/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230213.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, February 13, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 32

                            Headlines

A1 ABSOLUTE: Smith Sues Over Direct Service Workers' Unpaid Wages
ALABAMA PLUMBING: McAnally Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
ALBERTSONS COS: Reed Smith Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Tobajian Sues Over Recorded Conversations
ALMA FOOD: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

AMANDA WORLEY: Bid to Stay Class Cert Briefing OK'd in Barnett
AMAZON.COM INC: Marcelo Labor Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Sued Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics
AMERICAN IDOL: Former Employees, Contestants File Labor Class Suit
ANGLO AMERICAN: Faces Class Suit Over Kabwe Pollution

ANTILLANA & METRO: Huerta Class Action Referred to Magistrate Judge
APARTMENT MANAGEMENT: Navarro Suit Removed to S.D. California
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Personal Data Tracking
APPLE INC: Serrano Suit Transferred to N.D. California
ARTHUR J. ROBBINS: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

ASIAN MARKET: Liu Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Breach of Contract
ATLASSIAN CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 4
ATLASSIAN CORP: Hollywood Sues Over Exchange Act Breach
AVANTUS LLC: Berryman Files Bid for Class Certification
BANKSIA HILL: Faces Class Suit Over Youth Detainees' Mistreatment

BARN FURNITURE MART: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BAYSIDE SOLUTIONS: Costa Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Texas
BEALLS INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BEEHIVE CHEESE: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLACK HORSE: Ill. Supreme Court Reverses in Part BIPA Case Ruling

BLUEGRASS TRUCK: Calmes Bid for Conditional Certification Tossed
BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Lively Bid for Appointment of Counsel Nixed
BPS DIRECT: Cornell Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
BUTTERBALL LLC: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Sought
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Survivors File Class Cert. in Wildfire Suit

CD PROJEKT: Class Settlement Fairness Hearing Set June 1
CHRISTIAN DIOR: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Sunscreens
CLAYTON DUBILIER: Firefighters' Pension Sues Over NCI/Ply Merger
CLAYTON DUBILIER: Whitebark Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
COINBASE GLOBAL: Wins Class Suit Over Unregistered Securities

COMMUNITY PSYCHIATRY: Fails to Secure Patients' Data, Lowrey Claims
CONNEXIN SOFTWARE: Jowers Sues Over failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
DAK RESOURCES: Vigil Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DEMCON CONCRETE: Faces Luna Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Workers
DIXIE BELLE PAINT: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ENTERGY CORP: Associated Terminals, et al., Seek to Certify Class
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Loses Bid for Decertification of Classes
FACEBOOK INC: Application to Stay Class Action Appeal Denied
FAMILY HOME: Appeals Court Ruling in Teshabaeva Wage-and-Hour Suit
FIRST CHOICE: Castro Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation

FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Suit Over Privacy Violations
FORD MOTOR: Parties Seek More Time for Class Certification
FORSTER & GARBUS: Schreiber Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection
FOTILE AMERICA: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FOX RENT: Faces Amjad Wage-and-Hour Suit in California

FRESENIUS USA: Ninth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment in Cota Suit
FXCM INC: Agrees to Settle Investor Class Action for $6.5 Million
GARD RECYCLING: Bernier Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
GARDNER PIE: Kaufman Seeks to Certify Collective FLSA Class
GLAMOURE BEAUTY: Cumana Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages

GOSPEL LIGHT: Lynn Sues Over Illegally Sold Insurance Contract
GRANITE SERVICES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Response
HEMPSTEAD, NY: G.B. Suit Seeks to Withdraw Bid to Amend Complaint
HONDA MOTOR: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 3
HUMANA INC: Calvin Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sells Hybrid Cars With Battery Defect, Kline Says
INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE: Scheduling Order Entered in Class Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Palladino Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
LABORATORY CORP: Anderson, et al., Seek to Supplement Record
LE SPORTSAC: Settlement Class in Hammond Suit Gets Initial Status

LENNAR CORP: Judge Tosses $5.4MM Class Action Settlement
LFL ENTERPRISES: Davis FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. California
LINDENWOOD UNIVERSITY: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LOUISIANA: Issuance of Writ of Mandamus in Crooks v. LDNR Reversed
MASON CO: Sannutti, et al., Seek Initial OK of Class Settlement

MATT MARTORELLO: Lending Scheme Class Action Waiver Unenforceable
MATTRESS FIRM: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial OK in Payero
MAZDA MOTOR: Court Decertifies Texas Class & Song-Beverly Class
MEDIBANK PRIVATE: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
MEDICOMM INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MERRIMACK COLLEGE: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MILWAUKEE, WI: Screening Order Entered in Bush Suit
MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Filing of Amended Complaint Granted in Part
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces $6-Bil. Suit Over "Sunday Ticket" Prices
NCI GROUP: Class Settlement in Gonzalez Gets Final Nod

NEW GENESIS: MAC 1 Food Sues Over Failure to Perform Paid Work
NINTENDO CO: Averts Class Action Suit Over Switch Joy-Con Drift
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Class Suits Over East Palestine Derailment
P. C. RICHARD & SON: Class Cert Hearing Rescheduled to March 15
PAULA'S CHOICE: Cody Wiretapping Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.

PENTA CONSTRUCTION: Chacon Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
PLDT INC : Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 7, 2023
POLARIS INC: Campos Sues Over Undisclosed Defective Vehicles
PORSCHE CARS: Xu, Vaz-Pocas Seek to Certify Classes
PRICE WATER: Final Order & Judgment Entered in Laurent Class Suit

PRIMA PASTA & CAFE: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
PRIMECARE MEDICAL: Kyer Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Court Approves Class Notice in Stedman Suit
PRUDENT FIDUCIARY: Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
QUAKE LED: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

RELIABLE PARTS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RENEWAL BY ANDERSON: Carroll Sues Over Video Privacy Violation
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Blackman Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Penny Files FDCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
ROSNERS INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

RUST-OLEUM CORP: Faces Class Suit Over False Ads of Products
SAFETY HARBOR: Alba Sues Over Nurse Assistants' Unpaid Wages
SALT OPTICS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Seeks More Time to Oppose 2nd Class Cert Bid
SAZERAC CO: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Designed Mini Bottles

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC: AHIC Wins Summary Judgment v. Turner
SELECT REHABILITATION: Manzella Sues to Recover Overtime Wages
SEQUIUM ASSET: Appeals Court Dismissed FDCPA Class Action Suit
SEVEN SMITH: Rana Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
SHOP-VAC: Gair Suit Files Bid for Class Certification

SIX FLAGS: Duane Morris Attorneys Discuss Ruling in Securities Suit
SONY INTERACTIVE: Motion to Dismiss Over Antitrust Claim Denied
STAR ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Violations
STONEHILL COLLEGE: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
T-MOBILE US: Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach Investigated

T-MOBILE US: Polhill Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
T-MOBILE: Fails Yet Again to Protect Customers' Info, Ferguson Says
TEJAS ENERGY: Nunez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
TIDEWATER FINANCE: Johnson Seeks to Certify Class Action
TIMEC SERVICES: Wilson Discrimination Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.

TIMECO SYSTEMS: Griffin Files Suit in M.D. Florida
TINKER FEDERAL: Stafford Privacy Suit Removed to W.D. Okla.
TPG INC: Faces Assad Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
TRICIA E-BILLING: Misclassifies Employees, Davis Suit Claims
UNITED ELECTRICAL: Seeks Dismissal of FLSA Class Action Suit

VISIBLE CHANGES: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Maddy Suit
VIVINT SOLAR: Class Settlement in Dekker Suit Wins Prelim. Approval
W.L. GORE: Oraliza Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
WALGREEN CO: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment v. Theda Jackson-Mau
WELLS FARGO: Hearing Sets on Feb. 27 Over Auto-Loan Class Suit

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
[*] Canabbis Company Must Face Class-Action SEC Disclosure Suit
[*] Independent Contractors Rule to Impact Workplace Class Actions
[*] Texas AG Joins Amicus Briefs on Advocacy Settlement Funds

                            *********

A1 ABSOLUTE: Smith Sues Over Direct Service Workers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEANETTE SMITH and LYNETTE OLIVER on behalf of herself and all
those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A1 ABSOLUTE BEST CARE,
L.L.C. AND COLLETTE BRANCH, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00362
(E.D. La., January 30, 2023) is a class action brought by the
Plaintiffs against the Defendants seeking unpaid minimum wages and
unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages for not being paid
overtime and/or not being paid minimum wage in direct violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs previously worked or currently work for Defendants
as direct services workers. They assert that the Defendants edited
the time of other DSWs and thereby failed to pay them at the
federally-mandated minimum wage for all hours worked and/or
overtime rate for hours that they worked in excess of 40 per week.

A1 Absolute Best Care, L.L.C. is an assisted living facility in
Terrytown, Louisiana.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON+JACKSON
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 599-5953
          Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
          E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
                  mjackson@jackson-law.net

               - and -

          John O. Pieksen, Jr., Esq.
          BAGNERIS, PIEKSEN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          935 Gravier Street, Suite 2110
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 493-7990
          Facsimile: (504) 493-7991
          E-mail: pieksen@bpajustice.com

ALABAMA PLUMBING: McAnally Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Paul McAnally, Christopher Todd Clark Jr., and Blaine Simmons,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees v.
Alabama Plumbing Contractor LLC, Brent Vacarella, Vicky Vacarella,
Greg Johnson and Josh Martin, Case 2:19-cv-02033-RDP (N.D. Ala.,
Feb. 2, 2023), is brought pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act to
recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees,
pre-judgment interest, costs, expenses and all other damages that
the Plaintiff is entitled to under the FLSA.

The Defendants failed and/or refused to pay for the time for the
Plaintiffs to get parts from the shop in the morning, to pick up
parts from the plumbing store and/or to drive from the shop to the
plumbing supplier and/or jobsites in the morning and from the
jobsites at the end of the day back to the shop. The Plaintiffs
worked an average of 10 to 20 hours per week (depending on the
location of the jobsite) driving to and/or from the Defendants'
shop to and/or from jobsites both within and outside the greater
Birmingham area, getting parts at the shop needed for the job
and/or driving to and from the plumbing supply store for which the
Defendants failed and/or refused to pay minimum wage, their agreed
upon hourly rate and/or overtime if the hours exceeded 40 hours per
week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employees of the Defendants.

Alabama Plumbing Contractor LLC is a company which does commercial
plumbing as a subcontractor and/or plumbing contractor for general
contractors and/or companies in the state of Alabama and has its
principal place of business in Shelby County, Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Harwell, Esq.
          HARWELL LAW FIRM LLC
          109 Foothills Parkway #112
          Chelsea, AL 35043
          Phone: (205) 999-1099
          Email: Scott@HarwellLaw.com


ALBERTSONS COS: Reed Smith Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James M. Beck, Esq., of Reed Smith LLP, in an article for Lexology,
reports that one of 2022's top-ten cases, In re Zantac (Ranitidine)
Products Liability Litigation, ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2022 WL 17480906
(S.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2022), opened with a 4-page critique of the
shortcomings of the product testing conducted by a purportedly
"independent" laboratory that touched off that massively meritless
MDL litigation. Id. at *1-4.

More bogus product "testing" formed the basis for Sapienza v.
Albertsons Companies, Inc., et al., 2022 WL 17404919 (D. Mass. Dec.
2, 2022), which was likewise dismissed four days earlier, only on
preemption rather than Rule 702 grounds. Sapienza was a putative
nationwide class action based on allegations that "independent
testing" showed the defendant's over-the-counter ("OTC") "rapid
release" acetaminophen product "dissolve[d] more slowly than"
similar products that were not labeled "rapid release." Id. at *1.
The rest of the complaint consisted of the usual boilerplate
economic loss/"premium" pricing claims. Id.

Because Sapienza asserted economic loss, rather than personal
injury claims, the "product liability" exception to OTC express
preemption in 21 U.S.C. Section 379r(a) was applicable, and as a
result Sapienza was duly dispatched on a motion to dismiss, rather
than lingering until summary judgment, as in Zantac - or escaping
preemption altogether as in the dreadful In re Acetaminophen -
ASD-ADHD Products Liability Litigation, 2022 WL 17348351 (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 14, 2022), that we blogged about here. This preemption
provision bars any state-law claim "that is different from or in
addition to, or that is otherwise not identical with, a [FDA]
requirement" applicable to this OTC drug. Id. at *2 (quoting
Section 379r(a)).

For plaintiff Sapienza, the now-"final administrative order"
governing acetaminophen (and a number of other) products included
"dissolution standards" - incorporating standards "promulgated in
the United States Pharmacopeia (USP)." Id. Specifically:

The USP standards identify acetaminophen tablets as "immediate
release" when a product dissolves by at least 80% after 30 minutes.
Further FDA guidance identifies acetaminophen tablets dissolving
85% or more within 30 minutes as "rapidly dissolving" and those
that dissolve within 15 minutes as "very rapidly dissolving."

Id. (citations omitted). Plaintiff's case had a serious problem,
"[t]he testing on which [plaintiff] rests her claims confirms that
the [product] meet the USP and Immediate Release Guidance
dissolution standards." Id. at *3.

The Sapienza opinion thus observed that, as a result, all of the
"claims are preempted insofar that they attempt to augment the
existing approved labeling requirement." Id. Plaintiff first argued
that preemption didn't apply because the USP standards were phrased
in terms of "immediate release" rather than "rapid release, the
term that appeared on the product. Id. That argument vanished,
almost immediately.

FDA preemption regulates dissolution standards generally - the
subject matter of Sapienza's state-law claims - even if the
wordings slightly differ . . . . [W]hile the FDA may not have
considered the exact language addressed it had clearly addressed
the substance of the claims at issue.

Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff relied on a
food decision "to argue that "rapid release" would need to appear
verbatim in the FDA and USP regulations to have preemptive effect."
Id. (citation omitted). But unlike the food case, the monograph
here became final by congressional fiat. Id.

Further, since the product in fact met the applicable dissolution
standards for "rapid release," that other products not so labeled
"may dissolve just as (or even more) rapidly is no more relevant as
a comparison than is a bag of ice labeled 'frozen' as opposed to
one simply branded as 'ice.'" Id.

Finally, the plaintiff's position made no sense as a practical
matter:

To find otherwise would require the FDA to list phrases in every
possible permutation of similar words to have preemptive effect.
Yet limiting the FDCA's preemptive power in such a way would
undermine the latitude Congress gives agencies to have authority
over matters in which they have subject matter expertise - here the
FDA's responsibility to evaluate and regulate drugs.

Id. at *4. To limit preemption, and therefore the scope of FDA
regulation, to verbatim identical phrases would not only depart
from the plain language of §379r(a), but would place a premium on
bizarre claims:

This argument proves too much. By this logic, a manufacturer could
make any claim -- wild, untruthful, or otherwise -- about a product
whose contents are not addressed by a specific regulation."

Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted).

While "sapienza" means "wisdom" in Italian, plaintiff's arguments
certainly were not. Poof. Sapienza quite rapidly dissolved, thanks
to OTC preemption. [GN]

ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Tobajian Sues Over Recorded Conversations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Tobajian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00753 (C.D.
Cal., Feb. 1, 2023), is brought for damages, injunctive relief, and
any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the
illegal actions of the Defendant in knowingly, and/or willfully
employing and/or causing to be employed certain recording equipment
in order to record to the telephone conversations of Plaintiff
without the knowledge or consent of Plaintiff, in violation of
California Penal Code, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

On December 19, 2022, the Plaintiff received a phone call from
Defendants agent to discuss a recent accident in which the
Plaintiff was involved. While the Defendant discussed the details
of the accident, the Plaintiff was never told by the Defendant's
representative that she was on a recorded line. The Plaintiff is
informed and believes that the Defendant was facilitating insurance
services for the driver of the other vehicle involved in the
accident with the Plaintiff. The December 19, 2022, phone call by
the Defendant was made to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone.

Additionally, the Plaintiff obtained a recording from between the
Defendant and the Defendants' own insured. During the phone call,
the Defendant discussed the details of the accident with Defendants
insured. However, the Defendant's agent failed to give any
disclosure that the Defendant's insured was on a recorded line.
Based on the recordings between the Defendant and the Plaintiff,
and between the Defendant and the Defendant's insured, it is
abundantly clear that the Defendant, on a regular basis, records
conversations without disclosing the calls are being recorded.

The Plaintiff discovered the Plaintiff was being recorded by the
Defendant on December 2022 when the Plaintiff obtained the
recordings through other litigation with the Defendant. The
Plaintiff was shocked to discover that her communications with the
Defendant was recorded by the Defendant without the Plaintiff's
knowledge or consent. The Plaintiff found the Defendant's secretive
recording to be highly offensive. The conversation with the
Plaintiff on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, was recorded by
the Defendant without the Plaintiff's knowledge or consent, causing
harm and damage to the Plaintiff, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual citizen and resident of the City of
West Hills, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Defendant is a corporation whose primary corporate address is
located in Northbrook, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800)400-6808
          Facsimile: (800)520-5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          301 E. Bethany Home Road Suite C-195
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          Email: ryan@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Aryanna Young, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio S., #101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          Email: aryanna@kazlg.com


ALMA FOOD: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Alma Food Group,
LLC. The case is styled as Rafael Cordero, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Alma Food Group,
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00919-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2023).

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

Alma Foods, LLC manufactures food products. The Company offers
pastes, dips, and salsas products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMANDA WORLEY: Bid to Stay Class Cert Briefing OK'd in Barnett
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD BARNETT, et al.,
v. AMANDA WORLEY, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00060 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Hon. Judge Alistair E. Newbern entered an order granting the
Defendants motion to stay briefing of the plaintiffs' pending
motion for class certification and motion for a preliminary
injunction until the upcoming initial case management conference.

Because the initial case management conference will provide an
opportunity to discuss the scope of any needed discovery – which
generally does not commence until the initial case management
conference -- and to set a briefing schedule for the motions, the
stay is granted, the Court says.

The parties shall be prepared to discuss any discovery necessary to
the briefing of these motions and a schedule for responsive
briefing at the initial case management conference and shall
include their proposals in the proposed initial case management
order, the Court adds.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E9aDL1 at no extra charge.[CC]

AMAZON.COM INC: Marcelo Labor Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California transfers the case, ELSON MARCELO, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-07843-JD (N.D. Cal.), to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.

The Plaintiffs are 16 individuals from California who agreed to
deliver packages for Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon
Logistics, Inc. (together, Amazon), through a smartphone app called
Amazon Flex. They say that they were misclassified as independent
contractors rather than Amazon employees. They allege a dozen
federal and California labor law claims against Amazon. Amazon has
asked to compel arbitration of the claims and dismiss the
complaint, or, in the alternative, to transfer, dismiss, or stay
the case under the first-to-file rule.

The case is one of several lawsuits alleging that Amazon
misclassified Amazon Flex delivery drivers as independent
contractors. One of the first cases, Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
was filed in 2016 in the Western District of Washington. The
Rittmann plaintiffs allege claims against Amazon under federal and
California labor laws, and other state labor laws, and seek to
represent a class of "all delivery drivers who have contracted
directly with Amazon to provide delivery services in California
between three years since they brought this complaint and the date
of final judgment in this matter." The docket in Rittmann indicates
that class certification proceedings are upcoming.

The Rittmann court denied Amazon's first motion to compel
arbitration. It concluded that the plaintiffs were engaged in
interstate commerce as delivery drivers and consequently exempt
from the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Section 1. It also held
that the plaintiffs' contracts did not indicate that the
arbitration provision was enforceable under state law. The Ninth
Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court denied review.

The Rittmann court permitted Amazon to file a renewed motion to
compel arbitration after the Supreme Court decided Southwest
Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 142 S.Ct. 1783 (2022), and the renewed
motion is under submission.

The Plaintiffs object to a transfer on the ground that the Rittmann
plaintiffs are not seeking recovery for unlawful deductions, as the
instant case does, and does seek recovery for sick leave, which the
case does not. They also say that there is not similarity of the
parties as Rittmann is a class action while this is an individual
action.

Judge Donato finds that the fact that the cases do not overlap
exactly does not weigh substantially against a transfer. He also
finds that the Plaintiffs do not contend that they would not be
within Rittmann's putative class if certified, and they are
certainly free to opt out if they so choose.

