---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, February 10, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 31

                            Headlines

ADELPHIA THREE: Bid to Certify Class in Hall Unpaid Wage Suit OK'd
AMAZON.COM INC: Gray Class Complaint Dismissed Without Prejudice
BLOCK INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 3, 2023
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Allen Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
BP EXPLORATION: Bid for Summary Judgment in Brewer Suit Granted

BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Granted; Tickell's Claims Tossed
BP VENTURE: Rodriguez Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
BUFFALO, NY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Fluoride in Water System
CALIFORNIA: Denial of TRO & Injunction Bid in Reid v. CDCR Endorsed
CHRISTIAN DIOR: Slaten Sues Over Cosmetics' 24-Hour SPF Claims

DAK RESOURCES: Vigil Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
FOCUSIT LLC: Quinalty Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
FOUNDRY LIGHTING: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FTX TRADING: Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed in Securities Suit
GEMINI TRUST: Cobourn Seeks Return of Funds Deposited in GIA

HEXO CORP: Class Action Suit Over Alleged Breach Dismissed
HOME BOX: Can Compel Arbitration in McDaniel Class Suit, Court Says
HOPE COLLEGE: Rodgers Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
INOVA HEALTH SYSTEM: Ellison Sues Over Unlawful Firing of Employees
INSURANCE STORE: Melgren Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri

LIBERTY STATION: Frye Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination
LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Court Dismisses Smith Class Suit
LIPSCOMB UNIVERSITY: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LIVANOS RESTAURANT: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LONDON & LONDON: Rush Files FDCPA Suit in D. Connecticut

LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MEDICREDIT INC: Guempel Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri
MERILIZ INCORPORATED: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
META PLATFORMS: Securities Class Suit Ongoing in N.D. California
META PLATFORMS: Settlement Deal in Securities Suit for Court OK

MIDLAND CREDIT: Aguinida Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
MIDLAND CREDIT: Brooks Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Tennessee
NATIONAL VISION: Faces Pension Fund Suit Over Stock Price Drop
NATURAL GROCERS: Continues to Defend FLSA-Related Class Suit
NAZARETH PARK PLACE: Samoyu Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA: Montes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
OKLAHOMA STUDENT: Carr Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Hernandez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
ORIGINAL HOMESTEAD: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PAN PACIFIC RV CENTERS: Byers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

PEPSICO INC: Bid to Dismiss Boone Class Complaint Granted in Part
PLAZA CLUB CITY: Rigsby Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
PREMIER HEALTH CHOICE: McMurray Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri
PROFESSIONAL PARKING: Bosley Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
QUALCOMM INC: Consolidated Securities Class Suits Ongoing in Calif.

QUEEN'S NAIL ART: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Wong Sues Over Restricted Trade of Tickers
ROLS INC: Young Files TCPA Suit in C.D. Illinois
RSP EXPRESS: Court Grants Bid to Certify Class in Uselmann Suit
SAFEWAY INC: Order Granting Bids in Limine in Wheeler Suit Reversed

SATYA JEWELRY II: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SHA CAPITAL: Burnett Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
SHALOM HOME RENOVATION: Gomez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SONIC CAR WASH: Buckpitt Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SONSRAY MACHINERY: Porter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Carneiro Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
STAFFORD GROUP: McKee Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
TRADER JOE'S: Dark Chocolate Contains Heavy Metals, Waring Says
UMG RECORDINGS: Bid for Class Certification in Waite Suit Denied
UNIVERSAL RECOVERY: Loa Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California

UNIVERSITY OF EVANSVILLE: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits


                            *********

ADELPHIA THREE: Bid to Certify Class in Hall Unpaid Wage Suit OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE HALL, on behalf of herself, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADELPHIA
THREE CORP., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-01106
(D.N.J.), Judge Christine P. O'Hearn of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey grants Hall's Motion to Certify Class.

The lawsuit is a hybrid class/collective action brought by Hall, on
behalf of herself and other tipped employees, alleging that
Defendants Adelphia Three Corp., doing business as Phily Diner,
Petro Kontos, and William Balis deprived them of their applicable
minimum wage and overtime pay by taking a "tip credit" without
giving adequate notice in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et. seq., New Jersey Wage and Hour
Law ("NJWHL"), N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a et seq., and common law
principles of unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff was employed as a waitress by the Defendants, for
approximately 10 years until May 29, 2019. Between January 2015 and
December 2018, the Defendants' payroll records reveal there were
approximately 191 "tipped employees." The parties agree that the
Defendants' policies, practices, and procedures were uniform among
all tipped employees including the Plaintiff and further that there
were no policies, practices, or procedures unique to Plaintiff.
Since 2015, the Defendants used Olympic Payroll -- a third party
vendor -- to facilitate payroll operations and processing, and the
parties do not dispute the accuracy of the payroll information.

From 2015 to 2018, the Defendants paid tipped employees $1.94 per
hour in cash wages for the day shift and $3.88 for the night shift.
It is undisputed that all tipped employees' paystubs contained four
boxes of information: earnings, taxes, deductions, and
year-to-date. The Plaintiff's pay stubs -- produced as part of the
pending motions for summary judgment -- reveal one line labeled
"tips" with amounts varying by week and another line labeled
"meals" consistently showing a $10 credit in the earnings box. The
Plaintiff's tips and the $10 meal credit appear again in the
deductions box.

Starting with the Dec. 31, 2018 Jan. 6, 2019 pay period until the
Plaintiff left employment in May 2019, her pay stubs no longer
reflected a meal credit as earnings or deductions and showed a
regular wage of $2.13 and an overtime wage of $7.48.

The Plaintiff filed her Complaint on Jan. 25, 2021, bringing a
class action for state law claims encompassing a class of "All
current and former Tipped Employees who work or have worked for the
Defendants in the State of New Jersey at any time six years prior
to the filing of this action through the entry of judgment in this
action (the New Jersey Class)."

On June 6, 2022, the Plaintiff filed the Motion to Certify Class
presently before the Court, which the Defendants oppose. Judge
O'Hearn heard argument on Jan. 23, 2023.

The requirements for class certification are set forth in Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The four prerequisites of Rule 23(a)
are satisfied when: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of
all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or
fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.

Upon satisfying Rule 23(a), the moving party must then show that
the putative class falls under at least one of the subsections of
Rule 23(b). The Plaintiff brings claims under Rule 23(b)(3), which
requires that (i) questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and (ii) that a class action is superior to other available methods
for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

The Plaintiff moves for class certification on her state law claims
only: minimum wage and overtime violations due to deficient tip
credit notice based on the NJWHL and unjust enrichment. Because
there does not appear to be a challenge to the ascertainability,
numerosity, or superiority, Judge O'Hearn reviews these factors
only briefly. The remainder of her Opinion addresses the adequacy
of representation, commonality, typicality, and predominance
requirements as well as the Defendants' arguments that the
Plaintiff cannot represent the class because (1) she has a conflict
due to her state law action against the Defendants; and (2) the
Plaintiff is unable to show that the Defendants paid her below
minimum wage in violation of the NJWHL.

The Plaintiff proposes the class as "All current and former
individuals who worked as servers and/or bartenders at Defendant
Adelphia Three Corp.'s restaurant facilities operating under the
trade name of Phily Diner, located at 31 S. Black Horse Pike,
Runnemede, New Jersey 08078 any time between January 25, 2015 and
the present."

Judge O'Hearn finds that (i) given the payroll records produced in
discovery, a class of tipped employees should be easily
ascertainable; (ii) the class would still be greater than 40
members even if limited to the payroll records produced for January
2015 through December 2018; (iii) the Defendants do not challenge
the superiority factor and that judicial efficiency weighs in favor
of certifying the class; and (iv) the Plaintiff can satisfy the
adequacy of representation requirement of Rule 23(a).

In addition, Judge O'Hearn finds that the Plaintiff makes a strong
case for the commonality and typicality of the class members. All
the putative class members were employed by the Defendants as
tipped employees and allegedly subjected to the same payroll
practices and policies. Resolution of the putative class claims
require the Court to look at the Defendants' payroll policy, tip
credit notice practice, and regulatory compliance as opposed to the
actions of individual putative class members.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge O'Hearn grants the Plaintiff's
Motion to Certify Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a) and 23(b)(3). An appropriate Order will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yckd376d from Leagle.com.

Tyler J. Burrell -- tjb@njlegal.com -- Charles Joseph Kocher --
cjk@njlegal.com -- MCOMBER MCOMBER & LUBER, P.C., Marlton, NJ, On
behalf of Plaintiff Michelle Hall.

Joseph P. Grimes -- osephPGrimes@Gmail.com -- JOSEPH P. GRIMES,
ESQUIRE, LLC, Ocean City, NJ, On behalf of Defendants Adelphia
Three Corp. d/b/a Phily Diner, Petro Kontos, and William Balis.


AMAZON.COM INC: Gray Class Complaint Dismissed Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES GRAY and SCOTT HORTON, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM,
INC., a Delaware corporation, and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a
Washington limited liability company Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-800-BJR (W.D. Wash.), Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle, grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
Complaint.

Plaintiffs Gray and Horton brought the putative class action
against Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC
(together, "Amazon"), asserting various claims arising from
Amazon's alleged use of voice data collected through its Alexa
digital assistant software for purposes of targeted advertising.

In addition to the Alexa Terms of Use, which contain the primary
terms and conditions governing Alexa's use, Amazon relies on
numerous other policies to set forth terms addressing specific
aspects of Alexa and Alexa-enabled devices. The Plaintiffs point to
the "Alexa and Alexa Device FAQs" and the Amazon Device Terms of
Use as explaining, in part, the features and functionality of Alexa
and Alexa-enabled devices. The Alexa Terms expressly incorporate
the Amazon.com Privacy Notice, which describes Amazon's practices
of collecting and using personal information across its services
and products.

The Plaintiffs allege that Amazon, over the course of several
years, has consistently denied that it collects and uses Alexa
users' voice data in order to serve targeted advertisements to
them. They point, specifically, to three separate statements, made
by Amazon spokespersons between 2017 and 2019 in response to media
reports about Alexa, that Amazon does "not use customers' voice
recordings for targeted advertising."

The Plaintiffs claim that, contrary to Amazon's repeated denials,
Amazon has been employing Alexa-captured voice data in its Demand
Side Platform ("DSP"), which they allege is a service Amazon offers
to third-party advertisers that leverages all of the data Amazon
collects about its customers in order to sell targeted advertising
based on that data. They allege that the truth was revealed by a
research paper entitled, Your Echoes are Heard: Tracking,
Profiling, and Ad Targeting in the Amazon Smart Speaker Ecosystem,
that was published in April 2022 by a group of university
researchers. While the Research Paper does not find any evidence
that Amazon is sharing voice recordings or transcripts thereof with
advertisers, it concludes that Amazon processes voice data to infer
user interests and uses it to serve targeted ads on-platform (Echo
devices) as well as off-platform (web).

The Defendants' position is that Amazon uses the records of Alexa
users' transactions to inform advertisements displayed to them, but
does not use recordings of Alexa users' questions or commands --
i.e., their "voice recordings" -- for that purpose.

The Plaintiffs, both of whom own and use Alexa-enabled devices,
filed the lawsuit on June 8, 2022 as a class action on behalf of
"all persons residing in the United States who are registered users
of an Alexa-Enabled Device and have been served targeted
advertisements by Amazon through its DSP." On Aug. 12, 2022, the
Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
of the Rules of Federal Procedure. The Plaintiffs opposed the
motion and the Defendants replied.

The Plaintiffs assert numerous causes of action arising from what
they allege is Amazon's unauthorized use of Alexa-captured "voice
data" for purposes of targeted advertising. Specifically, they
assert claims for (1) breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing; (2) violation of Washington's Consumer Protection
Act ("CPA"), RCW Section 19.86 et seq.; (3) intrusion upon
seclusion; and (4) infringement of personality rights in violation
of Washington's Personality Rights Act ("PRA"), RCW Section
63.60.010 et seq.

With respect to the claim for breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, Judge Rothstein finds that the
Plaintiffs fail to allege adequately that Amazon had an implied
contractual duty to refrain from using Alexa users' voice data for
advertising purposes. In light of Amazon's authorization to do so
-- as set forth in the Alexa Terms, incorporating the Privacy
Notice -- any such implied duty would "contradict express terms in
a contract." Therefore, the Plaintiffs' claim that the Defendants
breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is
dismissed.

As to the claim under CPA, Judge Rothstein dismisses it. She finds
that the Plaintiffs do not adequately allege that Amazon engaged in
an unfair or deceptive practice through its policies' disclosures.
She also finds that Amazon's disclosures are not "unfair" insofar
as consumers could "reasonably avoid" the injury the Plaintiffs
allege resulted from those disclosures. With respect to Amazon's
public statements to the press, she agrees with the Defendants that
the Plaintiffs fail to establish causation.

Judge Rothstein also dismisses the Plaintiffs' intrusion upon
seclusion claim. She holds that while the Plaintiffs correctly
point out that "individuals have a reasonable expectation of
privacy where data is collected without their consent,'" their
alleged circumstances demonstrate their consent. The Plaintiffs
allege that they are registered users of Alexa products. By using
their Alexa devices, the Plaintiffs consented to the Alexa Terms.

Lastly, Judge Rothstein dismisses the Plaintiffs' claim for
violation of the PRA. She finds that the Plaintiffs fail to allege
a PRA violation. The Plaintiffs do not allege that their voices
were ever incorporated or otherwise used "on or in goods,
merchandise, or products," or in advertisements for any "products,
merchandise, goods, or services" that were targeted at them (or at
anyone else). Their allegations do not fit within the scope of the
PRA.

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is
granted. Judge Rothstein dismisses the Complaint without
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3776e6d5 from Leagle.com.


BLOCK INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 3, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------
Business Wire reports that shareholders who want to act as lead
plaintiff for the class must file their papers by April 3, 2023 in
Block Inc. (SQ) unlawfully sold unregistered securities class
suit.

A shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Block, Inc. (NYSE: SQ)
f/k/a Square Inc. securities between November 4, 2021 and April 4,
2022, including former shareholders of Afterpay securities who
acquired unregistered Block, Inc. Class A common stock (and/or
corresponding SQ CHESS Depository Interests ("CDI")) in direct
exchange for Afterpay shares pursuant to Block's January 31, 2022
acquisition and stock-for-stock merger with Afterpay ("the
Merger"). Block is a technology and financial service company that
provides apps, tools, and services for credit card, in app, and
other digital card payment process.

Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to participate in
the class action against Block. Shareholders who want to act as
lead plaintiff for the class must file their papers by April 3,
2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have
to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
According to the complaint, on January 31, 2022, Block completed
its acquisition of Afterpay, then an Australian limited company
listed on the Australian Stock Exchange, pursuant to a scheme of
arrangement under Australia's Corporations Act 2001 (the "Scheme").
Pursuant to the financial terms of the Scheme, Block acquired all
outstanding ordinary shares of Afterpay in exchange for 0.375 of a
share of newly issued SQ class A common stock or corresponding SQ
CDI. Block represented to the Afterpay shareholders that the
"Square securities issued in the proposed transaction are
anticipated to be issued in reliance upon an available exemption
from … registration requirements pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of
the Securities Act." In connection with the Merger, Block offered
and sold approximately 113 million unregistered Block shares
directly to former Afterpay shareholder. But contrary to their
representation to Afterpay's Board and shareholders, defendants did
not satisfy the mandatory conditions necessary to exempt them from
registration under Section 3(a)(10) and permit the issuance and
sale of unregistered Block Shares. Nevertheless, and in violation
of Sections (a) and (c) of the Securities Act, no registration
statement has been filed with the SEC or been in effect with
respect to these Block Shares issued, solicited, and sold by means
of the Merger.

Accordingly, during the class period, defendants: (i) deceived the
investing public; (ii) artificially inflated and maintained the
market price of Block securities; and (iii) caused class members to
purchase or otherwise acquire Block securities at artificially
inflated prices.

Contact us to learn more:
Aaron Dumas
(800) 350-6003
adumas@robbinsllp.com
About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action
against Block, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when
corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch.
[GN]

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Allen Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JESSE ALLEN, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; BOSTON
SCIENTIFIC NEUROMODULATION CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22-CIV-05487, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Mateo, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on January 27, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:23-cv-00414-LB to the proceeding.

