020, the court issued a decision and order granting the ICE
Defendants and the Panel Bank Defendants' motions to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.

Among other things, the court found that the amended complaint
"…is made up of almost entirely conclusory allegations and is
essentially devoid of any evidence, direct or circumstantial, to
support the conclusion that Defendants colluded with one another."

The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Second Circuit. While
briefing of the appeal was ongoing, each of the named plaintiffs
withdrew from the case.

DYJ Holdings, LLC, a New Jersey-based holding company, was
permitted, over the objection of the defendants, to intervene for
the purpose of serving as named plaintiff and representative of the
purported class.

On February 14, 2022, the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction, holding that DYJ Holdings, LLC, the sole
entity attempting to pursue the appeal, lacked standing to do so.

The dismissal of the appeal constitutes the final resolution of
this matter.

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. provides market infrastructure,
data services and technology solutions to a broad range of
customers including financial institutions, corporations and
government entities based in Georgia.


INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Securities Suit Settlement Deal Executed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2023, that the
parties involved in a securities class suit executed settlement
agreements on June 6, 2022.

In 2014, New York Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc., two of
our subsidiaries, were among more than 40 financial institutions
and U.S.-based equity exchanges named as defendants in four
purported class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, or the Southern District, by
the City of Providence, Rhode Island, and other plaintiffs.

In a subsequent consolidated amended complaint filed against only
the exchange defendants (which include exchanges owned and operated
by Nasdaq and Cboe Global Markets,Inc.), the plaintiffs asserted
claims on behalf of a class of "all public investors" who bought or
sold stock from April 18, 2009 to the present on the named
exchanges.

In 2015, the district court granted a motion to dismiss filed by
the exchange defendants and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.


The court held that the plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently state
a claim under Sections 10(b) and 6(b) of the Exchange Act, and
additionally that some of the claims were barred by the doctrine of
self-regulatory organization immunity.

The plaintiffs appealed, and in 2017 the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, or the Second Circuit, issued a decision
vacating the dismissal and remanding the case to the district court
for further proceedings.

The Second Circuit held that the claims against the exchanges were
not barred by the doctrine of self-regulatory organization immunity
because (in the view of the Second Circuit) the exchanges were not
carrying out regulatory functions while operating their markets and
engaging in the challenged conduct at issue, and that the
plaintiffs had adequately pleaded claims against the defendants
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.

The Second Circuit directed that, on remand, the district court
should address and rule upon various other defenses raised by the
exchanges in their motion to dismiss (which the district court did
not address in its prior opinion and order).

In 2019, the district court denied a new motion to dismiss filed by
the defendants, and the exchanges filed answers to the complaint,
denying the principal allegations of the plaintiffs, denying
liability in the matter, and asserting various affirmative
defenses.

During 2021, the parties conducted discovery, relating largely to
class certification issues; the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification; and the defendants filed motions for summary
judgment on the basis of preclusion and lack of standing.

On March 28, 2022, the district court entered an order granting the
defendant exchanges’ motion for summary judgment on the ground
that the plaintiffs lacked standing, and dismissing without
prejudice the plaintiffs’ claims on this basis.

Among other things, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to
show that they had been injured and that, even putting aside this
defect, the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence from which a jury
could reasonably conclude that they suffered an injury traceable to
any conduct of the exchanges.

The district court also held that the opinions of the plaintiffs'
principal expert witness in this matter were fundamentally flawed
and unreliable, and therefore inadmissible.

In light of these holdings, the court denied as moot the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the exchanges'
motion for summary judgment on the basis of preclusion.

On April 25, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
dismissal order.

Effective as of June 6, 2022, the parties to the litigation
executed settlement agreements pursuant to which, among other
things, the plaintiffs withdrew their appeal with prejudice and
provided the defendants a covenant not to sue (and additionally
provided the NYSE and Cboe defendants a release of claims).

No monetary payment was made by the defendants.

The settlement agreements and dismissal of the appeal constitute
the final resolution of this matter.

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. provides market infrastructure,
data services and technology solutions to a broad range of
customers including financial institutions, corporations and
government entities based in Georgia.


KIDS TOWN INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ortiz Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
GLADYS ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KIDS TOWN INC.; JOSEPH SUTTON; and MARC
SUTTON, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00736 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27,
2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Ortiz was employed by the Defendant as cashier and
supervisor.

KIDS TOWN INC. operate a chain of children's apparel retail stores
under the common trade name "Kidstown".

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LAGRANGE, GA: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Utility Sales Tax
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tommy Murphy, writing for The LaGrange Daily News, reports that two
Atlanta-based law firms have filed a class action lawsuit against
the City of LaGrange claiming that the revenue the city makes on
utility sales and uses to operate city operations is an illegal
tax.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of plaintiffs Ms. Lonnie Hollis and
Mason's World Bar & Grill, LLC in Troup County Superior Court on
Jan. 10, 2023.

The city has not collected property taxes since 1998 and instead
uses proceeds from utility sales to fund city operations.

According to a press release from the attorneys, proceeds from
utility sales are tantamount to an illegal tax because the city
makes more than operational expenses and transfers the excess funds
to its General Fund for a variety of purposes.

The attorneys referred to the city's use of utility sales to run
the city as a "utility/taxation scheme" that unfairly targets the
poor.

"One major difference between property taxes and the
utility/taxation scheme imposed by the City of LaGrange is that the
utility/taxation scheme is a regressive tax that unfairly targets
the City's poor," said the press release.

The lawsuit alleges that the city violated state law by using
proceeds from utility sales to operate the city rather than using
lawful taxes.

The lawsuit seeks a refund of the profits from utility sales to be
returned to the purchasers and a court order to stop the city from
imposing excessive utility charges in the future.

"It is clearly a violation of state law that the City of LaGrange
charges outsized utility fees to residents and businesses that are
then transferred to cover the city's General Fund for general
governmental uses other than payment of utility service costs,"
said Craig K. Pendergrast of Continuum Law Group.

According to the lawsuit, from FY2017 to FY2021, the city
transferred $70,156,000 from municipal utility funds to the general
fund, which equates to a profit margin of 17.2%. The proceeds have
allowed the city to operate and maintain reserve funds of at least
$45 million over the last three years.

The lawsuit claims that the excess charges constitute taxes under
Georgia law, citing Bellsouth Telecomm., LLC v. Cobb County, which
concluded that 911 charges are a tax.

City leaders have proudly acknowledged that LaGrange uses profits
from utility sales to fund city operations for more than 20 years.


"This practice is an illegal regressive tax under Georgia law,"
said Brian J. Sutherland of Hall & Lampros.

The lawsuit says that instead of using profits from utility sales,
LaGrange should reimpose the city property tax that was suspended
in 1998, just like taxes that Troup County and Troup County School
System currently impose.

"Under a property tax, property owners are taxed on the value of
the property they own, so that those with higher value property pay
more and those with lower value property pay less. In contrast,
collecting excessive revenues from those who have no choice but to
buy their electricity, natural gas, and water & sewer services from
the City is a regressive tax that falls disproportionately on those
who are less able to bear the burden of the payments," said the
attorneys in the release.

The City of LaGrange provided a statement saying they intend to
fight the lawsuit.

"Claiming to file on behalf of each citizen and business of
LaGrange, Plaintiffs allege that the City charges for services like
electricity, water, sewer and gas are an illegal tax. First of all,
basic hornbook law dispatches with the ‘tax' argument. The law is
well developed and clear that utility service fees are not a tax,
but are instead a fee for service. Second, numerous state and local
laws clearly authorize the City to provide services and charge for
those services," said a statement provided by City Attorney Jeff
Todd. "Plaintiff can hardly prove a utility charge is unreasonable
when it is extremely competitive and in most instances, lower than
the local competition. We regret that the case has been filed and
that City resources will be required to defend it but look forward
to quickly demonstrating to the Court why it should be dismissed.
Ultimately, Plaintiff's request is that the City institute property
taxes, so it is difficult to see how they are acting in the
interests of the citizens of LaGrange." [GN]

LANNETT CO: Continues to Defend Drug Pricing-Related Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Co. Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from a drug pricing-related class suit
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In November 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and two of its former officers in the federal district
court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the
Company and two of its former officers damaged the purported class
by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s
drug pricing methodologies and internal controls.

In December 2017, counsel for the putative class filed a second
amended complaint.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
in February 2018.

In July 2018, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint.

In September 2018, counsel for the putative class filed a third
amended complaint alleging that the Company and two of its former
officers made false and misleading statements regarding the impact
of competition on prices and sales of certain of the Company’s
products, regarding the potential effects on the Company of
regulatory investigations and antitrust litigation, and regarding
the defendants’ investigation of purported anticompetitive
conduct.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint
in November 2018.

In May 2019, the court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint.

In July 2019, the Company filed an answer to the third amended
complaint.

In October 2020, counsel for the putative class filed a motion for
class certification.

In March 2021, the Company filed a brief in opposition to the
motion to certify the putative class.

In August 2021, the court granted the motion to certify the
proposed class, to appoint class representatives, and to appoint
class counsel.

In August 2021, the Company filed a petition for permission to
appeal the court’s class certification order.

In September 2021, counsel for the class filed a response in
opposition to the Company’s petition.

In November 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit granted the Company’s petition for permission to appeal
the class certification order.

In January 2022, the Third Circuit granted the Company’s motion
to stay the case pending a decision on the interlocutory appeal.

The Company believes it acted in compliance with all applicable
laws and continues to vigorously defend itself from these claims.

The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the suit at
this time.

Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended
release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage
forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well
as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft
gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in
1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


LANNETT CO: Ranitidine-Related Class Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Co. Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2023, that the
Ranitidine-related class suit is still pending in the the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

On June 1, 2020, a class action complaint was served upon the
Company and approximately forty-five (45) other companies asserting
claims for personal injury arising from the presence of NDMA in
Ranitidine product, which was consolidated in a multidistrict
litigation (“MDL”) pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.

Following the filing of a first amended complaint, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted and resulted in a
dismissal of all claims with prejudice based on federal preemption.


The Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals, which has not yet been ruled upon.

Separately, several lawsuits were filed in various state courts by
state government, city government, and several private parties
asserting various consumer protection and/or personal injury claims
(in the case of individual plaintiffs) regarding the presence of
NDMA in Ranitidine products.

The Company has filed motions to dismiss in all state cases, some
of which were granted and other of which were denied.

The Company denies all liability in pending cases.

Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended
release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage
forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well
as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft
gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in
1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


LUXY LIMITED: Collects Biometrics Without Consent, Massel Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MASSEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LUXY LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00542 (N.D.
Ill., Jan. 27, 2023) alleges violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant Defendant
illegally collected, stored and used the Plaintiff's and other
similarly situated individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric
information without informed written consent, in direct violation
of BIPA.

LUXY LIMITED is an online dating site. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          FRADIN LAW, LLC
          8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: (847) 986-5889
          Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
          Email: mike@fradinlaw.com

               - and -

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          SIMON LAW CO.
          5000 Rockside Road
          Liberty Plaza – Suite 520
          Independence, OH 44131
          Telephone: (216) 816-8696
          Email: james@simonsayspay.com

META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Meta Platforms Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from an Antitrust Law-related class suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On March 1, 2022, a first amended consolidated complaint was filed
in the putative class action brought on behalf of certain
advertisers.

On December 6, 2022, the court denied the Company’s motion to
dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint filed in the
putative class action brought on behalf of certain advertisers.

In addition, on July 27, 2022, the FTC filed a complaint against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California seeking to preliminarily enjoin its proposed acquisition
of Within Unlimited as an alleged violation of antitrust law.

The FTC subsequently filed a related complaint in their
administrative court seeking to permanently enjoin the transaction
as a violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and seeking other
relief as well.

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit, and will
vigorously defending them.