Consequently, Judge Donato holds that a transfer to Washington best
serves judicial efficiency, economy, and fairness. He says other
courts in this District have reached the same conclusion in similar
lawsuits. It is also worth noting that the same conclusion would be
readily reached under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).

The case is transferred to the Western District of Washington.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2ucdj2u5 from Leagle.com.


AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Sued Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard McCall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Case 1:23-cv-00901-KPF
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2023), is brought for damages and other legal
and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant in collecting, retaining, storing, using, and profiting
from his and other similarly situated individuals' biometric
identifiers information1 (referred to at times as
"biometrics")--their hand geometry ("hand geometry" or "palm scans"
or "palm prints")--without properly disclosing or notifying
Plaintiff and Class Members in direct violation of the New York
City Biometric Identifier Information Law ("NYC BIIL" or "BIIL").

In direct violation of each of the foregoing provisions of the NYC
BIIL, Defendant: collected, retains, converted, stored, and/or
shared--without first placing clear and conspicuous signs near all
of its commercial establishments' customer entrances--the
biometrics (scans of hand geometry) and associated personally
identifying information of hundreds or thousands of its customers,
who have scanned their palmprints using Defendant's Amazon One
technology in New York City, including at Amazon Go, Starbucks with
Amazon Go, and Whole Foods locations.

The Defendant has also profited from these transactions involving
the biometric identifier information of class members. The
Defendant has been engaged in the practice of directing customers
of retail locations to make purchases using their palm prints in
New York City since at least May 2019.

If the Defendant's database of digitized palm prints were to fall
into the wrong hands, by data breach or otherwise, the customers to
whom these sensitive and immutable biometric identifiers belong
could have their identities stolen, among other serious issues. NYC
BIIL confers on the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated New
York City residents a right to know of such risks, which are
inherently presented by the collection, storage, use of
biometrics.

The Plaintiff brings this action to prevent Defendant from further
violating the privacy rights of New York City residents and to
recover statutory damages for Defendant's having used and profited
from individuals' biometrics in violation of NYC BIIL, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff visited an Amazon Go store located in Manhattan, New
York and made a purchase using his palm print as directed by the
Defendant in January 2023.

The Defendant owns and operates retail locations throughout New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
          Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Fax: (212) 989-9163
          Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
                 jdiamond@bursor.com
                 mgirardi@bursor.com


AMERICAN IDOL: Former Employees, Contestants File Labor Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Myers, writing for Yahoo! Entertainment, reports that it
looks like "American Idol" is facing a major class action lawsuit
filed by former employees of the show and contestants.

The Blast obtained the exclusive court documents, which involve
some crazy stories . . . including one about a carrot-shaped
purse!

According to the legal documents obtained by The Blast, the
Plaintiff is bringing this class action lawsuit against "American
Idol" on behalf of herself and "Class Members."

The "Class Members" consist of unpaid or underpaid individuals who
participated in or worked on the creation of any non-scripted
content production for the American Idol reality television series,
or performed services of a commercial nature related to content
subject matter creation, including but not limited to performing
and singing, in California by, in association with, or on behalf of
any of the Defendants during the Class Period.

The Plaintiff is also bringing the class action lawsuit on behalf
of "Aggrieved Employees," who consist of unpaid or underpaid
individuals who participated in or worked on the creation of any
non-consist of all unpaid or underpaid individuals who participated
in or worked on the creation of any non-scripted content production
for the American Idol reality television series, or performed
services of a commercial nature related to content subject matter
creation, including but not limited to performing and singing, in
California by, in association with, or on behalf of any of the
Defendants during the PAGA Period.

It's worth noting that the "PAGA Period" is designated as the time
from one year and 65 days prior to the filing of this Complaint
through the trial of this action based upon the allegation that the
violations of the Labor Code have been ongoing since at least one
year and 65 days prior to the date of the instant Complaint in this
action and are continuing.

In other words, the Plaintiff is looking for the lawsuit to include
individuals who performed services in the state of California of a
commercial or performative nature, including singing, acting, and
or performing on-camera, for any of the Defendants, or individuals
whose efforts provided and/or created media content for use or
potential use in Defendants' non-scripted reality television
series, American Idol.

According to the legal documents, the Plaintiff alleges that
"American Idol" forced Class Members and Aggrieved Employees to
contribute their talents to a for-profit commercial enterprise that
generated millions of dollars in revenue each season while. The
lawsuit said that the show illegally and willfully classified them
as uncompensated volunteers and not as employees.

The Plaintiff claims that "American Idol" had excessive amounts of
control over those who worked and appeared on the show, controlling
their time, their schedule, where they slept, and even their
ability to eat and drink when they wanted to.

For example, Defendants allegedly told class members that they were
not allowed to eat during all periods that they could possibly be
filmed because "eating doesn't look good on camera," as per the
lawsuit.

The lawsuit further alleges that the "Defendants maintained a
practice of willfully misclassifying these employees to deny them
such protections and avoid paying them proper minimum wage, meal,
and rest break premiums, and overtime pay."

In order to profit from these performers, the court papers state
that "American Idol" forced performers to enter contracts that
stated that each entertainer's performance "shall not be deemed to
be a performance and is not employment."

The Plaintiff alleges that Class Members had to work "14 hours per
day or more, for up to eight days in a row, while refusing to pay
them at all, for any of this work performed."

The Plaintiff is looking for Class Members and Aggrieved Employees
to be financial compensation for their work. The class action
lawsuit is seeking unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum
wages, waiting time penalties, statutory penalties, restitution,
declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs,
prejudgment interest, and other appropriately relief as a result of
the violations set forth herein.

The lawsuit also seems to encompass Class Members who might not
have made it past the audition round. The lawsuit claims that some
class members had to "purchase or provide additional
business-related resources or services without reimbursement."

According to the court documents, someone on the show instructed
one contestant auditioning for the show to drive home so she could
retrieve a purse shaped like a carrot and show it to the judges.

The Plaintiff claims that she was not reimbursed for the mileage,
the use of the purse, or other expenses incurred as a result of
using her personal vehicle. [GN]

ANGLO AMERICAN: Faces Class Suit Over Kabwe Pollution
-----------------------------------------------------
Mike Mwenda of Lifegate reports that Anglo American sued over Kabwe
pollution.

Mining giant and Kabwe locals square off in class-action lawsuit
over lead mine.

Environmental activists have accused Anglo American of deliberately
dumping toxic waste that has poisoned thousands of women and
children in Kabwe.

Kabwe is a small town located 150 kilometres (95 miles) away from
the Zambian capital, Lusaka. In 1902, rich deposits of lead were
discovered in Kabwe. In 1906, active mining and smelting operations
started and ran unchecked for almost 90 years. There were no
pollution laws regulating emissions from the mines. But, in 1994,
the Zambian government closed the mine and privatized its assets
the following year. The Kabwe lead mine is located in close
proximity to the villages of Kasanda, Makandanyama, Chowa, Mutwe
Wansofu, and Makululu, with an estimated local population of
77,000. From 1925 to 1974, its most productive period, the mine was
owned and/or managed by Anglo American South Africa Ltd.

A class action lawsuit has been issued against Anglo American South
Africa Ltd on behalf of Zambian communities living in the vicinity
of the Kabwe lead mine, who for decades have endured perilous lead
poisoning. Mbuyisa Moleele Attorneys, a South African law firm, and
British solicitors Leigh Day contend that in villages in and around
Kabwe, both children and adults living in the shadow of an old lead
mine have experienced heightened health problems due to the high
levels of lead in the area's topsoil and water supplies.

"Anglo knew of these dangers or, at best, turned a blind eye to
them. Children were already falling ill and dying of lead
poisoning, and a high proportion of them were suffering from
massive blood lead levels while it exercised control over the
mine," said Gilbert Marcus, a lawyer representing victims in the
South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg. Lawyers for the victims,
however, have maintained that most of the pollution happened when
the mine was part of Anglo American South Africa.

Legal experts say that if the plaintiffs' lawyers are successful,
this lawsuit would pave the way for as many as 140,000 lead
exposure victims to potentially be able to claim damages from the
mine pollution. The class action lawsuit is ongoing. [GN]

ANTILLANA & METRO: Huerta Class Action Referred to Magistrate Judge
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDO SANTIAGO HUERTA,
and CLEMENTINA DURAN, v. ANTILLANA & METRO SUPERMARKET, CORP., ALRA
CORP., and OSVALDO RODRIGUEZ,Case No. 1:23-cv-00002-RA-OTW
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams entered an order referring
the class action to Magistrate Judge Wang for the following
purpose:

  General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-
  dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement);

  Specific Non-Dispositive Motion/Dispute: Conditional class
  certification motion, see 29 U.S.C. section
  216(b) (if any); and

  Dispositive Motion (i.e., motion requiring a Report and
  Recommendation) Particular Motion: Class certification motion,
  see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (if any).

Antillana & Metro is a retail food store.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jz2qII at no extra charge.[CC]


APARTMENT MANAGEMENT: Navarro Suit Removed to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rosa Navarro, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Apartment Management Consultants, LLC,
Rose 1 through 100, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
37-02022-00049211-CU-OR-CTL was removed from the Superior Court, of
The State of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on Feb. 3, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00208-JM-MSB to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Real Property.

Apartment Management Consultants (AMC) -- https://www.amcllc.net/
-- is a leader in the property management industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Hogue, Esq.
          Tyler Jay Belong, Esq.
          HOGUE & BELONG, APC
          170 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 238-4720
          Fax: (619) 238-5260
          Email: jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com
                 tbelong@hoguebelonglaw.com

               - and -

          Octavio Velarde, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF OCTAVIO VELARDE
          3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (619) 330-6870
          Fax: (619) 330-5847
          Email: octavio@velardelawoffice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Aron K. Liang, Esq.
          Joshua A. Cohen, Esq.
          Ryan P. Harley, Esq.
          2175 N. California Boulevard, Suite 835
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (510) 844-5100

               - and -

          Christie Bodnar Swiss, Esq.
          COLLINS COLLINS MUIR AND STEWART LLP
          2011 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 207
          Carlsbad, CA 92011
          Phone: (760) 274-2110
          Fax: (760) 274-2111
          Email: cswiss@ccmslaw.com


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Personal Data Tracking
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ClassAction.org reports that Apple faces a proposed class action
lawsuit that alleges the tech giant misleads consumers into
believing that their personal data is not being tracked.

The 18-page lawsuit calls Apple's alleged data tracking a "story of
corporate greed. The case claims that although the company
explicitly promises to give consumers the ultimate say about their
privacy, independent research has shown that Apple nevertheless
tracks users' data through their personal iPhones, iPads, and Apple
computers connected to the App Store.

As part of its privacy campaign and to gain an edge in the market,
Apple has criticized its competitors and "overtly advertised [that]
it does not need to track users to harvest data and make money from
it," the suit says. The suit contends that Apple has abused its
customer loyalty and reputation as a trusted brand, misleading
consumers by "consistently doubl[ing] down on its privacy
message."

However, the complaint suggests that the company's "Privacy. That's
Apple." messaging is a ploy given that switching off device
analytics features has "no impact" on the information Apple
collects, the filing relays.

More specifically, although users can turn off their iPhone
Analytics settings and ostensibly "disable the sharing of Device
Analytics," researchers determined that the privacy settings "had
no obvious effect" on data-tracking—that is, Apple continued to
collect user data whether or not iPhone Analytics was disabled, the
filing says.

Per the lawsuit, turning off device analytics in the App store is
similarly ineffective as it purportedly continues to capture user
activity in real-time and record personal details like ID numbers,
the device being used, browser information, screen resolution,
keyboard languages, and more.

As of the April 2021 launch of Apple's iOS 14.5 update, the company
claimed that it was "making targeted advertising much more
difficult," the case explains. The update reportedly made opting
out of data-tracking simple—while before the process was
"cumbersome," after the update, users were presented with a pop-up
when an app sought to track their activity, and given the choice to
allow or deny it, the complaint relays.

However, no such pop-up appears when Apple itself tracks the
activity of its own consumers, who do not realize that the company
actually implemented the new data-tracking opt-out feature "to
protect its own ad revenue at the expense of other competitors such
as Facebook," the filing alleges.

"Apple's business strategy is apparent: cut out the competition so
it can keep the advertising revenue for itself," the lawsuit
charges.

The plaintiff, a New York resident and owner of an iPhone 12 Pro
Max, MacBook Air, Apple TV, and iPad Pro, believed like other
consumers that Apple would comply with his devices' privacy
settings, the suit says. Nevertheless, the company allegedly
continued to track the man's personal data regardless of the
features being disabled.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who
purchased an Apple device for personal use and not for resale who
had their personal information tracked after disabling the setting
that allows Apple to track data. [GN]

APPLE INC: Serrano Suit Transferred to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joaquin Serrano, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00070 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on Feb. 2, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00487-TSH to the
proceeding.

The nature suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/ -- is an American
multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Ferich, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Phone: (310) 474-9111
          Fax: (310) 474-8585
          Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Adam Pollock, Esq.
          Raphael Janove, Esq.
          POLLOCK COHEN LLP
          111 Broadway, Suite 1804
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 337-5361
          Email: adam@pollockcohen.com
                 rafi@pollockcohen.com

               - and -

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
          SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
          134 Kings Hwy. E.. 2nd Floor
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Phone: (856) 772-7200
          Fax: (610) 649-3633
          Email: bjohns@shublawyers.com
                 ecf@shublawyers.com
                 sholbrook@shublawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Emily Johnson Henn, Esq.
          Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          3000 El Camino Real
          5 Palo Alto Square
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Phone: (650) 632-4700
          Email: ehenn@cov.com
                 kcahoy@cov.com

               - and -

          Jeremy E. Abay, Esq.
          SACKS WESTON DIAMOND LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 928-8200
          Fax: (267) 639-5422
          Email: jabay@sackslaw.com

               - and -

          Peter St. Tienne Wolff, Esq.
          Stephen F. Raiola, Esq.
          PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI, LLP
          One Oxford Centre
          301 Grant Street, 38th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 263-4352
          Fax: (412) 263-4252
          Email: psw@pietragallo.com
                 sfr@pietragallo.com


ARTHUR J. ROBBINS: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Juan Lopez, Sonia Lopez, Sandra Claros, Jose Urbina, Walter Mejia,
Juana Flores, Sonia Zarat, Veronica Zamora, Hugo Garcia, Maryuri
Granados, Flor Ochoa, and Katherine Urbina, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. ARTHUR J. ROBBINS, LISA ROBBINS,
MICHAEL BARRISH and BEVERLYMARK INC. d/b/a ACU PLUS, ABC Corp.
d/b/a ACU PLUS, Case No. 2:23-cv-00807 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2023), is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law, as a result of the Defendants: unpaid wages for overtime
work performed, unpaid spread of hours wages for each day
Plaintiffs worked ten or more hours, liquidated damages for failure
to pay overtime premium and spread of hours pay, liquidated damages
for failure to furnish Plaintiff a notice and acknowledgment at the
time of hiring, attorneys fees, interest, and all costs and
disbursements associated with this action.

While the Plaintiffs and Collective and Class plaintiffs, worked in
excess of forty hours a week, Defendants willfully failed to pay
them minimum wage and overtime compensation for the overtime hours
worked. The Plaintiffs and the other Collective Plaintiffs are, and
have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job
requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subject to
Defendants common  policies, programs, practices, procedures,
protocols, routines, and rules willfully failing and refusing to
pay them one and one half times their hourly rate for work in
excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs largely reside in NASSAU County, New York.

The Defendants operates as a customer screen printing and
embroidery company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
          MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
          91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
          Hempstead, NY 11550
          Phone: (516) 280.4600
          Facsimile: (516) 280.4530
          Email: mmonteiro@mflawny.com


ASIAN MARKET: Liu Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
JU YING LIU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JESSICA DAYTON, ASIAN MARKET COMPANY, INC.,
EIGHT MOONS, LLC, SANDEEP KUMAR, and CEDAR HEIGHTS CITY, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00010-PK (D. Utah, January 30, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, illegal
deductions under the H-1B program, breach of contract and
accounting, and defamation.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants and assisted in the
preparation of opening Eight Moons Thai and Sushi in Utah.

Asian Market Company, Inc. is an Asian food products supplier in
Utah.

Eight Moons, LLC is a restaurant company in Utah.

Cedar Heights City, LLC is a real estate company in Utah. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         William E. Frazier, Esq.
         BANGERTER FRAZIER GROUP
         912 W. 1600 S., Suite A-200
         St. George, Utah 84770
         Telephone: (435) 628-7004
         Facsimile: (435) 673-1964

ATLASSIAN CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Class: Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a
class action on behalf of all purchasers of Atlassian Corporation
(NASDAQ: TEAM) ordinary shares and/or common stock between August
5, 2022 and November 3, 2022, for violations of the Securities Act
of 1934. Atlassian develops and sells collaboration and
project-management software that operates both on premises and in
the cloud.

What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to
participate in the class action against Atlassian. Shareholders who
want to act as lead plaintiff for the class must file their papers
by April 4, 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. For more information, click here.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.

What is this Case About: Atlassian Corporation (TEAM) Misled
Investors Regarding the Company's Financial Viability and Business
Prospects

According to the complaint, leading up to the class period,
defendants touted the Company's financial viability. After markets
closed on August 4, 2022, defendant Co-Chief Executive Officer
Scott Farquhar reiterated the Company's guidance of 50%
year-on-year cloud growth for fiscal years 2023 and 2024. In a call
with analysts that day, defendant and Chief Revenue Officer Cameron
Deatsch assured investors the Company was "being exceedingly
vigilant watching all stages of our funnel" and that "we have yet
to see any specific trend . . . that gives us pause or worry to
date." According to CRO Deatsch, the "demand for collaboration
products continue[s] to be strong."

In reality, Atlassian overstated its financial guidance by
concealing trends of slowing conversions from free users to paying
customers and slowing growth in paying-user expansion. As a result,
defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects during the class period were materially
false and/or misleading.

On November 3, 2022, Atlassian issued a letter to shareholders and
held a conference call with analysts to discuss its financial
results for the fiscal first quarter of 2023 ended September 30,
2022. In the letter to shareholders, defendants revealed that
"[b]ased on the macro headwinds," the Company was "lowering our
Cloud revenue growth outlook to a range of approximately 40% to 45%
year-over-year" for fiscal year 2023. In describing the "macro
impacts" on the Company, the letter to shareholders revealed that
(1) the Company "saw a decrease in the rate of Free instances
converting to paid plans," calling it a "trend [that] became more
pronounced" in the quarter and (2) the Company experienced "a
slowing in the rate of paid user growth from existing customers."
In response to these revelations, the price of Atlassian stock
declined almost 29% the following trading day, from a closing price
of $174.17 per share on November 3, 2022 to a closing price of
$123.73 per share on November 4, 2022. More than $7 billion in
shareholder value evaporated. Analysts reported being "surprised by
the magnitude of the slowdown" as defendants "delivered unusually
disappointing" results.

Contact us to learn more:

Aaron Dumas
(800) 350-6003
adumas@robbinsllp.com
Shareholder Information Form

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 Atlassian Corporation settles or to receive free alerts
when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock
Watch today.

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

CONTACT:

Aaron Dumas
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]

ATLASSIAN CORP: Hollywood Sues Over Exchange Act Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
City Of Hollywood Firefighters' Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ATLASSIAN CORPORATION,
ATLASSIAN CORPORATION PLC, MICHAEL CANNON-BROOKES, SCOTT FARQUHAR,
ANU BHARADWAJ, and CAMERON DEATSCH, Case No. 3:23-cv-00519 (N.D.
Cal., Feb. 3, 2023), is brought on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased and/or acquired Atlassian ordinary shares
and/or common stock between August 5, 2022 and November 3, 2022,
inclusive (the "Class Period") against Atlassian and certain of its
officers (collectively "Defendants") seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Company derives a majority of its revenue from its Jira
Software and Confluence software products. The Company generates
revenue primarily from license subscriptions both from free users
who convert to paying customers when they exceed the cap on free
licenses, and from existing paying users who expand their existing
subscriptions. In 2020, Atlassian began to transition its clients
to the cloud, which has accounted for a rapidly growing portion of
the Company's revenues.