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated various
provisions of the California Labor Code and committed unlawful
business practices.

Boston Scientific Corporation develops, manufactures, and markets
minimally invasive medical devices.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
          Christopher J. Taylor, Esq.
          Hannah V. Schnell, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
          Telephone: (714) 830-0600
          Facsimile: (714) 830-0700
          E-mail: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com
                  christopher.taylor@morganlewis.com
                  hannah.schnell@morganlewis.com

BP EXPLORATION: Bid for Summary Judgment in Brewer Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THIMUS BREWER v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET
AL. SECTION: D (4), Civil Action No. 17-3508 (E.D. La.), Judge
Wendy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana:

   a. grants 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 Company, and BP p.l.c.;

   b. grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and

   c. denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Admission of Plaintiffs'
      Expert Opinions Because of BP Defendants' Spoliation of
      Evidence of Plaintiff's Exposure.

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 Thimus Brewer opted
out of the MSA and, accordingly, is a B3 plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed this individual action against the Defendants
on April 17, 2017 to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a
result of the oil spill. For approximately three months in 2010,
the Plaintiff worked as an offshore cleanup worker, tasked with
cleaning up oil and oil-covered debris from the beaches and coastal
areas near D'Iberville, Ship Island, Point Cadet, Vancleave, and
Biloxi, 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 asthma, difficulty
breathing, pulmonary hyperinflation without focal infiltrate,
pneumonia, shortness of breath, chronic obstructive asthma,
wheezing, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, abdominal pain,
diarrhea, constipation, enteritis, lipoma of adipose tissue,
blurred vision, dry eyes with redness, burning and itching, double
vision, light sensitivity, irritation, loss of vision acuity, dizzy
spells, nasal congestion, decreased sense of smell, facial pain or
sinus pain, nasal discharge, throat irritation, difficulty
swallowing, earache, cough, chronic rhinitis, chronic sinusitis,
acute bronchitis, headaches, night sweats, joint pain, anxiety,
acne, skin inflammation, redness or swelling, itching, welts.
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. His
Report is not tailored directly to the Plaintiff's claims; rather,
his generic causation Report has been utilized by numerous B3
plaintiffs, including many plaintiffs currently before the 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 Oct. 3, 2022. In their Motion in limine, they
contend that Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying due to,
inter alia, his failure to identify the harmful level of exposure
capable of causing the Plaintiff's particular injuries for each
chemical that he 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 filed a Motion for Admission of
Plaintiffs' Expert Opinions Because of BP Defendants' Spoliation of
Evidence of Plaintiff's Exposure, in which he argues that Dr.
Cook's Report and general causation opinions should be deemed
reliable and admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 702 because of BP's
alleged failure to collect exposure data on oil spill cleanup
workers. He argues that BP had an obligation to preserve evidence
that it reasonably anticipated may have been relevant to future
litigation and that BP intentionally destroyed said evidence in bad
faith.

The Defendants filed a response in opposition to the Plaintiff's
spoliation Motion, arguing that the Plaintiff cannot demonstrate
spoliation of evidence because there never was evidence to spoliate
in the first place. They also contend that the issue of biological
monitoring of cleanup workers is irrelevant to the reliability and
admissibility of Dr. Cook's Report. Finally, they argue that the
remedy sought by the Plaintiff -- admission of Dr. Cook's Report --
is inappropriate and without basis.

Before the Court is BP's Daubert Motion 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. have joined in both motions. Also before the Court
is the Plaintiff's Spoliation Motion.

Judge Vitter holds that 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.

Because she finds no merit to the Plaintiff's Motion, Judge Vitter
denies the Plaintiff's Spoliation Motion. She explains that the
Plaintiff asks the Court to sanction the Defendants for not
creating evidence in the first place. That is not the law, nor
would it be tenable in practice. The Plaintiff has not provided any
support for that proposition, and Judge Vitter has found none. She
also finds no basis for the theory that an unreliable, unhelpful,
and otherwise inadmissible expert opinion may nevertheless be
admitted due to one party's alleged spoliation.

Finally, Judge Vitter holds that the Plaintiff lacks expert
testimony on general causation. Without expert testimony, which is
required to prove general causation, she says 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 the
Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law due to the
Plaintiff's failure to establish general causation.

For these reasons, Judge Vitter grants the Defendants' Daubert
Motion and their Motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff's
claims against the Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. Judge
Vitter denies the Plaintiff's Spoliation Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2023 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/59arxwx5 from Leagle.com.


BP EXPLORATION: Summary Judgment Granted; Tickell's Claims Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, REBECCA TICKELL v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC.,
ET AL. SECTION: D (1), Civil Action No. 17-3169 (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 BP's Daubert Motion 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., Triton Asset Leasing GmbH,
Transocean Holdings, LLC, Transocean, Ltd., Transocean Deepwater,
Inc., and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.
(collectively "Defendants") have joined in both 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. Tickell opted out of the MSA
and, accordingly, is a B3 plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed the individual action against the Defendants on
April 11, 2017 to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a
result of the oil spill. For several months in 2010, she worked as
an environmental documentary film maker, documenting the clean-up
of the Gulf oil spill throughout locations in Louisiana, Alabama,
and Florida.

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
her to suffer myriad injuries including coal tar phototoxicity,
respiratory inflammation, rashes, miscarriage, and single umbilical
artery birth defect. Specifically, she 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 her claims that exposure to the chemicals present
in the oil spilled by the Defendants caused her particular health
symptoms, the Plaintiff offers the general causation report and
testimony of Dr. Cook as well as a unique specific causation report
from Dr. Cook.

Dr. Cook is a retired Navy physician with expertise specifically as
an occupational and environmental physician. His general causation
Report is not tailored directly to the Plaintiff's claims; rather,
his 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.

Dr. Cook's specific causation report purports to establish a
connection between the Plaintiff's exposure to weathered crude oil
and the Plaintiff's specific health symptoms. He explains that his
specific causation analysis "draws on the general causation
analysis" provided in the version of his general causation report
offered by the Plaintiff.

The Defendants filed the instant Motion in limine and Motion for
Summary Judgment on Aug. 22, 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 the Plaintiff's particular injuries for
each chemical that the Plaintiff alleges to have been exposed to.

The Defendants also argue that Dr. Cook's specific causation
opinions are likewise unreliable and inadmissible because he never
identifies precisely which chemicals caused the Plaintiff's
problems or the degree of exposure he suffered. Further, they
contend that the Court need not address Dr. Cook's specific
causation report if it finds that Dr. Cook's general causation
report is inadmissible.

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. The Plaintiff opposes both Motions, arguing that Dr.
Cook's general and specific causation opinions satisfy the Daubert
standards for reliability and relevancy and, therefore, that
summary judgment is inappropriate.

Judge Vitter explains that the burden of proof is on the B3
plaintiffs to prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or
illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the
response. To prove causation, the B3 plaintiffs are required to
provide reliable expert testimony. A plaintiff in such a case
cannot expect lay fact-finders to understand medical causation;
expert testimony is thus required to establish causation.

Judge Vitter finds that the Court has previously considered the
June 21, 2022 version of Dr. Cook's Report offered here 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. The Plaintiff accordingly lacks
expert testimony on general causation. Further, Judge Vitter need
not determine whether Dr. Cook's specific causation report meets
the Daubert standards for relevance and reliability because the
Plaintiff has failed to provide admissible general causation expert
testimony.

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.

For these reasons, the Defendants' Daubert Motion and Motion for
Summary Judgment are granted. The Plaintiff's claims against the
Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2023 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ynrraxk5 from Leagle.com.


BP VENTURE: Rodriguez Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARIA RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BP VENTURE MANAGEMENT, INC.
DBA LITTLE CAESARS PIZZA, a California corporation; LITTLE CAESAR
ENTERPRISES, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 34-2022-00330413, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, Sacramento County, to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California on January 27, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-00167-WBS-JDP to the proceeding.

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

BP Venture Management, Inc. operates as a venture capital
firm.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Laura Reathaford, Esq.
          LATHROP GPM LLP
          2049 Century Park East Suite 3500S
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1623
          Telephone: (310) 789-4600
          Facsimile: (310) 789-4601
          E-mail: laura.reathaford@lathropgpm.com

BUFFALO, NY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Fluoride in Water System
------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Specht of Buffalo News reports that parents file
class-action lawsuit against City of Buffalo over fluoride.

Parents who live in the City of Buffalo filed a class-action
lawsuit seeking $160 million in damages from the city and Mayor
Byron W. Brown over the recent disclosure that Buffalo leaders
quietly stopped adding fluoride to its water system 7V& years ago.

Hours later, the city official who runs Buffalo's water system was
a no-show in Common Council chambers for a hearing on the
controversial fluoride decision.

Citing the lawsuit, the Buffalo Water Board chairman skipped the
hearing where a group of high-ranking dentists blasted the Brown
administration for abruptly ending water fluoridation and for not
consulting the dental community before a decision was made.

"Buffalo's residents and community leaders were completely in the
dark about (the city's) actions until recent bombshell media
reports sparking fury in the community," the lawsuit filed in State
Supreme Court states, referring to The Buffalo News' first story on
the issue published earlier this month.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of three East Side residents, says the
lack of fluoridation in city water violates the new "Green
Amendment" to the state constitution, which was approved by voters
in 2021 and guarantees "a right to clean air and water, and a
healthful environment."

It seeks the immediate return of fluoride to Buffalo's drinking
water; the opening of free dental clinics throughout the city for
residents who have developed tooth decay from the lack of fluoride;
and $160 million in damages for the roughly 250,000 city residents
who have been without fluoride since June 2015.

"I think the prevailing emotion from each of my clients has been
shock," said attorney Robert M. Corp, who filed the lawsuit. "Each
of them have young children and they were stunned to learn that the
city, without providing any sort of notice that anyone ever saw,
stopped that (fluoridation) on their own."

Brown spokesperson Michael J. DeGeorge said in a text message, "The
city does not comment on pending litigation."

The suit also cites a part of New York State Public Health Law that
requires public notification and consultation with health experts
before a city or town discontinues the addition of fluoride to its
water.

Buffalo stopped adding fluoride to its water system in June 2015,
according to the Buffalo Water Board's annual water quality report
for that year. Fluoridation was expected to be restored sometime
after March 2016, the report stated. The next year, that estimate
was pushed back to December 2017, before being extended to 2018 and
2019.
Starting in 2019, Buffalo Water stopped giving a time estimate in
its annual reports. Instead it stated that its water has not
contained added fluoride since 2015 and "we do not expect fluoride
addition to be restored until completion of various capital
projects."

McFoy said the Water Board mailed the city's annual water quality
report containing the fluoride stoppage news to residents until
2018, when it began sending a mailer directing residents to read
the water quality report online on its website. The fluoridation
change was not listed prominently in that online report, either.

The Water Board's decision to stop fluoridation of the water, the
lawsuit states, was "made significantly more appalling, and more
egregious, considering their failure to properly and adequately
notify" residents of the change. Despite including a paragraph in
the annual water quality report indicating the addition of fluoride
has stopped, the Buffalo Water website still inaccurately stated
that fluoride was added to guard against tooth decay.

'That remains the outward facing information to the community
nearly eight years after when they stopped doing any of that," Corp
said. "So I don't think city is going to be able to say good faith
that they provided any sort of notice, when you have the mayor
admitting he didn't know, and you have Common Council members
shocked and furious that they didn't know, and you have all the
local dentists and the UB dental school leaders saying that they
didn't know. It's hard to believe that the folks just living their
day to day lives, thinking they can depend on the water, that they
would know."

McFoy, the Water Board chair, said in a letter to the Council's
community development committee that he was advised by city lawyers
to remain quiet on the matter after residents filed the lawsuit
against the city in State Supreme Court.

"While it was my intention to speak before this honorable body to
clarify what has been reported and answer your questions, due to
recently filed litigation, at the advice of counsel, I am unable to
speak on the matter," McFoy wrote.

Common Council President Darius G Pridgen suggested because of
legal concerns, McFoy might be able to brief the Council members in
a closed-door executive session. Council Member David A. Rivera of
the Niagara District, who first invited McFoy to answer questions
at the meeting, predicted things might get "a little heated" when
lawmakers do meet with McFoy.

"We're going to reflect that anger and frustration we are hearing
here when we have that meeting," Rivera said.

Dr. Brendan P. Dowd, clinical assistant professor in the UB School
of Dental Medicine, called the decision to stop adding fluoride
"shortsighted, lacking in scientific basis and hurtful to the
citizens of Buffalo."

"We have many poor people living in many areas of this city, and
they were unduly harmed by this," said Dowd, who is also a trustee
of the American Dental Association.

Of city leaders who decided not to continue fluoridation, Dowd
said, "What were they thinking? It stretched the mind to
rationalize their thought process on this over the last seven
years." [GN]

CALIFORNIA: Denial of TRO & Injunction Bid in Reid v. CDCR Endorsed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLTON L. REID, Plaintiff v. C. ALLISON, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01437-CDB (PC) (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Christopher D. Baker of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California recommends that the Plaintiff's
motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary
injunction be denied.

Reid is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Plaintiff
filed his complaint in this action on Nov. 8, 2022. On that same
date, he filed a Notice of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunction; Rule 65(a) Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure.

More specifically, the Plaintiff declares that on Sept. 19, 2022, a
JPay tablet was removed from his cell during a search on Facility C
at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF). Three weeks
later, he received a cell search slip indicating the reason for the
removal was 'Per state policy' that did not include a specific code
number for reference.

Among other things, the Plaintiff declares these actions followed
those taken in August 2022 when staff came to Facility C to
collect/take JPay tablets from inmates. He says neither California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) nor its staff
made clear to inmates who purchased JPay tablets that the tablets
were not their property, that CDCR was treating the transaction as
a "rental of their property," or that the tablets and content
"would not belong to them throughout their sentence." He further
says the Plaintiffs are entitled to a temporary restraining order
requiring the Defendant(s) to refrain from taking any more tablets,
and to return those that have been taken, and to a preliminary
injunction requiring the defendant(s) to carry out the order

In supporting memorandum of law, the Plaintiff contends the
Plaintiff(s) seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction to ensure the violations do not continue and to have
returned what property has been taken. He states they have been
denied due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. He
argues they are threatened with irreparable harm in that once the
property is taken and sent out of the institution, that property
cannot be returned or "reenter" the institution and thus their
economical investment is lost. Both content and receipts are a
complete loss.

Next, the Plaintiff contends the balance of hardships favors them.
He argues the present harm to them is the permanent loss of
property that ranges from the hundreds to thousands of dollars in
money lost invested in the tablet(s) themselves and the content
purchased by and which can 'only' be enjoyed by use of the tablet.
He essentially contends the Defendants would not suffer because
there will be "less paperwork, a less hostile environment, and
business as usual."

The Plaintiff contends they have a great likelihood of success on
the merits because the Defendant(s) have done-dispossessing them of
their property, defrauding them out of their financial investment,
and violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. He argues even
prisoners have the Constitution as a barrier between then and the
state against arbitrary action as to property where a 'real
property interest' is shown. He further argues granting the
requested relief will serve the public interest because it is
always in the public interest for prison officials to obey the law,
especially the Constitution.

Lastly, the Plaintiff contends they should not be required to post
security because the specific property interest confronting them
and prison official constantly, consistantly [sic], and arbitrarily
taking the specific property of JPay tablets weighs in favor of the
Court granting relief without requiring the posting of security.

Judge Baker explains that federal district court may issue
emergency injunctive relief only if it has personal jurisdiction
over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit.
He says requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18
U.S.C. Section 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA). On the merits, a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction
must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he
is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an
injunction is in the public interest, citing Winter v. Natural Res.
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)).

A review of the complaint filed Nov. 8, 2022, reveals the Plaintiff
named CDCR Secretary Cathline Allison and SATF Warden Theresa
Cisneros as defendants. Significantly however, Judge Baker finds
that no Defendant has been served, nor has any defendant filed an
appearance. Thus, the Court does not have personal jurisdiction
over the named Defendants and may not act at this time.

To the extent the Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of other
prisoners, he has no standing to do so. The Plaintiff also may not
represent a class of inmates in a putative class action. The
Plaintiff's complaint includes a list of "Additional Plaintiff(s)"
listing approximately 25 names. Even if the Court had personal
jurisdiction over the named Defendants, Judge Baker says the
Plaintiff has not established that he is likely to succeed on the
merits or that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm.