Meta Platforms, Inc. (referred to herein by its previous name of
"Facebook") is an American multinational technology company.[BN]


META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Public Nuisance-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meta Platforms Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from a public nuisance-related class
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

A putative class action alleging similar harms was  filed in
California state court on behalf of users under the age of 13 and
three school districts recently filed public nuisance claims based
on similar allegations.

On October 6, 2022, the federal cases were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The state court proceedings are now pending before a trial judge
from Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit, and will
vigorously defending them.

Meta Platforms, Inc. (referred to herein by its previous name of
"Facebook") is an American multinational technology company.[BN]


META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Meta Platforms Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

On March 8, 2022, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against the
Company and certain of its directors and officers alleging
violations of securities laws in connection with the disclosure of
its earnings results for the fourth quarter of 2021 and seeking
unspecified damages.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit, and will
vigorously defending it.

Meta Platforms, Inc. (referred to herein by its previous name of
"Facebook") is an American multinational technology company.[BN]


META PLATFORMS: Continues to Defend Unfair Competition Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meta Platforms Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from an unfair competition-related class
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Beginning on August 15, 2018, multiple putative class actions were
filed against us alleging that the Company inflated its estimates
of the potential audience size for advertisements, resulting in
artificially increased demand and higher prices.

The cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California and seek unspecified damages and
injunctive relief. In a series of rulings in 2019, 2021, and 2022,
the court dismissed certain of the plaintiffs' claims, but
permitted its fraud and unfair competition claims to proceed.

On March 29, 2022, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

On June 21, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
granted our petition for permission to appeal the district court's
class certification order, and the district court subsequently
stayed the case.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit, and will
vigorously defending it.

Meta Platforms, Inc. (referred to herein by its previous name of
"Facebook") is an American multinational technology company.[BN]


MONARCH RECOVERY: Bid for Summary Judgment in Rocke FDCPA Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHERWYN ROCKE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MONARCH RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Civil Action No. 1:20-CV-11736-RWZ (D. Mass.), Judge Ray W. Zobel
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts allows
the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and denies the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Rocke brought a class action complaint alleging that the Defendant
violated Sections 1692e and 1692g of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Plaintiff and the Defendant each filed
a motion for summary judgment.

Judge Zobel holds that the evidence demonstrates that the Defendant
sent the Plaintiff a collection letter, stating that it would
assume the debt was valid unless he notified it "in writing" to
dispute its validity. The "in writing" requirement was in
contravention of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g and therefore also a
"false, deceptive, or misleading representation" as prohibited by
15 U.S.C. Section 1692e.

The Defendant argues (1) that the Plaintiff lacks standing, (2)
that he was not subject to a "consumer debt," and (3) that he
failed to allege a violation of the FDCPA. However, Judge Zobel
says the Plaintiff has standing based on the undisputed fact that
the Defendant sent him a communication that was "inconsistent with
the required validation notice" language.

Additionally, the debt at issue meets the "consumer debt" standard
because the undisputed testimony evidence demonstrates that the
alleged obligation arose "out of a transaction in which the money,
property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the
transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household
purposes." Finally, Count I of the First Amended Complaint alleges
violations of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e et seq. and Count II alleges
violations of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g et seq. The undisputed facts
demonstrate that the Defendant violated both sections of the
FDCPA.

Therefore, Judge Zobel allows the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment and denies the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mr2skrde from Leagle.com.


MOWI DUCKTRAP: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set Feb. 17
------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Soga, writing for Yakima Herald-Republic, reports that
consumers who file a claim before February settlement deadlines
could receive cash payments and other benefits. Settlements are
available for defective products, false advertising, non-compliant
receipts and more.

February 2023 Class Action Settlements
LeafFilter Debris Accumulation Class Action Lawsuit Settlement
LeafFilter agreed to a class action settlement to resolve
allegations its gutter filter system doesn't work as intended and
can become clogged with leaves and other buildup.

The settlement benefits consumers who appear in LeafFilter's
customer care database with a debris-related final issue code for
their service request between Jan. 1, 2016, and June 24, 2022.

According to plaintiffs in the LeafFilter class action lawsuit, the
company's gutter filter system fails to work as advertised. The
system allegedly becomes clogged with leaves, twigs and other
items, preventing water from passing through gutters as intended.
As a result, rainwater allegedly flows out of gutters and onto
homes -- causing water damage.

In order to receive settlement benefits, LeafFilter purchasers must
submit a valid claim form by Feb. 4, 2023.

Root Insurance Total Loss $1.5M Class Action Settlement
Missouri policyholders can benefit from a $1.5 million class action
settlement with Root Insurance resolving claims that the insurer
failed to include sales tax on total loss payments.

The settlement benefits Missouri policyholders with automotive
insurance policies from Root Insurance who submitted a total loss
physical damage claim between Jan. 5, 2011, and Aug. 4, 2022.

Plaintiffs in the total loss class action claim that they were
significantly underpaid as a result of Root Insurance's alleged
failure to include sales tax in total loss payments. This policy
allegedly denied policyholders hundreds or thousands of dollars in
violation of policy terms.

The deadline to submit a claim with the Root Insurance total loss
settlement is Feb. 4, 2023.

Celsius Beverages False Advertising $7.8M Class Action Settlement
Celsius agreed to pay $7.8 million to resolve a class action
lawsuit claiming that the company falsely advertised its beverages
as containing "no preservatives."

The settlement benefits those who purchased Celsius beverages
between Jan. 1, 2015, and Nov. 23, 2022. The settlement covers
Celsius Live Fit, Celsius Heat, Celsius BCAA+Energy, Celsius with
Stevia, Celsius On-The-Go powdered drinks and Flo Fusion powdered
drinks.

Celsius allegedly advertised its beverages and powdered drinks as
containing "no preservatives" despite containing citric acid — a
flavoring agent and preservative ingredient. Consumers say they
wouldn't have paid as much for the drinks if they knew the truth
about their ingredients.

In order to receive a settlement payment, purchasers must submit a
valid claim form by Feb. 13, 2023.

Salmon Antitrust Indirect Purchasers $33M Class Action Settlement
A $33 million class action settlement between salmon farms and
indirect purchasers will resolve claims that the salmon companies
conspired to raise and fix the price of salmon products.

The settlement benefits consumers who indirectly purchased (not
from the manufacturer) farm-raised salmon or salmon products in
certain states between April 10, 2013, and Nov. 17, 2022. The
settlement covers purchases made in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Guam, Hawaii,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
West Virginia or Wisconsin.

Plaintiffs in the antitrust class action lawsuit accused Mowi
Ducktrap, Grieg Seafood, Sjór, SalMar, Lerøy Seafood and Cermaq
of conspiring together to raise the price of salmon products by
manipulating a salmon price index. As a result of this scheme,
consumers allegedly paid an inflated price for salmon when
purchasing the products from retailers.

Consumers can file a claim with the settlement until Feb. 17,
2023.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers Unsolicited Faxes $19.75M Class Action
Settlement
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers agreed to pay $19.75 million to resolve
claims the team sent unsolicited faxes to thousands of customers.

The settlement benefits individuals who received one of the 343,122
faxed advertisements sent by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers between July
14, 2009, and June 9, 2010.

According to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class
action lawsuit, the Buccaneers sent junk faxes promoting its
football games and prompting recipients to order tickets through
Ticketmaster. Plaintiffs in the case say they never consented to
receive these faxes, making the communications a violation of
federal law.

In order to receive a settlement payment, fax recipients must
submit a valid claim form by Feb. 6, 2023.

American Airlines Bag Fees $7.5M Class Action Settlement
American Airlines agreed to pay $7.5 million to resolve claims it
incorrectly charged customers baggage fees despite promising them
free checked bags.

The settlement benefits consumers who were charged to check a bag
with American Airlines after Feb. 24, 2017, for tickets issued
before April 9, 2020. Consumers must also meet one or both
following criteria:

They received an email from American Airlines confirming the
purchase of air travel that stated passengers could check one or
more bags for that ticketed trip for no charge (or for "USD
0.00").

They were traveling within the United States and held an American
Citi or Barclays credit card entitling the passenger to check the
first bag for free. This includes passengers on international trips
who were charged to check their first bag for the entire domestic
portion of their itineraries in addition to checking bags for the
international portions.

Passengers in the American Airlines class action lawsuits accused
the airline of false advertising. The airline allegedly promised
travelers they could check their bags for free, only to charge them
baggage fees regardless of its previous promises.

The deadline to submit a claim with the American Airlines
settlement is Feb. 22, 2023.

Avis Budget e-Toll Related Charge Class Action Settlement
Avis Budget Group agreed to a $45 million class action settlement
to resolve claims it charged hidden toll fees on car rentals.

The settlement benefits consumers who rented an Avis Budget vehicle
and paid Avis, Budget and/or the Highway Toll Administration for
the use of e-Toll services. For rental transactions originating in
Florida, Texas or Colorado, the class period is March 2, 2009, to
Dec. 31, 2015. For rental transactions originating in all other
states, the class period is April 1, 2007, to Dec. 31, 2015.

According to the Avis Budget class action lawsuit, the car rental
company violated consumer protection laws by charging undisclosed
fees for electronic toll, or e-Toll, payment systems. Renters say
they weren't properly informed of these fees, causing them to pay
more to rent an Avis Budget vehicle than expected.

In order to receive a settlement payment, car renters must submit a
valid claim form by Feb. 28, 2023.

Great Lakes Educational Loan Services Debt Collection $1.275M Class
Action Settlement
Consumers who received excessive debt collection phone calls from
Great Lakes Educational Loan Services could benefit from a $1.275
million class action settlement.

The settlement benefits Massachusetts residents who received more
than two phone calls from Great Lakes Educational Loan Services
regarding a debt within a seven-day period since Oct. 28, 2015.

Plaintiffs in the debt collection class action lawsuit claim that
Great Lakes Education Loan Services violated Massachusetts law by
contacting consumers more than twice in a seven-day period
regarding a debt. These calls were excessive, the plaintiffs
contend.

The deadline to submit a valid claim form with the debt collection
settlement is Feb. 27, 2023.

Hibbett Receipt Privacy $6M Class Action Settlement
Hibbett agreed to pay $6 million to resolve claims that it violated
federal law by showing too many digits of payment card numbers on
receipts.

The settlement benefits consumers who used a credit or debit card
at a Hibbett, City Gear or Sports Additions store and who received
a receipt that displayed more than the last five digits of their
payment card number between Dec. 15, 2020, and Feb. 23, 2022.

According to the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA)
class action lawsuit, Hibbett unlawfully printed too many digits on
point-of-sale receipts at its stores. Hibbett has denied willful
violations of federal law and maintains that any non-compliant
receipts were caused by software errors.

To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Feb. 8, 2023.

Circle K Discrimination $8M EEOC Settlement
Circle K agreed to pay the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) $8 million to resolve claims that it
discriminated against disabled and pregnant workers.

The settlement benefits Circle K workers who sought reasonable
accommodations for a disability or pregnancy and were subsequently
fired between July 10, 2009, and Sept. 26, 2022.

The EEOC took legal action against Circle K under federal law,
arguing that the company refused to provide disabled and pregnant
workers with reasonable accommodations. According to the EEOC, this
conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII and
the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

Current and former Circle K workers have until Feb. 26, 2023, to
submit a valid claim form with the settlement. [GN]

NATIONAL VISION: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Business Wire of Joplinglobe reports that shareholders who want to
act as lead plaintiff for the class must file their papers by March
28, 2023 in a class action on behalf of all purchasers of National
Vision Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: EYE) common stock between May 13,
2021, and May 9, 2022, for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. National Vision is an optical retailer that provides
eye exams, eyeglasses, and contact lenses.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
National Vision Holdings, Inc. (EYE) Misrepresented its Financial
and Operational Prospects.