In the spring and summer of 2022, as macroeconomic conditions
deteriorated and Atlassian's competitors lowered their revenue
guidance, Defendants remained steadfast that these conditions were
not having a material impact on the Company. Indeed, after markets
closed on August 4, 2022, Defendant Co-Chief Executive Officer
Scott Farquhar reiterated the Company's guidance of 50%
year-on-year cloud growth for fiscal years 2023 and 2024. In a call
with analysts that day, more than a month into the Company's fiscal
first quarter of 2023, Defendant and Chief Revenue Officer Cameron
Deatsch assured investors the Company was "being exceedingly
vigilant watching all stages of our funnel" and that "we have yet
to see any specific trend that gives us pause or worry to date."
According to CRO Deatsch, the "demand for collaboration products
continues to be strong."

Undisclosed to investors, throughout the Class Period, Atlassian
overstated its financial guidance by concealing trends of slowing
conversions from free users to paying customers and slowing growth
in paying-user expansion. As a result, the Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
during the Class Period were materially false and /or misleading.

Investors only learned the truth about the Company's vulnerability
to macroeconomic conditions and weakened outlook after the
financial markets closed on November 3, 2022. That afternoon,
Atlassian issued a letter to shareholders and held a conference
call with analysts to discuss its financial results for the fiscal
first quarter of 2023 ended September 30, 2022. In the letter to
shareholders, filed as an Exhibit to a Current Report on Form 8-K,
the Defendants revealed that "based on the macro headwinds," the
Company was "lowering our Cloud revenue growth outlook to a range
of approximately 40% to 45% year-over-year" for fiscal year 2023.
In describing the "macro impacts" on the Company, the letter to
shareholders revealed that the Company "saw a decrease in the rate
of Free instances converting to paid plans," calling it a "trend
that became more pronounced" in the quarter and the Company
experienced "a slowing in the rate of paid user growth from
existing customers."

In response to these revelations, the price of Atlassian stock
declined almost 29% the following trading day, from a closing price
of $174.17 per share on November 3, 2022 to a closing price of
$123.73 per share on November 4, 2022. More than $7 billion in
shareholder value evaporated. Analysts reported being "surprised by
the magnitude of the slowdown" as Defendants "delivered unusually
disappointing" results. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts
and omissions, and the precipitous decline in market value of the
Company's common stock when the truth was disclosed, Plaintiff and
other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff City of Hollywood Firefighters' Pension Fund is a
public pension fund providing benefits for eligible firefighters in
Hollywood, Florida.

Atlassian develops and sells collaboration and project-management
software that operates both on premises and in the cloud.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Kaplan, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          505 Lomas Santa Fe Drive, Suite 180
          Solana Beach, CA 92075
          Phone: (858) 997-0860
          Facsimile: (858) 369-0096
          Email: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com


AVANTUS LLC: Berryman Files Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lonnie R. Berryman, Jr.,
individually and as a representative of the Class, v. Avantus, LLC,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01651-JBA (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order certifying a class of consumers defined as
follows:

    "All natural persons who were the subject:

    (1) of a consumer report furnished by Defendant to a third
        party within the two years preceding the filing date of
        the Complaint through the certification of the Class;

    (2) where the consumer report contained a notation that the
        consumer was deceased from at least one of Experian,
        Equifax or Trans Union;

    (3) where at least one other of Experian, Equifax or Trans
        Union did not contain a deceased notation; and (4) where
        the consumer was not deceased at the time the report was
        issued.

The Plaintiff further moves the Court to appoint Plaintiff as Class
Representative, and Berger Montague PC as Class Counsel.

Avantus is a business-to-business credit reporting agency that
provides customized mortgage credit reports to originators, credit
unions, and banks.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan 25,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HB82KF
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
          Minneapolis, MN 55413
          Telephone: (612) 594-5999
          Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
                  jhashmall@bm.net

                - and -

          Jeffrey Gentes, Esq.
          CONNECTICUT FAIR
          HOUSING CENTER
          60 Popieluszko Court
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 263-0741
          Facsimile: (860) 247-4236 (fax)
          E-mail: jgentes@ctfairhousing.org

BANKSIA HILL: Faces Class Suit Over Youth Detainees' Mistreatment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Ramsey of Bega District News reports that legal dispute
over youth detention class action in Banksia Hill.

A class action alleging mistreatment of youth detainees in Western
Australia faces potential delays after the state government flagged
it would apply to strike out aspects of the claim.

Documents filed in the Federal Court allege children at Banksia
Hill and other WA detention facilities have been assaulted, held
unlawfully in their cells for prolonged periods and denied visits
from family members.

The material has been filed as part of a class action against the
WA government over the treatment of up to 500 detainees.

Barrister Robert Craig KC, representing the WA government, told the
Federal Court the allegations that had been levelled were "very
general" and investigating them would be a lengthy process.

He said it was likely there would be an application to strike out
aspects of the proceedings, flagging issues with the composition of
the claimants group and claims some detainees were discriminated
against on the basis of their disabilities.

Justice Debra Mortimer said the case went far beyond those
objections and there was a need to keep the matter moving at pace.

She ordered lawyers for the detainees to file a statement of claim
by April 19 and set an eight-week deadline for the government to
file its defence.

Both parties were ordered to prepare for the setting of possible
trial dates when the matter returns to court on a later date in
June.

Barrister Ben Slade, representing the claimants, said the
allegations were "very serious" and had been building for some
time.

"There will be a point at which this case will be going forward,"
he told the court.

"If we can find out what the state thinks about all this sooner
rather than later, that would be good."

Efforts by solicitors to secure third-party litigation funding for
the class action had so far been unsuccessful, he added.

An affidavit filed to the court by lawyer Stewart Levitt alleged a
teenage girl with autism was confined to a cell for up to 23 hours
a day, frequently subjected to strip-searches and forced to earn
her bedding during periods in Banksia Hill.

The class action alleges authorities failed to assess detainees for
mental health conditions when they were taken into custody,
resulting in impairments going undiagnosed.[GN]

BARN FURNITURE MART: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barn Furniture Mart,
Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Barn Furniture Mart, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-00824 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2023).

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

Barn Furniture Mart, Inc. -- https://www.barnfurnituremart.com/ --
is a family-owned furniture store since 1945 specializing in solid
oak & other wood home furnishings & accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


BAYSIDE SOLUTIONS: Costa Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bayside Solutions,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Andreia Costa, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bayside Solutions,
Inc. also known as: AADI Home Health and Hospice, Clinton Rendall,
Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00040 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 1, 2023).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Bayside Solutions -- https://baysidesolutions.com/ -- is an
industry-leading provider of staff augmentation and consulting
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W Anderson, Esq.
          Carter Tilden Hastings, Esq.
          Lauren Elizabeth Braddy, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Phone: (361) 452-1279
          Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
                 austin@a2xlaw.com
                 carter@a2xlaw.com
                 lauren@a2xlaw.com


BEALLS INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bealls, Inc. The case
is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Bealls, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00867
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2023).

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

Bealls Inc. -- https://www.beallsinc.com/ -- is an American retail
corporation with headquarters located in Bradenton, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


BEEHIVE CHEESE: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beehive Cheese
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Rafael Cordero, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Beehive Cheese
Company, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00894-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2023).

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

Beehive Cheese -- https://beehivecheese.com/ -- manufactures and
sells various kinds of cheese and dairy products that are hand
crafted.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLACK HORSE: Ill. Supreme Court Reverses in Part BIPA Case Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hunton Andrews Kurth disclosed that on February 2, 2023, the
Illinois Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded a judgment of
the lower appellate court in a class action lawsuit alleging
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA").

In Jorome Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., Jorome Tims sued his
former employer, Black Horse, and alleged that it violated (1)
Section 15(a) of BIPA by failing to institute, maintain and adhere
to a publicly available biometric information retention and
destruction policy; (2) Section 15(b) of BIPA by failing to provide
notice and to obtain consent when collecting his biometric
information; and (3) Section 15(d) of BIPA by disclosing or
otherwise disseminating his biometric information to third parties
without consent.

The lower appellate court had ruled that two different limitations
periods apply to a cause of action under BIPA: the one-year
limitations period in 735 ILCS 5/13-201 (applicable to defamation
torts) and the five-year "catchall" limitations period in 735 ILCS
5/13-205. The appellate court reasoned that the one-year
limitations period applies to claims based on section 15(c) and
15(d) of the Act where "publication or disclosure of biometric data
is clearly an element" of the claim, and the five-year limitations
period applies to section 15(a), 15(b), and 15(e) of the Act
because "no element of publication or dissemination" exists in
those claims.

The Illinois Supreme Court found that the appellate court erred
when it applied two different limitations periods to a cause of
action under BIPA, and that the five-year limitations period
contained in section 13-205 of the Code controls claims under
BIPA.

Because BIPA itself does not specify a statute of limitations, this
case provides significant guidance to future BIPA cases. [GN]

BLUEGRASS TRUCK: Calmes Bid for Conditional Certification Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE CALMES, v.
BLUEGRASS TRUCK AND TRAILER SERVICES LLC, et al., Case No.
5:22-cv-00140-DCR-MAS (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Danny C. Reeves
entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification.

The Court said, "The Plaintiff need not reach the defendants'
additional arguments because the plaintiff has not demonstrated the
modest factual nexus necessary to justify conditional class
certification."

The case is pending for consideration of Plaintiff Nicole Calmes'
motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Calmes
alleges that her former employer, the Defendant Bluegrass Truck
failed to provide her and similarly situated employees with proper
overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 ("FLSA").

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lhSHqE at no extra charge.[CC]

BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Lively Bid for Appointment of Counsel Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOMMY GENE LIVELY v. BOARD
OF DIRECTORS, Case No. 9:21-cv-00026-MAC-ZJH (E.D. Tex.), the Hon.
Judge Zack Hawthorn entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion
for appointment of counsel.

The Plaintiff has also filed a motion asking the court to
reconsider the dismissal of the action. As the final judgment
previously entered has been vacated, the motion is denied as moot.

Finally, the plaintiff has filed a motion seeking leave to proceed
as the lead plaintiff for 550 fellow inmates. As no motion for
class certification has been filed, the motion is denied without
prejudice to plaintiff's ability to file a motion for class
certification.

The Plaintiff has filed a motion asking that the court appoint
counsel to represent him.

A civil rights plaintiff is not automatically entitled to
appointment of counsel unless his case presents exceptional
circumstances.

Exceptional circumstances include:

    (1) the type and complexity of the case;

    (2) the Plaintiff's to present and investigate his case;

    (3) whether the evidence will consist in large part of
        conflicting testimony as to require skill in the
        presentation of evidence and cross-examination; and

    (4) the likelihood that appointed counsel will be of benefit
        to the parties and the court by shortening the trial and
        assisting in a just determination.

The case involves civil rights claims. The questions of fact are
rather routine and the applicable law is well-settled. The
Plaintiff has been able to clearly explain his claims to the court.
The case does not present complex factual or legal issues, the
Court says.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JUkcki at no extra charge.[CC]

BPS DIRECT: Cornell Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BPS DIRECT, L.L.C.
The case is styled as Heather Cornell, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. BPS DIRECT, L.L.C. doing
business as: BASS PRO SHOPS, Case No. 1:23-cv-00020-SPB (W.D. Pa.,
Feb. 1, 2023).

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

BPS Direct, LLC, doing business as Bass Pro Shops (BPS) --
https://www.basspro.com/shop/en -- is an American privately held
retailer which specializes in hunting, fishing, camping, and other
related outdoor recreation merchandise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Email: Gary@lcllp.com


BUTTERBALL LLC: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSVALDO FIGUEROA, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BUTTERBALL,
LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00585-D (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order for the following relief:

   (1) conditional certification of the action and for court-
       authorized notice pursuant to section 216(B) of the Fair
       Labor Standards Act ("FLSA");

   (2) approval of the proposed FLSA notice of this action and
       the consent form;

   (3) a production of names, last known mailing addresses,
       last-known cell phone numbers, email addresses, work
       locations, and dates of employment of all putative
       plaintiffs within days of the Order; and

   (4) the ability to distribute the Parties' agreed-upon Notice
       and Opt-in Form via first class mail, email, text
       message, and a posting at Defendant's facilities to all
       putative plaintiffs of the conditionally certified
       collective, with a reminder mailing to be sent 45-days
       after the initial mailing to all non-responding putative
       plaintiffs.

Butterball offers a wide variety of healthy turkey products
including burgers, smoked sausage, and bacon.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan 25,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I3wHcf
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
          Charlotte Smith, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A.
          HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Dr., Ste. 130
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741-8693
          Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Survivors File Class Cert. in Wildfire Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Andersson of Wildfire Today reports that Lytton wildfire
survivors want their lawsuit certified as a class action in British
Columbia.

Two survivors of a wildfire that destroyed much of Lytton, B.C. in
the summer of 2021 say their lawsuit should be certified as a class
action. The chief justice of the B.C. Supreme Court will decide
whether the case, initially filed in October of 2021 by two
residents who lost their homes, has a broader scope.

CBC News reported that on the hottest day of 2021, a fire in the
Fraser Canyon burned more than 800 square kilometers, killed two
people, and destroyed much of the village. Investigators found no
evidence that a passing train caused the fire, but the lawsuit
claims the fire was started by either a Canadian National or
Canadian Pacific train on its way through the village. According to
the Calgary Sun, lawyers for Christopher O'Connor and Jordan
Spinks, the two representative plaintiffs in the case, argued in
court that the fire was ignited as a result of a coal train owned
by Canadian Pacific Railway passing through the village on June 30,
2021. Spinks is a member of the Kanaka Bar Indian Band and has said
that he witnessed smoke and flames on CN Rail's right of way, at or
near CN Rail’s bridge that crosses the Fraser River. He had just
finished his shift as a care aide at an assisted-living facility
and lost his job as a result of the fire. O'Connor, a resident of
Lytton, lost his home in the fire and had his vehicle damaged.

The railway companies deny any responsibility for the fire and cite
a report by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada that
concludes there was no link between train operations and the fire.
But Tony Vecchio, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the report was
deficient in a number of respects and should not be relied upon.

"They didn't have any basis to make this finding at all, on their
own evidence," Vecchio told B.C. Supreme Chief Justice Christopher
Hinkson. He pointed out errors in the report, including the number
of railway cars on the train, and said investigators failed to
interview a number of witnesses.

The British Columbia Wildfire Service said that in 2021 between
April 1 and September 30, 1,610 wildfires had burned 868,203
hectares (2.145 million acres) across British Columbia. Moody's RMS
reported those numbers were in stark contrast to 2019 and 2020 when
the total area burned in the province was less than 25,000 hectares
(61,776 acres) per season.[GN]

CD PROJEKT: Class Settlement Fairness Hearing Set June 1
---------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Feb. 6 disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Central District of California has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit purchasers of CD Projekt S.A. Securities
(OTCMKTS: OTGLY and OTGLF):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND
PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO ACQUIRED PUBLICLY-TRADED SECURITIES OF CD
PROJEKT, S.A. ("CD PROJEKT") FROM JANUARY 16, 2020 THROUGH DECEMBER
17, 2020, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, that a
hearing will be held on June 1, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. before the
Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge of the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, United States Courthouse, 350 W. 1st Street, 6th Floor,
Courtroom 6D, Los Angeles, CA 90012, or by telephonic or
videoconference means as directed by the Court for the purpose of
determining:

(1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the
above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of
$1,850,000 ("Settlement Amount") should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable, and adequate;

(2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds
is fair, reasonable, and adequate;

(3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees of up to 30% of the Settlement Amount,
reimbursement of expenses of not more than $40,000, and an award of
no more than $5,000 each to Lead and Named Plaintiffs, should be
approved; and

(4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated April 28, 2022
("Stipulation").

If you acquired CD Projekt securities during the period from
January 16, 2020 through December 17, 2020, both dates inclusive
("Settlement Class Period"), your rights may be affected by this
Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you
may possess relating to your ownership interest in CD Projekt
securities.

If you have not received a postcard providing instructions for
receiving a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action ("Long Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release Form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies by writing
to or calling CD Projekt, S.A. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic
Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, P.O. Box 230, Media,
PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985;
info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website,
www.strategicclaims.net/CDProjekt. If you are a member of the
Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a properly completed Proof of
Claim electronically or postmarked no later than May 2, 2023 to the
Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will
be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you
make a claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion in the manner and form explained in
the Long Notice to the Claims Administrator so that it is received
no later than April 7, 2023. All members of the Settlement Class
who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Action.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses and Award to Lead Plaintiff must be in the manner and
form explained in the Long Notice and received no later than April
7, 2023, by each of the following:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Central District of California
United States Courthouse, 350 W. 1st Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

LEAD COUNSEL:
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Jonathan Stern
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:
Cooley LLP
Koji F. Fukumura
4401 Eastgate Mall
San Diego, CA 92121
If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel:

THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Jonathan Stern
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: 212-686-1060

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated: January 3, 2023  
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT
OF CALIFORNIA [GN]

CHRISTIAN DIOR: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Sunscreens
-----------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Caldwell of Global Cosmetics News reports that Dior to
face class action suit over 'misleading' 24-hour SPF protection
claim.  

Dior could be called upon to defend its 24-hour SPF claim in court
after a proposed class action suit charged the LVMH-owned beauty
brand of misleading marketing.

The lawsuit alleges that the products in question, which carry
statements such as '24HR Foundation . . . with sunscreen', are
misbranded because studies have proven SPF protection can be
effective for no more than two hours after application.

The Californian plaintiff behind the suit says that she would not
have paid a premium for the product had she known it could only
provide protection for two hours. However, Dior is more than likely
to contend that its 24HR claim is related to the coverage and not
the added benefit of the sunscreen. Whether the case makes it to
court on not will likely rest on the 'reasonable consumer' test.
[GN]

CLAYTON DUBILIER: Firefighters' Pension Sues Over NCI/Ply Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
TRUST and GARY D. VOIGT, Plaintiffs v. KATHLEEN J. AFFELDT, GEORGE
L. BALL, GARY L. FORBES, JOHN J. HOLLAND, WILLIAM E. JACKSON,
WILBERT W. JAMES, JR., DANIEL JANKI, JOHN KRENICKI, JR., ROSE LEE,
JAMES METCALF, TIMOTHY O’BRIEN, JUDITH REINSDORF, NATHAN K.
SLEEPER, JONATHAN L. ZREBIEC, JEFFREY S. LEE, CLAYTON, DUBILIER &
RICE, LLC, CD&R PISCES HOLDINGS, L.P., CLAYTON, DUBILIER & RICE
FUND VIII, L.P., CD&R FRIENDS & FAMILY FUND VIII, L.P., CAMELOT
RETURN INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, LLC, and CAMELOT RETURN MERGER SUB,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 2023-0091-JTL (Del. Ch., January 27,
2023) is a verified class action brought by the Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated former Cornerstone stockholders to recover
for breaches of (i) the 2018 stockholders agreement by CD&R, the
CD&R Funds and the CD&R Directors and (ii) fiduciary duty by CD&R,
the Board and Jeffrey Lee and Rose Lee.

On March 7, 2022, Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, LLC announced that it
was taking Cornerstone private for $24.65 per share in cash
pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated March 5, 2022.
CD&R has controlled Cornerstone, and its predecessor entity, NCI
Building Systems, Inc. since 2009. In 2018, CD&R abused its control
over NCI to force NCI to merge with Ply Gem Parent, LLC, a highly
leveraged company controlled by CD&R, in a transaction that formed
Cornerstone (the "NCI/Ply Gem Merger"). After the NCI/Ply Gem
Merger closed, CD&R (i) controlled 49% of Cornerstone's outstanding
shares of common stock and a majority of Cornerstone's board of
directors and (ii) had various rights over Cornerstone's corporate
strategy and governance pursuant to a stockholders agreement. CD&R
then exploited its control over Cornerstone to take the Company
private on unfair terms and at an unfair price, and were assisted
by the Board and Company management, including Cornerstone's Chief
Financial Officer Jeffrey S. Lee and Chief Executive Officer Rose
Lee, says the suit.