Additionally, the Plaintiff's requested relief runs afoul of the
PLRA because the relief he seeks is not narrowly drawn nor does it
involve the least intrusive means necessary. That is so because he
seeks relief beyond that which would provide him relief; he seeks
relief for all inmates. And as noted, Judge Baker holds that the
Plaintiff has no standing to do so.

The Plaintiff has not established he is likely to succeed on the
merits. Therefore, his motion should be denied. Among other things,
the Plaintiff does not explicitly state he purchased the tablet
removed from his cell. In any event, it appears that he is
asserting an unauthorized or negligent deprivation of property by
state employees. If so, he cannot demonstrate a likelihood of
success on the merits where such a deprivation does not amount to a
constitutional violation. Therefore, his motion should be denied.

The Plaintiff also does not make a showing of a likely irreparable
injury, only the possibility of one. The allegations are
speculative, particularly concerning the likelihood of a
substantial and immediate irreparable injury. And although the
Plaintiff has concerns about the viability of transferring content
maintained on a JPay tablet to the state-owned tablet, his concern
amounts to only speculation rather than a demonstration of a likely
and substantial irreparable injury.

Finally, the Plaintiff's attempts to demonstrate that the balance
of equities tips in his favor and that the injunction he seeks is
in the public's interest are conclusory. However, even assuming he
meets these two Winter factors, he cannot meet all four required
factors given the Court's findings regarding the likelihood of
success on the merits and irreparable harm.

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Baker recommends that the
Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and a
preliminary injunction be denied. His Findings and Recommendations
will be submitted to the District Judge assigned to the case,
pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1). Within
14 days of the date of service of these Findings and
Recommendations, the Plaintiff may file written objections with the
Court. The document should be captioned, "Objections to Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections
within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on
appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2023 Findings &
Recommendations is available at https://tinyurl.com/fx62393n from
Leagle.com.


CHRISTIAN DIOR: Slaten Sues Over Cosmetics' 24-Hour SPF Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS SLATEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTIAN DIOR, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:23-cv-00409-DMR (N.D. Cal., January 27, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, false advertising, fraud, deceit and/or
misrepresentation, unfair business practices, and unjust
enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its cosmetics
products. The Defendant developed cosmetic foundation products with
Sun Protection Factor (SPF) protection and labeled these products
with 24-hour claims such as "24H FOUNDATION WITH SUNSCREEN" and
"24H WEAR FOUNDATION WITH SUNSCREEN." In reality, the products do
not and cannot provide 24 hours of SPF protection as claimed. The
SPF protection will only last, at most, two hours, says the suit.

Christian Dior, Inc. is a manufacturer of cosmetics products, with
its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Seth A. Safier, Esq.
         Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
         Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq.
         GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 639-9090
         Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
         E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
                 marie@gutridesafier.com
                 hayley@gutridesafier.com

DAK RESOURCES: Vigil Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSEPH VIGIL, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAK RESOURCES, INC., a Florida
corporation; MICHAELS STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2022-0010924, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Joaquin, to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California on January 27, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-at-00069 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is a former contractor at a Michaels distribution
center in California who alleges that Michaels failed to pay him
all of his minimum and overtime wages, failed to provide proper
meal and rest breaks, failed to timely pay all wages owed upon
termination, failed to timely pay all wages owed during employment,
failed to provide accurate wage statements, failed to reimburse
necessary business expenses, and engaged in unfair competition.

DAK Resources, Inc. is a full service staffing agency.[BN]

Defendant Michaels Stores, Inc. is represented by:

          Gregory W. Knopp, Esq.
          Victor A. Salcedo, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6022
          Telephone: (310) 229-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
          E-mail: gknopp@akingump.com
                  vsalcedo@akingump.com

FOCUSIT LLC: Quinalty Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FocusIT LLC. The case
is styled as Joshua Quinalty, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. FocusIT LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00207-JFM (S.D.
Cal., Jan. 31, 2023).

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

FocusIT, -- https://www.focusitinc.com/ -- provides software and
service solutions for the mortgage industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Colleen M Auer, Esq.
          Elaine Ryan, Esq.
          AUER RYAN PLLC
          20987 N John Wayne Pkwy., Ste. B104-374
          Maricopa, AZ 85139
          Phone: (520) 705-7332
          Fax: (602) 560-0256
          Email: cauer@auer-ryan.com
                 eryan@auer-ryan.com

               - and -

          Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
          Ra Amen, O, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN MASS TORT DEPT - TAMPA, FL
          201 N Franklin St., 6th Fl.
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 559-4908
          Email: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com


FOUNDRY LIGHTING: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foundry Lighting
Online LLC. case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Foundry Lighting Online
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00696 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2023).

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

Foundry Lighting Online -- https://www.foundrylighting.com/ --
offers online shopping for traditional, modern and contemporary
indoor and outdoor lights.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (917) 796-7437
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com


FTX TRADING: Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel of Reuters reports that on Wednesday, Sullivan &
Cromwell moved to quash a subpoena from the plaintiffs' firms in a
Florida state court class action accusing NFL quarterback Tom
Brady, CNBC star Kevin O'Leary and former Boston Red Sox slugger
David Ortiz of violating Florida securities laws by promoting FTX
yield-bearing accounts as a safe way to invest in
cryptocurrencies.

Wednesday's motion, filed in New York State Supreme Court, follows
a parallel challenge Sullivan & Cromwell filed last week in
Manhattan federal court, seeking to squelch a subpoena in a
Moskowitz and Boies Schiller class action in Miami federal court.
The Miami class action alleges that Dallas Mavericks owner Mark
Cuban improperly hyped Voyager's yield-bearing crypto accounts.
Sullivan & Cromwell's brief in support of quashing the Voyager
subpoena was docketed on Tuesday.

The subpoenas issued to Sullivan & Cromwell in both the FTX and
Voyager cases are focused on the question of whether FTX and
Voyager yield-bearing accounts were securities (and therefore
subject to state and federal securities laws). Boies Schiller and
Moskowitz demanded to see any documents in which Sullivan &
Cromwell lawyers addressed whether these accounts were required to
be registered as securities, including "legal memorandums, white
papers, electronic correspondence" and other communications with
the crypto platforms, their celebrity endorsers, investors or state
and federal regulators. The subpoena in each case called for
Sullivan & Cromwell to turn over documents related to both Voyager
and FTX.

FTX, Voyager celeb endorsement class actions spark fight over law
firm subpoenas
A pair of Florida class actions attempting to pin liability on
celebrities who endorsed the now-collapsed FTX and Voyager crypto
exchanges has led to a showdown between FTX outside counsel at
Sullivan & Cromwell and plaintiffs' lawyers from Boies Schiller
Flexner and The Moskowitz Law Firm.

The plaintiffs' firms say they're entitled to troves of documents
and deposition testimony from Sullivan & Cromwell because the firm
has represented FTX since 2021 and advised the now-bankrupt
platform on a potential (but unconsummated) acquisition of Voyager
assets.

That's my word, not Sullivan & Cromwell's, but it captures the tone
of the firm's opposition to the Boies Schiller and Moskowitz
demands. (The firm's exact phrases: "improper and harassing" and
"textbook fishing expedition.")

The fatal flaw in plaintiffs' demands, according to Sullivan &
Cromwell, is not just that the subpoenas demand privileged
information, including communications with third parties who have
no role whatsoever in the class actions, but also that Moskowitz
and Boies Schiller haven't shown any reason to believe that
Sullivan & Cromwell even has information about FTX or Voyager
yield-bearing accounts.

Sullivan & Cromwell argued that it has never represented Voyager at
all. It did not represent Mark Cuban or any of the FTX "brand
ambassadors" about their crypto endorsements. And although Sullivan
& Cromwell has been counsel to FTX entities since 2021, the firm
said, its voluminous public disclosures in FTX's Chapter 11
bankruptcy "do not identify any representations of FTX concerning
whether the cryptocurrency accounts or tokens referenced in the
subpoena constitute securities."

Given those facts, Sullivan & Cromwell argued, it would be "unduly
burdensome and harassing" to force the firm to comb through its
records merely to confirm that it doesn't have responsive
documents.

In an email exchange with Sullivan & Cromwell that was attached as
an exhibit to the quash motions, Moskowitz appeared to be unswayed
by the law firm's arguments that it had no relevant information
from its FTX representation and no information at all related to
Voyager. Moskowitz justified the Voyager subpoena in a Jan. 17
email by citing "companies that Sullivan & Cromwell represented,
where Mark Cuban and/or Voyager were directly involved (like in
Polygon)," an apparent reference to blockchain company Polygon
Labs, whose general counsel is a former Sullivan & Cromwell
associate.

Sullivan & Cromwell characterized Moskowitz's tone in the week-long
email exchange as "belligerent." You can read the emails yourself,
but I'd posit that Moskowitz was more insistent than belligerent.
When Sullivan & Cromwell said there was no way a firm lawyer would
appear for a deposition on the date specified in the subpoena, for
instance, Moskowitz replied, "We will be at your offices in NY at
9am, ready to set up the video deposition to start at 10 am."
Sullivan & Cromwell described that as a threat, but threat or not,
the deposition apparently did not take place.

The firm's motion to quash the state court subpoena in the FTX
class action also argued that Moskowitz and Boies Schiller have
framed the securities question as a matter of pure law by moving
for summary judgment on their assertion that the yield-bearing
accounts were unregistered securities. The plaintiffs firms,
according to Sullivan & Cromwell, "cannot in good faith assert that
fact discovery from a nonparty is necessary on that issue while
simultaneously insisting that the . . . court can decide the issue
on the existing record as a matter of law."

Sullivan & Cromwell partners Sharon Nelles and Stephen Ehrenberg
did not respond to my email about the quash motions. Adam Moskowitz
and David Boies also did not respond to my query, so I don't know
if the plaintiffs' lawyers have issued subpoenas to other law
firms, in addition to Sullivan & Cromwell, that advised FTX and
Voyager.

Mark Cuban's lawyers at Brown Rudnick declined to comment on the
Sullivan & Cromwell subpoena fight. They previously told me they
were confident the class action against Cuban would be dismissed,
in part because Voyager account holders did not rely on Cuban's
endorsement. Brady counsel Andrew Clubok of Latham & Watkins was on
a trial and unavailable for comment.

In my unrequited query to Moskowitz and Boies, I asked if they
intended also to subpoena Sullivan & Cromwell in their federal
court class action against Brady and a host of other celebrity
"ambassadors" for FTX. I guess we'll see what the New York state
and federal judges overseeing Sullivan & Cromwell's quash motions
have to say first. [GN]

GEMINI TRUST: Cobourn Seeks Return of Funds Deposited in GIA
------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN COBOURN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GEMINI TRUST COMPANY, LLC, TYLER WINKLEVOSS,
and CAMERON WINKLEVOSS, Defendants, Case No. 650567/2023 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., N.Y. Cty., January 29, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the New
York General Business Law and common law claims for fraudulent
inducement, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation,
negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, unjust enrichment,
and civil conspiracy.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements to deceive the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals into depositing funds in Gemini Interest
Accounts (GIAs). The Plaintiff and Class members would not have
deposited such funds had they known the Defendants intended not to
make good on their promises and contractual obligations to honor
the withdrawal request. On November 16, 2022, Gemini announced that
Genesis Global Capital, LLC, its third-party partner, had halted
customer withdrawals upon realizing it would not be able to return
customer funds within the five-business day timeframe advertised on
the Gemini Earn website. Gemini subsequently paused withdrawals on
the Earn program. Market publications later revealed that the ban
on withdrawals came after Genesis suffered losses of over $1.8
billion from loans it made to failed crypto firms including
Alameda, says the suit.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff
and other members of the Classes have suffered damages.

Gemini Trust Company, LLC is a privately-owned cryptocurrency
exchange company, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Peretz Bronstein Esq.
         Eitan Kimelman, Esq.
         BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN
         60 E. 42nd Street, Suite 4600
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 697-6484
         E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
                 eitank@bgandg.com

HEXO CORP: Class Action Suit Over Alleged Breach Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Simon Dugas and Steve J. Tenai of Aird & Berlis LLP reports that on
January 23, 2023, the Quebec Superior Court denied leave to pursue
a class action against HEXO Corp in case-captioned 1 Dionne c. Hexo
Corp., 2023 QCCS 162 (CanLII). The proposed class action raised
various allegations of misrepresentation and breaches of disclosure
obligations over the period of April 2018 to March 2020.

The decision determined that the announcement of negative news
followed by a decline in a public issuer's stock price is not
enough on its own to satisfy the requirements of claims for
statutory misrepresentation. Arguments based on backwards reasoning
with the benefit of hindsight will not meet the evidentiary burden
on plaintiffs to show a reasonable possibility that the action will
be resolved in their favour.

In April 2018, HEXO issued a press release announcing that it
entered into a supply agreement with what became the Societe
quebecoise du cannabis (the "SQDC") to be the preferred supplier of
cannabis products in Quebec for five years (the "Supply
Agreement"). The press release stated that the Supply Agreement
required SQDC to purchase 20,000 kilograms of product in the first
year following the legalization of cannabis. It disclosed that the
SQDC had the right to terminate the agreement under certain
circumstances and included cautionary language regarding the
reliance on forward-looking statements.

The company's Management Discussion and Analysis ("MD&A")
underscored the strategic importance of its relationship with SQDC
and estimated that potential revenue under the Supply Agreement
could reach $1 billion.

In March 2019, HEXO issued another press release announcing that it
would acquire Newstrike, another publicly traded cannabis company.
With that acquisition, HEXO estimated its net revenues from the
sale of cannabis in Canada would be more than $400 million.

The announcement included that the acquisition of Newstrike would
add approximately 470,000 square feet of additional production
space in Ontario's Niagara Region and achieve annual synergies of
approximately $10 million.

The day after this announcement, in a call with analysts, the
company stated that 250,000 square feet of the Niagara production
space was licensed and operational.

Following the announcement of the acquisition, the company made
statements about estimated revenues. For example, in the company's
MD&A dated June 12, 2019, it estimated that revenues would double
in Q4 2019 because of, among other things, the Supply Agreement and
the Newstrike acquisition.

Over the course of the following nine months, the company issued a
series of negative announcements that caused repeated drops in the
company's stock price. These announcements included:

The company was withdrawing its revenue guidance of $400 million
and was right-sizing its operations, including winding down
operations at the Niagara facility acquired from Newstrike.

"Block B" of the Niagara facility (approximately 17 per cent of the
facility) was discovered as not being adequately licensed.
Cultivation and production activities in the unlicensed space were
immediately stopped. The company subsequently announced it would
sell the Niagara facility.

HEXO's Q4 2019 financial results were approximately 40 per cent
lower than forecasted.
HEXO recorded three separate impairments on inventory in the range
of $265 - $280 million. The company identified material weaknesses
in its internal controls of its financial reporting in various
areas including its year-end inventory count.

SQDC failed to purchase its 20,000-kilogram commitment under the
Supply Agreement in the first year and HEXO was not going to
enforce this commitment because of its overall business
relationship with the SQDC and its position in the Quebec market.

Owing to the decline in the company's stock price, the plaintiff
sought authorization to institute a secondary market claim against
HEXO, filed under the Quebec Securities Act, and further sought
leave to pursue a class action against the company for damages
arising from statutory and civil misrepresentations.

The plaintiff alleged HEXO misrepresented that:
1. The Supply Agreement guaranteed revenues associated with the
sale of 20,000 kilograms of cannabis in the first year;
2. The acquisition of Newstrike:
a. included fully licensed and operational facilities;
b. would generate more than $10 million in annual synergies;
c. along with the Supply Agreement, would result in the doubling of
HEXO's net revenue between Q2 and Q4 in 2019;
3. HEXO would achieve revenue of greater than $400 million for the
2020 fiscal year;
4. HEXO's inventories were accurate and its internal controls were
effective.