According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
highlighted favorable financial and operating trends, repeatedly
raising the Company's guidance. Further, defendants claimed that
National Vision was skillfully navigating the pandemic and had
largely avoided the labor disruptions that were then impacting
other retailers, claiming that the Company was outperforming the
industry in terms of recruitment and retention and implementing
ordinary compensation increases.

Unbeknownst to investors, these assurances were materially false
and misleading. National Vision was struggling to retain and
recruit critical healthcare staff sufficient to keep up with
surging customer demand. In mid-2021, National Vision implemented a
significant wage investment for both associates and optometrists
that would materially impair the Company's earnings. However, the
Company concealed the scope of the investment and structured it so
that the enhanced payouts would largely hit the Company's bottom
line in the fourth quarter of 2021. National Vision’s efforts
ultimately failed to adequately address the Company's retention and
recruitment crisis, causing the Company to suffer a pronounced
optometrist shortage by the first quarter of 2022, materially
negatively impacting the Company's financial and operational
results and prospects. Because the Company failed to disclose these
adverse facts, the price of its stock traded at artificially
inflated prices.

On May 10, 2022, National Vision issued deeply disappointing
financial and operational results for its first fiscal quarter of
2022. The release stated that during the quarter, on a
year-over-year basis, the Company's net revenues had decreased 1.2%
to $527.7 million, its adjusted CSS had fallen 6.8%, net income had
decreased 30.6% to $30.1 million, and its diluted EPS had decreased
28.2% to $0.34. The release also slashed the Company's 2022
outlook, lowering adjusted CSS to a range of negative 7% to
negative 4%, net revenue to a range of $2.01 billion to $2.07
billion, adjusted operating income to a range of $85 million to
$105 million, and adjusted diluted EPS to a range of $0.65 to
$0.80. Notably, the revised projections indicated that the Company
was actually performing worse in terms of profits and earnings than
before the pandemic.

As a result of this news, the price of National Vision common stock
dropped almost 26%, from $33.57 per share on May 9, 2022 to $24.93
per share on May 10, 2022.
Contact us to learn more:

Aaron Dumas
(800) 350-6003
adumas@robbinsllp.com [GN]

NESTLE USA INC: McCoy Sues Over Mislabeled Sparkling Water
----------------------------------------------------------
NANCY McCOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NESTLE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-02218 (N.D. Fla., Jan. 29, 2023) alleges that the Defendant
labels and sells mislabeled sparkling mineral water purporting to
contain lime ingredients under the Perrier brand.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff expected an appreciable
amount of lime because the label contains the two wedges of fresh
lime and the word "lime," in a green-tinted bottle, which makes the
contents appear greener than it otherwise would be. Despite the
green-tinted bottle and picture of limes, the amount of lime is de
minimis or negligible.

The Product is unable to confer any of these health-related
benefits because it has less lime ingredients than it purports to.
Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product or paid as much if
the true facts had been known, says the suit.

NESTLE USA, INC. produces and distributes nutritious food and
beverage products. The Company offers bakery, chocolates,
confectionery, snacks, coffee, fruit and vegetable juices, ice
creams, and frozen food products. Nestle USA distributes its
products through supermarket stores worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Seeks Dismissal of Youth Center Abuse Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that six years have passed since David
Meehan told police he was brutally beaten and raped as a child at
New Hampshire's youth detention center. It's been three years since
he sued the state and almost two years since a broad criminal
investigation produced any arrests. Trial dates are months, if not
years, in the future.

"I'm not happy," Meehan said after lawyers for the state asked a
judge to gut his lawsuit and altogether dismiss hundreds of similar
claims.

"The state is doing everything it can, still, to protect itself,"
he said. "I've had enough."

Years after Meehan came forward, the abuse allegations at the
Sununu Youth Services Center, formerly called the Youth Development
Center, continue to present complex challenges. While law
enforcement and the legal system grapple with the Manchester
facility's troubled past, lawmakers are still figuring out its
future. None of it is simple, or fast.

"It's in everyone's best interest to do all we can to help victims
find justice," said Michael Garrity, spokesperson for the attorney
general's office.

That office is both prosecuting former workers and defending the
state against more than 700 lawsuits, though the work is done by
separate teams. It is overseeing an independently administered $100
million settlement fund for victims who don't want to go to court.
The two-year window to file claims opened this month.

"It is up and running, and we would encourage victims to take a
close look at it," Garrity said.

Ten men were charged in April 2021 with either sexually assaulting
or acting as accomplices to the assault of more than a dozen
teenagers from 1994 to 2007, while an 11th man faces charges
related to a pre-trial facility in Concord. Six trials have been
scheduled between this summer and July 2024.

Attorneys for the victims accuse the attorney general's office of
delaying the prosecutions to avoid creating additional civil
liability for the state, which has been hit by more than 700
lawsuits that have been consolidated into one case.

Both sides were in court to discuss the state's motions to dismiss
six of the seven counts of the master complaint and to severely
limit the one remaining count. Lawyers for the state argue that the
complaint is a confusing mishmash of theories and nonexistent
causes of action, and that only those who suffered abuse since 2017
are eligible to sue. That would eliminate all but roughly 20
plaintiffs.

In court documents, the state attorneys acknowledged that their
arguments "may seem to promote a harsh result," but insisted they
were not trying to diminish the many credible abuse allegations.

"To the extent plaintiffs are unable to recover in this
consolidated action, they are not without a remedy," they wrote,
referring to the settlement fund. "This court should not disrupt
the statutory and common law of New Hampshire to create a remedy
when that is not necessary."

Attorneys for the victims -- Rus Rilee and David Vicinanzo --
counter that the state is taking "sweeping and extraordinarily
aggressive positions."

"This disreputable attempt by the state to evade responsibility to
the children it harmed, and to suppress a public and meaningful
accounting of its malfeasance, should be rejected in the strongest
terms by the judiciary, our last hope for justice for these victims
and for avoiding a future repetition of the largest child abuse
scandal in the history of the state," they wrote.

Their clients' allegations span six decades, with 150 staffers
during that time accused of physically or sexually harming hundreds
of children at a facility Rilee has called a "magnet for
predators."

A judge hasn't ruled on the state's dismissal motions but indicated
he agreed the cases should go to trial with plaintiffs grouped in
batches starting in March 2024 with Meehan. The Associated Press
does not typically name people who say they have been victims of
sexual assault, unless they go public, as Meehan has.

Meanwhile, the Legislature is moving ahead with plans to close the
center, which once housed upward of 100 children in the past but
now typically serves about 10. Lawmakers in 2021 mandated its
closure by March 2023 but couldn't agree on how to replace it. The
state Senate approved a bill that calls for a new facility to be
built by November 2024. The new center would be built for 12
residents, with room for up to 18 if necessary. [GN]

NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Sexual Abuse Victim Received Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Crocker, writing for Saltwire, reports that Joe hasn't talked
much about what happened to him while he was a resident at
government-run youth facilities in the province while growing up in
the 1980s.

So, he's not quite sure why he contacted SaltWire Network.

"I never really did have anybody. Anybody that I did have in
relationships was abusive," said Joe.

Joe is not his real name. As one of currently 110 claimants in the
class-action lawsuit against the province for the sexual abuse
suffered while in care at the Whitbourne Training School, the
Pleasantville Training School and the St. John's Youth Centre in
the 1970s and 1980s, his name is protected by a publication ban.

Like Joe, many of the victims were also mentally and physically
abused.

In September 2022 the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court
approved a $12.5-million settlement for those approved in the
class-action lawsuit.

Joe said maybe if he had someone who experienced the things he did
as a young child to talk to about what they went through, it might
help.

"I'm not used to asking for help, but I know now that I've got to
do something. I am a good person."

He hopes that speaking out might encourage more people to come
forward and seek compensation.

Joe will soon be 51.

He grew up on Brophy Place in St. John's, where alcoholism was
rampant in his family and neighbourhood.

"Unfortunately, I got born in a road where there was no role
models. All there was, was violence, alcohol, drugs. That's all I
seen."

And he became a part of the pattern. By 12 he was drinking and
committing crimes.

His juvenile record spans from the age of 12 to 17. His crimes
first saw him end up in open custody in homes in St. John's and
Gambo. Eventually, he was sent to Whitbourne.

The abuses he's suffered are too difficult to talk about and
continue to haunt him, and repressing them doesn't work, he said.

When Joe was 18 he was sentenced to four years in a federal
penitentiary for criminal negligence causing death. He'd been
driving drunk, and the victim was his cousin.

"It was an accident, but I blamed myself for years. I still blame
myself."

He lost his family because of it.

Once he was out of jail Joe continued to be arrested, a lot of
times for what he calls stupid offences, and spent more time behind
bars.

For him, the trauma of being locked up continued.

He's also part of a lawsuit launched by prisoners at His Majesty's
Penitentiary in St. John's who claim they have been subjected to
extended periods of solitary confinement.

"I'm after doing 2 or 3 months at a time in the hole down there,"
said Joe, who also claims he was tortured by prison guards.

About 15 years ago, Joe quit drinking.

For him, the turning point came when he gave his children up for
adoption.

"So they could have a better life. Because of my name. I'm glad
they don't have to follow my name."

Once sober, he was able to find some good role models and complete
a trade. He was working in Ontario when the COVID-19 pandemic hit
and he had to come home.

"Where all the memories are," he said with a sigh.

Talking about his past, he said, brings tears to his eyes.

It'll be some time before Joe sees any of the money that will be
split among claimants in the lawsuit, but he's looking forward to
the day when he does.

"It will get me out of this city. All that is here is bad memories,
and I just want to start a new life with a clean slate. Just
anywhere that's away from my past and the people in it."

Lynn Moore of Morris Martin Moore is the lead lawyer on the
residential care class action.

She knows that people won't go through the case and be fine and the
settlement is not going to solve their mental anguish.

"But it does matter when someone says they're sorry. And it does
matter when the process is validating for people. And it does
matter when that process concludes with money for people to start
to set themselves straight," Moore said.

She looks at the work of the firm as an opportunity for people to
have a step up.

"Some people, this is going to make a huge difference in their life
and their level of comfort. Other people who might be struggling
with addictions still, you know it will go through their hands
pretty quickly. But I view it as a start for people to get their
feet under them," said Moore.

"Some of the people who are in this class are very
disenfranchised."

They have power bills outstanding, can't afford their medication or
don't have a phone, she said.

"So, there will be some level of relief for those people."

There is one person who is very ill who just wants to be able to
leave something for his children, to be there for them now, she
said.

"In some ways it's very, very beautiful how people who have been
hurt so badly, their first thought is how they can help others."

Moore said she is amazed by the strength and resilience of the
firm's clients.

"I view them as the warriors and I'm just handing out the swords.
And I take a lot of peace and satisfaction from knowing we're
helping people have their voices heard and there's some measure of
closure for them." [GN]

OPEN TEXT CORP: Continues to Defend Luna Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Open Text Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 2, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Carbonite class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On August 1, 2019, prior to the company's acquisition of Carbonite,
a purported stockholder of Carbonite filed a putative class action
complaint against Carbonite, its former Chief Executive Officer,
Mohamad S. Ali, and its former Chief Financial Officer, Anthony
Folger, in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts captioned Ruben A. Luna, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. Carbonite, Inc., Mohamad S.
Ali, and Anthony Folger (No. 1:19-cv-11662-LTS).

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint generally alleges that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements in connection with Carbonite's
Server Backup VM Edition, and seeks, among other things, the
designation of the action as a class action, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the court deems
appropriate.

On August 23, 2019, a nearly identical complaint was filed in the
same court captioned William Feng, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Carbonite, Inc., Mohamad S. Ali,
and Anthony Folger (No. 1:19- cv-11808-LTS) (together with the Luna
Complaint, the "Securities Actions").

On November 21, 2019, the district court consolidated the
Securities Actions, appointed a lead plaintiff, and designated a
lead counsel.