According to the proxy statement Defendants disseminated in
connection with soliciting stockholder support of the Merger, on
September 16, 2021, CD&R expressed interest in taking Cornerstone
private, and, on September 21, 2021, the Board formed a "new"
special committee of Cornerstone directors. The five-member Special
Committee, however, included three directors that served on the
ineffective and conflicted special committee that negotiated the
unfair NCI/Ply Gem Merger, and two other directors that CD&R had
just recruited and appointed to the Board and were also subject to
CD&R's control, the suit claims.

On May 24, 2022, Defendants issued the proxy, which contained
materially misleading and incomplete disclosure that deprived
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated former Cornerstone
stockholders of their right to cast an informed vote on the Merger.
The proxy misrepresented and omitted material facts concerning,
among other things, (i) the Company projections that were shared
with CD&R at the outset of the negotiations, and the subsequent
revisions to the projections that were made at CD&R's instruction,
(ii) the Company's process and plan to sell Coil Coaters and (iii)
the scope of the Standstill and nature of CD&R's numerous offers
and proposals to acquire the Company that breached the 2018
Stockholders Agreement, alleges the suit.

Clayton Dubilier & Rice, LLC operates as a private equity
firm.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Hanrahan, Esq.
          Corinne Elise Amato, Esq.
          Kevin H. Davenport, Esq.
          Eric J. Juray, Esq.
          Stacey A. Greenspan, Esq.
          PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
          1310 N. King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 888-6500

               - and -

          Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
          Craig J. Springer, Esq.
          David M. Sborz, Esq.
          Andrew J. Peach, Esq.
          Christopher P. Quinn, Esq.
          Jackson E. Warren, Esq.
          Jacob D. Jeifa, Esq.
          ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
          4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          
               - and -

          Lee D. Rudy, Esq.
          J. Daniel Albert, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          
               - and -

          Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
          David Tejtel, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
          493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
          Bedford Hills, NY 10507
          Telephone: (888) 529-1108

               - and -

          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          Adrienne Bell, Esq.
          KASKELA LAW LLC
          18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
          Newtown Square, PA 19073
          Telephone: (888) 715-1740

CLAYTON DUBILIER: Whitebark Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHITEBARK VALUE PARTNERS LP and ROBERT GARFIELD, Plaintiffs v.
CLAYTON DUBILIER & RICE, LLC, CD&R PISCES HOLDINGS, L.P., CLAYTON,
DUBILIER & RICE FUND VIII, L.P., CD&R FRIENDS & FAMILY FUND VIII,
L.P., and ALENA S. BRENNER, Defendants, Case No. 2023-0092-JTL
(Del. Ch., January 27, 2023) is a verified class action complaint
on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated
stockholders against Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty and
breaches of contract arising from a conflicted take-private
transaction.

The Plaintiffs, former public stockholders of Cornerstone Building
Brands, Inc., bring suit to challenge a conflicted take-private
transaction in which Cornerstone's controlling stockholder, CD&R,
acquired the remaining shares of Cornerstone that it did not
already own for $24.65 per share.

CD&R controlled Cornerstone through its ownership of 49% of the
Company's outstanding stock and control of Cornerstone's board of
directors. When CD&R increased its stake in Cornerstone to 49%
through a 2018 transaction, CD&R entered into a Stockholders
Agreement containing standstill provisions.

According to the complaint, CD&R began violating the standstill
restrictions no later than September 2021 when it informed
Cornerstone representatives that it was interested in taking
Cornerstone private. After the Board formed a Special Committee to
negotiate with Cornerstone, CD&R continued to violate the
standstill restrictions repeatedly as it performed diligence and
submitted acquisition proposals. Between September 2021 and
February 2022, the Special Committee facilitated CD&R's breaches of
the standstill restrictions and ran a process that culminated in an
agreement that allowed CD&R to acquire Cornerstone at an unfair
price, says the suit.

Further, the proxy statement soliciting stockholder approval of the
transaction was materially incomplete and misleading. Among other
things, it failed to disclose the actual terms of the standstill
restrictions or the fact that CD&R violated the standstill
restrictions, the suit asserts.

Clayton Dubilier & Rice, LLC operates as a private equity
firm.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ned Weinberger, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP-DELAWARE
          222 Delaware Ave Ste 1510
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 573-6938
          E-mail: nweinberger@labaton.com

               - and -

          Kimberly A. Evans, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 499-3600

               - and -

          David Schwartz, Esq.
          John Vielandi, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700

               - and -

          Joel Fleming, Esq.
          Amanda R. Crawford, Esq.
          Saranna E. Soroka, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600

COINBASE GLOBAL: Wins Class Suit Over Unregistered Securities
-------------------------------------------------------------
BakerHostetler of JDSupra reports that Coinbase wins dismissal of
class action alleging sale of unregistered securities.

On February 1, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed a putative class action brought by customers of
Coinbase Global Inc. and its subsidiary Coinbase Inc. (together,
Coinbase), alleging the cryptocurrency exchange had sold
unregistered securities in violation of state and federal laws.[1]
Coinbase and its founder/CEO, Brian Armstrong, were named
defendants.

Originally filed in October 2021, the suit alleged that Coinbase
operated as an unregistered securities exchange or broker-dealer. A
March 2022 amended complaint identified 79 tokens available on
Coinbase that plaintiffs alleged qualified as "securities" subject
to federal and state securities laws.[2] Because Coinbase users who
sell tokens on the platform must first place the assets into a
Coinbase-controlled centralized wallet, plaintiffs argued that
buyers transacted with Coinbase -- rather than with other users --
when purchasing tokens. As such, Coinbase held title to the
purported securities and would qualify as a "statutory seller"
subject to the registration requirements of federal securities
laws.

Plaintiffs alleged violations by Coinbase of: (1) sections 5 and
12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), which
imposes registration requirements for those who offer or sell
securities; (2) Section 29(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (Exchange Act) related to allegedly illegal contracts entered
into with users to purchase and sell securities in violation of
registration requirements; and (3) related state securities laws.
Plaintiffs also brought "control-person" claims arising under
Section 15 of the Securities Act against Coinbase Global Inc. and
Armstrong for their alleged involvement with the other alleged
federal law violations.

In May 2022, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
They asserted that the 79 tokens were not securities, but that the
court need not reach that fact-intensive question on a motion to
dismiss. Rather, defendants largely based their motion on the
argument that Coinbase was not a "statutory seller. "

The court recognized that, while the issue of whether the tokens
were securities would be "central"  if the case proceeded, that
issue was "more suitably litigated at summary judgment." For the
sole purpose of deciding the motion to dismiss, the court simply
accepted as true plaintiffs' allegation on this point. However, the
issue became irrelevant upon the court's further determination that
plaintiffs failed to plead that Coinbase was a statutory seller
within the meaning of the Securities Act and that, on that basis,
all claims should be dismissed.

To reach its determination, the court applied the test articulated
in Pinter v. Dahl, under which Coinbase would be a statutory seller
if: (1) Coinbase passed title in the tokens as the "immediate
seller" to the buyer for value, or (2) Coinbase solicited the
purchase of the tokens motivated, at least in part, by a desire to
serve its own financial interests or that of the tokens' owners.
The court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead the first
scenario. First, the terms of the Coinbase user agreement "flatly
contradict[ed]" plaintiffs' allegations that Coinbase -- not the
users -- held title to tokens traded on the platform. The user
agreement provided that title to all digital assets on the platform
remained with the user, not Coinbase, and users buying or selling
digital assets on the platform were transacting with other users,
not Coinbase directly. Second, the court noted that while the
amended complaint characterized Coinbase as the title holder of the
tokens and the only counterparty to the token purchases,
plaintiffs' original complaint alleged that users entered into
trade agreements with other Coinbase users. Therefore, the court
rejected the amended complaint's contrary allegations, which the
court suggested were "strategically added to elude the facts pled
in the [original] complaint and contained in the User Agreement, "
and held that plaintiffs failed to plead that Coinbase was a
statutory seller under Pinter.

The court further found that plaintiffs failed to plead the second
Pinter scenario. Plaintiffs did not demonstrate that Coinbase
directly and actively participated in the solicitation of the sale,
and even if they had pled direct solicitation, plaintiffs did not
plead that they purchased and sold the tokens as a result of
Coinbase's solicitation. Although plaintiffs had alleged that
Coinbase engaged in solicitation by providing users with token
descriptions and their purported value, writing and linking to
articles about the tokens, and participating in promotions such as
airdrops of free tokens, the court characterized these activities
as part of "the marketing efforts, 'materials,' and 'services'"
offered by an exchange, insufficient to constitute active
solicitation under Pinter. The court also reasoned that even if
this activity constituted solicitation, plaintiffs did not
adequately allege that they were induced to purchase tokens as a
result.

The court also dismissed plaintiffs' Exchange Act and
control-person claims. The court rejected the former, stating that
each Coinbase transaction involving the alleged securities
constituted a separate illegal contract for the purchase or sale of
unregistered securities that could be rescinded, and held that the
only contract capable of rescission was the user agreement,
performance of which did not necessitate illegal acts. The court
dismissed the latter because liability was premised on the
Securities Act and Exchange Act claims, which the court dismissed.

Ultimately, the court granted Coinbase's motion to dismiss in its
entirety. The court dismissed with prejudice the federal law claims
determining that granting leave to replead would be futile as
plaintiffs had already amended their complaint and did not identify
any amendments that would cure their claims. Because the state law
claims were dismissed as a result of the court's decision not to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction, they were dismissed without
prejudice.

The Coinbase decision underscores the importance of carefully
drafting and understanding cryptocurrency exchange user agreements
and terms of service. The decision may also provide some comfort to
U.S. centralized exchanges that they may not be recognized as a
"statutory seller" of securities subject to certain federal
securities laws. However, the decision has far less impact on the
ongoing debate of whether many tokens offered on such exchanges
qualify as securities under federal securities laws. Because the
court here did not address this point, market watchers and industry
participants will need to look elsewhere for guidance, including to
the district court's upcoming decision in the SEC's case against
Ripple, where this question is squarely before the court. [GN]

COMMUNITY PSYCHIATRY: Fails to Secure Patients' Data, Lowrey Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CORINA LOWREY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY PSYCHIATRY MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a
MINDPATH HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00185-TLN-DB (E.D.
Cal., January 30, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for
negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment/quasi-contract, breach of confidence, and violations of
the California Constitutional Right to Privacy, the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, and the California Customer Records Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to exercise reasonable
care in securing and safeguarding the sensitive personal data of
its clients. On or around July 5, 2022, the Defendant discovered
suspicious activity in its email system. Upon review, a forensic
team discovered that an unauthorized third party had accessed its
computer systems containing private information in March 2022 and
in June 2022. As a result, the private information of thousands of
its patients was compromised, says the suit.

Community Psychiatry Management, LLC, doing business as Mindpath
Health, is a provider of outpatient behavioral and mental health
services, with its principal place of business in Sacramento,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Matthew Smith, Esq.
         Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
         Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
         MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
         201 Spear St., Ste. 1100
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (202) 470-3520
         E-mail: msmith@classlawdc.com
                 nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                 jrathod@classlawdc.com

CONNEXIN SOFTWARE: Jowers Sues Over failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hailey Jowers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CONNEXIN SOFTWARE, INC. & RALEIGH GROUP P.C.,
individually, Case No. 5:23-cv-00413-JDW (E.D. Pa., Feb. 1, 2023),
is brought against the Defendants for their failure to properly
secure and safeguard personal identifiable information ("PII") and
protected health information ("PHI") of more than 2.2 million
current and former pediatric patients, including Plaintiffs, with
the data at issue including, patient demographic information (such
as patient name, guarantor name, parent/guardian name, address,
email address, and date of birth); Social Security Numbers
("SSNs"), health insurance information (payer name, payer contract
dates, policy information including type and deductible amount and
subscriber number); medical and/or treatment information (dates of
service, location, services requested or procedures performed,
diagnosis, prescription information, physician names, and Medical
Record Numbers); and billing and/or claims information (invoices,
submitted claims and appeals, and patient account identifiers used
by your provider).

The negligence and carelessness by Defendants in maintaining the
confidential data provided to them by Plaintiffs for use in their
medical care could lead to severe consequences for the Plaintiffs,
consequences that could and should have been avoided had the
Defendants taken the necessary data safety precautions.

On August 26, 2022, Connexin learned of a data breach on its
network that occurred on or around August 26, 2022 (the "Data
Breach"). Connexin determined that, during this Data Breach, an
unauthorized actor was able to access their systems and removed a
set of data contained in an offline set of patient data used for
data conversion and troubleshooting, which may have included
Plaintiffs' PII and PHI. At the time of the Data Breach, more than
10 years had passed since some Plaintiffs had obtained services
from Practice Group Class Members, yet Connexin still stored their
unencrypted PII and PHI on its network. On December 6, 2022,
Connexin began notifying various State Attorneys General of the
Data Breach. Connexin began also notifying Plaintiffs of the Data
Breach.

By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
PII and PHI of the Plaintiffs, Defendants assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion. Defendants
admit that the unencrypted PII and PHI that may have been accessed
and/or acquired by an unauthorized actor.

The PII and PHI was compromised due to Defendants' negligent and/or
careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the PII and
PHI of Plaintiffs. In addition to Defendants' failure to prevent
the Data Breach, Defendants waited more than three months after the
Data Breach occurred to report it to the states Attorneys General
and affected individuals. Defendants have also purposefully
maintained secret the specific vulnerabilities and root causes of
the breach and has not informed Plaintiffs of that information.

As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiffs had no idea their
PII and PHI had been compromised, and that they were, and continue
to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other
forms of personal, social, and financial harm, including the
sharing and detrimental use of their sensitive information. The
risk will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of Tennessee residing in Shelby County,
Tennessee who trusted the Defendants of their personal data.

Connexin provides electronic medical records and practice
management software, billing services, and business analytic tools
to pediatric physician practice groups.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          William M. Audet, Esq.
          Ling (David) Y. Kuang, Esq.
          Kurt D. Kessler, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Ave., Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Email: waudet@audetlaw.com
                 lkuang@audetlaw.com
                 kkessler@audetlaw.com


DAK RESOURCES: Vigil Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DAK Resources, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Joseph Vigil, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. DAK Resources, Inc., Michaels
Stores Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0000849 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., Feb. 1, 2023).

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

DAK Resources -- https://dakresources.com/ -- has become one of the
best full service staffing agencies in the business, dedicated to
finding jobs for veterans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92318
          Phone: (949) 387-7200
          Fax: (949) 387-6676
          Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com


DEMCON CONCRETE: Faces Luna Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
LEONEL LUNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DEMCON CONCRETE CONTRACTORS, INC.; D AND D
CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 37-2023-00004126-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San
Diego Cty., January 30, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's
Business and Professions Code including failure to pay all overtime
wages owed, failure to pay all minimum wages owed, failure to
provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit all rest
periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to
indemnify all necessary business expenditures, failure to pay all
wages owed upon termination, and unfair competition.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee from approximately 1997 through approximately July 7,
2022.

Demcon Concrete Contractors, Inc. is a concrete contractor in
Poway, California.

D and D Concrete Construction, Inc. is a concrete construction
company doing business in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
         Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
         Milan Moore, Esq.
         LIDMAN LAW, APC
         2155 Campus Drive, Suite 150
         El Segundo, CA 90245
         Telephone: (424) 322-4772
         Facsimile: (424) 322-4775
         E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                 enguyen@lidmanlaw.com
                 mmoore@lidmanlaw.com

                 - and -
       
         Paul K. Haines, Esq.
         HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
         2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
         El Segundo, CA 90245
         Telephone: (424) 292-2350
         Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
         E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com

DIXIE BELLE PAINT: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dixie Belle Paint
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Dixie Belle Paint
Company, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00826-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2023).

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

Dixie Belle Paint Company -- https://dixiebellepaint.com/ -- offers
high quality mineral chalk paint,  perfect for painting on
furniture and can be used on wood, metal, glass, ceramic, fabric,
and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


ENTERGY CORP: Associated Terminals, et al., Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASSOCIATED TERMINALS, LLC,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ET AL,
v. ENTERGY CORPORATION, LLC, ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC; AND ENTERGY
NEW ORLEANS, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-03118-ILRL-DPC (E.D. La.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of:

   "All persons and entities (including without limitation
   limited companies, corporations, nonprofit corporations,
   partnerships, and associations, who conducted commercial
   operations on or adjacent to the Mississippi River downstream
   of the Baton Rouge 1-10 Mississippi River Bridge and who
   suffered disruption of commercial activities as a result of
   the obstruction of the Mississippi River by the fall of an
   Entergy transmission tower and related lines and equipment,
   during the initial blockage on August 29-30, 2021 or on the
   multiple other days of closure during removal activities and
   subsequent repairs."

Entergy is an integrated energy company that delivers electricity
to 3 million utility customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi
and Texas.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lheAGV at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary J. Gambel, Esq.
          MURPHY, ROGERS, SLOSS, GAMBEL & TOMPKINS
          902 W. Thomas Street,
          Hammond, LA 70401
          Telephone: (985) 340-2007
          Facsimile: (985) 340-2005
          E-mail: ggamble@mrsnola.com

                - and -

          Jennifer N. Willis, Esq.
          WILLIS & BUCKLEY, APLC
          3723 Canal Street,
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 488-6301
          Facsimile: (504) 488-6302
          E-mail: jenniferw@willisbuckley.com

                - and -

          Rebecca Davis Lee, Esq.
          LEE LAW, LLC
          902 W. Thomas Street Suite B
          Hammond, LA
          Telephone: (225) 505-4985
          Facsimile: (985) 340-2007
          E-mail: rebecca@davisleelaw.com

EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Loses Bid for Decertification of Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAVANNI MUNGUIA-BROWN, et
al., v. EQUITY RESIDENTIAL, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-01225-JSW
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order:

  -- denying the Defendants' motion for decertification
     of the classes;

  -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the expert
     opinion of Mark J. Hosfield; and

  -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions against
     Defendants.

The Court finds that Defendants have failed to meet their burden to
present the Court with additional new facts or law that would
justify the decertification of the Standard Late Fee or the
Woodland Park classes.

The Plaintiffs are current and former tenants in Equity's
California properties who were charged a late fee when they
breached their lease agreements by failing to timely pay rent.

The Plaintiffs claim that the late fee was an unlawful liquidated
damages provision; Equity disagrees. The Court has certified two
separate classes for a Standard Late Fee set of residents and a
Woodland Park Pre-Existing Lease set of residents.

Due to Court resources and the parties' multiple filings, the Court
shall address each of the motions briefly, with the intention to
move the matter along to resolution. The Court and the parties are
familiar with the facts and the procedural posture of the case, and
they will not be repeated here.

On October 23, 2017, the Court certified the Standard Late Fee and
Woodland Park Pre-Existing Leases Classes. The Defendants filed a
motion for permission to appeal the Court's order granting class
certification, which was denied.

Equity Residential is a publicly traded real estate investment
trust that invests in apartments.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3la133S at no extra charge.[CC]


FACEBOOK INC: Application to Stay Class Action Appeal Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Jordynne Hislop of Hicks Morley reports that BC court denies
application to stay a class action appeal in order to avoid
"litigation in slices".

In Facebook, Inc. v. Douez, the Supreme Court of British Columbia
denied an application by the representative plaintiff (Ms. Douez)
to stay an appeal by Facebook of a class action order with respect
to liability. The Court noted that while there is a general
aversion to "litigation in slices," it may be appropriate to permit
an appeal to proceed where it would remove the need for further
proceedings in the trial court.

Ms. Douez brought a class action against Facebook as a result of
its use of class members' names and images without their knowledge
or consent. On a summary trial application, the Court found in
favour of the certified class on several common issues related to
liability, but determined that common issues relating to damages
required a conventional trial. Facebook appealed this order.  

In support of her request to stay the appeal, Ms. Douez advanced
several reasons why Facebook's appeal should be held in abeyance
until damages had been determined. Those reasons included avoiding
litigation in slices, ensuring a more convenient and economical
process for the parties and avoiding greater expenditure of scarce
judicial resources.

Facebook's position was that it was entirely appropriate for the
liability appeal to proceed as presently scheduled.  

The Court first identified the two factors to be considered in
deciding whether to hold an appeal in abeyance pending the outcome
of other proceedings: (1) concern about the efficient management of
judicial resources and litigation in slices, and (2) balancing
prejudice between the parties.