Why the Suit Failed
Supply Agreement
The Court disagreed that HEXO's statements regarding the SQDC's
purchase commitment of 20,000 kilograms of cannabis amounted to a
"guarantee" of first-year revenue under the Supply Agreement. The
impugned statements were found to simply provide a description of
the SQDC's purchase commitment in the first year under the Supply
Agreement. The Court expressly commented that courts do not make
assessment with the benefit of hindsight. The fact that the SQDC
did not fulfil its first-year purchase commitment or that the
defendants decided not to enforce the take-or-pay feature are not
evidence that the public statements were untrue or misleading at
the time they were made.
The Court reached its decision after considering these factors,
which effectively qualified the alleged misrepresentation:
(i) HEXO disclosed that the SQDC could terminate the Supply
Agreement under certain circumstances rebutting any notion of
guaranteed sales;
(ii) HEXO's statements about "strong business certainty through
Year 1 post-legalization" referenced several factors and not just
the SQDC's commitment under the Supply Agreement;
(iii) HEXO's press release contained cautionary language that
forward-looking statements "should not be read as assurances of
future performance or results"; and
(iv) the plaintiff was aware that this was a "new and volatile
market."

Although the plaintiff alleged HEXO misrepresented the Niagara
facilities were fully licensed and operational since March 2019,
the plaintiff's evidence demonstrated that the licensing deficiency
only became known around July 30, 2019, which is when HEXO
disclosed they were made aware of the deficiencies.

In respect of the impugned statements that operations at the
Niagara facility would be licensed for cannabis production, HEXO
announced on October 24, 2019, it had temporarily suspended its
operations at the Niagara facility as part of cost-cutting
measures. Hence, the fact that one section of the facility was not
adequately licensed could not reasonably be expected to have any
impact after October 24 on an investor's decision to buy or sell
HEXO securities.

The Court further noted that the mere fact that projected synergies
failed to be realized was not evidence that the impugned statements
were misrepresentations of material facts at the time they were
made. In any event, HEXO clearly disclosed the risk that the
synergies may not be achieved so that investors would not rely on
the projections.

As for the fact that HEXO's Q4 revenues were lower than forecasted
and the lowering of HEXO's financial guidance, the documents in
question contained the assumptions underlying the forecasts and
cautionary language that specifically warned readers that
projections are not guarantees of future performance or results.

In terms of the impairment loss on inventory, the Court found that
the plaintiff failed to link any of the subsequent disclosures on
impairment to a previous misrepresentation of a material fact at
the time the statement was made. Although there was a restatement
of certain financial statements, the Court accepted that the
impairment loss was due to subsequent events and new and available
third-party information about circumstances surrounding the ongoing
development of cannabis use.

The plaintiff also failed to establish that the impairment
disclosure concerned a material fact. The Court found the plaintiff
failed to lead evidence that ties the decline in HEXO's share price
to the disclosure of the adjustments to the impairment loss on
inventory.

The Court further determined that the plaintiff failed to identify
any HEXO public statements which contain alleged misrepresentations
regarding its internal controls. The company disclosed in October
2018 that it was implementing a new enterprise resource planning
system and cautioned that the related design and testing process
could result in errors and/or inaccurate information for management
and financial reporting.

The Court's decision demonstrates that courts will look deeper than
simply pointing to a negative news release and corresponding stock
price drop to demonstrate reasonable probability of success for
leave to bring a statutory, secondary market claim for
misrepresentation. The decision also highlights the importance of
using robust safe harbour language for forward-looking statements
and risk disclosures in MD&As. [GN]

HOME BOX: Can Compel Arbitration in McDaniel Class Suit, Court Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANGEL McDANIEL and CONSTANCE SIMON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HOME BOX
OFFICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-CV-1942 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants HBO's motion to compel arbitration, to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' class claims, and to stay the case pending
arbitration.

The Plaintiffs sued HBO for allegedly violating the Video Privacy
Protection Act ("VPAA"). The Plaintiffs subscribed to the streaming
service HBO Max through third parties; Ms. McDaniel subscribed to
HBO Max through Amazon Prime Channels in November 2020, and Ms.
Simon subscribed to HBO Max through AT&T in May 2021. After Amazon
Prime Channels ceased offering HBO Max subscriptions in September
2021, Ms. McDaniel purchased an HBO Max subscription directly from
WarnerMedia, which distributes HBO Max. The Plaintiffs continued
using their HBO Max account through at least June 2022.

When subscribing to HBO Max through a third party, users must pay
the cost of the subscription to the third party and then register
for an HBO Max account. When registering for an HBO Max account,
the subscriber is presented with a sign-up page that features a
bolded, purple hyperlink to the HBO Max terms of use ("TOU"). Prior
to June 2021, subscribers were required to check a box indicating
that they agreed to the TOU and privacy policy before completing
the registration process; after June 2021, registrants were
presented with a notice that by continuing with the registration
process, they consented to the TOU and privacy policy.

The first page of the TOU features bolded text that notifies
subscribers that the terms contain an arbitration agreement. The
arbitration agreement broadly encompasses "all disputes and claims"
arising between the parties, except certain intellectual property
and personal injury claims, and waives both parties' rights to
bring any disputes through a class action, whether in arbitration
or in court. The TOU also state that any subscription fees paid
directly to HBO will not be refunded and directs users who
subscribed via third parties to seek any refund from those third
parties.

HBO moved to compel arbitration, to dismiss the Plaintiffs' class
claims, and to stay the case pending arbitration. The Plaintiffs
opposed the motion. They also moved for the appointment of interim
class counsel and HBO opposed the motion.

The Plaintiffs' opposition to HBO's motion to compel arbitration
centers on the fact that they were required to pay a subscription
fee to the third-party provider before they were presented with
HBO's TOU.

Judge Caproni finds that the Plaintiffs assented to the terms of
usage. She says despite the Plaintiffs' assertions to the contrary,
they were given an opportunity to review the terms when they
registered for their HBO Max accounts. The fact that they may not
have done so is irrelevant; the terms were conspicuously presented
for their review. A contracting party's consent is valid even where
there is no evidence that the offeree had actual notice of the
terms of the agreement if a reasonably prudent user would be on
inquiry notice of the terms.

Moreover, the Plaintiffs never attempted to cancel their
subscriptions and obtain a refund after receiving notice of the
terms; to the contrary, they continued to renew their HBO Max
subscription, even after they were well aware of the arbitration
agreement in the TOU. They subscribed to HBO Max after having been
provided ample opportunity to review the applicable terms.

HBO also seeks to enforce the arbitration agreement's class waiver
through dismissal of the Plaintiffs' class claims. The Plaintiffs
argue that the TOU -- including the agreement to arbitrate any
disputes on a bilateral basis -- are unenforceable in their
entirety because they never assented to them and they are
unconscionable.

The Plaintiffs' arguments regarding unconscionability, however, are
entirely derivative of their arguments regarding their failure to
assent, and they fail for the same reasons. Judge Caproni holds
that it is irrelevant that the Plaintiffs were not presented with
the class waiver at the time they purchased their subscriptions
through a third party; the Plaintiffs had an opportunity to reject
the class waiver when presented with the TOU, and they certainly
had an opportunity to review and reject the class waiver when
renewing and purchasing subsequent subscriptions.

Because the class waiver is enforceable, HBO's motion to dismiss
the class claims with prejudice is granted. Furthermore, because
the Plaintiffs cannot maintain a class action, there is no class to
represent. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion to appoint interim
class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) is
denied as moot.

For these reasons, Judge Caproni grants the Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration, to dismiss the class claims, and to stay the
case. She denies as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to appoint class
counsel.

The parties must submit a joint update on the status of arbitration
every six months, on the fifteenth of that month, or if the
fifteenth falls on a weekend or holiday, on the first business day
thereafter. The first update is due on July 15, 2023.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to stay the case and
terminate the open motions at docket entries 17 and 29.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bny7jvjr from Leagle.com.


HOPE COLLEGE: Rodgers Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hope College. The
case is styled as Joseph O. Rodgers, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Hope College, Case No.
1:23-cv-00109 (W.D. Mich., Jan. 30, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Miscellaneous Case.

Hope College -- https://hope.edu/ -- is a private Christian liberal
arts college in Holland, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Emily Hughes, Esq.
          Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq.
          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          MILLER LAW FIRM PC
          950 W University Dr., Ste. 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Phone: (248) 841-2200
          Email: eeh@millerlawpc.com
                 gam@millerlawpc.com
                 epm@millerlawpc.com


INOVA HEALTH SYSTEM: Ellison Sues Over Unlawful Firing of Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Ellison, Andrea Graham, and Arin Jenkins, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. INOVA HEALTH SYSTEM
FOUNDATION, and INOVA HEALTH CARE SERVICES, Case No. 1:23-cv-00132
(E.D. Va., Jan. 30, 2023), is brought to recover damages,
attorneys' fees, and secure equitable relief under Acts of Congress
("Title VII"), as a result of the Defendants' systematic and
unlawful effort to fire employees if they had religious objections
to COVID-19 vaccines.

Prominent among the heroes of the COVID-19 pandemic were
health-care workers. In Virginia, that included "team members" at
Inova's hospitals and clinics. Unfortunately, as the pandemic
progressed, Inova began a systematic and unlawful effort to fire
employees if they had religious objections to COVID-19 vaccines.
This campaign demonstrated a truly shocking and shameful disregard
for Inova's own promises and for its team members' legal right to
religious accommodations.

At first, Inova exempted many religious team members from its
vaccine requirement—telling them in writing that "You have been
approved for a permanent exemption from the COVID vaccine(s), and
You will not need to reapply for an exemption or supply additional
paperwork in the future." Unfortunately, just a few months after
granting such "permanent" exemptions, Inova brazenly ripped up its
promise, revoked the exemptions it had granted, and told employees
they would have to apply all over again. Although Inova expressly
acknowledged that it was "going back on its word," its only
explanation was boilerplate, meaningless language about
"continually reviewing and updating our approach."

Things got even worse from there. Although Inova revoked religious
exemptions and required re-application, it did not treat the matter
as urgent. Instead, Inova allowed previously exempted employees to
continue working, unvaccinated, for months while it sat on their
new applications for religious accommodations.

After months went by, Inova denied accommodations—and fired
religious employees--en masse. Although hundreds of employees had
applied for accommodations, Inova gave no sign that it had
individually considered their requests, or even that it had read
them. Instead, Inova issued a mass denial using a one-size-fits-all
form letter. When individual Inova employees asked why their
particular applications had been denied, Inova expressly refused to
tell them. Inova then fired employees who refused to compromise
their religious beliefs.

All of this conduct by Inova was in flagrant violation of its legal
obligations. Inova knew that, when its workplace requirements
conflict with an employee's sincere religious observances, Title
VII requires it to interact in good faith to identify and offer
reasonable accommodations. Inova grossly and intentionally failed
to do that. Its months of silence, followed by a boilerplate denial
letter, is the very opposite of the legally required interactive
process and reasonable accommodation. Moreover, Inova's willingness
to let employees continue working, unvaccinated, for months even
after revoking their exemptions demonstrates that Inova certainly
knew that some accommodation was possible. On top of that, Inova
blatantly breached its written contracts with team members in which
it had expressly promised that their exemptions were permanent and
they would not need to re-apply, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of Inova.

Inova Health System Foundation ("IHSF") is a Virginia non-stock,
nonprofit corporation with its principal place of business in Falls
Church, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles B. Molster, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES B. MOLSTER, III PLLC
          2141 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Ste. M
          Washington, D.C. 20007
          Phone: (703) 346-1505
          Email: cmolster@molsterlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel W. Diehl, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Nelson, Esq.
          Nathan Hopkins, Esq.
          CROSSCASTLE PLLC
          333 Washington Avenue N., Ste. 300-9078
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 429-8100
          Fax: (612) 234-4766
          Email: sam.diehl@crosscastle.com
                 nicholas.nelson@crosscastle.com
                 nathan.hopkins@crosscastle.com


INSURANCE STORE: Melgren Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Insurance Store, Inc.
The case is styled as David Melgren, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Insurance Store, Inc., Case No.
4:23-cv-00109-JMB (E.D. Mo., Jan. 31, 2023).

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

Insurance Store Inc. -- https://www.insurancestoreinc.com/ -- is a
local independent insurance agency located in Chesterfield,
Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (508) 221-1510
          Fax: (508) 221-1510
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com


LIBERTY STATION: Frye Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------
Steve Frye, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. LIBERTY STATION COUNTRY CLUB, LLC, individually and dba THE LOMA
CLUB; LAURA JOHNSON, individually and dba THE LOMA CLUB; LUKE
MAHONEY, individually and dba THE LOMA CLUB; JOHN LEVAN,
individually and dba THE LOMA CLUB; OLIVER MAHONEY, individually
and dba THE LOMA CLUB; ELLIS BEARDSLEY, individually and dba THE
LOMA CLUB; BABES GOLF INCORPORATED, individually and dba BABES
GOLF; BABES GOLF LLC, individually and dba BABES GOLF; BABES GOLF
SD, individually and dba BABES GOLF; ALEXANDRIA ANDERSEN,
individually and dba BABES GOLF; JAMIE JACOBS, individually and dba
BABES GOLF; MEGAN TARVER, individually and dba BABES GOLF; JERICA
NOBLE, individually and dba BABES GOLF; and DOES 1-25; Case No.
37-2023-00004325-CU-CR-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 31, 2023), is
brought against the Defendants' intentional, arbitrary,
unreasonable, malicious, and/or invidious discrimination actions in
relation to their women-only golf events in violation of Civil Code
and The Unruh Civil Rights Act.

On February 3, 2021, Plaintiff saw Defendants' advertisement for
the women-only golf event scheduled to occur on February 6, 2021,
desired and intended to participate in the event, and contacted THE
LOMA CLUB via email to ask if the event was just for women, or if
he could join in too. The Defendant ELLIS BEARDSLEY, using the
email address ellis@thelomaclub.com, responded to Plaintiff by
stating: "This weekend's event is geared towards female golfers,
but we have an upcoming Valentine's Day tournament that is a co-ed
event." As such, the Defendants, and each of them, excluded
Plaintiff from participating in the women-only golf event that took
place on February 6, 2021.

The Defendants' unequal treatment of Plaintiff, other males, and
nonbinary persons in relation to the Defendants' women-only golf
event violated California's strong public policy to eradicate sex
discrimination in business establishments operating in California.
The Defendants, and each of them, excluded Plaintiff from receiving
the same full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities,
privileges, or services that Defendants, and each of them, provided
only to women at the women-only golf event that occurred on
February 6, 2021. As such, Defendants discriminated against and
denied Plaintiff on the basis of his sex, gender, and/or gender
identity.

On information and belief, there were hundreds or thousands of male
and non-binary persons who Defendants excluded from receiving the
same full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities,
privileges, or services that Defendants provided only to women at
the women-only golf event on February 6, 2021, and other dates
during the class period. As such, Defendants discriminated against
Plaintiff, numerous other males, and non-binary persons on the
basis of their sex, gender, and/or gender identity, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual male residing in the State of
California.

LIBERTY STATION COUNTRY CLUB, LLC, is a limited liability company
licensed to do business and doing business in the County of San
Diego, State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Williams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL J. WILLIAMS
          3990 Old Town Ave., Ste. 202-A
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Phone: (619) 259-0285
          Fax: (619) 923-3253
          Email: djw2esq@gmail.com

LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Court Dismisses Smith Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Lifevantage 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 United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut dismissed the Smith
purported class suit on December 15, 2022.

On January 24, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut,
entitled Smith v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 3:18-cv-a35 (D.
Connecticut filed Jan. 24, 2018).

In this action, Plaintiffs alleged that the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, Chief Sales Officer and Chief Marketing Officer
operated a pyramid scheme in violation of a variety of federal and
state statutes, including RICO and the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

On April 16, 2018, the Company filed motions with the court to
dismiss the complaint against LifeVantage, dismiss the complaint
against the Company's executives, transfer the venue of the case
from the State of Connecticut to the State of Utah, and contest
class certification.

On July 23, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation with the Court
agreeing to transfer the case to the Federal District Court for
Utah.

On September 20, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
Utah.

As per the parties stipulated agreement, Plaintiffs' amended
complaint dropped the RICO and Connecticut state law claims and
removed the Company's Chief Sales Officer and Chief Marketing
Officer as individual defendants (the former Chief Executive
Officer remains a defendant in the case).

The Plaintiffs' amended complaint added an antitrust claim,
alleging that the Company fraudulently obtained patents for its
products and is attempting to use those patents in an
anti-competitive manner.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on
November 5, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a response to the Company's
Motion to Dismiss on December 17, 2018, and the Company filed a
reply brief on January 10, 2019.