On January 15, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint generally making the same allegations and seeking
the same relief as the complaint filed on August 1, 2019.

The defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Actions on March 10,
2020.

The motion was fully briefed in June 2020 and a hearing on the
motion to dismiss the Securities Actions was held on October 15,
2020.

Following the hearing, on October 22, 2020, the district court
granted with prejudice the defendants' motion to dismiss the
Securities Actions.

On November 20, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

On December 21, 2021, the First Circuit issued a decision reversing
and remanding the Securities Actions to the district court for
further proceedings.

The defendants remain confident in their position, believe the
Securities Actions are without merit, and will continue to
vigorously defend the matter.

Open Text Corporation provides a suite of software products and
services that assist organizations in finding, utilizing, and
sharing business information from various devices. The Company was
founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Waterloo, Canada.


R.J. REYNOLDS: Faces Class Action in Florida Over Vuse E-cigarettes
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Marian Johns, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Florida
woman claims R.J. Reynolds' Vuse e-cigarettes are falsely marketed
as having good quality.

Camellia Chastain, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a complaint Jan. 11 in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida against R.J. Reynolds
Vapor Company alleging violation of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act and other claims.

Chastain alleges in her class action complaint that R.J. Reynolds'
Vuse brand e-cigarette pods are not "of uniform quality."
Specifically, Chastain claims the Vuse e-cigarettes do no not
function reliably because the fluid in the pods are made of
different colors and taste which compromises the taste of the
product.

She further claims the pods should be "light in color and smooth in
taste" when the pods consumers purchase are a medium/dark brown and
have a "burnt" and "acrid" taste. Chastain alleges R.J. Reynolds
knowns of the issue with its Vuse e-cigarettes for at least a year
and that consumers have made complaints to the company and on
social media.

She claims R.J. Reynolds offered some consumers coupons while other
consumers are told the color differences are normal. Chastain also
claims that R.J. Reynolds is selling its Vuse e-cigarettes at a
"premium price" with the false and deceptive representations and
that customers rely on the R.J. Reynolds' reputation for having
high quality e-cigarettes and pre-filled pods.

Chastain and the class seek monetary relief, interest, trial by
jury and all other just relief. They are represented by William
Wright of The Wright Law Office PA in West Palm Beach, Florida and
Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates PC in Great Neck, New York.
[GN]

RESTAURANT BRANDS: Court OK Settlement Over Breached Users' Privacy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Paglinawan of PostHaste reports Tim Hortons' mobile
application users can now get a free hot beverage and a baked good
after the Superior Court of Quebec approved a settlement agreement
in a class-action lawsuit involving the coffee-chain's parent
company, Restaurant Brands International Inc. (RBI).

The lawsuit had alleged the restaurant chain's app breached users'
privacy without adequate notice and consent despite how Tim Hortons
represented its collection of geolocation data. In an email, Tim
Hortons notified Canadian residents who have used the app between
April 1, 2019, and Sept. 30, 2020, and had their geolocation data
collected at least once, of the settlement's approval.

Under the settlement, eligible users have been given two credits,
which will expire 24 months after being issued, to redeem for one
free hot beverage and one free baked good from participating
locations. Those who received the notice are automatically included
in the settlement and can no longer opt out or object, the coffee
chain said.
"This is the only remedy and the only relief you now have in
relation to the class action," the email said.

Tim Hortons spokesperson Michael Oliveira said in an email
statement that eligible app users were sent the email on Feb. 1 and
those who have not received the email, but believe they should
have, can contact the company's digital support team.

The company agreed to the settlement without any admission of
liability. The allegations have not been proven in court and are
contested by the defendants.

RBI said it has already taken measures to permanently delete any
geolocation information collected from app users that was in its
possession. It said its third-party vendor, Radar Labs Inc., has
also been instructed to do the same.

The settlement agreement comes months after then federal privacy
commissioner Daniel Therrien, along with his counterparts in
British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec, launched an investigation
into the Tim Hortons app in 2020 following a report by Financial
Post journalist James McLeod.

McLeod found the app had been tracking his movements so closely
that it knew where he lived, worked and vacationed, as well as when
he walked into certain competing fast-food restaurants. An analysis
of months' worth of data obtained through federal privacy law
suggested the app was tracking him even when it was closed.

The Canadian privacy watchdogs found that Tim Hortons violated
federal and provincial privacy laws by using its app to collect
"highly personal" information about its customers without their
consent, calling out the company for a "mass invasion" of privacy.
The investigation found that users were misled into thinking their
information was only being accessed when they used the app.

"Private companies think so little of our privacy and freedom that
they can initiate these activities without giving it more than a
moment's thought, " Therrien said in June.

Tim Hortons won't face any penalties in the case. That alone
prompted the commissioners to call for tougher privacy regulations
since only Quebec has the ability to impose fines when companies
break privacy law.

Those looking to obtain more information about the settlement are
advised to contact class counsel LPC Avocats and Consumer Law
Group. [GN]

SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: 6th Cir. Rejects "Juridical Link" Doctrine
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robinson Bradshaw of JDSupra reports that the Sixth Circuit appears
poised to become the fourth federal court of appeals to reject the
use of the "juridical link" doctrine as a means to establish
Article III standing in a class action. The doctrine, a seldom-used
class action legal concept, recognizes an exception to the ordinary
Article III standing requirements in instances in which "all
defendants are juridically related in a manner that suggests a
single resolution of the dispute would be expeditious." Thompson v.
Bd. of Educ. of Romeo Cmty, Sch., 709 F.2d 1200, 1204-05 (6th Cir.
1983).

A "juridical relationship" that would trigger the application of
this doctrine is most often found where all members of the
defendant class are officials of a single state charged with
"enforcing or uniformly acting" in accordance with a state statute
which is alleged to be unconstitutional. The Sixth Circuit recently
granted the defendants' petitions to appeal under Rule 23(f) in Fox
v. County of Saginaw to determine whether a named plaintiff in a
putative class action can rely on the juridical link doctrine to
establish standing, even if some of the joined defendants did not
injure him.

In Fox, the Eastern District of Michigan certified a class of
Michigan property owners who allege that their respective county
governments retained surplus proceeds from the tax foreclosure sale
of their properties, a practice that Michigan's General Property
Tax Act authorized, but the Michigan Supreme Court later ruled
unconstitutional. Fox v. County of Saginaw, No. 19-CV-11887, 2020
WL 6118487 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 16, 2020). One property owner, Thomas
Fox, represents the class. Because only one county seized Mr. Fox's
property, the other county defendants argued that Mr. Fox did not
have standing to sue them and could not acquire standing by virtue
of bringing a class action.

The district court applied the juridical link doctrine to conclude
that, as governmental entities operating under the same state law,
the defendant counties had "become so juridically linked to one
another" that there was no reason to "truncate potentially
efficient uses of the class action device." Therefore, the court
held that Mr. Fox had standing against each defendant county, just
as he had standing against his own county.
In so holding, the district court relied on the opinion of the
Seventh Circuit in Payton v. County of Kane, 308 F.3d 673 (7th Cir.
2002). In Payton, the Seventh Circuit analyzed several cases
applying the juridical link doctrine, interpreting those cases to
indicate that it would "be appropriate to join as defendants even
parties with whom the named class representatives did not have
direct contact" so long as those defendants took part in a scheme
that a uniform state rule mandated. The Payton court went on to
construe the Supreme Court's decision in Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp.
as a "directive to consider class certification prior to issues of
standing, " and therefore reasoned that the trial court must assess
Article III standing post-certification -- and with reference to
the class as a whole -- rather than with reference to only the
named plaintiffs. See id. (analyzing Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527
U.S. 815 (1999)).

The Seventh Circuit is the only federal court of appeals to apply
the juridical link doctrine to find Article III standing in a class
action. In Mahon v. Ticor Title Insurance, the Second Circuit
concluded that it was "flawed" to use the juridical-link doctrine
to either (1) merge the question of standing with a Rule 23
analysis, or (2) decide class certification first, and then
determine standing based upon the entire class. Ultimately, the
Second Circuit rejected the plaintiff's attempt, based on the
juridical link doctrine, to "bring a class action against
non-injurious defendants." 683 F.3d 59, 63-64 (2d. Cir. 2012). The
Eighth and Ninth Circuits have concluded similarly. See Wong v.
Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 789 F.3d 889, 896 (8th Cir. 2015) (rejecting
plaintiff's argument that, under the juridical link doctrine, the
court must assess standing requirements with reference to the class
as a whole); Bahamas Surgery Ctr., LLC, v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
820 Fed. Appx. 563, 566 n.4 (9th Cir. 2020) (finding that the
juridical link doctrine was "irrelevant" to the question of
standing where the named plaintiff lacked standing to pursue his
claim against the defendant).

These cases form the basis of the county defendants' appeal to the
Sixth Circuit in Thomas Fox v. Saginaw. At oral argument, the Sixth
Circuit panel appeared skeptical of the district court's
certification decision. Judge Eric Murphy, looking to historic
practice, struggled to find "any case that would suggest that a
plaintiff can sue a defendant that hasn't harmed the plaintiff."
Judge Raymond Kethledge asked why a putative class action would not
be considered an individual action for Article III purposes.
Counsel for Thomas Fox and the proposed class replied that putative
class actions should be treated differently from individual actions
because they are maintained as class actions "until the Rule 23
elements are adjudicated." The judges noted that, if the panel
decertifies the class, the plaintiffs can repeat their run at
certification after amending the complaint to add plaintiffs for
each of the additional counties, thereby avoiding the standing
issues.

If its reception at oral argument indicates the ruling to come, use
of the juridical link doctrine may become impermissible to achieve
Article III standing in class actions before the Sixth Circuit.
Such a holding would join the Sixth Circuit with the Second,
Eighth, and Ninth Circuits on this issue and would set the Seventh
Circuit further apart. The question arises whether plaintiffs'
counsel in Fox would rely on this split among these circuit courts
to seek certiorari from the Supreme Court. [GN]

SANCHEZ CONCRETE: Fails to Pay Drivers' OT Wages, Sostaita Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARCELO SOSTAITA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SANCHEZ CONCRETE LLC, and ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ,
Case No. 4:23-cv-00054-KGB (E.D. Ark., Jan. 24, 2023) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act and seeks
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees as a result of Defendants' failure to pay proper overtime
compensation under the FLSA and AMWA.

The Plaintiff and other hourly laborers were paid the same hourly
rate for all hours worked, including hours worked over 40 in a
week. The Plaintiff worked over 40 hours in most weeks while
employed by Defendants, the lawsuit claims.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a dump truck driver from
November 2020 until April 2021 and November 2021 to April 2022.

Sanchez Concrete specializes in all areas of concrete construction
offering free estimates and reasonable rates[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

SIX FLAGS: Fifth Circuit Ruling in Securities Fraud Suit Discussed
------------------------------------------------------------------
James J. Coster, Esq., and Nelson M. Stewart, Esq., of Duane Morris
LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that at the motion to
dismiss stage of a securities fraud class action, the weight given
to the statements of a confidential witness will depend on the
basis of that individual's knowledge concerning the allegations at
issue. In Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement Systems v. Six
Flags Entertainment Corp., No. 21-10865, 2023 WL 228268 (5th Cir.
Jan. 18, 2023), the Fifth Circuit reversed a decision from the
District Court dismissing a class action complaint against Six
Flags Entertainment Corp. The District Court had applied a
significant "discount" to the allegations of a confidential
witness. The Fifth Circuit's decision indicates that the heightened
pleading requirements of securities fraud claims brought under the
Securities Exchange Act can be satisfied by an anonymous witness if
the source of the information identified in the complaint
demonstrates the significant knowledge of the witness and the
statements are accompanied by corroborating evidence. As such, this
ruling is a "must read" for corporate decision-makers involved in
securities fraud class action litigation.