It noted while there is a general aversion to permitting
"litigation in slices," appellate courts have recognized there will
be circumstances in which it is appropriate to permit an appeal to
proceed notwithstanding all issues in the case have not been
determined by the trial court. One of those circumstances is where
the outcome of the appeal will dispose of the action and thus
remove the need for further proceeding in the trial court.

In the present case, if the appeal proceeded and Facebook achieved
complete success, Ms. Douez's action would be dismissed and the
need for a damages trial would disappear. Even where Facebook was
only partially successful, the length, complexity, and cost of the
damages trial would be reduced.

The Court dismissed the stay application, finding this appeal was
not one which raised concerns with respect to litigating in slices.
It would not be more convenient and economical for the liability
appeal to be held in abeyance to await the outcome of the damages
trial and any appeal that may arise from the damages order. To the
contrary, allowing the liability appeal to proceed as presently
scheduled caused no inconvenience or unnecessary expense to the
parties, did not prejudice Ms. Douez, and avoided potential
prejudice to Facebook. In the circumstances, it was an effective
and efficient use of judicial resources. [GN]

FAMILY HOME: Appeals Court Ruling in Teshabaeva Wage-and-Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
FAMILY HOME CARE SERVICES OF BROOKLYN AND QUEENS, INC., et al.,
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled
Maktumma Teshabaeva, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Family Home Care Services of
Brooklyn and Queens, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
158949/2017, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New
York County.

The Plaintiffs brought this class action complaint against the
Defendants for unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, spread of
hours compensation, and prevailing wages and benefits in violation
of the New York Labor Law.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter last January 4, 2023, the
Plaintiffs took an appeal from a court order entered in their case.
That appellate case was captioned Maktumma Teshabaeva, et al. v.
Family Home Care Services of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 22-05482, filed on December 6, 2022, in the First Judicial
Department of New York Appellate Division.

Meanwhile, the appellate case filed by Defendants is captioned
FAMILY HOME CARE SERVICES OF BROOKLYN AND QUEENS, INC. et al. v.
MAKTUMMA TESHABAEVA et al., Case No. 2023-00511, in the First
Judicial Department of New York Appellate Division, filed on
January 27, 2023. [BN]

Defendants-Petitioners FAMILY HOME CARE SERVICES OF BROOKLYN AND
QUEENS, INC. and CARE AT HOME-DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, INC. are
represented by:

          Richard Bahrenburg, Esq.
          FORDHARRISON LLP
          366 Madison Avenue, 7th floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 453-5900
          Facsimile: (212) 453-5959
          E-mail: rbahrenburg@fordharrison.com

FIRST CHOICE: Castro Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amalia Anota Castro, on behalf of herself and other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. First Choice Commercial
Janitorial Services of Florida, Inc., and David Olmo, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00109-MMH-JBT (M.D. Fla., January 30,
2023) is an action to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime
wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted,
full-time cleaning employee from approximately June 2013 to January
19, 2023, or more than thirteen years.

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant willfully failed to pay her
overtime wages, at the rate of time and a half her regular rate,
for every hour that he worked in excess of 40 hours. She was
unfairly fired on or about January 19, 2023. The Defendant used
pretextual reasons for the termination, alleges the Plaintiff.

First Choice Commercial Janitorial Services of Florida, Inc.
provides janitorial 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
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500  
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Suit Over Privacy Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Haydock, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a new
class action accuses Ford of sticking its nose where it doesn't
belong, alleging job applicants were required to disclose their
personal and family medical histories as a condition of employment,
allegedly in violation of Illinois law.

Named plaintiffs Cayla Page, Theresa Blashaw and Kisma Bowles, on
behalf of themselves and others, filed a new class action lawsuit
against Ford Motor Company on Jan. 27 in Cook County Circuit Court.
The complaint alleges Ford has violated their rights under the
Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA), for allegedly
requiring its applicants to submit to a pre-employment physical and
disclose personal and family health and medical information as a
condition of employment.

Ford is a major employer in Illinois. One of its oldest
manufacturing facilities, the Chicago Assembly Plant, has been in
operation since 1924 and employs 5,816 individuals at its Torrence
Avenue location, where the named plaintiffs are employed.

Unlocking genetic information has paved the way for countless
medical advancements, allowing individuals access to previously
hidden clues as to their health. During the 1990s, the U.S.
government, for instance, invested billions of dollars into the
Human Genome Project with the goal of mapping the entire human
genetic code.

The ability for medical science to see into the human genetic code
has made it possible to uncover an individual's predisposition for
certain cancers or other diseases, or whether a child may be born
with conditions that will require advanced medical care.

But at the same time, legislators enacted laws with the intent of
allowing people to take action if they believe those secrets are
being used against them.

In Illinois, GIPA was enacted in 1998, ostensibly with the goal of
allowing Illinois residents to safeguard their genetic information,
including at work, as a means to discriminate on the job against
applicants with certain health conditions. Employers may ask unique
identifier questions such as whether an applicant has a disability.
In most cases, applicants also have the right to decline to
disclose.

In 2008, the Ilinois legislature amended GIPA to align more closely
with the newly passed federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination
Act (GINA) to further prohibit employers from the practice of
requiring its workers disclose family medical history.

With the 2008 amendment, GIPA incorporated specific language from
GINA to further expand the definition of "genetic information" to
include not only the results of genetic testing, but also
information obtained through the disclosure of family medical
history. GIPA bars any employer from directly or indirectly
soliciting this kind of information as a condition for hiring,
firing, promoting or demoting, or segregating employees in such a
way that it would affect the status or working conditions of their
employees.

The complaint is alleging that, despite GIPA restrictions, Ford
continued to require its employees and applicants disclose genetic
information in the form of family medical history to assist the
company in making employment decisions.

Plaintiffs are seeking a trial by jury, damages of at least $2,500
to $15,000 per alleged violation, or actual damages, if greater,
plus attorney fees and legal costs. They are also seeking an order
prohibiting Ford from requiring the disclosure of genetic
information as a condition for employment.

Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Edward A. Wallace, Mark R.
Miller and Molly C. Wells, of the firm Wallace Miller, of Chicago;
and Laura Carroll, Elizabeth Brehm, and Kyle McLean, of the firm
Siri & Glimstad, of New York. [GN]

FORD MOTOR: Parties Seek More Time for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID M. RATHMANN,
individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 6:21-cv-00610-ADA-JCM
(W.D. Tex.), the Parties filed a joint motion to extend deadlines
for filing motion for class certification and deposing the
Plaintiff's Experts.

The Parties show the Court as follows:

  -- Pursuant to the Order Granting Motion to Extend Scheduling
     Order Deadlines, fact discovery in this case closes on
     January 31, 2023.

  -- Scheduling difficulties have prevented the Parties from
     completing deposition discovery by that date, and the
     Parties have agreed to conduct the remaining noticed
     depositions in February, with the last deposition
     scheduled for February 21, 2023.

  -- The Plaintiff's class certification motion is currently due
     on February 14, 2023, and depositions of Plaintiff's
     experts are to be completed by March 17, 2023.

  -- The Parties are not requesting any other change to the
     existing schedule.

  -- The Parties respectfully that the Court enter an Order
     extending Plaintiff's deadline to file his motion for class
     certification to March 1, 2023, and extending the deadline
     to depose Plaintiff's experts to April 1, 2023.

Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, United States.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DLrVxo at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica E. Underwood, Esq.
          Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq.
          Jeffrey Angelovich, Esq.
          Trey Duck, Esq.
          Andrew G. Pate, Esq.
          Ross Leonoudakis, Esq.
          Robert "Winn" Cutler, Esq.
          Jessica E. Underwood, Esq.
          NIX PATTERSON , LLP
          3600 North Capital of Texas Highway
          Suite 350, Building B
          Austin TX, 78746
          Telephone: (512) 328-5333
          Facsimile: (512) 328-5335
          E-mail: bbeckworth@nixlaw.com
                  jangelovich@nixlaw.com
                  tduck@nixlaw.com
                  dpate@nixlaw.com
                  ross@nixlaw.com
                  winn.cutler@nixlaw.com
                  junderwood@nixlaw.com

                - and -

          Tej R. Paranjpe, Esq.
          William N. Haacker, Esq.
          PARANJPE MAHADASS RUEMKE LLP
          3701 Kirby Drive, Suite 530
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (83) 667-7700
          Facsimile: (832) 202-2018
          E-mail: TParanjpe@pmrlaw.com
                  WHaacker@pmrlaw.com

                - and -

          Douglas A. Daniels, Esq.
          John F. Luman III, Esq.
          Sabrina R. Tour, Esq.
          DANIELS & TREDENNICK PLLC
          6363 Woodway, Suite 700
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 917-0024
          Facsimile: (713) 917-0026
          E-mail: doug.daniels@dtlawyers.com
                  luman@dtlawyers.com
                  sabrina@dtlawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John M. Thomas, Esq.
          Paul T. Stewart, Esq.
          Rebekah L. Hudgins, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          2723 South State Street, Suite 400
          An Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 214-7660
          Facsimile: (855) 262-3751
          E-mail: jthomas@dykema.com
                  pstewart@dykema.com
                  rhudgins@dykema.com

FORSTER & GARBUS: Schreiber Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
WOLF SCHREIBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FORSTER & GARBUS LLP, Defendant, Case No.
503296/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., January 31, 2023) is class
action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of a class of New York
consumers, under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the law by
falsely representing the character, amount, or legal status of the
debt and by using a false representation or deceptive means to
collect or attempt to collect a debt.

Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for violation
of the FDCPA, and the Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages,
statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees, says the suit.

Forster & Garbus LLP is a New York debt collection law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FOTILE AMERICA: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fotile America, LLC.
The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Fotile America, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00827-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2023).

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

Fotile America -- https://us.fotileglobal.com/ -- offers kitchen
appliances, premium range hoods, built-in ovens, gas ranges, &
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


FOX RENT: Faces Amjad Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------
AMMNA AMJAD, on behalf of herself and other aggrieved employees,
Plaintiff v. FOX RENT A CAR, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 23STCV01952 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
January 30, 2023) is a Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
representative action brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of the State
of California, herself and other current and former aggrieved
employees of Defendants who worked as hourly non-exempt employees
in California during the relevant time period.  The lawsuit seeks
civil penalties associated with Defendants' violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay wages for all
hours worked at minimum wage and all overtime hours worked at the
overtime rate of pay; failure to authorize or permit all legally
required and/or compliant meal periods or pay meal period premium
wages; failure to authorize or permit all legally required and/or
compliant rest periods or pay rest period premium wages; and
failure to pay wages for accrued paid sick time at the regular rate
of pay. The Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties for Defendants'
failure to timely pay earned wages during employment; statutory
penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements; and
statutory waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages
for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation
of employment.

Fox Rent a Car, Inc. is a value-based car rental brand catering to
airport travelers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Pooja V. Patel, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com
                  vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                  ppatel@lelawfirm.com

FRESENIUS USA: Ninth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment in Cota Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SERGIO COTA, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FRESENIUS USA, INC., a
Massachusetts corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
22-55303 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirms the district court's order granting Fresenius'
motion for summary judgment.

In April 2018, Plaintiff-Appellant Cota filed a class action,
together with a representative cause of action under the Private
Attorneys General Act, Cal. Lab. Code Section 2699 (West 2016),
against his employer Fresenius, asserting violations of
California's Meal and Rest Break Rules (MRB Rules), as set forth in
California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512 and associated wage
orders and regulations.

In December 2018, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
declared the MRB Rules preempted by federal regulations as applied
to certain commercial drivers, pursuant to its authority under 49
U.S.C. Section 31141.

In International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 2785 v. Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 986 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2021),
the Ninth Circuit approved the preemption order but left open the
question of the order's temporal scope. After Teamsters was
decided, Fresenius moved for summary judgment, which the district
court granted in full, concluding it was unable to enforce Mr.
Cota's MRB Rules claims (or any derivative claims) under the 2018
order, regardless of when the underlying violation occurred. On
appeal, Mr. Cota argues that the 2018 order does not preclude
claims predicated on conduct predating the order.

The Ninth Circuit holds that this precise issue was resolved in its
recent decision in Valiente v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona,
54 F.4th 581 (9th Cir. 2022). Its disposition of the instant case
is governed by that decision. There, the panel majority found the
statutory language in 49 U.S.C. Section 31141(a) to be clear: "A
state 'may not enforce' preempted laws. Any court decision giving
effect to California's MRB rules would thus contravene the
statute."

In light of Valiente, the Ninth Circuit holds that courts lack
authority to enforce preempted claims arising under California's
MRB Rules no matter when the violative conduct occurred. The
district court did not err by granting Fresenius' motion for
summary judgment. Hence, it is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2023 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4adybuat from Leagle.com.


FXCM INC: Agrees to Settle Investor Class Action for $6.5 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Damian Chmiel, writing for Finance Magnates, reports that the legal
representatives of Global Brokerage, Inc., formerly known as FXCM
Inc. (FXCM), Drew Niv, and William Ahdout, have filed a proposed
settlement with the lead plaintiffs of the class-action lawsuit,
E-Global Trade and Finance Group, Inc. (E-Global), L.P., and Shipco
Transport Inc. (Shipco).

According to the court documents from 3 February 2023 seen by
Finance Magnates, the settlement amount reached $6,500,000. It
corresponds to 37% of the potential damages suffered by the
investors, estimated at $17.5 million in a best-case scenario.

FXCM Settles with Investors after Six Years
The case against FXCM is reaching its conclusion after more than
six years. It began in February 2017 when Tony Khoury filed the
first of four related shareholder actions against FCXM, alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The newest court filing states that "all of the terms of the
settlement and resolution of this matter by the Parties, and is
intended by the Parties to fully and finally compromise, settle,
release, resolve, remise, discharge, and dismiss with prejudice the
Released Claims (as defined herein) against the Released Parties."

As part of the pending case, the plaintiffs wanted all persons and
entities who purchased publicly listed Class A common stock of
Global Brokerage, Inc. between 15 March 2012 and 6 February 2017 to
be able to seek redress.

In December 2022, a private mediation took place, which resulted in
a decision to resolve this action completely. On 23 December 2022,
both parties executed a binding term sheet that set forth the
material terms and obligations with respect to the settlement.

As part of the agreement, the defendants have denied and continue
to deny any allegations of fault, wrongdoing or damages arising
from any of the conduct. They have denied that the plaintiffs or
participants in the lawsuit have suffered damages as a result of
any of the conduct alleged in the case.

"The Individual Defendants continue to believe the claims asserted
against them in the Action are without merit and have agreed to
enter into the Settlement set forth in this Stipulation solely to
avoid the expense, distraction, time and uncertainty associated
with the Action," the settlement document added.

Allegations against FXCM

The plaintiffs alleged that the brokerage firm had committed
securities fraud. It allegedly provided incomplete information and
omitted material facts about its relationship with Effex Capital.

The global brokerage falsely represented its purported
agency-trading model and its relationship with Effex Capital. The
firm claimed to provide trading on a No Dealing Desk (NDD) model
where it is not a party to the trade but only connects the retail
trader to the liquidity provider that offers the best price at the
time.

FXCM's profit was supposed to be only a margin to the execution
price, but as it turned out, the broker received up to 70% return
on the revenue generated by Effex, which was one of the firm's
primary liquidity providers at the time, additionally investing
against FXCM's clients.

In the company's financial statements, this illegal procedure was
disguised as 'payments for order flow', with the former Global
brokerage providing unfair competitive advantages to Effex in order
to channel as much of its clients' trading volumes to the firm as
possible.

It is worth recalling that FXCM's activities were previously part
of the investigations of the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading
Commission (CFTC) and the National Futures Association (NFA). In
February 2017, the NFA and the CFTC announced settlements with the
broker, revealing for the first time the relationship that FXCM had
with Effex. FXCM had to pay $7 million in a settlement with the
CFTC and forgo domestic regulation, leaving the U.S. market.

In a separate settlement, the NFA revealed that between 2010 and
2014, FXCM received $77 million in rebates from Effext.

From FXCM to Global Brokerage

In the aftermath of its regulatory clampdown, FXCM changed its name
to Global Brokerage in late February 2017. However, the brokerage
services part of its business remained with the FXCM name.

The report published by Global Brokerage for the three months ended
30 September 2022 showed total net revenues of $32.3 million, while
for the first nine months of 2022, they came in at $101.2 million.
It was a slightly lower outcome than the $37.8 million reported in
Q2 2022. [GN]

GARD RECYCLING: Bernier Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARLON BERNIER, WILFREDO RAMOS, CARLOS SIERRA and JOSE FRANCISCO
LABORIEL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. GARD RECYCLING, INC., DRC GROUP, INC., BEVERAGE
CONTAINER RECYCLING CORPORATION, GUASTAVO RODRIGUEZ and ALEX
DOLJANSKY, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00761 (S.D.N.Y., January
30, 2023) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor policies and
practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay overtime
compensation required by federal and state law; failure to pay the
required New York State minimum wage; failure to provide Plaintiffs
with a wage notice or proper paystubs; and retaliation against
Plaintiff Bernier for making complaints related to unlawful pay
practices.

Plaintiff Bernier worked for Defendants from October 22, 2021 until
November 10, 2022 as a driver, picking up and delivering recyclable
materials.

Plaintiff Ramos worked for Defendants in 2017 and 2018, and then
again starting in or around October 2019 as a warehouse worker.

Plaintiff Sierra worked for Defendants from the beginning of 2021
until in or around September 2022 as a truck driver but also took
on some warehouse work.

Plaintiff Laboriel has worked for Defendants for over seven years
as a warehouse worker.

Gard Recycling, Inc. owns, operates and controls recycling
facilities in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
          FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 571-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 505-2001

GARDNER PIE: Kaufman Seeks to Certify Collective FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH KAUFMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GARDNER PIE COMPANY, Case No. 5:22-cv-02126-JRA (N.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Section
16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section
216(b):

   1. Conditionally certifying the proposed collective FLSA
      class;

   2. Requiring Gardner Pie Company to identify all FLSA
      Collective members by providing a list of their names,
      last known addresses, dates and location of employment,
      phone numbers, and email addresses in electronic and
      importable format within ten days of the entry of the
      order;

   3. Authorizing the Plaintiffs' proposed form of notice
      (Exhibits A & B) and implementing a procedure whereby
      Court-approved Notice of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent
      (via U.S. Mail, e-mail and text message) to:

      "All current and former hourly employees who worked for
      Gardner Pie Company during the last three years (the "FLSA
      Collective"); and

   4. Appointing the undersigned as counsel for the FLSA
      Collective; and

   5. Giving members of the FLSA Collective 60 days to join this
      case, measured from the date the Court-authorized Notice
      is sent, with one reminder email sent 30 days thereafter
      to anyone who did not respond.

Gardner Pie manufactures frozen, unbaked pies for the in-store
bakery market, producing bakery items for sale in commercial and
retail sectors from its manufacturing plant in Akron, Ohio.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3X1seuR at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          Albert J. Asciutto, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com
                  jyoung@sommerspc.com
                  aasciutto@sommerspc.com

GLAMOURE BEAUTY: Cumana Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eva Cumana, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v.
Glamoure Beauty Salon Inc, and Lucero Arango, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-20381 (S.D. Fla., January 31, 2023) is
an action against the Defendants to recover money damages for
Plaintiff's unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants from February 23, 2021 to
December 23, 2022, or 95 weeks, as a non-exempted, full-time,
hourly employee, and she had duties as a hairdresser assistant.

Glamoure Beauty Salon Inc. is a retail business operating as a
beauty salon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GOSPEL LIGHT: Lynn Sues Over Illegally Sold Insurance Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vicki Lynn, on behalf of herself and of a class of persons
similarly situated v. Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid
Plan, Daniel J. Beers, Ronald Beers, Daniel Beers, Jr., Druzilla J.
Abel, Thomas Fabris, Brandon Fabris, Douglas D. Behrens, Dale E.
Bellis, Larry Foster, Dorsey Morrow, Don Brewer, Durlin Beachy,
Everett Yoder, Robert Klinestiver, Phyllis Ingram, Stephen
Doukas,Joseph Gingerich, Ryan Mast, Scot Burris, Brian Basik,
National Coalition of Health Care Sharing Ministries, The
MedicalCost Savings Solution, LTD, Cost Sharing Solutions, LLC, and
Savnet International, LLC, Case No. 7:23-cv-00442-TMC (D.S.C., Feb.
1, 2023), is brought arising out of an insurance contract illegally
sold to the Plaintiff on October 1,2017 and continued in effect
until 2022.