The Court ruled on the motion on December 5, 2019, dismissing three
of the Plaintiff's four claims, including the antitrust claim,
unjust enrichment claim, and the securities claim for the sale of
unregistered securities.

On December 19, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
which included three causes of action, including a 10(b)(5)
securities fraud claim, and renewed claims relating to the sale of
unregistered securities and unjust enrichment.

LifeVantage filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on January 28, 2020, and with the Motion fully briefed by the
parties as of March 17, 2020, the Court decided the matter on the
parties’ briefs only on November 25, 2020. In its decision, the
Court dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs’ Section 12(1)
claim (sale of an unregistered security), because the Court
concluded the claim is time barred.

The Court also dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim for unjust
enrichment against LifeVantage without prejudice, and the
Plaintiffs did not amend their complaint following the Court's
order to re-plead unjust enrichment.

The court found that the Plaintiffs had sufficiently pled their
claim under Section 12(2) (offer to sell a security that misstates
or omits a material fact by means of a prospectus or oral
communication).

LifeVantage filed its Answer to the Second Amended Complaint on
December 23, 2020, responding to the Plaintiffs' remaining
securities claims.

On February 2, 2021, the Court issued an amended scheduling order
that reflects the parties' agreement on a schedule for discovery
and other litigation matters.

On June 15, 2021, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, and on July 13, 2021, the defendants, including
LifeVantage Corporation, filed their opposition brief that opposed
class certification.

On July 27, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their reply to LifeVantage's
opposition brief.

The court held a hearing for the motion for class certification on
March 28, 2022.

On April 19, 2022, the court issued an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On December 15, 2022, the case was dismissed with prejudice, which
concluded litigation.

LifeVantage Corporation engages in the identification, research,
development, and distribution of nutraceutical dietary supplements
and skincare products. The  company sells its products through a
direct sales model, as well as a network of independent
distributors in the United States, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia,
Canada, Mexico, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands,
Germany, Spain, and Taiwan. LifeVantage Corporation is
headquartered in Sandy, Utah.


LIPSCOMB UNIVERSITY: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lipscomb University.
The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Lipscomb University, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00815 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2023).

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

Lipscomb University -- https://www.lipscomb.edu/ -- is a private
university in Nashville, Tennessee.[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


LIVANOS RESTAURANT: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Livanos Restaurant,
Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Livanos Restaurant, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-00675 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2023).

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

Livanos Restaurant Inc. -- https://www.livanosrestaurantgroup.com/
-- owns and operates a chain of restaurants. The Company offers
greek cuisine, wine, cocktails, and other prepared foods for
on-premise consumption.[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


LONDON & LONDON: Rush Files FDCPA Suit in D. Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against London & London, et
al. The case is styled as Meirra Rush, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. London & London, Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00120 (D. Conn., Jan. 31,
2023).

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

London & London -- https://www.londonandlondon.com/ -- is a dynamic
full service, business law firm located in Newington,
Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Rodriguez, Alexandria Blackwell, Bryant Hernandez, Charlene
Cannon, Eric Greimann, Isabella Islas, Lisa Leon, and Skymeisha
Glamours, each as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, f/k/a Lowe's Home
Centers, Inc.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-00453
(N.D. Cal., Jan. 31, 2023), is brought pursuant the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") against the Defendants for, among other
things: failure to provide complaint rest and meal breaks; failure
to pay overtime wages; failure to maintain accurate records of
hours worked and wages earned; failure to pay wages when due;
failure to furnish accurate wage statement; failure to reimburse
work-related expenses incurred in the discharge of job duties; and
failure to pay all wages due upon termination.

Due to the Plaintiffs and certain Class Members and Collective
working off the clock during lunch breaks, in many instances
because of the unrecorded hours worked, their shifts exceeded eight
hours a day or 40 hours in a week. Whenever the Plaintiffs and
Class Members exceeded eight hours per day or forty hours per week,
the Defendant's managers would often pressure them to clock out
while they are/were still required to complete tasks assigned by
the Defendant. On multiple occasions, the Defendant required
certain of the Plaintiffs and certain Class Members and Collective
Members to stay longer to cover the staff shortage outside of their
regularly scheduled shifts without tracking and compensating for
those hours work. There were also occasions that the Defendant
altered the time records logged into the system by certain the
Plaintiffs and certain Class Members and Collective Members. The
Defendant willfully refused to pay the Plaintiffs and members of
the Class and Collective the required compensation for all hours
worked and failed to keep time records as required by law, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in California.

The Defendant is a retail company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          Eugene Zinovyev, Esq.
          Kristabel Sandoval, Esq.
          Beth A. Christopher, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Phone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                 oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
                 ezinovyev@schneiderwallace.com
                 ksandoval@schneiderwallace.com
                 echristopher@schneiderwallace.com


MEDICREDIT INC: Guempel Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medicredit, Inc. The
case is styled as Laura Guempel, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Medicredit, Inc., Case No.
4:23-cv-00107 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 31, 2023).

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

MediCredit is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


MERILIZ INCORPORATED: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meriliz,
Incorporated, et al. The case is styled as Raymond Hernandez, on
behalf of others similarly situated and aggrieved v. Meriliz,
Incorporated, Does 1–10, Case No. 34-2023-00333765-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 30, 2023).

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

Meriliz Inc., doing business as DOME Printing --
https://www.domeprinting.com/ -- provides printing services. The
Company offers commercial printing and the lithographic
process.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sara B. Tosdal, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1188 Franklin Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94109-6852
          Phone: (415) 771-6400


META PLATFORMS: Securities Class Suit Ongoing in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 a securities
class suit is ongoing at the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Beginning on July 27, 2018, two putative class actions were filed
in federal court in the United States 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 second quarter of 2018 and seeking unspecified
damages.

These two actions subsequently were transferred and consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
with the putative securities class action described above relating
to the Company's platform and user data practices.

On September 25, 2019, the district court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated putative securities class
action, with leave to amend.

On November 15, 2019, a second amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated putative securities class action.

On August 7, 2020, the district court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss the second amended complaint, with leave to amend.

On October 16, 2020, a third amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated putative securities class action.

On December 20, 2021, the district court granted our motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint, with prejudice.

On January 17, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
order dismissing their case, and the appeal is now pending before
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

With respect to the multiple putative class actions filed against
us beginning on March 20, 2018 alleging fraud and violations of
consumer protection, privacy, and other laws in connection with the
same matters, several of the cases brought on behalf of consumers
in the United States were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

On September 9, 2019, the court granted, in part, and denied, in
part, the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated putative
consumer class action.

On December 22, 2022, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve the lawsuit, which provides for a payment of
$725 million by the Company and is subject to court approval.

In addition, the Company's platform and user data practices, as
well as the events surrounding the misuse of certain data by a
developer, became the subject of U.S. Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), state attorneys general, and other government inquiries in
the United States, Europe, and other jurisdictions.

The Company entered into a settlement and modified consent order to
resolve the FTC inquiry, which took effect in April 2020.

Among other matters, the Company's settlement with the FTC required
us to pay a penalty of $5.0 billion which was paid in April 2020
upon the effectiveness of the modified consent order.

The state attorneys general inquiry and certain government
inquiries in other jurisdictions remain ongoing.

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



META PLATFORMS: Settlement Deal in Securities Suit for Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 settlement
agreement for the consolidated securities class suits is subject to
the approval of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.

Beginning on July 27, 2018, two putative class actions were filed
in federal court in the United States against the Company and
certain of its directors and officers alleging violations of
securities laws in connection with the disclosure of our earnings
results for the second quarter of 2018 and seeking unspecified
damages. These two actions subsequently were transferred and
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California with the putative securities class action described
above relating to its platform and user data practices.

On September 25, 2019, the district court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated putative securities class
action, with leave to amend.

On November 15, 2019, a second amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated putative securities class action.

On August 7, 2020, the district court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss the second amended complaint, with leave to amend.

On October 16, 2020, a third amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated putative securities class action.

On December 20, 2021, the district court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, with prejudice.

On January 17, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
order dismissing their case, and the appeal is now pending before
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

With respect to the multiple putative class actions filed against
the Company beginning on March 20, 2018 alleging fraud and
violations of consumer protection, privacy, and other laws in
connection with the same matters, several of the cases brought on
behalf of consumers in the United States were consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On September 9, 2019, the court granted, in part, and denied, in
part, the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated putative
consumer class action.

On December 22, 2022, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve the lawsuit, which provides for a payment of
$725 million by the Company and is subject to court approval.

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


MIDLAND CREDIT: Aguinida Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Xochitl Aguinida a/k/a
Xochitl Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00595
(N.D. Ill., Jan. 31, 2023).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a third-party debt collector with headquarters in San
Diego.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Brooks Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Ivan Brooks, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-02046-TLP-cgc (W.D. Tenn., Jan.
31, 2023).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a third-party debt collector with headquarters in San
Diego.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


NATIONAL VISION: Faces Pension Fund Suit Over Stock Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF SOUTHFIELD GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. NATIONAL VISION HOLDINGS, INC., L. READE FAHS, and
PATRICK R. MOORE, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00425-VMC (N.D. Ga.,
January 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
violation of the Securities Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements about National Vision Holdings' operations
and prospects with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) to trade National Vision common stock at artificially
inflated prices between May 13, 2021 and May 9, 2022. During the
Class Period, the Defendants highlighted favorable financial and
operating trends, repeatedly raising the company's guidance.
Furthermore, the 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 when made. Behind the scenes,
National Vision was struggling to retain and recruit critical
healthcare staff sufficient to keep up with surging customer
demand. When the truth emerged, the price of National Vision common
stock continuously dropped until it closed to $24.93 per share when
the market closed on May 10, 2022. As a result of the Defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
market value of National Vision common stock, the Plaintiff and
other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages,
says the suit.

City of Southfield General Employees' Retirement System is a public
pension fund based in Southfield, Michigan.

National Vision Holdings, Inc. is an optical retailer,
headquartered in Duluth, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
         Mary Ellen Conner, Esq.
         JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
         40 Powder Springs Street
         Marietta, GA 30064
         Telephone: (470) 632-6000
         Facsimile: (770) 200-3101
         E-mail: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com
                 maryellenc@johnsonfistel.com

                 - and -

         Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
         Vicki Multer Diamond, Esq.
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Telephone: (631) 367-7100
         Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
         E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                 vdiamond@rgrdlaw.com

                 - and -

         Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101-8498
         Telephone: (619) 231-1058
         Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
         E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

                 - and -

         Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
         VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
         79 Alfred Street
         Detroit, MI 48201
         Telephone: (313) 578-1200
         Facsimile: (313) 578-1201
         E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com

NATURAL GROCERS: Continues to Defend FLSA-Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage 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 FLSA-related class
suit in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado.

In January 2020, a former assistant store manager filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of current and former assistant
store managers alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and Colorado labor laws by misclassifying
the assistant store managers as exempt.

The alleged violations relate to failure to pay for overtime work.


In November 2020, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for
conditional certification with regard to the FLSA claim. Currently,
there are 100 opt-in plaintiffs in the FLSA collective action.

In December 2022, pre-trial motions were filed by both parties,
including a motion filed by the Company to decertify the FLSA
collective action.

These pre-trial motions are before the court.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
defend the matter vigorously.

Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage, Inc. operates natural and
organic grocery and dietary supplement stores.


NAZARETH PARK PLACE: Samoyu Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nazareth Park Place,
Inc., et al. case is styled as Catherine M. Samoyu, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Nazareth Park Place, Inc., Does
1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 34-2023-00333884-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 31, 2023).

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

Nazareth Park Place, Inc. is an Assisted Living & Nursing Home, at
Morse Avenue, Sacramento California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM
          9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: 949-379-6250


NORTHERN CALIFORNIA: Montes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northern California
Inalliance, et al. The case is styled as Jaymes Montes, on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Northern California Inalliance,
Does 1–10, Case No. 34-2023-00333842-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Jan. 30, 2023).

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

Northern California Inalliance -- https://inallianceinc.com/ -- are
committed to providing services that contribute to the independence
of adults with developmental disabilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
          Phone: 213-381-9988
          Fax: 213-381-9989
          Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com


OKLAHOMA STUDENT: Carr Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kathleen Carr, individual and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. Oklahoma Student Loan Authority, Case
No. CJ-23-00002 was removed from the Oklahoma County District
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma on Jan. 30, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00099-R to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Oklahoma Student Loan Authority (OSLA) -- https://public.osla.org/
-- was created in 1972 as a public trust by the Oklahoma
legislature for the benefit of the State of Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian D. Blackstock, Esq.
          Kyle N. Sweet, Esq.
          SWEET DEWBERRY HUBBARD - OKC
          24 West Park Place
          Oklahoma City, OK 73103
          Phone: (405) 601-9400
          Fax: (405) 601-9444
          Email: brian.blackstock@sweetlawfirm.com
                 kyle@sweetlawfirm.com


OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Hernandez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Optio Solutions, LLC.
The case is styled as Eva Hernandez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Optio Solutions, LLC doing
business as: Qualia Collection Services, Case No.
3:23-cv-00183-AJB-MSB (S.D. Cal., Jan. 31, 2023).

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

Optio Solutions -- https://www.optiosolutions.com/ -- is a national
debt collection agency providing first- and third-party collections
while leveraging creative solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN STIEGLITZ
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (323) 979-2063
          Fax: (323) 488-6748
          Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


ORIGINAL HOMESTEAD: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Original
Homestead Restaurant, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The
Original Homestead Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Old Homestead Steakhouse,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00676 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2023).

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

The Original Homestead Restaurant, Inc. doing business as The Old
Homestead Steakhouse -- https://www.theoldhomesteadsteakhouse.com/
-- is a steakhouse established in 1868 whose flagship location is
in Manhattan, New York City.[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


PAN PACIFIC RV CENTERS: Byers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pan Pacific RV
Centers, Inc. The case is styled as Joshua Byers, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pan Pacific RV
Centers, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0000742 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Joaquin Cty., Jan. 30, 2023).

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

Pan Pacific RV Centers, Inc. -- https://www.panpacificrv.com/ --
was founded in 1985. The Company's line of business includes the
retail sale of new and used motor homes, recreational trailers, and
campers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
          Phone: 213-381-9988
          Fax: 213-381-9989
          Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com


PEPSICO INC: Bid to Dismiss Boone Class Complaint Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBIN BOONE, Plaintiff v. PEPSICO, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00108-AGF (E.D. Mo.), Judge Audrey G.
Fleissig grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of
standing.

Boone filed the putative class action seeking damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of persons who purchased various
versions of the Defendants' granola bars. The Plaintiff alleges
that the granola bars contain false or misleading labels and
asserts claims of deception, misrepresentation, concealment or
omission of any material fact, and half-truths under the Missouri's
Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA") Section 407.010, et seq.
(Count I-IV); breach of express warranty (Count V); breach of
implied warranty of merchantability (Count VI)1; unjust enrichment
(Count VII); negligent misrepresentation (Count VIII); and fraud
(Count IX).

PepsiCo and The Quaker Oats Co., Inc. develop, manufacture, market,
distribute and sell the following granola bar products: Quaker(R)
Chewy Granola Bars Chocolate Chip; Quaker(R) Chewy Granola Bars
Peanut Butter Chocolate Chip; Quaker(R) Chewy Granola Bars Oatmeal
Raisin; Quaker(R) Chewy Granola Bars Dark Chocolate Chunk;
Quaker(R) Chewy Granola Bars Chocolate Brownie-Licious; Quaker(R)
Chewy Dipps Granola Bars Peanut Butter; Quaker(R) Chewy Dipps
Granola Bars Chocolate Chip; Quaker(R) Chewy Dipps Granola Bars
Dark Chocolatey; Quaker(R) 25% Less Sugar Chewy Granola Bars
Chocolate Chip; Quaker(R) 25% Less Sugar Chewy Granola Bars Cookies
and Cream; Quaker(R) 25% Less Sugar Chewy Granola Bars Peanut
Butter Chocolate Chip; Quaker(R) Big Chewy(R) Granola Bars
Chocolate Chip; and Quaker(R) Big Chewy(R) Granola Bars Peanut
Butter Chocolate Chip.

The Products are marketed as containing "No Artificial
Preservatives" and their labels and packaging contain the language
"No Artificial Preservatives." Further, Quaker's website contains
numerous statements claiming that the Products contain "no
artificial preservatives."