Background

In 2014 Six Flags Entertainment Corp. partnered with Chinese real
estate developer Riverside Investment Group to construct and manage
new theme parks across three cities in China as part of its plan to
increase development and licensing revenues through international
expansion. From April 2018 to October 2019, Six Flags, as well as
its CEO and CFO, issued public statements confirming the progress
of the parks and projected opening dates for the new parks.
Plaintiff brought claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, alleging that Six Flags
and its officers made material omissions of fact and misleading
statements concerning the competence and financial health of
Riverside, the progress of construction on the new parks, and
projected openings and revenue. The complaint relied primarily on
the allegations of a confidential witness, who formerly held the
position of Six Flags International Director of International
Construction and Project Management, to assert that construction of
the parks was well behind schedule because Riverside could not pay
its contractors, and the timelines Six Flags had projected for the
opening of its parks in China were not possible. In early 2020 Six
Flags acknowledged that it expected a $1 million negative revenue
adjustment and charges of $10 million because Riverside had
defaulted on its payment obligations. Shortly thereafter, Six Flags
also announced that it was terminating its agreement with
Riverside. Shares of Six Flags fell from $73.38 to a seven year low
of $31.89 in during the Putative Class Period.

Citing earlier decisions from the Fifth Circuit, the District Court
determined that it was required to substantially discount the
statements of the confidential witness. The District Court
dismissed the complaint with prejudice and held that Plaintiff had
not met the heightened pleading requirements for securities fraud
claims under Rule 9(b) or the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act (PSLRA).

The Fifth Circuit's Ruling

On appeal, a key consideration in determining whether the complaint
had adequately alleged material misrepresentations and the scienter
required for securities fraud claims under the Securities Exchange
Act concerned the appropriate weight that should be given to the
confidential witness. The Fifth Circuit distinguished the cases
cited by the District Court and found that while allegations of an
anonymous witness must be discounted under the heightened pleading
standards of Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA, the degree of that discount
depends on the details in the complaint describing the source and
whether the source's knowledge has been substantiated by those
details.

Plaintiff's confidential witness supervised and inspected the
development of the parks in China onsite and sent progress reports
to Six Flags. The witness also interacted directly with Riverside,
attended meetings with Six Flags personnel in China (where it was
disclosed that Riverside did not have sufficient funds to complete
the project), and sent a letter warning that Riverside had
inadequate funds to a Senior Vice President of Six Flags in August
2019. The Fifth Circuit cited cases from the Seventh Circuit and
Third Circuit, which held that the level of detail provided and
first-hand knowledge of the facts can determine the weight afforded
to anonymous sources. It reasoned that the level of details in the
complaint concerning the former employee's duties, and
corroborating evidence in the form of a photograph that showed
minimal construction at one of the park sites, warranted only a
minimal discount of the former employee's general allegations. As
for the allegations concerning the financial health of Riverside,
the District Court applied a significant discount to the statements
of the confidential witness because it concluded the witness would
not have personal knowledge of Riverside's internal finances. The
Fifth Circuit held that personal knowledge of Riverside's financial
condition based on the position the witness held at Six Flags,
rather than comprehensive personal knowledge, was sufficient and
applied a minimal discount to those allegations as well.

With greater weight given to the statements of the confidential
witness, the remaining findings of the District Court with respect
to forward looking statements, i.e., Plaintiff's failure to
adequately plead misstatements of facts and Plaintiff's failure to
adequately plead scienter, were also reversed. The Fifth Circuit
denied Six Flags' argument that statements made during the Class
Period were forward looking, included appropriate cautionary
language and should be granted protection under the PSLRA's safe
harbor provision. Because many of the alleged misstatements
concerned projections that were based on the current status of the
construction, they were deemed mixed statements of present and
future conditions that were ineligible for safe harbor protection.
Certain statements that did address future projections were also
denied protection. The Fifth Circuit ruled that the cautionary
language cited by Six Flags was not sufficiently specific to the
risks at issue in the forward looking statements.

In the absence of appropriate cautionary language, the Fifth
Circuit examined whether the complaint sufficiently alleged
materially misleading statements of fact. Where the District Court
found the allegations of the confidential witness conclusory as to
statements concerning the impossibility of the projected opening
dates of the parks, the Fifth Circuit concluded the impossibility
of the timeline necessary to construct the park was a fact-based,
industry specific question that was not applicable at the motion to
dismiss stage of the litigation. Plaintiff was also found to have
sufficiently alleged that the Six Flags omitted critical
information about Riverside's financial difficulties based on the
minimally discounted allegations of the complaint. The Fifth
Circuit specifically cited the August 2019 letter to Six Flags that
contradicted its positive statements regarding Riverside's
financial viability.

In its analysis of the scienter requirements under the PSLRA, the
Fifth Circuit considered the collective weight of motive, and
reports from the confidential witness detailing the poor progress
of the theme parks that were sent to Six Flags management. Bonuses
well in excess of base salaries would be awarded to management if
Six Flags achieved a $600 million EBITDA by the end of 2018. While
acknowledging that this motive alone could not support a strong
inference of scienter, the bonus incentives, when viewed together
with the progress reports, were held sufficient to create a strong
inference that Six Flags had actual knowledge that its 2018
statements were false. After the target was missed the bonus
incentives were eliminated and thus inapplicable to the alleged
misstatements or omissions of fact made in 2019. Nevertheless, the
Fifth Circuit found that Six Flags had boasted that its
international licensing deals would be a significant driver of
increased EBITDA. A February 2019 statement concerning a
comprehensive review of the parks also indicated that Six Flags was
aware of the progress of construction at the various sites in
China. Plaintiff alleged a "core operations" theory of scienter,
which asserts that when a transaction at issue is critical to a
company's success, misstatements or omissions concerning the
transaction should be readily apparent to the speaker. The decision
acknowledged that all elements of a core operations theory of
scienter were not entirely satisfied. However, the Fifth Circuit
held that the circumstances of the 2019 statements, combined with
the witness reports to Six Flags, also created a strong inference
of scienter for the 2019 statements.

Implications for Public Companies

The ruling in Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement Systems
provides clarification concerning the discount that should be
applied to the allegations of a confidential witness that is
consistent with decisions of the Seventh Circuit and the Third
Circuit. These decisions suggest that descriptions in a complaint
that detail the source of relevant information provided by an
anonymous witness increase the credibility of that information.
This clarification may help the plaintiff's bar navigate motions to
dismiss by offering increased guidance in framing securities fraud
complaints in the Fifth Circuit. [GN]

SNAP INC: App Enables Dealers to Deliver Illegal Drugs, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Wilkinson, writing for K5, reports that attorneys say Snapchat
has become the delivery system of choice for drug dealers pushing
their products into young hands.

One year ago a two-time overdose survivor showed KING 5 just how
easy it is find illegal drugs via the app.

He pulled out his cell phone and found a connection in a matter of
moments -- one that was even willing to deliver to his house.

"It's like Amazon for drug dealers," he said.

The Snapchat app enables dealers to deliver drugs directly to teens
anonymously -- everything from Adderall to Oxycontin.

Many of the pills, however, are counterfeits -- containing deadly
doses of the synthetic opioid fentanyl -- 50 times stronger than
heroin.

One of those pills killed Carol Schweigert's son, Trey.

For the past five years she's been fighting for awareness, but it
hasn't come easily.

"There are lives lost every single day and the battle has been
uphill," she says.

According to the CDC, fentanyl kills more than 150 Americans every
day.

Now, a Seattle law firm is going after the company with a
class-action lawsuit that claims this is not a social media
problem. It is specifically a Snapchat problem.

"Snapchat has been turning a blind eye to this issue. They've know
about it for years," says Matthew Bergman, an attorney with
Seattle's Social Media Victims Law Center.

Bergman said his firm is representing the families of 52 children
who have died from fentanyl overdoses -- all of whom got the drug
via Snapchat.

"That's not an accident. That is because Snapchat is designed to
evade oversight and parental responsibility," Bergman said.

A campaign to clamp down on Snapchat and other social media
companies is being spearheaded by Republican eastern Washington
Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

She is seeking to narrow liability protections for tech companies
and widen them for children.

"We must take an all-hands-on-deck approach to preventing the sale
and transfer of these illegal drugs on these platforms to prevent
one more child from dying," she told the House Energy and Commerce
Committee.

Moms like Carol Schweigert are continuing their relentless battle,
pushing for more accountability from Snapchat, more awareness from
the public and more arrests from law enforcement.

"It will never bring back our loved ones," she says, "but holding
people accountable is important to do because otherwise it's just
gonna keep going on." [GN]

SOTERA HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
Did you lose money on investments in Sotera Health?If so, please
visit Sotera Health Company Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or
contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com to
discuss your rights.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP on Jan. 31 disclosed that a securities class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired Sotera Health Company ("Sotera" or the
"Company") common stock: (i) pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering conducted on or around November
20, 2020 (the "IPO"); (ii) pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's secondary public offering conducted on or around March
18, 2021 (the "SPO," and together with the IPO, the "Offerings");
and/or (iii) between November 20, 2020 and September 19, 2022,
inclusive (the "Class Period").The lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Sotera provides sterilization and lab testing and advisory services
to the medical device and pharmaceutical industries.The Company
operates through three businesses: Sterigenics, Nordion, and Nelson
Labs.Through its Sterigenics brand, which accounts for the majority
of Sotera's annual revenues, Sotera provides outsourced terminal
sterilization services for the medical device and pharmaceutical
markets.Terminal sterilization is the process of sterilizing a
product in its final packaging.

The Company's sterilization services rely on three primary
technologies, one of which is Ethylene Oxide ("EtO") processing.EtO
processing is a gas sterilization process in which pallets of
packaged goods are loaded into a chamber that is then injected with
EtO gas to penetrate the packaging.That process emits toxic fumes
which must be filtered before being released into the air.Sotera,
through its Sterigenics business, conducts or has conducted EtO
processing at facilities located in Illinois, California, Georgia,
and New Mexico.

In August 2018, the EPA released the National Air Toxics Assessment
("NATA") — a screening tool that estimates cancer risks based on
emissions data in tens of thousands of census tracts across the
United States.The NATA report revealed that people living in
communities near Sterigenics' facilities in Illinois, Georgia, and
New Mexico had among the highest cancer rates in the country.

Beginning in September 2018, shortly after the publication of the
EPA's NATA report, cancer-stricken plaintiffs filed a surge of
lawsuits in Illinois against Sotera, alleging that EtO emissions
from the Company's sterilization facility had caused their cancer.

On September 30, 2019, after significant pressure from the public
and action taken against the Company by Illinois regulators, Sotera
announced the closure of its Illinois facility.Beginning in August
2020, just months before the IPO, cancer-stricken plaintiffs living
in proximity to a Sterigenics facility in Georgia filed lawsuits
similar to those filed in Illinois.

On November 20, 2020, Sotera conducted its IPO, ultimately selling
53.59 million shares of common stock at $23 per share for gross
proceeds of more than $1.2 billion.Months later, on March 18, 2021,
the Company conducted the SPO, through which selling shareholders,
including affiliates of Sotera's private equity shareholders,
Warburg Pincus LLC ("Warburg Pincus") and GTCR, LLC ("GTCR"), as
well as Sotera's CEO, sold 25 million shares of Sotera common stock
at $27 per share for $675 million in gross proceeds.

In the Offering Materials issued in connection with the Offerings,
and throughout the Class Period, Sotera made numerous materially
false and misleading representations concerning its emissions
control systems and exposure to liability from lawsuits for the
Company's failure to limit harmful EtO emissions.The Company
represented that it had "a proactive [environmental, health and
safety] program and a culture of safety and quality."In addition,
Sotera stated that it employed adequate and effective safeguards to
control EtO emissions.Moreover, Sotera and its executives
vehemently denied allegations that the Company's EtO emissions from
its sterilization facilities caused cancer and other severe health
issues in people living in the communities near those facilities.