Liberty is an unauthorized insurer in the State of South Carolina,
sold unauthorized insurance contracts within the State of South
Carolina, and has failed to make payment on claims or losses
incurred within the State.

The Plaintiff had outpatient surgery on November 3, 2021. She
followed the requirements of the insurance plan for repayment.
Liberty Health Share failed to pay those bills. The Plaintiff
attempted to dispute the fact that they had not paid those bills,
escalating all the way to the South Carolina Department of Consumer
Affairs.

Liberty Health Share, through its legal counsel Andrew Bernat, in
its response to that complaint admitted that it was required by its
"guidelines" to pay to various providers a total of Ten Thousand
Two Hundred and Five Dollars and Seventeen Cents ($10,205.17).
Throughout its letter to the South Carolina Department of Consumer
Affairs, Liberty disclaimed that its policy is insurance. However,
whether a contract is one for insurance is determined by South
Carolina statutory law, not the disclaimers of the seller of the
policy.

To date those payments have not been made. Liberty's failure to pay
bills submitted is an experience common to all class members, and
has harmed Plaintiff, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff became a member of Liberty HealthShare on October,
2017 and left in 2022.

Gospel Light does business as Liberty Healthshare, a Virginia non
profit corporation with its principal place of business in
Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick E. Knie, Esq.
          Matthew W. Shealy, Esq.
          KNIE & SHEALY
          P.O. Box 5159
          250 Magnolia Street
          Spartanburg, S.C. 29304
          Phone: (864) 582-5118
          Fax: (864) 585-1615
          Email: pat@knieshealy.com
                 matt@knieshealy.com


GRANITE SERVICES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Response
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ, JR.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GRANITE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC., and FIELDCORE SERVICES
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02689-AT (N.D. Ga.), Fieldcore
Services asks the Court to enter an order extending its deadline to
file its response in opposition to Plaintiff Rodriguez's motion for
class certification by 14 days, through and including February 13,
2023.

The Plaintiff does not oppose this requested relief. In support of
this request, FieldCore states.

On October 21, 2022, FieldCore and Plaintiff filed their Joint
Motion to Set New Scheduling Order Deadlines, jointly asking the
Court to establish January 13, 2023 and February 15, 2023,
respectively, as the new deadlines for:

    (i) the close of initial discovery concerning class
        certification issues and Plaintiff's
        individual claims, and

   (ii) motions on Rule 23 class certification.

On October 24, 2022, the Court granted the Parties'
above-referenced Joint Motion, setting January 13, 2023 as the
deadline for initial discovery and February 15, 2023 as the
deadline for any motions on class certification.

On January 5, 2023, FieldCore's counsel advised Plaintiff's counsel
FieldCore wanted to depose Plaintiff on January 12, in advance of
the discovery deadline, while offering alternative dates if
Plaintiff was not available on that day.

The Plaintiff was not available on January 12, and, after
conferral, counsel agreed FieldCore would depose Plaintiff on
January 18, 2023.

Granite Services provides professional engineering services.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan 25, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DGVwbl at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brett C. Bartlett, Esq.
          Kevin M. Young, Esq.
          Zheyao Li, Esq.
          Theresa Waugh, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500
          Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3958
          Telephone: (404) 885-1500
          E-mail: bbartlett@seyfarth.com
                  kyoung@seyfarth.com
                  zyli@seyfarth.com
                  twaugh@seyfarth.com

HEMPSTEAD, NY: G.B. Suit Seeks to Withdraw Bid to Amend Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as G.B. et al., v. Town of
Hempstead, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-06625-JMA-ARL (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs seek to withdraw, without prejudice to renewal, their
motion seeking to:

  -- amend the Amended Complaint to correct the deficiencies
     identified by the Court in the dismissed equal protection
     cause of action (1st Cause of Action);

  -- make that motion at or around the same time as the motion
     for class certification and for summary judgment on
     liability, or even as a single consolidated motion; and

  -- set a briefing schedule for those motions.

The Town of Hempstead, historically known as South Hempstead, is
the largest of the three towns in Nassau County in the U.S. state
of New York.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y1oVoO at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Melissa B. Levine, Esq.
          THE GOLD LAW FIRM, PC
          E-mail: mlevine@thegoldlawfirmpc.com


HONDA MOTOR: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 3
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on Feb. 5 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Honda Motor Co., Ltd. ("Honda" or the
"Company") (NYSE: HMC) in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Honda securities
between June 20, 2018 and September 28, 2022, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until April 3, 2023 to apply
to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Honda is a multinational conglomerate manufacturer of automobiles,
motorcycles and power equipment. The Company's U.S.-based
operations are conducted through its North American subsidiary,
American Honda Motor Company, Inc. ("American Honda").

Certain of Honda's vehicles—including the 2018-2020MY Honda
Odyssey, 2016-2020MY Honda Pilot, 2019-2020MY Honda Passport,
2015-2020MY Acura TLX, and 2015-2020MY Acura MDX—include a
so-called "Idle Stop" engine feature, purportedly to enhance fuel
efficiency. In marketing these vehicles, Honda and/or its
subsidiaries have highlighted the Idle Stop system's purported
capacity to automatically shut off a vehicle's engine to save fuel
when the vehicle brakes to a stop for at least two seconds—for
example, at a traffic light— and to automatically restart the
engine when the driver releases the vehicle's brake pedal.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations,
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Honda had
overstated the safety and effectiveness of the Idle Stop engine
feature; (ii) Honda maintained deficient disclosure controls and
procedures with respect to product quality and safety; (iii) as a
result of the foregoing deficiencies, Honda failed to prevent
American Honda from marketing and selling thousands of vehicles
that contained a defective Idle Stop feature; (iv) the foregoing
conduct subjected the Company and/or its subsidiaries to a
heightened risk of litigation, as well as financial and/or
reputational harm; and (v) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On September 28, 2022, a putative class action was filed against
American Honda alleging that it had sold thousands of
vehicles—including the 2018-2020 Honda Odyssey, 2016-2020 Honda
Pilot, 2019-2020 Honda Passport, 2015-2020 Acura TLX, and 2015-2020
Acura MDX—equipped with a flawed Idle Stop feature. Per the
allegations in the class action complaint, after initially shutting
off a vehicle's engine, the Idle Stop system in the affected
vehicles routinely fails to restart the engine as designed, leaving
drivers unable to move their vehicles. The lawsuit further alleges
that American Honda was fully aware of the defect before marketing
the vehicles.

On this news, Honda's ADS price fell $0.74 per share, or 3.23%, to
close at $22.19 per ADS on September 29, 2022.

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

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Honda shares and suffered a
loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]

HUMANA INC: Calvin Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW CALVIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HUMANA INC., Case No. 9:22-cv-80804-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting a 90 day extension of
time, up to and including May 2, 2023, for him to file his motion
for class certification, along with any other deadlines the Court
deems appropriate to extend.

Humana is a for-profit American health insurance company based in
Louisville, Kentucky.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rtp6qh at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Phillips, Esq.
          Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175
          Orlando, Florida 32803
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          E-mail: Jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com
                  ean@normandpllc.com

                - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

                - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Christopher Gold, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 Ne 30th Ave, Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                  chris@edelsberglaw.com

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sells Hybrid Cars With Battery Defect, Kline Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL KLINE and LAUREN KLINE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA
INCORPORATED A/K/A HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, Defendant, Case No.
8:23-cv-00245-TDC (D. Md., January 30, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of implied
warranty, fraud, and violations of Consumer Products Guaranty Act
and Consumer Protection Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading sale and marketing of the Hyundai Sonata Plug-in Hybrid
vehicle. The hybrid car battery failed, and Hyundai failed to honor
its lifetime warranty. Hyundai discontinued the Sonata Plug-in
Hybrid beginning in the 2020 model year. With the discontinuation
of that product, Hyundai also essentially abandoned all those
customers who purchased it, including the Plaintiffs and Class
members, says the suit.

Hyundai Motor America Incorporated, also known as Hyundai Motor
America, is an automobile manufacturer, with its corporate
headquarters in California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Thomas J. Minton, Esq.
         GOLDMAN & MINTON, P.C.
         3600 Clipper Mill Rd., Suite 201
         Baltimore, MD 21211
         Telephone: (410) 783-7575
         Facsimile: (410) 783-1711
         E-mail: tminton@charmcitylegal.com

                 - and -
       
         David E. Tompkins, Esq.
         836 Bonifant Street
         Silver Spring, MD 20910
         Telephone: (202) 296-0666
         Facsimile: (202) 371-9228
         E-mail: dtompkins@lewisandtompkins.com

INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE: Scheduling Order Entered in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, by LINDA SMITH,
as her Personal Representative, on Ms. Doe's own behalf and, for
certain claims, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE, INC. and SELECTHEALTH, INC., Case No.
2:18-cv-00807-RJS-JCB (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge JARED C. BENNETT
entered a scheduling order for class-certification as follows:

        Discovery Activity                        Deadline

  Completion of production of documents       February 24, 2023
  relating to class certification
  pursuant to the above-described
  protocol

  Completion of pre-certification             March 31, 2023
  fact discovery pursuant to the
  above-described protocol

  Plaintiff's motion for class                May 5, 2023
  certification, and service of the
  report for class-related expert,
  if any

  Defendants' opposition to motion            July 21, 2023
  for class certification, and
  service of the report for class-
  related expert, if any

  Plaintiff's reply in support of             August 18, 2023
  motion for class certification,
  and (if Plaintiff does not serve
  report with opening brief and
  Defendants serve expert report
  with their opposition) service of any
  rebuttal report for class-related expert

Intermountain Health is a not-for-profit healthcare system and is
the largest healthcare provider in the Intermountain West of the
United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RvHQFN at no extra charge.[CC]

JPMORGAN CHASE: Palladino Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOHN PALLADINO, GARIB KARAPETYAN, STEVE PALLADINO,
AND JOHN NYPL, Individual Plaintiffs and on behalf of all those
similarly situated Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.; JPMORGAN
CHASE BANK, N.A.; BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; WELLS FARGO & COMPANY;
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; CITIGROUP INC.; CITIBANK, N.A.; CITIBANK,
N.A. (NATIONAL ASSOCIATION); U.S. BANCORP; US BANCORP; U.S. BANK
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.; PNC; PNC
BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION;
CAPITAL ONE, F.S.B.; CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
("COBNA"); CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ("CONA"); BANK OF THE
WEST; VISA INC.; VISA U.S.A. INC. ("VISA U.S.A."); VISA
INTERNATIONAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION ("VISA INTERNATIONAL");
MASTERCARD INCORPORATED; MASTERCARD Defendants, Case No.
CGC-22-603801, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Francisco to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on January
30, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00423 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class that the
Plaintiffs purport to represent are Visa and Mastercard payment
cardholders "each of whom has made retail purchases of goods and
services in California using a Visa or Mastercard credit or debit
card." The Plaintiffs aver, among other things, that Visa and
Mastercard -- together with all banks that issue Visa or Mastercard
payment cards, all banks that process payments on those cards, and
all merchants accepting such cards -- engaged in a "price-fixing
conspiracy" in which they "fixed and stabilized" interchange fees
and that cardholders paid those fees as direct and indirect
purchasers. The Plaintiffs assert violations of the California
Cartwright Act, Cal. Business and Professions Code Sections 16700
et seq., as well as the California Unfair Competition Law.

The Defendants are financial services company in the United
States.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert J. Vizas, Esq.
          Sharon D. Mayo, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
          Telephone: (415) 471-3100
          Facsimile: (415) 471-3400
          E-mail: robert.vizas@arnoldporter.com
                  sharon.mayo@arnoldporter.com

LABORATORY CORP: Anderson, et al., Seek to Supplement Record
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERYL ANDERSON, MARY
CARTER, TENA DAVIDSON, ROBERT HUFFSTUTLER, RAMZI KHAZEN, CHAIM
MARCUS, LILY MARTYN, JONAH MCCAY, HOLDEN SHERIFF, VICTORIA SMITH,
MICHELLE SULLIVAN, SHONTELLE THOMAS, JOSEPH WATSON, and MICHAEL
WILSON, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly
situated, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, Case No.
1:17-cv-00193-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order considering additional evidence that was not made
available by the Defendant to them prior to the briefing and oral
argument on Plaintiffs' pending Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs move the Court to review and consider

    (1) the Affidavit of Jeffrey Frist, and

    (2) the Credit Card Authorization form Labcorp presented to
        them in ruling upon Plaintiffs' motion for class
        certification currently under advisement.

Laboratory Corp. is a provider of clinical laboratory services and
end-to-end drug development support.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan 25, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HI20YN at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan D. Sasser, Esq.
          Jeremy M. Falcone, Esq.
          ELLIS & WINTERS LLP
          4131 Parklake Avenue, Ste. 400
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 865-7000
          E-mail: jon.sasser@elliswinters.com
                  jeremy.falcone@elliswinters.com

                - and -

          Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
          David A. Nicholas, Esq.
          Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq.
          Timothy D. Brennan, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com

LE SPORTSAC: Settlement Class in Hammond Suit Gets Initial Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY HAMOND MURPHY,on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LE
SPORTSAC, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00058-RAL (W.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Richard A. Lanzillo entered an order:

   1. preliminary certifying the proposed Settlement Class
      defined as:

      "A national class including all Blind or Visually Disabled
      individuals who use screen reader auxiliary aids to
      navigate digital content and who have accessed, attempted
      to access, or have been deterred from attempting to
      access, the Website from the United States;"

   2. designating the Plaintiff Anthony Hammond Murphy as
      representative of the Settlement Class; and

   3. designating attorneys Tucker, Abramowicz, Steiger, Moore,
      and Fisher as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.

LeSportsac is an American handbag, luggage, and travel accessories
company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HtzsSI at no extra charge.[CC]


LENNAR CORP: Judge Tosses $5.4MM Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Mary Catherine O'Connor, writing for kalw, reports that last
November, lawyers representing Bayview Hunters Point residents
filed a settlement motion in a class action lawsuit against housing
developers Lennar Corp. and FivePoint Holdings. But in December,
the judge reviewing the settlement motion rejected it.

Under the settlement agreement, the developers would have paid $5.4
million to resolve claims that they failed to properly mitigate
dust and particulates while redeveloping the former Navy shipyard
and Superfund site in Bayview Hunters Point.

U.S. District Court Judge James Donato denied the motion, the San
Francisco Business Journal reports. He said the settlement motion
provided insufficient details about the more than 9,000 listed
plaintiffs. He could not assess whether the settlement - which
would have released the developers from all claims, including
wrongful death - would be "fair and reasonable."

Judge Donato also said the settlement failed to provide enough
distinction between long-time residents, and those who only lived
in the area for a short time.

He also said the motion failed to explain how Arieann Harrison,
local environmental justice advocate and founder of the Marie
Harrison Foundation, is a qualified class representative.

The judge invited the claimants to revise and refile the motion for
settlement, if they could address what he called deficiencies. [GN]

LFL ENTERPRISES: Davis FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jarred Davis, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all persons similarly situated v. LFL Enterprises, LLC
doing business as: ProForma Screening Solutions with its principal
place of business in Virginia, Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
37-02022-00050357-CU-MC-CTL was removed from the Superior Court,
San Diego County, California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on Feb. 1, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00190-BAS-WVG to
the proceeding.

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

LFL Enterprises, LLC doing business as Proforma Screening --
https://data.proformascreening.com/ -- is a leading background
screening company, offering trusted employment screening services
to employers nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M Treglio, Esq.
          POTTER HANDY, LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (619) 933-3598
          Email: jimt@potterhandy.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jessica Rose Ellis Lohr, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Phone: (858) 509-6000
          Fax: (858) 509-6040
          Email: jessica.lohr@troutman.com


LINDENWOOD UNIVERSITY: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lindenwood
University. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, for himself and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Lindenwood
University, Case No. 1:23-cv-00862 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2023).

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

Lindenwood -- https://www.lindenwood.edu/ -- is a dynamic four-year
liberal arts institution dedicated to excellence in higher
education that is located in St. Charles, Missouri.[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


LOUISIANA: Issuance of Writ of Mandamus in Crooks v. LDNR Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVE CROOKS, ET AL. v. STATE OF LOUISIANA THROUGH THE
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Case No. 2022-C-00625 (La.), Judge
Piper D. Griffin of the Supreme Court of Louisiana reverses the
trial court's issuance of writ of mandamus.

The Supreme Court granted writ to address whether mandamus may lie
to compel the State to pay a judgment rendered against it for
mineral royalty payments.

The matter arises out of a 2006 class action suit instituted by
Class Plaintiffs Steve Crooks and Era Lee Crooks against the State
through the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources ("LDNR")
concerning the ownership of riverbanks in the Catahoula Basin and
subsequent mineral royalty payments.

In 2015, the trial court recognized the Class Plaintiffs as owners
of the riverbanks and ordered LDNR to pay damages for expropriation
and mineral royalties received from the riverbank leases. The
Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's award for mineral
royalties but vacated the expropriation award after finding the
claim for inverse condemnation was prescribed. After all legal
delays expired, the judgment became final ("the Royalties
Judgment").

When LDNR failed to satisfy the Royalties Judgment, the Class
Plaintiffs sought a mandamus to enforce its payment arguing that
depositing funds into the registry of the court to comply with a
final judgment is a ministerial act. LDNR opposed arguing that
mandamus violates La. Const. art. XII, Section 10(C) and La. R.S.
13:5109(B)(2) and that the funds sought were unavailable. The trial
court denied the writ of mandamus. The court of appeal reversed,
finding that mandamus is an appropriate remedy as the funds sought
were not public funds and the judgment could not be enforced by
ordinary means.

LDNR's writ application to the Supreme Court followed, which the
Supreme Court granted.

The issue before the Supreme Court is whether mandamus may lie to
satisfy the payment of the Royalties Judgment.

The Class Plaintiffs maintain that the Royalties Judgment does not
require legislative appropriation because the funds sought are not
public funds as LDNR was without legal authority to collect
royalties from riverbanks it did not own. They further argue that
LDNR's arguments are barred by res judicata because the judgment
against the department ordering the money into the registry of the
court was final. LDNR counters that satisfaction of the Royalties
Judgment is a power that lies only with the legislature because the
initial claim arose in tort.

Judge Griffin agrees. She finds that the Class Plaintiffs cite to
no controlling constitutional or statutory provisions that allocate
funds for the purpose of executing a judgment such as the one at
issue. Although the Supreme Court recognizes that the Class
Plaintiffs are entitled to payment of the Royalties Judgment, the
critical element necessary for the issuance of a writ of mandamus
is that a public officer is not vested with any element of
discretion. If discretion exists, mandamus will not lie. Thus, the
court of appeal erred in issuing the writ of mandamus.

Judge Griffin likewise rejects the court of appeal's finding that
the funds subject to the Royalties Judgment were not public funds
thus warranting mandamus. She opines that the funds received from
the mineral leases were public funds as they were deposited into
the State's general fund. Public funds are not subject to seizure.
The Director of LDNR certified that the expenditure of the funds
required to pay the Royalties Judgment would create a deficit in
violation of the requirements placed upon the expenditure of such
funds by the legislature.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Griffin reverses the ruling of the
court of appeal and reinstates the judgment of the trial court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2nrupps4 from Leagle.com.


MASON CO: Sannutti, et al., Seek Initial OK of Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH SANNUTTI and JOHN
HOLAHAN and BRADLEY GALE and MICHAEL LANGE and ANDREW DESARNO and
KATHERINE JABLONSKI and GISELLE VARGAS and NELSON RAMIREZ and
TIMOTHY QUICK and MALCOME LAPONE and KEITH LOCASCIO and MATTHEW
COLOMBO and KRISTINE KAVANAUGH and DAVID BUBAR, v. W.B. MASON CO.,
INC. and LEO MEEHAN, individually and CHRIS MEEHAN, individually
And ROGER AHFELD, individually, Case No. 3:21-cv-10955-DEA
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
preliminary approval of the Parties' proposed class action
settlement.