The Plaintiff alleges that these representations are false,
specifically, he alleges that the Products contain artificial
preservatives known as "tocopherols." Tocopherols are a listed
ingredient on the Products; specifically, they are listed as
"tocopherols (to preserve freshness)."

In support of her allegation that the tocopherols are an artificial
preservative, the Plaintiff cites to the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA's) definition of chemical preservatives, which
states that any chemical that, when added to food, tends to prevent
or retard deterioration thereof, but does not include common salt,
sugars, vinegars, spices, oils extracted from spices, substances
added to food by direct exposure thereof to wood smoke, or
chemicals applied for their insecticidal or herbicidal properties.
He claims that tocopherols have precisely this effect. He also
cites to the Overview of Food Ingredients, Additives, and Colors on
the FDA Website which classifies tocopherols as preservatives, the
FDA's regulatory listing of chemical preservatives, and the FDA's
warning letter to Wonder Natural Food Corp., dated July 13, 2014.

In sum, the Plaintiff argues that given the presence of tocopherols
in the Products, the Defendants' representations that they contain
"No Artificial Preservatives" are false, deceptive, and
misleading.

The Plaintiff purchased Quaker Chewy Granola Bars, 3 Flavor Variety
Pack - Chocolate Chip, Peanut Butter Chocolate Chip, Dark Chocolate
Chunk for household use at a Walmart in St. Louis County.

The matter is now before the Court on the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of
standing.

The Defendants' main contention is that the Complaint lacks any
factual allegations to support the assertion that the preservatives
in the Products are, in fact, artificial. They explain that
tocopherols exist in both artificial and non-artificial forms, and
the complaint alleges no facts in support of the allegation that
the Products contain the artificial, as opposed to the
non-artificial, tocopherols. They argue that the claims should be
dismissed on numerous grounds, including failure to state a claim
under Rule 12(b)(6); lack of Article III standing; and failure to
allege PepsiCo is a proper defendant.

In opposition, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendants'
assertions are flatly contradicted by the allegations in the
complaint.

First, Judge Fleissig states that in order to proceed with her
claims, the Plaintiff must have Article III standing. She holds
that the Plaintiff has established a cognizable legal injury
sufficient to bring her contract-related claims, including her
claims under the MMPA. The Plaintiff alleges that she bargained for
and expected a product that contained "No Artificial
Preservatives," that the Defendants breached the implied contract
when it failed to sell her a product with no artificial
preservatives, and that she suffered an actual injury in the
diminished value of her bargain. This injury resulted from the
Defendants' purportedly false or misleading labeling.

Second, Judge Fleissig holds that the Plaintiff has properly
alleged that she suffered an injury in fact. The Plaintiff need
only allege that the actual value of the product as purchased was
less than the value of the product as represented to state a claim
for ascertainable loss. Whether the Plaintiff can prove the amount
of her damages is a matter to be determined on summary judgment or
at trial, not on a motion to dismiss.

Third, the Products and the alleged misrepresentations are
substantially similar, as they are all Quaker Granola bar products
which contain tocopherols and contain the label "No Artificial
Preservatives." For the purposes of standing, Judge Fleissig finds
that the Plaintiff's claims need not be limited to only the
products she purchased. Inasmuch as the Plaintiff has standing, the
Court need not engage in a separate analysis to determine whether
the Plaintiff adequately represents the interests of the putative
class at this time for that determination is reserved for the class
certification stage.

Fourth, accepting the allegations as true for the purposes of the
motion and viewing them in light most favorable to the Plaintiff,
Judge Fleissig holds that the Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts
to assert that the Products contain artificial ingredients. She
acknowledges that the Defendant may very well prove that the
tocopherols in the Products are of the non-artificial variety, and
therefore its labeling is not false, but such argument is properly
resolved on summary judgment or at trial, not in a motion to
dismiss.

Fifth, the Plaintiff's vague allegations of the false statements on
the website and in the marketing materials does not sufficiently
identify the source of the misrepresentations such that Defendants
may properly prepare their case. As such, with respect to the
claims related to the alleged false statements on the website and
in the marketing materials, Judge Fleissig grants the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.

Sixth, because the Plaintiff has placed the Defendants on notice of
the particular material omission underlying her claim, Judge
Fleissig does not dismiss Counts III and IV. She says the
Plaintiff's complaint precisely sets forth what information it
alleges was concealed by the Defendants and how the Defendants knew
or should have known the Products were mislabeled. At this stage,
she cannot say that the claim is so implausible as to warrant
dismissal.

Seventh, Judge Fleissig agrees with the statutory interpretations
in Grantham v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 08-3466-CV-S-GAF, 2012 WL
12898186 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 28, 2012), and Browning v. Anheuser-Busch,
LLC, 539 F.Supp.3d 965 (W.D. Mo. 2021); the Plaintiff can prove a
breach of implied warranty of merchantability by showing that the
product is (a) not fit for the ordinary purposes for which it is
used or (b) did not conform to the promises or affirmations of fact
made on the container or label. The Plaintiff has alleged that the
product did not conform to the promises or affirmations of fact
("No Artificial Preservatives") made on the container or label, and
as such has properly stated a claim for the breach of implied
warranty of merchantability under Missouri law.

Lastly, Judge Fleissig agrees that a parent company is not liable
for the alleged mislabeling of its subsidiary by the mere fact it
is the parent company. The Plaintiff refers to the "Defendants" in
the allegations throughout her complaint. Through this
incorporation, she has alleged that PepsiCo is directly and jointly
liable for the false and misleading labeling. It may very well be
that the Plaintiff will be unable to prove that PepsiCo is liable
for the alleged mislabeling, for it will be her burden to prove.
However, such liability is properly determined at summary judgment
or trial.

Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part
and denied in part. The Plaintiff's claims with respect to
misrepresentations on the Defendants' website or in their marketing
materials are dismissed without prejudice. The Defendants' motion
to dismiss is otherwise denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/6rkjzm8k from Leagle.com.


PLAZA CLUB CITY: Rigsby Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ryann Rigsby, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. Plaza Club City Apartments LLC, Case
No. 2116-CV14629 was removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson
County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri on Jan. 30, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00061-BCW to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Plaza Club City Apartments is an apartment complex in Kansas City,
Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq.
          Taylor Foye, Esq.
          HORN, AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 421-0700
          Fax: (816) 421-0899
          Email: jkronawitter@hab-law.com
                 tfoye@hab-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Abbigale A. Gentle, Esq.
          Joseph J. Roper, Esq.
          WATTERS WOLF BUB HANSMANN
          4435 Main St., Suite 920
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Phone: (816) 762-3464
          Email: agentle@wwbhlaw.com
                 jroper@wwbhlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael M. Chang, Esq.
          Ronald Balfour, Esq.
          AMUNDSEN DAVIS, LLC
          150 N Michigan Ave., Ste. 3300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 455-3035
          Email: MChang@amundsendavislaw.com
                 RBalfour@amundsendavislaw.com


PREMIER HEALTH CHOICE: McMurray Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premier Health Choice
LLC. The case is styled as Deloise McMurray, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Premier Health Choice
LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00104 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 30, 2023).

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

Premier Health -- https://premierhsllc.com/ -- offers comprehensive
benefits administration and management services to agents,
associations and carriers nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (615) 485-0018
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com


PROFESSIONAL PARKING: Bosley Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Parking
Management Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Cassandra
Bosley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Professional Parking Management Corporation, YSA Arm LLC doing
business as: Oxygen XL, Case No. 0:23-cv-60178-KMM (S.D. Fla., Jan.
31, 2023).

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

Professional Parking Management Corporation is the leading parking
managment company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Howard Kanee, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
          701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1550
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (786) 369-1122
          Email: joseph@marcuszelman.com


QUALCOMM INC: Consolidated Securities Class Suits Ongoing in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualcomm Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending December 25, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 2, 2023, that the consolidated
securities class suits are ongoing in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California.

On January 23, 2017 and January 26, 2017, securities class action
complaints were filed by purported stockholders of us in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California
against the Company and certain of its then current and former
officers and directors. The complaints alleged, among other things,
that it violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by
making false and misleading statements and omissions of material
fact in connection with certain allegations that the Company is or
was engaged in anticompetitive conduct.

The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, fees and
costs.

On May 4, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions.

On July 3, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting the same basic theories of liability and
requesting the same basic relief.

On September 1, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, and on March 18, 2019, the court
denied our motion.

On January 15, 2020, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, which the court denied on February 3, 2022.

On May 23, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and a hearing on the motion was held on October 19,
2022.

The court has not yet ruled on the motion. The Company believe the
plaintiffs' claims are without merit.

QUALCOMM Incorporated Radio & TV Broadcasting & Communications
Equipment based in California.


QUEEN'S NAIL ART: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyelyn Johnson and Chae E. Ghim, on behalf of themselves and a
class and collective of similarly situated individuals v. QUEEN'S
NAIL ART, INC d/b/a DASHING DIVA nail salon, and SEUNG AE CHOI, in
their individual and professional capacities, Case No.
1:23-cv-00789 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2023), is brought failure to pay
minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"); failure to pay overtime
wages; illegal retention of employee gratuities; failure to pay for
all hours worked; failure to provide accurate wage notices; and
failure to provide wage statements in violation of the FLSA and the
NYLL.

The Defendants were/are not permitted, under the NYLL, to pay
certain tipped employees at a statutory hourly rate that is less
than the standard hourly minimum wage rate so long as the "tips" or
"gratuities" that such tipped employee is expected to receive, when
added to the hourly wages, meet or exceed the standard hourly
minimum wage, and so long as all tips received by the employees are
retained by the employee, and no portion of the tips are retained
by Defendants or given to employees in non-tipped positions. Also,
Defendants were not entitled to avail themselves of the reduced
minimum wage by applying the tip credit allowance for Plaintiffs,
the FLSA Collective, and the NYLL Class, because Defendants would
retain tips and would pay a portion of the tips earned by
Plaintiffs, the FLSA Collective and the NYLL Class to managerial
staff, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked as a cosmetologist, nail technician, skin
care technician, eyelash extension technician.

Queen's Nail Art, Inc. is a New York domestic business corporation
doing business as Dashing Diva, a nail salon in located in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
          RYAN KIM LAW, P.C.
          222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490
          Fort Lee, NJ 07024
          Phone: 718) 573-1111
          Email: ryan@ryankimlaw.com


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Wong Sues Over Restricted Trade of Tickers
---------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN WONG, JOHN FORAKER,JOSE BECERRA, BOBBY HUDSON, BRITTANY
NELSON, MICHAEL TEGG, ZACHARY WEHE, JONATHAN HAMILTON, JORGE REYES,
JEFFREY EASTON, SHALOM BOUGANIM, JOSEPH ATTALLAH, TRAVIS HOLLOMAN,
CLINT WADE, MICHAEL CHON, TANVEER HUSSAIN, VINCENT BURNS, THOMAS
PIERSON, KEVIN ILLSLEY, JEREMY HUDSPETH, ZACHARY MUETH, JOSHUA
BUSSBERG, RYAN MAY, MICHAEL DAVIS, DOMENICO COSTAGLIOLA, DEMARINE
BROWN, KEVIN CUELLAR, PAUL SCHUSTER, MARC JOSHNSTON, DAVID
AMIRAULT, JACOB BRUCE, CHASE WILKINS, KATRELL GLASS, SHALESSE
HURLEY, KRISTIN FREIR, CHRISTOPHER VALENTI, SHAWN ROJAS, BRAD
CARLETON, DIMETRAS GOINS, PETER NGUYEN, NASSIF DAHER, PERRY BUTT,
JAMES WILLIS, FELIX ANAMAN, JAYME WEST, SHAWNEE ANDERSON, MITCHELL
CHEUNG, LAYTH DIEYLEH, YOUSEF MOHAMED, CLIFTON BLANKENSHIP, ALEX
BURNS, SHIHAB HOSSEIN, RAEGAN BALL, CAMPBELL GAULT, JALEN HARRIS,
RODERICK GORDON, ALIOUNE DIOP, JAMAL MCCULLUM, ABEL JAUREGUI,
YANTEE TURNER, HARDI PATEL, CHRISTOPHER BENSON, GEOFFREY RACETTE,
RUSSELL STEWART, ROBINSON MONTES, NICHOLAS LUCIER, FLOYD MCMILLAN,
CONNOR REUTH, CARL CARTER, and CHRISTIAN TOVAR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD
FINANCIAL LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.,
and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00626 (C.D. Cal.,
January 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
breach of contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
duty of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of express and
implied warranties.

The case arises from Robinhood's purposefully, willfully, and
knowingly restricting access to the open markets in publicly
available securities, and thereby depriving retail investors from
investing additional monies into the market through these
securities. Robinhood targets young adults who are new to investing
through youth-forward marketing and a video game-like interface and
misleads them into using Robinhood by promising "commission free"
and "discounted" trading services and assuring them in its Customer
Agreements that all of Robinhood's transactions will be subject to
federal and state securities laws Robinhood without providing prior
notice to its users or the market at large restricted solely on its
platform the purchase of the restricted tickers. As a result, the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated customers were unable to trade
the restricted tickers and sustained damages, the suit asserts.

Robinhood Financial LLC is a full-service securities firm with its
principal place of business located at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.

Robinhood Securities, LLC is a full-service securities firm with
its principal place of business located at 85 Willow Road, Menlo
Park, California.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is a financial services company,
headquartered in Menlo Park, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Wendy A. Mitchell, Esq.
         NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC
         400 Continental Boulevard, 6th Floor
         El Segundo, CA 90245
         Telephone: (212) 397-1000

                 - and -
       
         Nicholas R. Farnolo, Esq.
         NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
         400 Broadhollow Road
         Melville, NY 11747
         Telephone: (212) 397-1000
         Facsimile: (646) 843-7619
         E-mail: nfarnolo@napolilaw.com

ROLS INC: Young Files TCPA Suit in C.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rols Inc., et al. The
case is styled as Zac A. Young, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Rols Inc. doing business as: CBQ
Services, John Does 1-10, Case No. 3:23-cv-03023-SEM-KLM (C.D.
Ill., Jan. 31, 2023).

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

Rols Inc. doing business as CBQ Services --
https://cbqservices.com/ -- is a debt collection agency in Quincy,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
          Marwan Daher, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Fax: (630) 575-8188
          Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
                 mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com


RSP EXPRESS: Court Grants Bid to Certify Class in Uselmann Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIRELA USELMANN, D/B/A SAPPHIRE TRUCKING, INC., ET
AL., Plaintiffs v. RAZVAN POP, ET AL., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-13652 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Gershwin A. Drain of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants Razvan
Pop ("Pop"), Maria Pop, RSP, and NA Truck Repair, LLC, engaged in
two counts (counts I and II) of civil violations under the
Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"), 18
U.S.C. Section 1964(c), et seq. They say the Defendants cheated
them out of millions of dollars of contract proceeds through
systematic fraud.

The Plaintiffs also allege state law claims for breach of contract
(count III), unjust enrichment (count IV), promissory estoppel
(count V), and conversion (count VI). The Court previously granted
Defendants' motion for summary judgment on count II. Only count I
and counts III to VI remain. The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages
as their sole remedy.

The Plaintiffs say the Defendant companies are part of a family of
businesses owned or operated by Razvan Pop and Maria Pop, which
each have a separate and distinct relationship to the fraud
enterprise.

The Plaintiffs are independent truck owner-operators who contracted
with RSP to transport freight for third-party shippers between 2006
and 2015.RSP is a transportation provider that handles third-party
businesses' transportation needs to move goods across the United
States and Canada.

As the allegedly fraudulent scheme goes, these third parties paid
RSP directly for each freight delivery. RSP then contracted with
the Plaintiffs -- who are all truck owner-operators -- to transport
the third parties' haul. The Plaintiffs say they are aware of at
least sixty owner-operators with nearly identical agreements from
2011 to 2015.

Pursuant to the contracts between owner-operators and RSP (the
"Agreements"), the owner-operators agreed to receive a sum equal to
80% of the gross revenues from RSP in exchange for each of the
owner-operators agreeing to transport exclusively for the
Defendants. Based on the agreements produced, some of the
owner-operators appear to have contracted for 70 or 75%. Ms.
Marinescu, an RSP management staff member, testified explicitly in
a deposition that the terms of the Agreements were non-modifiable.