These and similar statements made throughout the Class Period were
false. In truth, Sotera and its senior executives and controlling
shareholders knew, or at a minimum, recklessly disregarded, that
for years the Company failed to employ effective emissions control
systems to prevent the release of excessive amounts of toxic EtO
gas from its sterilization facilities. Those deficiencies exposed
people living in the surrounding communities to a significantly
increased risk of cancer and subjected Sotera to an increased risk
of liability from hundreds of EtO-related lawsuits.As a result of
these misrepresentations, shares of Sotera stock traded at
artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period.

Investors began to learn the truth on September 19, 2022, when an
Illinois state court jury in the first lawsuit arising from
Sotera's EtO emissions to go to trial, captioned Kamuda v.
Sterigenics U.S., LLC, No. 18 L 10475 (Ill. Cir. Ct.) ("Kamuda"),
found Sotera liable for the plaintiff's cancer.Specifically, the
jury awarded the plaintiff $363 million in damages, including $38
million in compensatory damages and $325 million in punitive
damages.Of great significance for Sotera investors, the jury cited
Sotera's and Sterigenics' "willful and wanton" misconduct in not
preventing toxic EtO emissions and failing to warn about the severe
health hazard posed by the Company's Illinois facility. On this
news, Sotera's stock price declined by over 33%.

On September 20, 2022, analysts at Goldman Sachs downgraded Sotera
stock, noting a significantly greater risk to Sotera in future
EtO-related litigation due to facts that emerged in the Kamuda case
and "possible bands of outcome being so open ended that it creates
a material overhang on the stock for the foreseeable future."
Sotera stock fell approximately another 17%.

On September 21, 2022, analysts at JP Morgan downgraded Sotera
stock after finding that "investors are likely to price in this
unprecedented ruling as a higher probability of a larger settlement
or subsequent payouts of the 700+ remaining individual lawsuits,
which [Sotera] could potentially not afford." This time, Sotera
stock fell by over 10%.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 27, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Sotera common stock,
including pursuant to the IPO or SPO, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Sotera Health Company
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212)
951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact Information:

Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]

SPOTIFY TECHNOLOGY.: Continues to Defend Music Licensing Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spotify Technology S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F Registration
Statement for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 23, 2023, that
the Company continues to defend itself from the Music Modernization
Act-related class suit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

As of April 2019, the Group's settlement of the Ferrick et al. v.
Spotify USA Inc., No. 1:16-cv-8412-AJN (S.D.N.Y.), putative class
action lawsuit, which alleged that the Group unlawfully reproduced
and distributed musical compositions without obtaining licenses,
was final and effective.

Even with the effectiveness of the settlement, we may still be
subject to claims of copyright infringement by rights holders who
have purported to opt out of the settlement or who may not
otherwise be covered by its terms.

The Music Modernization Act of 2018 contains a limitation of
liability with respect to such lawsuits filed on or after January
1, 2018.

Rights holders may, nevertheless, file lawsuits, and may argue that
they should not be bound by this limitation of liability.

The Group intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit, including
plaintiffs' challenges to the limitation of liability in the Music
Modernization Act.

Spotify Technology S.A. is a radio broadcasting station based in
Luxembourg.


SUBURBAN PROPANE: Partial Dismissal of Class Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Open Text Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending December 24, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 2, 2023, that the Company believes
that the appeal filed by the plaintiff, on summary judgment granted
by court and the partial dismissal of electricity pricing class
suit, is without merit.

The Partnership's natural gas and electricity business was sued in
a putative class action suit in the Northern District of New York.
The complaint alleged a number of claims under various consumer
statutes and common law in New York and Pennsylvania regarding
pricing offered to electricity customers in those states.

The case was dismissed in part by the district court, but causes of
action based on the New York consumer statute and breach of
contract were allowed to proceed.

On April 12, 2022, the court granted summary judgment in favor of
the Partnership on the remaining counts and the complaint was
dismissed in full.

The plaintiff has filed an appeal to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals. The Partnership believes that the appeal is without merit.


Suburban Propane Partners LP is in to retail marketing and
distribution of propane, fuel oil and refined fuels, as well as the
marketing of natural gas and electricity in deregulated markets
based in New Jersey


SYNGENTA CROP: Grapperhaus Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Grapperhaus, on behalf of himself and as a class action v.
SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG, SYNGENTA CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CROP
PROTECTION, LLC, and CORTEVA, INC., Case No. 3:23-pq-00328-NJR
(S.D. Ill., Jan. 31, 2023), is brought seeking permanent
injunctions, other equitable relief, and monetary relief against
Syngenta and Corteva to undo and prevent their unlawful conduct of
unfairly impeding competitors and artificially inflating the prices
in or affecting commerce in violation of the Clayton Act, the
Sherman Act, and Illinois State Law.

For many years, Defendants Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Syngenta
Corporation, and Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC (collectively,
"Syngenta") and Corteva, Inc., along with their co-conspirator
distributors, have unfairly impeded competitors and artificially
inflated the prices that U.S. farmers pay for crop-protection
products. Defendants do this by deploying a set of so-called
"loyalty programs," which are designed to severely limit the
availability of lower-priced generic products. Through this scheme,
Defendants have suppressed generic competition and maintained
monopolies long after their lawful exclusive rights to particular
crop-protection products have expired. These unlawful business
practices have cost farmers many millions of dollars a year.

The Defendants systematically undermine and frustrate the goals of
this system. When exclusivity periods for crop-protection products
expire and generic manufacturers threaten to launch lower-priced
competing products, Defendants use their loyalty programs to
exclude generic manufacturers from the traditional distribution
channel, which is a critical link between manufacturers and
farmers.

Under their respective programs, the Defendants offer each
participating distributor and/or retailer substantial payments to
exclude or minimize generic manufacturers. The Defendants promise
the distributor a complex set of incentive payments based on its
purchases of branded crop-protection products, on one critical
condition: the distributor must limit its purchases of comparable
generic products to a minimal percentage share. The Defendants term
this a "rebate" for "loyalty." In substance, however, these are
exclusion payments to distributors. The Defendants pay a portion of
their elevated profits to distributors in exchange for the
distributors excluding Defendants' generic competitors, resulting
in near- exclusivity for Defendants. These distributors are unnamed
co-conspirators.

The Defendants' loyalty programs are designed to hinder the entry
and expansion of generic manufacturers, resulting in, among other
things, higher prices than would have otherwise prevailed and
costing farmers many millions of dollars in overcharges.
Distributors participate in and comply with the Defendants' loyalty
programs because the Defendants both offer rewards for
participation and exclusion of competitors. Distributors profit
more from accepting Defendants' exclusion payments than they would
from distributing lower-priced generic products in substantial
volumes.

The Defendants' loyalty programs enable Defendants to maintain high
prices and dominant market positions years after exclusivity for an
active ingredient has expired. The Defendants' schemes have forced
generic manufacturers to exit markets encumbered by loyalty
programs or to decide not to enter due to those programs. Even when
they offer competitive products, generic manufacturers are
relegated to selling limited volumes. Absent the Defendants'
unlawful conduct, the Defendants would face increased generic
competition, which would lead to increased choice and lower prices
for American farmers. Farmers would save many millions of dollars
each year when paying for essential crop-protection products, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Madison County, Illinois and owns a
farming operation there.

Syngenta Crop Protection AG is a for-profit company headquartered
in Basel, Switzerland and is organized and existing under the laws
of Switzerland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          G. Michael Stewart, Esq.
          Michael J. Angelides, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
          One Court Street
          Alton, IL 62002
          Phone: (618) 259-2222
          Facsimile: (618) 259-2251
          Email: mstewart@simmonsfirm.com
                 mangelides@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
          Michael A. Williams, Esq.
          Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: (816) 945-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 945-7118
          Email: matt@williamsdirks.com
                 mwilliams@williamsdirks.com
                 dirks@williamsdirks.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Rd., 6th Fl.
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Phone: 973-639-9100
          Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                 jscullion@seegerweiss.com

T-MOBILE US : Frierson Files Suit in D. South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against T-Mobile US, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Lisa Frierson, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. T-Mobile US, Inc., T-Mobile
USA, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00438-JD (D.S.C., Jan. 31, 2023).

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

T-Mobile US, Inc. -- http://www.t-mobile.com/-- is an American
wireless network operator headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas
and Bellevue, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


T-MOBILE US: Faces Data Breach Class Action Suit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Haydock, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
T-Mobile, the second largest telecom group in the U.S., is on the
line again in a new class action lawsuit demanding the wireless
provider giant be made to pay for a data breach that allegedly
exposed the personal information of millions of customers to
hackers.

Named plaintiffs David Lopez and Jerome Cascio, on behalf of
themselves and others, have filed a new class action lawsuit
against T-Mobile U.S. Inc. and its subsidiary, T-Mobile USA Inc. on
Jan. 24. The complaint in Cook County Circuit Court followed fast
after an announcement of a new data breach on January 19. The
breach involves approximately 37 million customers. The claim is
focused on allegedly violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
Act.

According to the complaint, T-Mobile allegedly did not have
adequate cybersecurity procedures and practices in place to protect
customers' private information. Further, the complaint asserts
T-Mobile was allegedly fully aware of its obligations to protect
the privacy of its customers and allegedly knew the repercussions
of failing to do so.

The complaint asserts T-Mobile was also aware that they allegedly
continue to be a favorite target for hackers. The complaint notes
multiple security events have exposed customers to the ongoing
threat including breaches in 2018, one in 2021 that impacted close
to 50 million people, and a series of breaches perpetrated by the
Lapsu$ cybercrime group in March 2022.

In a statement, T-Mobile acknowledged the breach, but asserted any
harm was minimal. The company said:

". . . We have determined that a bad actor used a single
Application Programming Interface (or API) to obtain limited types
of information on their accounts.

"As soon as our teams identified the issue, we shut it down within
24 hours. Our systems and policies prevented the most sensitive
types of customer information from being accessed, and as a result,
customer accounts and finances should not be put at risk directly
by this event. There is also no evidence that the bad actor
breached or compromised T-Mobile's network or systems.

"While no information was obtained for impacted customers that
would compromise the safety of customer accounts or finances, we
want to be transparent with our customers and ensure they are
aware.

"No passwords, payment card information, social security numbers,
government ID numbers or other financial account information were
compromised. Some basic customer information (nearly all of which
is the type widely available in marketing databases or directories)
was obtained, including name, billing address, email, phone number,
date of birth, account number, and information such as the number
of lines on the account and service plan features."

The complaint notes, however, that the new breach came just months
after T-Mobile agreed in July 2022 to pay $350 million to settle
claims over a lawsuit filed in 2021 over an earlier breach.

The new complaint asserts T-Mobile continues to operate without
adequate security and privacy precautions in place.

Had the plaintiffs and class members known that T-Mobile would fail
to maintain adequate data security protocols to protect against a
breach, the plaintiffs claim they would not have subscribed to
their services.

The plaintiffs claim T-Mobile allegedly failed to properly notify
their customers in a timely manner as to the full extent of the
data breach, and did not do enough to prevent the possible theft of
their personal data.

As a result, the plaintiffs contend, they will continue to suffer
economic and personal damage.

Among other damages, plaintiffs are requesting compensation for the
theft of their identity, costs for ongoing monitoring services,
unauthorized charges on their debit and credit card accounts,
damages from potential fraud and identity theft, and out-of-pocket
loss/expenses including time spent to resolve the effects of the
data breach.

They are also seeking unspecified punitive damages and attorney
fees and legal costs.

Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Bryan Paul Thompson and
Robert W. Harrer of the Chicago Consumer Law Center, of Chicago
[GN]

T-MOBILE USA: Can Compel Arbitration; Moreno Class Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE LUIS GARCIA MORENO, Plaintiff v. T-MOBILE USA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00843-JHC (W.D. Wash.), Judge
John H. Chun of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, grants T-Mobile's motion to compel arbitration
and stays the action pending that arbitration.