The Parties negotiated this settlement and the proposed Class
Action Settlement Agreement memorializing such terms, following
arm's length negotiations and to resolve a bona fide dispute under
the labor laws, wage and hour laws, and common laws of the States
of New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania.

The Parties also submit for the Court's consideration their
Memorandum, which has been filed contemporaneously with this
Motion.

The Parties ask that the Court to:

   -- grant their Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
      Action Settlement;

   -- grant preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement
      Agreement;

   -- approve the proposed Class Notice of Proposed Settlement
      of Class Action Lawsuit;

   -- authorize mailing of the Settlement Notices in the manner
      set forth in the Settlement Agreement;

   -- schedule a final approval hearing between 100 and 125 days
      after the date of Preliminary Approval; and

   -- enter the Proposed Order Certifying Class for Settlement
      Purposes Only, Granting Preliminary Approval of Class
      Action Settlement.

Mason provides retail sales of home and office products.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan 25,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YvD7Ge
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ari R. Karpf, Esq.
          Christine E. Burke, Esq.
          KARPF, KARPF & CERUTTI, P.C.
          3331 Street Road
          Two Greenwood Square, Suite 128
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          E-mail: akarpf@karpf-law.com
                  cburke@karpf-law.com

MATT MARTORELLO: Lending Scheme Class Action Waiver Unenforceable
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Lawyers Weekly reports that where a waiver limiting the
ability of borrowers to bring a class action suit did not allow
them to vindicate their federal rights, it was unenforceable.

Background

This class-action proceeding relates to a lending scheme allegedly
designed to circumvent state usury laws. Matt Martorello appeals
from three district court rulings that (1) reconsidered prior
factual findings based on a new finding that Martorello made
misrepresentations that substantially impacted the litigation, (2)
found that the borrowers did not waive their right to participate
in a class-action suit against him and (3) granted class
certification.

This court granted Martorello's petition for permission to appeal.
It has jurisdiction over the grant of class certification pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(e) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(f). It has pendent jurisdiction over the misrepresentation
opinion because it is "so interconnected" with the
class-certification opinion that it "warrant[s] concurrent
review."

Mandate

Martorello first contends that the district court violated this
court's mandate by making new factual findings in the
misrepresentation opinion that contradict the record from the prior
appeal.

Following this court's mandate, the district court considered the
borrowers' evidence that Martorello made material
misrepresentations to the district court and this court in the
prior proceedings about facts relating to the entities' sovereign
immunity. The district court found that Martorello made
misrepresentations in a declaration he filed in support of the
entities' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

When new evidence indicates that a district court previously made
erroneous factual findings based on fraud or misrepresentation, the
district court may reconsider those findings as needed. Here, the
district court found such fraud or misrepresentations and thus did
not violate the mandate rule in reconsidering its prior factual
findings.

Waiver language

Martorello contends that the borrowers waived their right to bring
class-action claims against him. He asserts that the district court
erred in concluding that the class-action waiver did not apply to
disputes between him and the borrowers and in finding that the
waiver was unenforceable due to the prospective waiver doctrine.

Under the waiver, the borrowers forfeit the right to participate in
class actions filed against the lender or "related third parties."
The loan agreement defines "related third parties" as "any of Our
employees, agents, directors, officers, shareholders, governors,
managers, members, parent company or affiliated entities[.]"

Martorello contends he is an affiliated entity of the lenders and
thus falls within this definition of a party immune to class-action
proceedings. This court concludes that the term "affiliated
entities" in the loan agreement does not refer to individuals.

Prospective waiver

The prospective waiver doctrine invalidates agreements that
prospectively waive a party's right to pursue statutory remedies in
certain circumstances. Martorello asserts that the prospective
waiver doctrine only applies to arbitration agreements and cannot
be extended to any other agreement. But the rationale underlying
the prospective waiver doctrine supports its application to
non-arbitration contracts: a prospective waiver of federal
statutory rights is unenforceable because it violates public
policy. Martorello nevertheless claims that the borrowers could
later sue in federal court, so the prospective waiver doctrine does
not apply. This court disagrees with Martorello's contentions.

Turning to the application of the prospective waiver doctrine on
the merits, this court concludes that the doctrine renders the
class-action waiver unenforceable because the waiver itself, the
loan agreement and the code provisions incorporated into the loan
agreement make clear that the waiver does not permit the borrowers
to effectively vindicate their federal rights.

Class certification

Martorello concludes his appeal by arguing that even if the
borrowers did not waive their right to pursue their claims as a
class action, the district court nevertheless abused its discretion
in granting certification. He contends that individual, not common,
questions of fact predominate and thus bar class certification.
This court disagrees.

Affirmed.

Williams v. Martorello, Case No. 21-2116, Jan. 24, 2023. 4th Cir.
(Agee), from EDVA at Richmond (Payne). Bernard R. Given II for
Appellant. Matthew W.H. Wessler for Appellees. VLW 023-2-023. 43
pp. [GN]

MATTRESS FIRM: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial OK in Payero
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO PAYERO and ADAM
MALDONADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. MATTRESS FIRM, INC. and GLOBAL HOME IMPORTS, INC.,
Case No. 7:21-cv-03061-VB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vincent L.
Briccetti entered an amended order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of class action settlement
      agreement;

   2. certifying settlement class defined as:

      "All people in the United States (including in its
      states, districts, territories, or tribal reservations)
      who purchased an HR Platform bed frame sold under the Bed
      Tech brand name during the class period."

      Excluded from the class are:

      (a) Defendants and their employees, principals, officers,
          directors, agents, affiliated entities, legal
          representative, successors, and assigns;

      (b) the judges to whom the Action has been or is assigned
          and any members of their immediate families; and

      (c) all persons who timely submit Request for Exclusion
          from the class.

   3. appointing Antonio Payero and Adam Maldonado as class
      representatives; and

   4. appointing law firm of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as class
     counsel.

Mattress Firm provides home furnishing products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y1KPZ2 at no extra charge.[CC]

MAZDA MOTOR: Court Decertifies Texas Class & Song-Beverly Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRY SONNEVELDT, et al.,
v. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. D/B/A MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN
OPERATIONS and MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION, Case No.
8:19-cv-01298-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L.
Staton entered an order decertifying the Texas Class and
Song-Beverly Class.

The Court also holds in abeyance for further consideration Mazda's
Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Court will address soon the Motion for Summary Judgment and the
parties' Daubert motions.

Even if Keegan is correct that it is premature for a federal court
to demand such proof before certifying a class, it is indisputably
a merits question that may be susceptible to resolution on summary
judgment, the Court says.

The Plaintiffs' position is that the frequency with which the
Design Defect causes malfunction of the Class Vehicles is
immaterial. Further, there is no dispute that most of the Class
Vehicles' water pumps do not fail prematurely. Regardless of
whether the Court deems Mazda's evidence of failure rates and
warranty claims for the Class Vehicles admissible or not, there is
no evidence from which a trier of fact could conclude that the
Design Defect is "substantially certain" to cause the Class
Vehicles to malfunction during their useful life, the Court adds.

Mazda Motor retails automobile vehicles.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RFpRMY at no extra charge.[CC]


MEDIBANK PRIVATE: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Chirgwin of ItNews reports Medibank faces data breach class
action.

Medibank disclosed the action in a statement to the Australian
Securities Exchange. Medibank said it understands the class action
is being funded by Omni Bridgeway.

"The statement of claim includes allegations of breach of contract,
contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law, and breach of
equitable obligations of confidence," Medibank said.

The health insurer added that it will defend the proceedings.

Medibank was breached in October 2022, and in November, stated that
it would not pay the ransom demanded by the attackers.

The attackers responded with several data dumps, the last of which
was made public in December.

On November 7, Medibank published a granular analysis detailing
that the names, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers, and email
addresses of 9.7 million policy-holders had been stolen, including
5.1 million Medibank customers, 2.8 million customers of
Medibank-owned subsidiary AHM and 1.8 million international
customers.

Around 160,000 Medibank customers, 300,000 ahm customers, and
20,000 international customers also had their health claims data,
including provider name and location, and procedure and diagnostic
claim codes, exposed.

The Baker & McKenzie action is not related to an action announced
in January and backed by Maurice Blackburn, Centennial Lawyers, and
Bannister Law Class Actions.

A spokesperson for Maruice Blackburn told iTnews the team decided
not to proceed with a class action at this stage.

Instead, they have filed what's known as a "representative
complaint" with the Office of the Australian Information
Commissioner, which if successful could result in the OAIC using
its powers to order compensation to victims of the data breach.
[GN]

MEDICOMM INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medicomm, Inc. The
case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Medicomm, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00828
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2023).

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

Medicom -- https://medicom.com/ -- has provided reliable personal
protective equipment (PPE) and infection control solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


MERRIMACK COLLEGE: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merrimack College.
The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Merrimack College, Case No.
1:23-cv-00863 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2023).

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

Merrimack College -- https://www.merrimack.edu/ -- is a private
Augustinian university in North Andover, Massachusetts.[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


MILWAUKEE, WI: Screening Order Entered in Bush Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOMMY T. BUSH, MARION
PATILLO, and CLIFFORD E. BENT, v. INSPECTOR DOBSON, EARNELL LUCAS,
DAVID CROWLEY, CITY OF MILWAUKEE and MILWAUKEE COUNTY, Case No.
2:22-cv-00697-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Brett H. Ludwig
entered an order that:

   1. the plaintiffs' motions for leave to proceed in forma
      pauperis are granted.

   2. the plaintiffs' motion to appoint counsel is denied.

   3. the plaintiffs' motion for certification of class is
      denied.

   4. the Inspector Dobson, Earnell Lucas, David Crowley, and
      the City of Milwaukee are dismissed.

   5. the agency having custody of

      1) Tommy T. Bush shall collect from his institution trust
         account the $271.85  balance of the filing fee;

      2) Marion Patillo shall collect from his institution trust
         account the $328.53 balance of the filing fee; and

      3) Clifford E. Bent shall collect from institution trust
         account the $321.36 balance of the filing fee. The
         agency shall collect these filing fees by collecting
         monthly payments from their prison trust accounts in an
         amount equal to 20% of the preceding month's income
         credited to each prisoner's trust account and
         forwarding payments to the Clerk of Court each time the
         amount in each account exceeds $10 in accordance with
         28 U.S.C. section 1915(b)(2).

   4. a copy of this order be sent to the Milwaukee County
      Sheriff and to Dennis Brand, 821 W. State Street, Room
      224, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
   
   5. the parties may not begin discovery until after the court
      enters a scheduling order setting deadlines for discovery
      and dispositive motions.

   6. the plaintiffs who are inmates at Prisoner E-Filing
      Program institutions must submit all correspondence and
      case filings to institution staff, who will scan and e-
      mail documents to the court.

   7. this case is returned to Magistrate Judge William E.
      Duffin. The case is no longer referred to Judge Brett H.
      Ludwig.

The court has found that the plaintiffs do not qualify for
recruitment of counsel at this stage and will need to proceed pro
se. "Courts have repeatedly declined to allow pro se prisoners to
represent a class in a class action."

The Plaintiffs who are confined at the Milwaukee County Jail and
representing themselves, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. section
1983 alleging that the defendants violated their constitutional
rights.

Initially, this case had over twenty plaintiffs, but, for various
reasons, including several plaintiffs' voluntary withdrawal and
others' failure to pay the required initial partial filing fee,
only Bush, Patillo and Bent remain. This order screens their
complaint and resolves their motions for leave to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Jan 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DEfu6B at no extra charge.[CC]

MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Filing of Amended Complaint Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT SCHAIRED, v.
MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00736-BAS-MDD
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying part, the plaintiff's
      motion for leave to file an amended complaint; and

   2. terminating as moot motion to dismiss initial complaint.

The Court said, "the Court grants in part and denies in part
Schaired's Motion for Leave to Amend. The Court denies without
prejudice Schaired's Motion to the extent he seeks to move forward
with Count II because the underlying Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA) claim is futile as presently alleged. However, the
Court grants Schaired's request to amend his class-action
allegations. Schaired shall file a revised Second Amended Complaint
that is consistent with this Order by no later than February 6,
2023."

Because Schaired has amended his pleading only once -- and the
allegations pertinent to Count II in the proposed Amended Complaint
are identical to those set forth in Indeed, Schaired has identified
only one communication from MFSI despite allegedly receiving
voicemails in the period between March 2022 and May 2022.
Therefore, it is possible 26 other MFSI voicemails exist that
Schaired has yet to disclose, which would fail to inform even the
least sophisticated consumer that MFSI is a debt collector.
Accordingly, the Court grants Schaired an opportunity to amend
Count II, the Court adds.

Mr. Schaired commenced the putative-class action against Defendant
MFSI on May 23, 2022. The initial Complaint asserts three claims:
one under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and two
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

In approximately 2016, Schaired, a Georgia resident, bought a
timeshare property at the Westgate Resort in Florida. At some
point, which Schaired does not specify, he defaulted on his
obligations set forth in the timeshare purchase agreement, leaving
an unpaid balance of $8,969. Westgate placed that debt for
collection with MFSI, a collection agency located in Oceanside,
California.

Monterey Financial is a full service receivables management and
finance company that tailors to the specific needs of your
business.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3l0u3e5 at no extra charge.[CC]

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces $6-Bil. Suit Over "Sunday Ticket" Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that NFL must face class action
lawsuit over 'Sunday Ticket' prices.

The U.S. National Football League (NFL) must face a $6 billion
class action alleging it unlawfully limited televised games and
drove up the cost of its "Sunday Ticket" package, a U.S. judge
ruled.

Sunday Ticket lets subscribers watch local and out-of-market games
on Sunday, while football fans otherwise in any given market can
only see a limited number of games.
The case will be divided into two sets of plaintiffs classes -
individual Sunday Ticket residential subscribers and commercial
establishments, such as hotels and bars.
U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez in Los Angeles certified the
case as a class action against the NFL and its teams, a key step
for plaintiffs' lawyers in cases that can involve many potential
individual claims.

The plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking as much as $6 billion in
damages for individuals and commercial entities that purchased
Sunday Ticket from DirecTV since 2011, according to an expert's
report the plaintiffs submitted to the court, Satellite provider
DirecTV has the rights until the end of the 2022 to 2023 season to
Sunday Ticket.

Another expert's report from the plaintiffs recorded at least 2.4
million members in the residential class. The commercial class has
about 48,000 members.

A spokesperson for the NFL said: "We are reviewing the judge's
order. We continue to believe that the plaintiffs' claims have no
merit and will vigorously defend our position in this matter."

Lawyers for the NFL and its teams have denied liability and argued
the plaintiffs' lawyers failed to meet certain legal requirements
to form classes.

The NFL's attorneys said any injunction changing the distribution
of games would be moot since the league's deal with DirecTV is
ending at the conclusion of the 2022 to 2023 football season.

Google-owned YouTube (GOOGL.O) in December signed a multi-year deal
for exclusive streaming of Sunday Ticket package games. Google did
not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

The judge's ruling said despite the "new home for Sunday Ticket,
the entire class is likely to continue to be subjected to
defendants' anticompetitive restraints on telecasts".

Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a message
seeking comment.
A trial is set to begin in February 2024. [GN]

NCI GROUP: Class Settlement in Gonzalez Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTURO GONZALEZ on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, v. NCI GROUP, INC., dba NCI BUILDING SYSTEMS; and
DOES 1-100, Case No. 1:18-cv-00948-AWI-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the
Courtentered an order:

   1. The Plaintiff Arturo Gonzalez's motion for final approval
      of class settlement is granted.

   2. The Class meets the requirements for class certification
      for purposes of settlement set forth in Rule 23(a) and
      Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

   3. The terms of the Amended Settlement Agreement are fair,
      reasonable and adequate and comply with Rule 23(e) of the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

   4. The notice provided to members of the Class, as well as
      the means by which it was provided, constitutes the best
      notice practicable under the circumstances and is in full
      compliance with the requirements of due process and Rule
      23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

   5. The PAGA payment of $45,000 (75% of $60,000) to the LWDA
      is approved, with the remaining $15,000 to be distributed
      in accordance with the Amended Settlement Agreement.

   6. The Settlement Administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc., is
      awarded up to $15,000 for settlement administration costs.

   7. The Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees, costs and an
       enhancement award is granted.

   8. The Mara Firm is appointed as class counsel and awarded
      $150,000 in attorneys' fees and $9,887.94 in litigation
      costs.

   9. The Plaintiff Arturo Gonzalez is awarded an enhancement
      award for his service as the sole Named Plaintiff in the
      amount of $5,000.

  10. The Court directs the parties to effectuate the Amended
      Settlement Agreement and directs the Settlement
      Administrator to calculate and pay the claims of Class
      Members in accordance with the terms set forth in the
      Amended Settlement Agreement and incorporating the amounts
      awarded in this order for attorneys' fees, litigation
      costs, settlement administration costs and the enhancement
      award.

  11. By means of this order, this Court enters final judgment
      in this action.

  12. Each side shall bear its own costs and attorneys' fees
      except as provided by the Amended Settlement and this
      order.

  13. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

  14. The Court retains jurisdiction to consider all further
      applications arising out of or in connection with the
      settlement.

Mr. Gonzalez was employed by NCI at times relevant to this action
as a non-exempt, hourly shipping checker in California. Mr.
Gonzalez filed this action in Merced County Superior Court on June
6, 2018, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
including warehouse workers, industrial workers, shipping clerks
and other categories of non-exempt, hourly workers in NCI's employ
in California during the four-year period prior to commencement of
this action.

The suit alleges eight causes of action under the California Labor
Code, California's Unfair Competition Law and the Industrial
Welfare Commission's ("IWC") California Wage Orders based primarily
on allegations that NCI had a policy and/or practice of failing to
pay nonexempt hourly employees for missed break time. For example,
Gonzalez contends that NCI failed to provide proper compensation
for time spent walking to and from break areas and time spent
doffing and donning protective gear prior to and following breaks,
in addition to failing to provide proper compensation for breaks
that were missed completely.

NCI Group manufactures and markets metal building systems and
components for the nonresidential construction industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JHUsYF at no extra charge.[CC]

NEW GENESIS: MAC 1 Food Sues Over Failure to Perform Paid Work
--------------------------------------------------------------
MAC 1 Food and Beverage LLC, individually and all other similarly
situated beneficiaries of trust funds received or to be received by
defendants NEW GENESIS BUILDERS INC. and/or NEWGEN BUILDERS INC. v.
NEW GENESIS BUILDERS INC., NEWGEN BUILDERS INC. and JAMES HAN, Case
No. 650619/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Feb. 1, 2023), is
brought against the Defendants who breached the Agreement by
failing to perform the work it was paid for, for failing to secure
and return the deposits paid to the subcontractors that they hired,
and by abandoning the Project.

On October 3, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendant New Genesis entered
into an AIA1 Document A105 - 2017, Standard Short form of Agreement
Between Owner and Contractor (the "Agreement"), pursuant to which
Defendant New Genesis would serve as the general contractor in
connection with construction of a new restaurant at 10 West 50th
Street, New York, New York (the "Project").

The Defendant Han executed the Agreement on behalf of Defendant New
Genesis. Even though the Agreement was with Defendant New Genesis,
Defendant Han uses the Corporate Defendants interchangeably. For
example, Defendant New Genesis is the contracting party, but
Defendant NewGen was set forth on the Addendum to the Agreement, as
the "care of entity for Defendant New Genesis.

On October 3, 2022, the Corporate Defendants commenced work on the
Project. On October 5, 2022, the Plaintiff paid Defendant New
Genesis $180,000.00, as an advance for work to be done by the
Corporate Defendants in connection with the Project. On November
23, 2022, the Corporate Defendants, as the general contractor,
retained the following three subcontractors to work on the Project:
K2 Electric Services LLC to perform electric work, to which
Plaintiff directly paid $27,250 as deposit for work to be
performed; Master P. Corp ("MPC") to perform plumbing work, to
which Plaintiff directly paid $53,750 as deposit for work to be
performed; and CJS Mechanical, Inc. ("CJS") to perform mechanical
work, to which Plaintiff directly paid $117,700.00 as deposit for
work to be performed. Also on November 23, 2022, the Plaintiff paid
Defendant New Genesis $75,443.00 as a progress payment.