The Plaintiffs say the gross revenue amount RSP dispatchers
disclosed to the owner-operators was not based on the actual
third-party payments made to RSP; it was based on an amount that
Razvan Pop advised the dispatchers to disclose. Dispatchers never
disclosed to the owner-operators the actual amounts third parties
paid RSP.

RSP mailed Driver/Contractor Settlement statements to the
Plaintiffs once they completed a freight job. These Settlement
Statements also purportedly represented the gross revenue paid to
RSP by third-party customers. They are the source of the alleged
fraud underlying the action. According to the Plaintiffs, the
Settlement Statements represented a fraction of the actual gross
revenue RSP received.

The Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of violating the Agreements by
understating the gross revenue from transactions between RSP and
third parties, then pocketing the difference for themselves. They
deny any potential claims that the Agreements were modified to
allow payment for less than the contract price. They say this
fraudulent scheme was followed uniformly in relation to all
owner-operators.

However, there is no dispute that this allegedly fraudulent
arrangement ceased as late as the beginning of 2015.

The Plaintiffs rely on the Defendants' own records to illustrate
the amount of money lost due to the allegedly fraudulent
enterprise. They say 2012 to 2014 Driver Payroll History and Fleet
Revenue Reports from Dr. Dispatch -- a computer program that the
Defendants used to record both accounts receivable and payroll --
show that the invoice price (the actual gross revenue)
significantly exceeded the revenue price on the Driver Payroll
Records. The amounts on the Driver Payroll Records correspond to
the amounts listed on the Settlement Statements.

Allegedly, 2012 owner-operators were shorted a total of
$812,723.80; 2013 owner-operators were shorted $1,180,044.17; and
2014 owner-operators were shorted $1,876,205.68. Records for years
2011 and 2015 are purportedly still subject to discovery. The
Plaintiffs seek to recover these contract proceeds.

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
They seek to certify a class of: "All owner-operators who
contracted with the Defendants from Jan. 1, 2010, to Jan. 1, 2020,"
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)-(b).

The putative class seeks to have the Plaintiffs' counsel Bruce
Miller of Miller Cohen P.L.C. serve as the class counsel under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(g). They appoint named Plaintiffs Mirela Uselmann,
d/b/a Sapphire Trucking, Inc.; Gabriel Biclea, d/b/a MB Trucking,
Inc.; Ion Gutu, d/b/a GPA Trucking, Inc.; and Dumitru Marius
Rendenciuc, d/b/a DMR Express, Inc. as the class representatives.

The Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Certify Class on Nov. 18,
2021. The Defendants responded on Jan. 13, 2022, and the Plaintiffs
filed a reply on Jan. 27, 2022. The Court heard oral argument on
Sept. 22, 2022.

On Nov. 14, 2022, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file a
supplemental briefing and address the issue: whether the class is
certifiable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs filed
the supplemental brief on Nov. 21, 2022.

Judge Drain states that Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) imposes four
prerequisites to class certification: (1) numerosity, (2)
commonality, (3) typicality, and (4) adequacy of representation.
The party seeking class certification bears the burden of proof to
satisfy Rule 23 certification requirements. The district court
maintains substantial discretion in determining whether to certify
a class.

Judge Drain finds that (i) all the facts, in addition to a large
number of total class members, suggest that joinder of individual
lawsuits would be impracticable; (ii) fraud is the common question
applicable to all class members; (iii) the named Plaintiffs' claims
are typical of the class members; (iv) all the Plaintiffs and
proposed class members signed Agreements with the Defendants and
seek recovery for damages emanating from Defendants allegedly
fraudulent conduct that occurred between 2011 and 2015; and (v)
Bruce Miller and his firm, Miller Cohen, P.L.C., are qualified to
serve as the class counsel.

Next, Judge Drain considers whether the class meets any of the
requirements of Rule 23(b). The Plaintiffs must also show that the
putative class satisfies at least one of Rule 23(b)'s categories.
The Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(1)-(3). However,
the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs waived their right to seek
class certification.

Judge Drain finds that the Defendants cite no authority showing
that arguments raised in brief in support of a motion -- but not in
the motion itself -- are waived. Accordingly, he does not strike
the Plaintiffs' class allegations and addresses whether the
putative class satisfies Rule 23(b)(1)(A), 23(b)(2), or 23(b)(3).

Judge Drain says the Plaintiffs' class action is not certifiable
under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) because they cite no law or obligation
requiring the Defendants to treat the proposed class members
equally. The class is also not certifiable under Rule 23(b)(2)
because no injunctive relief is at issue and the suit only seeks
monetary damages as a remedy.

Finally, certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3) when the
court finds that: (1) common questions of law or fact predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members, and (2) class
action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

Judge Drain finds that the proposed class satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3). He says the individualized issues do not predominate over
the common issues and a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

For these reasons, Judge Drain grants the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification. He modifies the class definition to include
all owner-operators who contracted with Defendants from Jan. 1,
2011, to Jan. 1, 2015.

The Plaintiffs must submit to the Court a plan and description of
how it will provide notice to all class members in compliance with
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) and the due process clause of the
United States Constitution. This plan is due by Feb. 28, 2023.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2y4jh4pe from Leagle.com.


SAFEWAY INC: Order Granting Bids in Limine in Wheeler Suit Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD WHEELER, et al., Plaintiff and Appellant v.
SAFEWAY, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. C095601 (Cal.
App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Third District,
San Joaquin, reversed the trial court's order granting Safeway's
motions in limine.

The lawsuit is a wage and hour class action lawsuit brought by
truck drivers employed by Safeway. Wheeler and others filed suit in
2016 following the settlement of two related wage and hour lawsuits
in 2015. In this action, the Plaintiffs allege, among other things,
that Safeway continued to provide its drivers inadequate wage
statements in violation of Labor Code section 226, subdivision
(a).

In view of the limited issues raised on appeal, the Court of
Appeals briefly summarizes the pertinent facts and proceedings,
which are largely set forth in its prior opinions: Cicairos v.
Summit Logistics, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 949, 955-956 and
Bluford v. Safeway Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 864, 866-867.

Since 2003, Safeway has managed the operations of a distribution
center in Tracy. The Plaintiffs, like the plaintiffs in Cicairos
and Bluford, are truck drivers who worked out of that distribution
center, delivering goods to Safeway stores in Northern California
and Nevada. Prior to 2003, the distribution center was operated by
a third party, Summit Logistics, Inc., for Safeway's benefit. The
terms of the drivers' employment were governed by successive
collective bargaining agreements, which provided for meal periods
and rest breaks and specified the manner in which wages were
calculated.

The plaintiffs in Cicairos and the plaintiff in Bluford brought
suit against their former/current employer (Summit/Safeway),
alleging violations of statutory and regulatory laws related to
meal and rest periods and itemized wage statements. Both Cicairos
and Bluford involved the same wage and hour claims, which were
predicated on similar allegations of wrongdoing.

In 2005, the Court of Appeals issued a published opinion in
Cicairos reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment in
favor of Summit. In May 2013, it reversed the trial court's order
denying the plaintiff's motion for class certification and remanded
the matter with directions to grant the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify the class, subdivided into three subclasses -- rest, meal,
and itemized wage statement classes.

In October 2013, Cicairos and Bluford were related and assigned to
the same superior court judge. In February 2015, the parties
executed a written settlement agreement memorializing the terms of
the settlement (Cicairos/Bluford settlement or settlements). The
trial court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in March
2015. In August 2015, it granted final approval of the settlement.
Under the express terms of the settlement agreement, the judgment,
which incorporated the settlement agreement, became final in
October 2015.

Prior to June 2015, Safeway did not include rest breaks in the list
of "delay codes" for which extra pay was provided to drivers.
Beginning on June 14, 2015, Safeway implemented certain changes to
its rest break practices and wage statements, which are comprised
of two documents: an earning statement and a more detailed ROE
providing more information associated with the particular work of
the driver.

In January 2016, Safeway implemented additional changes to its wage
statements. Beginning Jan. 13, 2016, it revised its "wage
documents" to include subtotals listing the amount paid for each
type of activity, and a footnote explaining the method of
calculation for rest break pay. Around that same time, Safeway
revised the ROE by adding an entry for total compensation and by
including rest break time in the calculation of total hours
worked.

In January 2016, Wheeler and others filed a wage and hour class
action complaint against Safeway, alleging violations of statutory
and regulatory laws related to rest periods and itemized wage
statements as well as a derivative claim under the unfair
competition law. The allegations supporting these claims were
similar to the allegations supporting the claims alleged in
Cicairos and Bluford.

In this action, the rest period claim is limited to Safeway's
conduct from March 10, 2015, to June 13, 2015 -- the three-month
period from the preliminary approval of the Cicairos/Bluford
settlement to the day before Safeway implemented changes to its
rest break practices. The wage statement claim is limited to
Safeway's conduct after the preliminary approval of the settlement
-- March 10, 2015, to the present.

In December 2018, the trial court granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, which included certification of a subclass
of "all current and former Safeway drivers not provided accurate
itemized wage statements from March 10, 2015 to the present." In
certifying this subclass, the trial court found that all of the
drivers were subject to Safeway's common payroll system and its
methods of compensating drivers (i.e., piece-rate compensation
system), and were provided earning statements and ROEs "made up of
identical elements," raising issues of law and facts common to all
proposed class members.

In January 2019, the trial court denied Safeway's motion for
summary adjudication. Safeway sought a determination that all
members of the Cicairos/Bluford settlement class were barred from
seeking recovery on any wage statement issued on or before the
"effective date" of the settlement -- that is, the date the
judgment in Cicairos/Bluford, which incorporated the settlement
agreement, became final on Oct. 8, 2015.

In October 2020, the trial court granted summary adjudication in
favor of Safeway on the Plaintiffs' rest period claim. In December
2020, it denied the Plaintiffs' motion for summary adjudication of
the wage statement claim, which sought a determination that
Safeway's wage statements were deficient as a matter of law during
the relevant period—March 10, 2015, to the present. It explained
that, because there was nothing in the statute requiring that a
wage statement include the basis of the piece-rate paid, the
Plaintiffs had failed to establish a statutory violation due to the
omission of an explanation indicating whether the rate paid was a
peak or non-peak rate.

The trial court did not specifically rule on the Plaintiffs'
contention that the wage statements issued on June 14, 2015, were
inadequate as a matter of law under section 226. However, it found
the wage statements issued from March 10, 2015, to June 13, 2015,
did not violate section 226 as a matter of law. Citing the
Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) Manual, the court
determined that Safeway was not required to supply drivers with
this information because drivers were not compensated based on an
hourly rate.

In mid-April 2021, in anticipation of trial in early May 2021,
Safeway filed two motions in limine.

Relying on the terms of the Cicairos/Bluford settlement agreement,
Safeway's Motion in Limine No. 1 sought to prevent the Plaintiffs
from presenting any evidence or argument regarding wage statements
issued to members of the Cicairos/Bluford settlement class on Oct.
8, 2015 -- the date the judgment incorporating the settlement
agreement became final.

Safeway's Motion in Limine No. 2 sought to prevent the Plaintiffs
from presenting any evidence or argument regarding wage statements
issued on or after June 14, 2015. After a hearing and the
submission of additional briefing, the trial court granted
Safeway's motions. These rulings effectively limited relief on the
wage statement claim to current class members who were not members
of the Cicairos/Bluford settlement class and were employed by
Safeway during the three-month period from March 10, 2015, to June
14, 2015.

In granting Safeway's Motion in Limine No. 1, the trial court
acknowledged that it was, in essence, reconsidering its prior
ruling denying Safeway's motion for summary adjudication on its
30th affirmative defense concerning the release provision in the
Cicairos/Bluford settlement agreement. The court explained that it
was bifurcating this issue and deciding it prior to trial because
the issue presented a question of law. As for Motion in Limine No.
2, the trial court provided no explanation for its ruling.
Importantly, the court did not indicate whether it was granting the
motion because there was no violation of section 226, subdivision
(a) as a matter of law, and/or because plaintiffs could not, as a
matter of law, establish the injury element of a wage statement
claim under section 226, subdivision (e).

Following the trial court's in limine rulings, the parties agreed
to settle the remaining claims. Thereafter, the matter was
dismissed pursuant to stipulation. Judgment was entered in December
2021. The Plaintiffs timely appealed. The case was fully briefed on
Sept. 13, 2022, and assigned to this panel on Sept. 30, 2022. The
parties requested argument and the cause was heard and submitted on
Jan. 17, 2023.

The Court of Appeals begins by addressing the Plaintiffs'
contention that the trial court erred in considering Safeway's
motions in limine. The Plaintiffs argue the motions should have
been denied as untimely filed dispositive motions disguised as
motions in limine.

The Court of Appeals agrees only as to Safeway's Motion in Limine
No. 2. First, as to Safeway's Motion in Limine No. 1, it sees no
abuse of discretion. As the trial court noted, this motion
effectively sought reconsideration of the court's prior ruling
denying Safeway's motion for summary adjudication on its 30th
affirmative defense, which concerned the scope of the release
provision in the Cicairos/Bluford settlement agreement.

Although the Court of Appeals also accepts the premise that motions
in limine should not replace dispositive motions prescribed by the
Code of Civil Procedure, it says the issue raised in Motion in
Limine No. 1 involved the proper interpretation of the release
provision in the settlement agreement. This was a question of law
for the court to decide, as the language of the settlement
agreement is unambiguous and there was no conflicting extrinsic
evidence bearing upon its meaning.

However, as to Motion in Limine No. 2, the Court of Appeals reaches
a different conclusion. That motion concerned the legal adequacy of
the wage statements issued to drivers on or after June 14, 2015. In
granting this motion, the trial court effectively granted summary
adjudication in favor of Safeway on all wage statement claims
predicated on wage statements issued on or after June 14, 2015,
without the procedural protections associated with summary
adjudication proceedings or by trial on the merits.

This was an abuse of discretion, the Court of Appeals opines. While
the excluded evidence might not have been sufficient to establish
liability, Safeway did not follow the proper procedure for
adjudicating this portion of the Plaintiffs' wage statement claim
before trial. Indeed, it waited until the eve of trial, more than
five years after the suit was filed, to file what was in effect a
motion for partial summary adjudication. The motion was
procedurally improper. In any event, the procedural issue
notwithstanding, the trial court erred in granting the motion.

Next, the Court of Appeals turns to the merits of Safeway's motions
in limine. As to Safeway's Motion in Limine No. 1, it disagrees
with the trial court's interpretation of the settlement agreement.
As written, it says the release provision cannot properly be
interpreted to encompass all claims the class members asserted or
could have asserted against Safeway up to the date the judgment
incorporating the settlement agreement became final on Oct. 8,
2015.

Had the parties intended such a meaning, they could have easily
said so in clear and certain terms. Instead, the parties agreed
that the class members released all claims that were or could have
been asserted against Summit and Safeway arising out of or relating
to the claims or allegations in the Cicairos and Bluford actions
during the class period -- i.e., from Jan. 1, 2000, to March 9,
2015. Therefore, only wage and hour claims that were or could have
been asserted against Summit and/or Safeway prior to March 9, 2015,
were released by the class members.

As to Motion in Limine No. 2, the Court of Appeals holds that (i)
Safeway, for its part, has not cited any legal authority or
provided meaningful legal analysis persuading the Court otherwise;
(ii) when an employee is subject to a piece-rate compensation
system, the employer must provide the employee a wage statement
that clearly explains how their compensation was calculated; and
(iii) Safeway cites no authority in support of its suggestion that
the Plaintiffs were required to submit declarations (or other
evidence) outlining their inability to understand their wage
statements in order to avoid an adverse ruling on the in limine
motion.

For these reasons, the order granting Safeway's motions in limine
is reversed. The judgment is reversed, and the matter is remanded
for further proceedings consistent with the Court of Appeals'
Opinion. The Plaintiffs will recover their costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3t4a89kw from Leagle.com.


SATYA JEWELRY II: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Satya Jewelry II,
LLC. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Satya Jewelry II, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00781 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2023).

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

Satya Jewelry -- https://www.satyajewelry.com/ -- offers jewelry
created with simplicity, style and global consciousness.[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


SHA CAPITAL: Burnett Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laporshia Burnett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SHA CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a SAGE MEADOW ASSISTED
LIVING & MEMORY CARE, ENCORE SENIOR LIVING, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00115-WCG (E.D. Wis., Jan. 30, 2023), is brought pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, ("FLSA"), and
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws ("WWPCL"), for
purposes of obtaining relief under the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed
upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory
and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court
may deem appropriate.