In February 2020, the Plaintiff bought a 5G-capable cell phone --
the OnePlus 7 Pro 5G -- from Sprint. He wanted that phone because
of its 5G capabilities and the faster data speeds that come with
it. Sprint touted its 5G network (and the phones that operated on
it), citing the network's widespread coverage and "blazing fast
download speeds."

A few months after the Plaintiff's purchase, Sprint became a wholly
owned subsidiary of T-Mobile. The complaint asserts that around the
time of this merger, the newly merged companies (now operating
under the T-Mobile banner) suddenly began to shut down older
networks without addressing Network incompatibilities for numerous
devices dependent on them. It says that the shutdown of Sprint's 5G
network left approximately 75,000 sold 5G phones without the
ability to receive a 5G signal, meaning that many devices have or
will become wholly unusable.

The Plaintiff agreed to several arbitration provisions during his
relationship with Sprint and T-Mobile. When he first obtained his
phone through the Sprint Flex Agreement, he agreed to arbitrate any
disputes with Sprint. He also agreed to arbitrate when he
"activated" service. When doing so, he agreed to be bound by
Sprint's then-applicable Terms and Conditions (the 2017 Terms and
Conditions). Those Terms and Conditions contained an arbitration
provision.

Following the merger, T-Mobile updated its Terms and Conditions.
The arbitration provisions of the new, 2020 Terms and Conditions
look much like those found in the 2017 Terms and Conditions,
incorporating similar mandatory arbitration and class action waiver
provisions. But the 2020 Terms provide that arbitration will be
administered according to American Arbitration Association (AAA)
rules instead of JAMS rules, and that the AAA arbitration rules
will apply.

The Plaintiff received notice of this update to the Terms in
several billing statements. In February 2021, he upgraded his phone
by buying a new Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G. To finance that
transaction, he agreed to another contract, which similarly
contained an arbitration provision. And throughout, he received
notice of the Terms and Conditions. Each monthly billing statement
referred to the most recent version of the Terms of Conditions.

The Plaintiff filed the action against T-Mobile on behalf of
himself and a putative class of similarly situated individuals. He
alleges breach of express and implied warranty, breach of written
warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violations of
Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA), fraud, and unjust
enrichment.

In response, T-Mobile moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the
contracts clearly and unmistakably delegated questions of
arbitrability to an arbitrator.

Judge Chun states that when evaluating a motion to compel
arbitration, courts generally limit their review to two issues: (1)
whether there is an agreement to arbitrate between the parties; and
(2) whether the agreement covers the dispute, citing Brennan v.
Opus Bank, 796 F.3d 1125, 1130 (9th Cir. 2015). But even these
"gateway" issues can be expressly delegated to an arbitrator where
the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise. If there is
a valid delegation provision, then a court must enforce an
agreement that clearly and unmistakably delegates arbitrability
questions to the arbitrator.

As an initial matter, the Plaintiff challenges the "arbitrability"
of one of his claims. He argues that his CPA claim -- based in part
on a request for "public" injunctive relief -- is not arbitrable
because Washington law does not permit a party to contractually
waive such a right to relief, rendering that waiver unconscionable.
T-Mobile argues that the contracts clearly and unmistakably
delegated questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator.

Judge Chun holds that like the challengers in Brennan, the
Plaintiff's substantive unconscionability argument does not
specifically target the contract's delegation of arbitrability (he
does not, for example, argue that the delegation itself is
unconscionable). Instead, he argues that the arbitration agreements
(or at least a portion of them) are unconscionable because they
deny him the right to pursue injunctive relief on behalf of the
public. Because the contracts validly delegate arbitrability to an
arbitrator, and because the Plaintiff has not challenged the
validity of that delegation, the Court must enforce that
delegation. It must leave the question of the unconscionability of
the contracts' purported bar on public injunctive relief to an
arbitrator.

T-Mobile asks the Court to stay the action pending completion of
arbitration. Neither party presents any argument about whether the
Court should stay the proceeding or dismiss it outright.
Accordingly, Judge Chun adopts T-Mobile's request to stay the
action.

For these reasons, Judge Chun grants T-Mobile's motion to compel
arbitration and stays the action pending arbitration. He orders the
parties to (1) submit a joint status report every six months from
the date of his Order until arbitration has concluded, and (2)
submit a joint status report within 10 days of the conclusion of
arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3dm4j82j from Leagle.com.


TESLA INC: Investors Lost $12 Bil. Following CEO Elon Musk's Tweet
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg News reports that Tesla investors lost US$12 billion over
10 days as a result of Elon Musk's famous tweet in 2018 that he had
"funding secured" to take the company private, a witness testified
at a trial over the CEO's liability.

Lawyers for Musk have said there are billions of dollars in damages
at stake in the trial, now in its third week in San Francisco
federal court. Testimony presented to jurors on Jan. 30 by expert
witnesses for the plaintiffs was aimed at showing that Musk's
August 2018 Twitter posts sent Tesla's stock on a roller-coaster
ride that hurt investors who held a variety of positions, long and
short.

The loss figure was presented to the jury by Michael Hartzmark of
Forensic Economics, who testified about how he measured the impact
of Musk's tweets on the prices of Tesla securities. The US$12
billion estimate applies to all Tesla investors, which is a larger
group than those who are part of the class-action lawsuit.

Hartzmark did not offer a bottom-line number for how much the
plaintiffs are seeking in damages, but he told the jury that Musk's
tweets did "consequential harm" to investors and laid out his
methodology for calculating losses.

It was clear the information Musk conveyed was "material", or
important to reasonable investors, as shown by the questions and
concerns communicated in emails to the company's investor relations
office at the time, Hartzmark said.

He walked jurors through how Tesla's share price spiked in response
to the initial announcement from Musk – and then declined sharply
as doubts grew about the take-private plan, in part fuelled by
public knowledge that the US Securities and Exchange Commission was
investigating the tweets.

"Uncertainty is the kryptonite of investors," Hartzmark said. "As
this went drip, drip, drip over time it would have a negative
impact" on the share price.

Andrew Rossman, a lawyer for Musk, got Hartzmark to reluctantly
acknowledge on cross examination that the first part of Musk's
tweet, that he was "considering" taking Tesla private, was true.
The judge handling the case has previously determined that the
second piece of Musk's tweet, that he had "funding secured", was
false.

Rossman asked whether Hartzmark examined the effect of the truthful
part of the tweet on Tesla's stock price separately from the
element that has been ruled false.

"It's an interwoven bundle," Hartzmark replied. He evaluated them
together, he said, because Musk had previously indicated he'd like
to take Tesla private and that fact was reflected in Tesla's stock
price before the CEO's tweet. The only new information in the
10-day period covered by the lawsuit was Musk's assertion that he
had "funding secured", he said.

Earlier the jurors heard from Steven Heston, a professor of finance
at the University of Maryland. Another expert witness for the
investors, Heston shared his research about what happened to Tesla
options from August 7, 2018, when Musk posted his tweets, over 10
days, as the proposed plan to take the company private fell apart.
He noted an "abrupt movement" in options prices over the period and
an "unprecedented" pattern in the volatility of long-term options
prices.

Heston showed the jurors how a short-term call option expiring one
month after Musk's tweet, at a strike price of US$420 -- the share
price at which Musk said Tesla would go private -- rose almost
US$2. A long-term call at the same stock price but expiring January
17, 2020, lost US$22.40.

Musk has testified that the "funding secured" tweet was "absolutely
truthful", touting what he described as an "unequivocal" commitment
by Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund to back the go-private plan
with billions of dollars -- even though he had nothing in writing.

Investors argue Musk's tweets amounted to a violation of securities
laws because his bankers had been barely consulted and hadn't
formally signed on to his take-private plan. Investment banking
witnesses told jurors that even a week after the tweet, they were
still working to figure out how the deal would be structured,
including who would pay for it.

US District Judge Edward Chen said as court adjourned for the day
that he expects the case would go to the jury by Friday, Feb. 3.

In re Tesla Inc Securities Litigation, 18-cv-04865, US District
Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco). [GN]

TIKTOK INC: Secretly Intercepts App Users' Info, Schulte Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
GRACE SCHULTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TIKTOK INC. (f/k/a MUSICAL.LY, INC.), and BYTEDANCE,
INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00362-AT (N.D. Ga., Jan. 24, 2023) alleges
that TikTok and Bytedance secretly intercept information about the
Plaintiff and Class Members without their consent thus invading
their privacy.

The Defendants allegedly insert a JavaScript code into websites
visited by users through the TikTok in-app browser. This code’s
purpose is to track every detail about a user’s website activity.
This data, user inputs, actions, and even keystrokes, are recorded
by the Defendants and stored for their own profit. At no time did
the Defendants disclose to the Plaintiff and Class Members that,
when using the in-app browser, the Plaintiff’s personal data was
recorded by Defendants, says the suit.

Accordingly, through the in-app browser, the Defendants have
secretly amassed massive amounts of users’ personal information
by tracking their activities on third-party websites. The
Defendants have unlawfully intercepted private and personally
identifiable information, content and communications from TikTok
users to generate massive revenues by selling the information for a
profit, unbeknownst to users themselves, the suit asserts.

This action seeks to recover all available remedies, including
statutory penalties, and to redress the wrongs imposed by
Defendants on the Plaintiff and Class Members.

The Plaintiff downloaded the TikTok app and created her account in
2019. At this time, the Plaintiff was a minor of 15 years old.
While using TikTok, Plaintiff clicked advertising links to
external, third-party websites.

TikTok is a social media platform where users create, share, and
view shorts videos.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John C. Herman, Esq.
          Candace N. Smith, Esq.
          Connely M. Doize, Esq.
          HERMAN JONES LLP
          3424 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1650
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 504-6500
          Facsimile: (404) 504-6501
          E-mail: jherman@hermanjones.com
                  csmith@hermanjones.com
                  cdoize@hermanjones.com

TILEBAR LLC: Vachnine Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tilebar LLC. The case
is styled as Ness-Lee Vachnine, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Tilebar LLC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00808-PGG-JW
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2023).

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

TileBar -- https://www.tilebar.com/ -- carry a huge selection of
tiles for kitchens, bathrooms, showers, pools & more.[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


TISHMAN SPEYER: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tishman Speyer
Properties, L.P. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Tishman Speyer
Properties, L.P., Case No. 1:23-cv-00679 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 30,
2023).

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

Tishman Speyer Properties -- https://www.tishmanspeyer.com/ -- is
an American company that invests in real estate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


UMANA CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lopez Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO J. LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UMANA CONSTRUCTION LLC; and ERVIN
UMANA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 9:23-cv-80177-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., Jan. 30, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Lopez was employed by the Defendants as roof installer.

UMANA CONSTRUCTION LLC operates as a single-family housing
construction business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

UNIFIN INC: Mermelstein Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
Alter Mermelstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UNIFIN, INC., Case No. 601852/2023 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Nassau Cty., Jan. 31, 2023), is brought under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act as a result of the Defendant's deceptive,
misleading, unfair, unconscionable, and false debt collection
practices.

On October 18, 2022, Defendant sent a collection letter ("Letter")
concerning the Defendant's alleged debt in an attempt to collect
same. The Letter is addressed incorrectly. Specifically, the
Plaintiff did not live (or work) at such address. A Sprint Store is
at the location that the Letter was sent. The Plaintiff does have a
phone plan with the Sprint store at that location, but it is
otherwise completely irrelevant to the debt and/or Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff never provided consent to the Defendant or any other
party to convey any debt collection information regarding the
subject debt to a third party.

The Defendant violated the FDCPA in that it communicated with a
third party regarding the Plaintiff's account without the
Plaintiff's prior consent or the express permission of a court of
competent jurisdiction regarding the Plaintiff's account. Moreover,
pursuant to the FDCPA, debt collectors are prohibited from engaging
in "any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass,
oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a
debt."

The Defendant knew or should have known that the Plaintiff did not
reside at that address, but nonetheless sent the Letter containing
material details of the debt to his phone provider. The
dissemination of such material private information to the
Plaintiff's phone provider resulted in the natural (and actual)
consequence of abuse sustained by the Plaintiff. Furthermore, the
Defendant' s mailing of the Letter to his phone provider unfairly
harmed the Plaintiff's reputation and his right to privacy, says
the complaint.

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

The Defendant is a "debt collector."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against University Of Miami.
The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. University Of Miami, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00817 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2023).

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

The University of Miami -- https://welcome.miami.edu/ -- is a
private research university in Coral Gables, Florida.[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


VISA INC:  Faces Interchange Fees-Related Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 27, 2023, that an amended complaint
was filed by interchange fees class suit plaintiffs on January 11,
2023 that asserts similar claims in their prior complaint.

On December 30, 2022, a putative class action was filed in
California state court against Visa, Mastercard, and certain
financial institutions on behalf of all Visa and Mastercard
cardholders in California who made a purchase using a Visa-branded
or Mastercard-branded payment card in California from January 1,
2004.

Plaintiffs primarily allege a conspiracy to fix interchange fees
and seek injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and damages as direct
and indirect purchasers based on alleged violations of California
law.

On January 11, 2023, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting the same claims as asserted in the prior complaint.

Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.

WESTMINSTER MANAGEMENT: Faces Tenants' Class Action in Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sophie Kasakove, writing for The Baltimore Banner, reports that the
Appellate Court of Maryland has sided with tenants who claim that
various fees imposed on renters by a company co-owned by Jared
Kushner were charged illegally.

The unreported opinion by a three-judge panel of the intermediate
appeals court allows affected tenants of the more than 9,000
Maryland rental units previously operated by Westminster Management
LLC to pursue class-action damages against the company over fees it
levied when tenants paid their rent late.

In a 90-page opinion issued on Jan. 30, the court rejected numerous
arguments raised by Westminster defending its practice of charging
both a 5% late fee -- the maximum allowed by Maryland law -- and a
myriad of other additional unawarded "agent fees," "summons fees"
and excessive "writ" fees. The company had "turned these illegal
fees into a profit center," attorneys representing the tenants said
in a press release.

"It's really a complete victory on all of the issues that we had
brought against Westminster," said Andy Freeman, an attorney with
Brown, Goldstein & Levy, who represented the tenants. "[The fees]
add up if they happen in multiple months and landlords in Maryland
just need to stop -- they can't charge those fees at all unless
they are awarded by a court."

The fees were often relatively low -- around $20 or $30 each time a
tenant was late, Freeman added. "But to tenants living paycheck to
paycheck and making tough choices of, ‘Should I pay my rent on
time or should I feed my kids?' and choosing to feed [their] kids,
it's really important."

The class-action case is one of two lawsuits filed in recent years
against the apartment management company co-owned by Kushner, the
son-in-law of former President Donald Trump. The other, which was
brought by the state attorney general's office, was settled in
September when the company agreed to pay a $3.25 million penalty
and restitution to potentially tens of thousands of current and
former tenants. That suit argued that Westminster had charged
tenants illegal fees and failed to maintain the properties.

"After more than five years of litigation, I'm relieved that the
Court rejected Westminster's convoluted reasons for charging
renters illegal fees and calling all of those fees ‘rent,'" said
Tenae Smith, a plaintiff named in the suit, in the press release
announcing the decision. "Westminster must be held accountable."

These additional fees landed tenants in a constant cycle of
eviction filings, the lawsuit argued. In a practice sometimes
referred to as "fee-churning," Westminster tacked on improper late
fees and court fees and then used tenants' rent to pay down those
fees instead of the actual rent owed. The resulting "late payments"
would lead to additional late and court fees, subjecting tenants to
"emotional stress, fear of eviction, parents being forced to delay
or deprive their children of educational and extracurricular
opportunities in order to avoid eviction," according to the court's
decision.

Westminster is not alone in these practices, Freeman said. "There
are lots of landlords that don't play this game but unfortunately
many of the large landlords do," he added.

Freeman is also representing tenants in a class-action case against
Morgan Properties Management Co. LLC, which charges that the
company engaged in similar practices. An appeal in that case was
stayed by a circuit court judge pending a ruling in the Westminster
case.

Freeman hopes that, thanks to the court's opinion, "landlords will
get the message that they can't do this."

Despite agreeing to pay a penalty and restitution to potentially
tens of thousands of current and former tenants in the settlement
with the attorney general's office, Westminster continued to deny
that it had violated Maryland law or the tenants' rights.

In a statement emailed to The Baltimore Banner at the time, Peter
Febo, chief operating officer of the Kushner Cos., wrote:
"Westminster is pleased to have settled this litigation with no
admission of liability or wrongdoing. We look forward to moving
past this matter so that we can focus on our ever-expanding real
estate portfolio."

Then-Attorney General Brian Frosh, a Democrat, dismissed the
statement. "You don't pay $3,250,000 bucks if you're not liable,"
he said. "So they may not have formally signed a piece of paper
saying that ‘we did it,' but they did it."

The attorney general's office distributed claims notices to tenants
in that suit in December.

The court's opinion gives tenants a second opportunity to seek
damages, allowing them to return to the trial court to seek a final
determination of liability, damages, and an injunction on behalf of
a class of all Westminster tenants who paid illegal fees. [GN]

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Longman Sues Over Defective Product
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard Longman, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00539-CCC-JRA
(D.N.J., Jan. 31, 2023), is brought arising from the sales and
marketing by Whirlpool of defective French Door Bottom Mount
refrigerators ("FDBM").

This case is brought for actual damages, equitable relief,
including restitution, injunctive relief, and disgorgement of
profits, and concerns Whirlpool's marketing and selling FDRM
refrigerators while actively concealing a serious product defect
eventually causing the entire refrigerator unit to stop cooling.
The defect occurs due to impeded air flow in the freezer
compartment which is caused by frost on the freezer evaporator.
Corrosion then forms on the brass freezer thermistor impacting the
thermistor performance allowing ice to accumulate on the
evaporator. The defect eventually causes partial or complete loss
of cooling capability for the refrigerator and freezer and is
ultimately caused by pin hole sized leaks in the refrigerator's
evaporator [or sealed cooling system] resulting in low refrigerant
charge (collectively, the "Defect").

Whirlpool has been aware of the Defect since March 2014 as
demonstrated by TSP", or internal technical service pointer, that
Whirlpool provided to its dealers and service providers or dealers
only ("TSP") which contained detailed information about the
"Defect". Whirlpool concealed this material knowledge of the Defect
in its marketing, sale, and advertising of the Class Refrigerators
on an ongoing basis.

Whirlpool failed to take appropriate remedial action and continued
to sell and market the Class Refrigerators even though it knew it
was likely these units would not provide adequate cooling in the
refrigerator as well as in the freezer units. As a result of
Whirlpool's false and misleading statements, and active ongoing
concealment, Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class purchased
the Class Refrigerators and were damaged thereby, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff began experiencing the defect not long after purchase
and informed Whirlpool's service representative from Dan Marc
Appliance the local authorized service provider for Whirlpool.

Whirlpool Corporation manufactures and markets major home
appliances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          135 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Montvale, NJ 07645
          Phone: (201) 391-7000


WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Iuliano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Worldwide Flight
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Lutovio J. Iuliano,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Worldwide Flight
Services, Inc., WFS Express, Inc., Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2023-00333896-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan.
31, 2023).

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

Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. (WFS) -- http://www.wfs.aero/-- is
a global air cargo logistics leader, and the number 1 global
operator in cargo handling.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          THE MAURO LAW FIRM APLC
          790 E Colorado Blvd., Fl. 9
          Pasadena, CA 91101-2193
          Phone: 626-698-0048
          Fax: 626-698-0049
          Email: greg@maurolawfirm.net


[*] Volume of Securities Class Action Filings Down in 2022
----------------------------------------------------------
The volume of securities class action lawsuit filings fell for the
third straight year in 2022, according to a report released on Feb.
1 by Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School Securities
Class Action Clearinghouse.

The report, Securities Class Action Filings -- 2022 Year in Review,
found that plaintiffs filed 208 securities class action lawsuits in
federal and state courts in 2022, down 5% from 218 filings in 2021
and well below the 332 filings in 2020. The 2022 decline was
largely due to a continued decline in federal M&A filing activity.
Conversely, core filings -- those excluding M&A filings --
increased by one in 2022 despite SPAC-related core federal filings
falling by over a quarter in 2022 from the previous year, which is
a reversal from a sixfold increase in such filings in 2021.

"Following 2021, which saw a surge in SPAC-related filings, core
federal SPAC filings were on pace for a record high in 2022 with 18
filings in the first half of the year, before slowing to only six
filings in the final six months," said Alexander "Sasha" Aganin,
the report's coauthor and a Cornerstone Research senior vice
president. "This was somewhat unexpected, as shareholders
traditionally bring more core filings when the stock market
declines."

Filings involving federal Section 11 claims and state claims under
the Securities Act of 1933 rose 43% in 2022. This marks the highest
number of federal Section 11 filings since 2008 and the highest
number of combined federal Section 11 and state 1933 Act filings
since 2019. Further, for the first time in over a decade, more than
a fifth of all core federal filings included Section 11
allegations.

Although there was only one more core filing in 2022 than in 2021,
the aggregate size of filings rose steeply. Total Maximum Dollar
Loss (MDL) and Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL) rose by 138% and 100%,
respectively. DDL was the highest on record, increasing to $593
billion, while MDL increased to $2,433 billion, the highest amount
in the last 20 years. These high MDL and DDL totals were due to an
increase in the number and size of mega MDL and mega DDL filings.

In 2022, cryptocurrency-related filings greatly exceeded 2021
totals as regulatory oversight increased and the cryptocurrency
market weakened. The 23 core filings related to cryptocurrency in
2022 were filed against a diverse pool of defendants.

"Crypto is the new frontier in securities fraud litigation,"
observed Joseph A. Grundfest, the William A. Franke Professor of
Law and Business (emeritus) at Stanford Law School and a former
Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission. "The FTX
implosion -- combined with the failure of many crypto
intermediaries -- and the collapse of some crypto asset prices,
will keep plaintiffs' lawyers busy for years. If SPAC litigation is
history, crypto litigation is the future, at least for now."

Key Trends

Although core federal filings related to SPACs fell by 27% from
2021, they were still four times greater than the 2019–2020
total.

Federal M&A class action filings decreased by 61%, reaching the
lowest point (seven filings) since tracking began in 2009.

With 23 filings, core federal filings related to cryptocurrency
more than doubled in 2022 from the previous year, reaching a new
record.

The total MDL from mega filings tripled compared to 2021.

In 2022, the total MDL and DDL of core federal filings in the
Communications sector alone surpassed the total MDL and DDL of all
core filings in 2021.

Continuing the trend of consistently high yearly totals since the
start of the pandemic, COVID-19-related filings reached a new high
in 2022 with 20 such filings.

The Ninth Circuit accounted for 60% of total core federal MDL but
only 31% of all core federal filings.

In 2022, the likelihood of an S&P 500 company being sued increased
for the first time since 2018 to 3.8%, from 2.2% in 2021.

About the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse

The Securities Class Action Clearinghouse is an authoritative
source of data and analysis on the financial and economic
characteristics of federal securities fraud class action
litigation. The SCAC maintains a database of more than 6,300
securities class action lawsuits filed since passage of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The database also
contains copies of complaints, briefs, filings, and other
litigation-related materials filed in these cases. [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 ***