The Defendants operated (and continue to operate) an unlawful
compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate
Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek,
including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess
of forty (40) hours in a workweek, by shaving time (via electronic
timeclock rounding) from THE Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift and
post-shift hours worked and/or work performed, to the detriment of
said employees and to the benefit of Defendants, in violation of
the FLSA and WWPCL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant into the position of
Caregiver working primarily at the "Sage Meadow Senior Living of De
Pere" location in the State of Wisconsin.

The Defendant owned, operated, and/or managed assisted living and
memory care facilities in a variety of States, including but not
limited to the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SHALOM HOME RENOVATION: Gomez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wilmer F. Gomez, and other similarly situated individuals v. Shalom
Home Renovation Inc, Lesvia M. Lopez, and Jairo R. Lopez,
individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-20385-KMM (S.D. Fla., Jan. 31, 2023)
is brought to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and
overtime wages and retaliation under United States laws pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

While the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants, he worked six
days per week, from Monday to Saturday, from 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM (11
hours daily), or a total of 60 hours weekly. The Plaintiff has
already deducted 6 hours corresponding to one hour of lunchtime
during six days. The Plaintiff was paid weekly his daily rate,
regardless of the number of hours worked every week, but he was not
paid for overtime hours, as required by law. The Plaintiff did not
clock in and out, but the Defendants were in absolute control of
his schedule and activities. The Defendants knew the number of
hours that Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were
working. Therefore, the Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff
overtime wages, at the rate of time and a half his regular rate,
for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in violation of the
FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempted,
full-time construction laborer from March 15, 2020, to January 07,
2023.

The Defendant is a construction and roofing company that provides
services to commercial and residential clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SONIC CAR WASH: Buckpitt Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Devon Buckpitt, and other similarly situated individuals v. Sonic
Car Wash Systems LLC, d/b/a Solar Car Wash, Case No. 6:23-cv-00158
(M.D. Fla., Jan. 30, 2023), is brought to recover monetary damages
for unpaid overtime wages under United States laws pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked 45 hours weekly, but she was not paid for
overtime hours as required by law. The Plaintiff clocked in and
out, and Defendant was in absolute control of her schedule and
activities. The Defendant knew about the number of hours that the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were working.
Therefore, the Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime
wages, at the rate of time and a half her regular rate, for every
hour that she worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempted,
full-time employee on January 13, 2022.

SOLAR CAR WASH is a full-service car wash company located in
Merritt Island, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SONSRAY MACHINERY: Porter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sonsray Machinery
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jeffrey Porter, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Sonsray Machinery LLC,
Does 1–10, Case No. 34-2023-00333822-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Jan. 30, 2023).

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

Sonsray Machinery CE & AG -- https://www.sonsraymachinery.com/ --
is the largest CASE equipment dealership in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robin G. Workman, Esq.
          WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC
          177 Post Street, Suite 800
          San Francisco, CA 94108


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Carneiro Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Carneiro, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated investors v. SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., THOMAS J.
RIGA, FRANCOIS J. LEBEL, and NORA E. BRENNAN, Case No.
1:23-cv-00767 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2023), is brought on behalf of
all purchasers of Spectrum common stock during the period July 27,
2020 through September 22, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
who were damaged thereby as a result of the Defendants false or
misleading representations or by failing to disclose material facts
they had a duty to disclose in violation of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The Defendants were conducting a Phase 2 clinical trial called
ZENITH20. The ZENITH20 trial was an ongoing, multicenter,
multi-cohort, open-label, activity- estimating study evaluating the
anti-tumor effects, safety, and tolerability of poziotinib, or
"pozi," in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small
cell lung cancer ("NSCLC") that have certain mutations (HER2 exon
20 insertion mutations) and were previously treated with the
standard of care.

On July 27, 2020, Spectrum issued a press release titled "Spectrum
Pharmaceuticals Announces Positive Topline Results in HER2 Exon20
Insertion Mutations from Cohort 2 of the Poziotinib ZENETH20
Trial."

On September 18, 2020, Spectrum presented additional results from
its Phase 2 clinical trial. In the press release, Defendant Lebel
stated, "this is the first presentation to the medical and
scientific community of the positive results from our
registrational Cohort 2 from the ZENITH20 clinical trial," and that
"we look forward to sharing this data with the FDA and discussing
the path forward for poziotinib registration." On December 6, 2021,
Spectrum issued a press release announcing it submitted an NDA to
the FDA for poziotinib's use in patients with previously treated
locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with HER2 exon 20 insertion
mutations. The NDA submission was based on purportedly "positive
results of Cohort 2 from the ZENITH20 clinical trial, which
assessed the safety and efficacy of poziotinib."

The Defendants were seeking Accelerated Approval ("AA") for
poziotinib. The FDA instituted its AA program to allow for earlier
approval of drugs that treat serious conditions, and that fill an
unmet medical need based on a surrogate endpoint. Based on
communications with the FDA, Defendants anticipated a decision on
its AA application for pozi in November 2022. On January 3, 2022,
Spectrum entered into a privately negotiated securities purchase
agreement with Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. ("Hanmi"), which
agreed to purchase 12.5 million shares of Spectrum common stock at
$1.60 per share, for an aggregate purchase price of $20,000,000.

The Defendants represented that the safety and efficacy data from
the ZENITH20 trial were positive and that they had initiated the
required confirmatory phase 3 study. However, unknown to investors,
this was not true.

As later revealed to investors, the data submitted by Defendants in
support of the NDA failed to show that pozi provided a meaningful
advantage over available therapies and therefore was not likely to
provide a clinical benefit. During the Class Period, the FDA
expressed concerns regarding pozi's safety and efficacy data, and
further, the FDA expressed concern that Defendants' phase 3
confirmatory trial, which was required to be substantially enrolled
at the time of AA, had not enrolled a single patient during the
Class Period. The FDA communicated to Defendants that given the
concerns regarding the totality of evidence supporting the NDA, the
significant delay in confirming benefit with a randomized trial
heightened the uncertainty around the risk benefit assessment of
pozi.

Investors were surprised when, despite the Company's repeated
representations during the Class Period that the data for ZENITH20
were positive, the ODAC briefing document disclosed not only
negative data on the safety and efficacy of pozi, but also a
failure by the Company to enroll any patients in the required phase
3 confirmatory trial. As a result of this news, shares of Spectrum
common stock declined from a closing price of $1.06 per share on
September 19, 2022, to a close at $0.66 per share on September 20,
2022, a decline of $0.40 per share, or over 37% on heavier than
usual volume.

The Defendants violated the federal securities laws by making false
or misleading representations or by failing to disclose material
facts they had a duty to disclose, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Spectrum common stock during the Class
Period.

Spectrum purports to be a biopharmaceutical company focused on
acquiring, developing, and commercializing novel and targeted
oncology therapies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ira M. Press, Esq.
          Sarah E. Flohr, Esq.
          KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
          250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
          New York, NY 10177
          Phone: (212) 371-6600
          Email: ipress@kmllp.com
                 sflohr@kmllp.com

               - and -

          Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
          Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
          Andrew D. Abramowitz, Esq.
          James A. Maro, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, Pa 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-3000
          Email: ssavett@bm.net
                 mdellangelo@bm.net
                 aabramowitz@bm.net
                 jmaro@bm.net

               - and -

          Brian Schall, Esq.
          SCHALL LAW FIRM
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 301-3335
          Email: brian@schallfirm.com


STAFFORD GROUP: McKee Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stafford Group and
Associates. The case is styled as Kathleen McKee a/k/a Kathleen
Albright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Stafford Group and Associates, Case No. 3:23-cv-00053
(W.D.N.C., Jan. 31, 2023).

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

Stafford Group -- https://staffordga.com/ -- specializes in
collecting accounts that are placed by a third party or purchased
by our company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Randolph Emory, Esq.
          THE EMORY LAW FIRM, P.C.
          11020 David Taylor Drive, Suite 102
          Charlotte, NC 28262
          Phone: (704) 371-4333
          Fax: (704) 371-3015
          Email: emorylawecf@gmail.com


TRADER JOE'S: Dark Chocolate Contains Heavy Metals, Waring Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT L. WARING, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00402 (N.D. Cal., January 27, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for breach of implied warranty,
fraudulent and unlawful business practices in violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law, false advertising in violation
of California Business & Professions Code, restitution based on
quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, and violation of the Consumers
Legal Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
The Dark Chocolates Lover's Chocolate 85% Cacao and Dark Chocolate
72% Cacao bars. The Defendant failed to disclose to consumers that
the products contained excessive amounts of lead and cadmium, which
are known toxic heavy metals. Given the negative effects of toxic
heavy metals on child development and adult health, the presence of
these substances in dark chocolate is a material fact to reasonable
consumers, including the Plaintiff and Class members. Had the
Plaintiff and putative Class members known the truth, they would
not have been willing to purchase the products or would have paid
less for them, says the suit.

Trader Joe's Company is a chain of grocery stores headquartered in
Monrovia, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Michael D. Braun, Esq.
         KUZYK LAW, LLP
         1999 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 1100
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (213) 401-4100
         Facsimile: (213) 401-0311
         E-mail: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com

                 - and -
       
         Laurence D. King, Esq.
         Matthew B. George, Esq.
         Blair E. Reed, Esq.
         KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
         1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Telephone: (415) 772-4700
         Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
         E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
                 mgeorge@kaplanfox.com
                 breed@kaplanfox.com

                 - and -
       
         Joel B. Strauss, Esq.
         KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
         850 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (212) 687-1980
         Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
         E-mail: jstrauss@kaplanfox.com

UMG RECORDINGS: Bid for Class Certification in Waite Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN WAITE, an individual, et al., Plaintiffs v. UMG
RECORDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01091 (LAK)
(S.S.N.Y.), Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York denies the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, their appointment as class representatives,
and the appointment of class counsel.

When Victor Willis co-wrote the lyrics to the "Y.M.C.A.," he did
not expect it to become a cultural icon that would be honored one
day as a work of historical significance in the Library of
Congress's National Recording Registry. For decades, most of the
profits went to the record labels to which Willis transferred his
copyright in exchange for their publishing and commercializing the
song. Years later, however, Willis regained ownership of the
copyright pursuant to Section 203 of the Copyright Act of 1976,
which established a limited opportunity for authors and other
creators of copyrighted material to terminate their prior transfers
of copyright.

The recording artists in this putative class action aspire to the
same. Plaintiffs Leonard Graves Phillips, Stan Sobol, Steve Wynn,
Dennis Mehaffey, Joel David Pellish, and Susan Straw Harris are
musicians, singers, and songwriters who entered into recording
agreements with the Defendants' predecessors in the 1970s and
'80s.

The Plaintiffs are professional musicians, who served written
notices of termination on Defendants UMG  and Capitol Records, LLC
pursuant to Section 203 to reacquire copyrights in sound recordings
they transferred to the Defendants' predecessors in exchange for
the predecessors' agreements to market and sell the recordings.
Upon the effective date of termination in a notice, the grantee
becomes the owner of the copyright and holds the exclusive right to
reproduce and distribute the recordings.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are infringing their
copyrights (and those of other artists who also have served
termination notices) by continuing to market and sell recordings
for which the effective dates of termination have passed. They seek
actual and statutory damages and an injunction prohibiting
Defendants from infringing on their copyrights. With respect to
recordings for which the effective date of termination has not yet
been reached, the Plaintiffs seek a similar injunction plus a
declaration of certain legal rights and duties of the parties.

The matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, their appointment as class representatives, and the
appointment of class counsel. The Plaintiffs move for an order
certifying two proposed classes.

The first, "Class A," seeks actual and statutory damages, and is
defined as: All recording artists (and statutory heirs and personal
representatives of those recording artists, if applicable) who have
served Defendants with Notices of Termination pursuant to the
United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Section 203, describing an
effective date of termination for a particular sound recording (i)
occurring on or after Jan. 1, 2013, and (ii) occurring no later
than the date the Court grants certification of Class A.

The second, "Class B," seeks declaratory relief, and is defined as:
All recording artists (and statutory heirs and personal
representatives of those recording artists, if applicable) who have
served Defendants with Notices of Termination pursuant to the
United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Section 203, describing an
effective date of termination for a particular sound recording (i)
occurring on or after the date the Court grants certification of
Class A, and (ii) occurring no later than Dec. 31, 2031.

The Plaintiffs seek also to enjoin the Defendants from infringing
the copyrights of artists who served termination notices between
Jan. 1, 2013 and Dec. 31, 2031, regardless of whether the effective
dates of termination have been reached -- i.e., members of both
proposed classes. They move to appoint Phillips, Sobol, Wynn,
Mehaffey, and Pellish as the Class Representatives of Class A,
Straw as the Class Representative of Class B, and their counsel as
the class counsel.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their
burden on multiple grounds. But the crux of their opposition is
their contention that the need for individualized proof --
especially with respect to the work-made-for-hire defense --
precludes certification of the proposed classes.

Based on the individualized nature of the relevant inquires and the
evidence in the record, Judge Kaplan agrees. He says the
Plaintiffs' claims raise issues of fairness in copyright law that
undoubtedly extend beyond their own grievances. However, the
individualized evidence and case-by-case evaluations necessary to
resolve those claims make the case unsuitable for adjudication on
an aggregate basis. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is denied in all respects.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n94x475 from Leagle.com.

Roy W. Arnold -- roy.arnold@blankrome.com -- Ryan E. Cronin --
gregory.cronin@blankrome.com -- Gregory M. Bordo --
GBordo@BlankRome.com -- David M. Perry -- Perry@BlankRome.com --
Heidi G. Crikelair -- heidi.crikelair@blankrome.com -- Jillian M.
Taylor -- jillian.taylor@blankrome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP.

Evan S. Cohen -- esc@cohenmusiclaw.com -- Maryann R. Marzano --
mmarzano@cohenmusiclaw.com -- COHEN MUSIC LAW, Attorneys for the
Plaintiffs.

Ariel Atlas -- AATLAS@SIDLEY.COM -- Rollin A. Ransom --
RRANSOM@SIDLEY.COM -- Lisa M. Gilford -- LGILFORD@SIDLEY.COM --
Lauren M. De Lilly -- LDELILLY@SIDLEY.COM -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP,
Richard S. Mandel -- rsm@cll.com -- Thomas Kjellberg -- txk@cll.com
-- COWAN, LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN, P.C., Attorneys for the Defendants.


UNIVERSAL RECOVERY: Loa Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal Recovery
Corporation. The case is styled as Gloria Loa, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Universal Recovery
Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-00153-ADA-SKO (E.D. Cal., Jan. 31,
2023).

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

Universal Recovery Corporation -- http://www.universalrecovery.com/
-- is a debt collection company located in Rancho Cordova,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN STIEGLITZ
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (323) 979-2063
          Fax: (323) 488-6748
          Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


UNIVERSITY OF EVANSVILLE: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against University Of
Evansville. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, for himself and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. University Of
Evansville, Case No. 1:23-cv-00816 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2023).

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

The University of Evansville -- https://www.evansville.edu/ -- is a
private university in Evansville, Indiana.[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


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company been named as a defendant in lawsuits in which
plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing asbestos
manufactured more than 35 years ago, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "The plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits
against multiple defendants and seek damages (both actual and
punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases, plaintiffs are
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable
injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result of exposure
to products manufactured by us. We are typically dismissed as a
defendant in such cases without payment. If the plaintiff presents
evidence indicating that compensable injury occurred as a result of
exposure to our products, the case is generally settled for an
amount that reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length,
intensity and character of exposure to products containing
asbestos, the number and solvency of other defendants in the case,
and the jurisdiction in which the case has been brought.

"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.

"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide coverage
for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs. Historically,
insurers have paid a significant portion of our defense costs and
settlements in asbestos-related litigation. However, certain of our
insurers are insolvent.  We have entered into cost-sharing
agreements with our insurers that provide for the allocation of
defense costs and settlements and judgments in asbestos-related
lawsuits. These agreements require, among other things, that we
fund a share of settlements and judgments allocable to years in
which the responsible insurer is insolvent."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3XfFZ9q


                            *********

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 ***