On December 12, 2022, the Corporate Defendants suddenly abandoned
the Project. The Corporate Defendants' abandonment of the Project
forced Plaintiff to hire a new general contractor to continue the
Project. Pursuant to the Plaintiff's architect's review, the
Corporate Defendants only performed $126,387.50 worth of work they
were hired to do, leaving $129,055.50 that the Corporate Defendants
impermissibly retained after it abandoned the project.

After the Corporate Defendants abandoned the Project, K2 and MPC
did so as well, even though Plaintiff offered to continue to work
with them. K2 and MPC, however, did not return the deposits paid to
them by the Plaintiff, despite not having performed any work on the
Project. To date, K2 has not returned $27,250.00 and MPC has not
returned $53,750.00. CJS accepted Plaintiff's offer and remained as
the mechanical subcontractor on the Project, working for the new
general contractor.

On January 5, 2023, despite having abandoned the Project weeks
earlier, Defendant Han approached CJS's principal and demanded some
of the funds paid to CJS directly by Plaintiff. CJS agreed and paid
$61,468.94 to Defendant New Genesis. Thereafter, CJS requested that
Plaintiff pay an additional $56,231.03 to continue on the Project.

The Defendant Han misled CJS as to the status of the Project and
the Corporate Defendants' role in it and misappropriated funds that
it was not entitled to. The Corporate Defendants improper
abandonment of the Project exposed Plaintiff, and continues to
expose Plaintiff, to significant financial damages. The Defendant
Han told Plaintiff's representatives that he applies funds received
from a customer of one the Corporate Defendants' construction
projects to the project of a different customer, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff MAC 1 Food and Beverage LLC is a limited liability
company organized in New York, with its principal place of business
located in New York City.

NEWGEN BUILDERS INC. doing business as "Genesis Design & Builders"
and "Newgen Builders," is a corporation incorporated in the State
of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Akselrod, Esq.
          MANDEL AKSELROD, P.C.
          40 Exchange Place, Suite 1203
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 668-1700
          Email: da@vmdalaw.com


NINTENDO CO: Averts Class Action Suit Over Switch Joy-Con Drift
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel William Bramlett, writing for Gamerant, reports that
Nintendo recently won a class-action lawsuit filed by parents who
accused the company of knowingly selling faulty products. The
parents in question had initially attempted to sue Nintendo
themselves, but it became clear they had no chance of winning due
to the Switch's end user license agreement which prevents lawsuits.
Those parents nevertheless went ahead with the lawsuit, arguing
that their children weren't bound by the agreements and therefore
could sue the company.

The case was first brought in 2019. Just three days afterward, an
internal memo at Nintendo instructed employees in North America to
start offering Nintendo Switch Joy-Con repairs for free. While the
company took steps to fix the problem, those who filed the lawsuit
said that the company hasn't done enough to fix a known issue. As a
result, they kept on with the suit. One of the mothers, Luz Sanchez
explained that the console was purchased in December but developed
problems with the Joy-Con in less than a month. While there's now a
free method for getting it fixed, they argue that the very fact
Nintendo knew there were problems and sold is enough to justify
being sued.

The lawsuit over Nintendo's Joy-Con problem has been dismissed. The
parent's argument that their children were not bound by the End
User Agreement License wasn't sound, as it was determined that it
was the parents who owned the consoles and made the agreement and
the children had no grounds to sue over it. Since the parents are
bound by the agreement, they have no recourse but to give up the
suit.

Joy-Con drift interferes with playing games and watching movies,
and in the past, Nintendo has faced many other lawsuits over the
same issue. The problem was so severe before the free Joy-Con
repair program that Nintendo President Shuntaro Furukawa had to
make an apology for the inconvenience. Other Nintendo execs like
Doug Bowser have addressed the issue, saying it's a problem the
company has been aware of. He added that the new OLED Switch
consoles have overall improvements to the analog stick and that the
improved thumb stick would be included in standard Switch consoles
now as well.

The Joy-Con drift lawsuit was thrown out because the parents lost
the loophole of using their children to circumvent the EULA. They
were seeking $5 million because Nintendo's marketing didn't
effectively warn about drift. Now they'll have to endure legal
fees, while they could have just gone to get the Joy-Con fixed for
free. [GN]

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Class Suits Over East Palestine Derailment
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Gorman, Nadine Grimley and Gerry Ricciutti of WBKN report that
class action lawsuits filed against Norfolk Southern for East
Palestine derailment.

A fourth class action lawsuit has been filed in regard to the East
Palestine train derailment.

One of the class action lawsuits filed in federal court against
Norfolk Southern was by Ray and Judith Hall of East North Avenue in
East Palestine.

The complaint says the pair live in the "danger zone," or the area
that authorities ordered evacuated.

They claim Norfolk Southern was negligent for causing the accident
and because of the derailment suffered damages, including the
evacuation of their homes.

Those filing a federal class action against Norfolk Southern also
include Grayce Eisley and Jeffrey Jaffrey Zalick.

The two claimed because of the derailment, the properties they own
suffered a decrease in market value.

Because of conditions caused by the derailment and the resulting
evacuation, the two contend that their properties may be
"uninhabitable for some time."

The two allege Norfolk Southern was negligent and are asking for
damages.
The suit was filed by Cincinnati-based attorneys Robert P. Starks
and Ronald R. Parry. The case has been assigned to U.S. Judge
Benita Y. Pearson but a hearing date has not been set yet.

Several people filed also class action lawsuits against the
operators of the train that derailed in East Palestine and forced
the evacuations of dozens of homes and businesses.

Chase and Cheri Kinder, entities Bird Dog Hill Kennels and
Stonybrook Kennel and Pamela Taas filed a lawsuit.

The complaint said that the plaintiffs were forced out of their
homes or businesses and sustained damages to property, economic
loss and expense, emotional distress, discomfort and inconvenience
and exposure to hazardous chemicals.

The complaint was filed in Columbiana County Common Pleas Court.
They are represented by attorney Jim Wise.

In a separate lawsuit, David and Susan Scheufele of Clark Street in
East Palestine as well as Harold Feezle of state Route 14 filed
their suit in the U.S. Northern District Court of Ohio.

They are represented by Wellsville attorney Nicholas Amato and
Cleveland attorney Andrew Thompson of the law firm Shapero Roloff
LPA.

The complaint says Feezle owns a business on state Route 14, and
because he has been forced to close his business, he has suffered
damages.

David Scheufele claims he suffered injuries due to his exposure to
the fumes from the crash site, and Susan Scheufele said she
suffered damages because she was forced to evacuate.

Court records do not list a hearing date.

The suit asks for damages as well as prohibiting the railroad from
removing any equipment from the crash site until it can be examined
and also asks that the railroad retain all records relating to the
train and the spill.

It also asks the judge to bar the railroad from trying to make
possible class members sign any document that releases the company
of any claims.

Norfolk Southern is the operator of a train carrying chemicals that
derailed in East Palestine. Since then, a number of homes and
businesses close to the derailment to evacuate and the evacuation
order was lifted. Norfolk Southern has established a Family
Assistance Center to help those directly impacted by the
derailment. A company spokesman said this initial phase of support
was designed to help people without having to worry about what
comes next and is offered without a legal waiver.

Local attorney Jeffrey Goodman, who is not involved in this case,
offers insight into what he says is an important part aimed to
protect people who could be included in the class in the future.

"These people are struggling to deal with this catastrophe that has
been dropped in their lap and disrupting their lives," Goodman
said. "It's important to protect those victims right now."

From a legal standpoint, Goodman says people affected by the
derailment should consult with a lawyer before doing or signing
anything.

"Make sure your rights are protected because you just don't know at
this stage in the game what your potential damages are and you
don't want to do anything that prejudices your ability to recover
down the road when you find out," Goodman said. [GN]

P. C. RICHARD & SON: Class Cert Hearing Rescheduled to March 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS v. P.C.
RICHARD & SON, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00399-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Maureen entered an order rescheduling the the hearing on the
Plaintiff's motion to certify class for settlement purposes and for
preliminary approval of class action settlement to March 15, 2023.

Richard & Son provides online products and services. The Company
offers a range of home appliances, consumer electronics, and
computer products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HH4iaf at no extra charge.[CC]

PAULA'S CHOICE: Cody Wiretapping Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANNETTE CODY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAULA'S CHOICE, LLC, a
Washington limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2022- 01298397-CU-MT-CXC, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on January 30, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:23-cv-00182 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that her communications on Defendant's
website, http://www.paulaschoice.com,were allegedly wiretapped.
The prayer for relief seeks for Plaintiff and each member of the
putative class, statutory damages for violations of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act and punitive damages.

Paula's Choice, LLC is a skin care and cosmetics company.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael J. Duvall, Esq.
          Kelly R. Graf, Esq.
          Pooja L. Shah, Esq.  
          DENTONS US LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5704
          Telephone: (213) 623-9300
          Facsimile: (213) 623-9924
          E-mail: michael.duvall@dentons.com
                  kelly.graf@dentons.com
                  pooja.l.shah@dentons.com

PENTA CONSTRUCTION: Chacon Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CHACON, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff v. PENTA CONSTRUCTION CORP, NICK FILLAS, and
JASON VANEGAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00686 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 31, 2023) is brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York City
Human Rights Law arising from the Defendants' failure to pay
overtime compensation in excess of 40 hours per week, failure to
provide Plaintiff with a wage notice and proper paystubs, and
practice of discrimination and retaliation in the terms,
conditions, and privileges of Plaintiff's employment on the basis
of national origin.

The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants to work as a
construction worker within the last six years.

Penta Construction Corp. was founded in 1982. The Company's line of
business includes the construction of industrial buildings and
warehouses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
          FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP  
          225 Broadway, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 571-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 505-2001

PLDT INC : Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 7, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP of GlobeNewsWire reports that investors are
hereby notified that they have until April 7, 2023, to move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action filed against PLDT
Inc.

The class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased PLDT
securities between January 1, 2019, and December 19, 2022, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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

https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/pldt-inc

The PLDT class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout
the Class Period made false and misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) PLDT was facing capital spending budget
overruns; (ii) PLDT and certain of its executives and directors
failed to address weaknesses that allowed such budget overruns.

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

For more information regarding the lead plaintiff process please
refer to

https://www.johnsonfistel.com/lead-plaintiff-deadlines.

Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
Investor Relations
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]

POLARIS INC: Campos Sues Over Undisclosed Defective Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------
Rudolfo Campos and Carlos Corrales, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. POLARIS, INC., Case No.
5:23-cv-00172 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 1, 2023), is brought concerning a
material safety and reliability defect in hundreds of thousands of
Model Year 2021 RZR Turbo S and XP Turbo vehicles (the "2021 Class
Vehicles") and 2022 2023 RZR Pro XP 4 and RZR Turbo R 4 vehicles
("2023 Class Vehicles") (together the "Class Vehicles"). The 2021
Class Vehicle contained an increased risk of primary clutch failure
(the "Clutch Defect"), while the 2023 Class Vehicle contained a
problem with the fuel pump assembly (the "Fuel Defect") (together
"The Defect").

A primary clutch failure can cause serious injury or death due to
the risk of this defect causing debris and/or clutch components to
be ejected from the clutch housing. This typically occurs under
high-load, low speed conditions. A fuel leak at the fuel pump
assembly joint on the fuel tank poses a substantial risk of fire
hazard, which could potentially cause serious injury.

The Class Vehicles have been sold even with the Defect, and with no
fix having been made available despite it being months since the
manufacturer sent out the Defect notice. The Defendant has long
known about the Defect from a variety of sources, and has not done
anything to mitigate the issue nor provide to consumers an option
to correct the Defect. Despite having knowledge of the Defect,
Defendant has continued to sell and lease vehicles containing the
Defect.

The Plaintiffs and the Class suffered economic injury as a result
of the Defect and Defendant's concealments about the safety and
security of the Class Vehicles at the time of purchase.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of
themselves, and other similarly situated individuals, against
Defendant regarding the Defect and the subsequent failure to fix
the Defect, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are owners of the Class Vehicles.

The Defendant manufactures and markets the Class Vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sina Rezvanpour, Esq.
          SINA REZ LAW, P.C.
          401 Wilshire Blvd., Fl. 12
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Phone: (818) 784-0100
          Facsimile: (818) 574-4049
          Email: sina.rez@sinarezlaw.com
               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800)400-6808
          Facsimile: (800)520-5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          301 E. Bethany Home Road Suite C-195
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          Email: ryan@kazflg.com


PORSCHE CARS: Xu, Vaz-Pocas Seek to Certify Classes
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL XU and DANIEL
VAZ-POCAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00510-SEG (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff
Xu asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following
classes:

    1. A multistate consumer protection class defined as:

       "All people who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in
       California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts,
       Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New York, and Washington."

    2. A multistate implied warranty class defined as:

       "All people who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in
       Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia,
       Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, and South
       Carolina."

    3. A multistate unjust enrichment class defined as:

       "All people who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in
       California, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan,
       New York, Texas, and Washington.

The Plaintiff Vaz-Pocas also seeks certification of a New Jersey
implied warranty class defined as:

   "All people who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in
   New Jersey."

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Timothy G. Blood and
David J. Worley as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs' theory of liability -- that Porsche's sale of Class
Vehicles concealing the defective cooling system injured Class
members at the time of sale -- is consistent with benefit of the
bargain damages measured by the average cost of repair.

In the alternative, the Court can use its equitable powers and
discretion to issue injunctive relief, directing Porsche to notify
Class members of the Cooling System Defect and repair the defect at
no cost to the Class.

Porsche Cars is involved in the retail sale of new and used
automobiles.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wQngGr at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Paula R. Brown, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimilke: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  pbrown@bholaw.com

                - and -

          David J. Worley, Esq.
          Kristi McGregor, Esq.
          James Evangelista, Esq.
          EVANGELISTA WORLEY LLC
          500 Sugar Mill Road, Suite 245A
          Atlanta, GA 30350
          Telephone: (404) 205-8400
          E-mail: david@ewlawllc.com
                  kristi@ewlawllc.com
                  jim@ewlawllc.com

                - and -

          Ray P. Boucher, Esq.
          Maria L. Weitz, Esq.
          BOUCHER LLP
          26100 Oxnard Street, Suite 600
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 340-5400
          Facsimile: (818) 340-5401
          E-mail: ray@boucher.la
                  weitz@boucher.la

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher G. Campbell, Esq.
          Brendan G. Krasinski, Esq.
          Matthew A. Goldberg, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          One Atlantic Center
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3450
          E-mail: christopher.campbell@dlapiper.com
                  brendan.krasinski@dlapiper.com
                  matthew.goldberg@dlapiper.com
                  timothy.pfenninger@dlapiper.com

                - and -

          Anika Brunson, Esq.
          LEE HONG DEGERMAN KANG
          & WAINEY
          3501 Jamboree Road, Suite 6000
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 250-9954
          Facsimile: (949) 250-9957
          E-mail: anika.brunson@lhlaw.com

PRICE WATER: Final Order & Judgment Entered in Laurent Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York enters Final Order and Judgment in the case,
TIMOTHY D. LAURENT, et al., On behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRICE WATER HOUSE COOPERS LLP, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 06 CV 2280 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y.).

On Oct. 31, 2022, the Court entered an order that granted
preliminary approval of the Settlement and approved the form and
manner of the Mailed Notice and Publication Notice to be provided
to the Class. On Jan. 27, 2023, the Court held the Fairness
Hearing, for which the Class had been given appropriate notice.

Having considered the Parties' moving papers, the Settlement
Agreement, and all other evidence concerning the Motion for Final
Approval of the Settlement, and having been duly advised in the
premises, Judge Oetken certifies the Class as a non-opt-out class
action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 consisting of, as described
in the Agreement: All persons (participants) who accrued benefits
after June 30, 1994, under the Retirement Benefit Accumulation Plan
for Employees of Price Waterhouse LLP or the Retirement Benefit
Accumulation Plan for Employees of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, who
held a Cash Balance Account and received (and/or whose alternate
payees or whose beneficiaries or estates received) a lump sum
payment under the Plan between March 23, 2000, and Aug. 17, 2006,
prior to such participants attaining age 65.

Judge Oetken finds that the requested Settlement Administration
Costs in the amount of $125,000 is reasonable to carry out the
terms of the Agreement, and approves payment of these Settlement
Administration Costs pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.

The Class Counsel previously appointed by the Court pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) has sought an award of attorneys' fees,
exclusive of costs and expenses, in an amount not to exceed
one-third of the Total Settlement Amount.

Judge Oetken finds that the requested one-third fee is fair and
reasonable. He also finds that the $489,484.38 requested
out-of-pocket litigation expenses and costs incurred have been
adequately documented. Hence, reimbursement of the requested amount
is also approved.

Plaintiffs Timothy Laurent and Smeeta Sharon, both of whom were
deposed in the action, are awarded Class Representative Service
Awards of $50,000 and $40,000, respectively, to be paid by the
Defendants pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.

The Released Claims, as defined in the Agreement, are released and
discharged as of the Effective Date of the Settlement. Further,
Releasors are enjoined and barred from commencing or prosecuting,
either directly or indirectly, any action in any other court
concerning or relating to any of the Released Claims against any
Released Party directly, representatively, derivatively, or in any
other capacity, whether by a complaint, counterclaim, defense, or
otherwise, in any local, state, or federal court or in any agency
or other authority or forum wherever located.

Except as otherwise provided in the Agreement and in the Final
Order and Judgment, the Plaintiffs and the Class Members will take
nothing in the Litigation, and Judge Oetken dismisses their claims
against the Plan with prejudice and without costs.

Without affecting the finality of this Final Order and Judgment,
the Court retains jurisdiction to implement, interpret, or enforce
the Final Order and Judgment, the Preliminary Approval Order, and
the Agreement.

In the event that the Settlement does not become final in
accordance with the terms of the Agreement, then the Final Order
and Judgment will be rendered null and void and will be vacated
nunc pro tunc and the Litigation will proceed, in those
circumstances, as described in the Agreement.

It is a final and appealable judgment.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at ECF No. 301,
to enter the Judgment, and to mark the case as closed on the
docket.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2023, Final Order &
Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/52uwxj5f from
Leagle.com.


PRIMA PASTA & CAFE: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adan Martinez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. PRIMA PASTA & CAFE, INC., d/b/a PRIMA PASTA & CAFE, ANTONINETTE
MODICA and ANTHONY MODICA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00760 (E.D.N.Y., Feb.
1, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover
from Defendants: unpaid wages, including overtime, due to a fixed
salary, unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving,
unpaid spread of hours premium, compensation for late payments of
wages, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Plaintiff was compensated at various fixed salary rates,
regardless of the actual number of hours the Plaintiff worked.
These fixed salary rates were based on the Plaintiff's daily rate,
and the Plaintiff received these wages in cash on a weekly basis.
Despite the Defendants paying the Plaintiff and Class members on a
fixed salary basis, there was never any agreement that this fixed
salary would cover all hour worked, including overtime hours. As a
result, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff, FLSA Collective the
Plaintiffs and Class members substantial overtime wages.

The Plaintiff regularly worked days exceeding 10 hours in length,
but the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff with his spread
of hours premium for the workdays that exceeded 10 hours in length.
The Defendants failed to properly compensate Plaintiff all wages
due in a timely manner. This is because the Defendants regularly
paid Plaintiff only about $200 dollars of his wages in cash on
payday. Defendants would then pay Plaintiff the rest of his wages
up to 4 days later, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a cook for the
Defendants at their restaurant Prima Pasta & Cafe in June 2009.

PRIMA PASTA & CAFE, INC. is a restaurant and domestic corporation
with a principal place of business located in Howard Beach, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone: 212-465-1188
          Fax: 212-465-1181


PRIMECARE MEDICAL: Kyer Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
April Kyer, individually and for others similarly situated v.
PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00176-YK (M.D. Pa., Feb.
1, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime and other damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant automatically deducted 30 minutes from the Plaintiff
and the Putative Class Members' shifts despite these workers
remaining on duty and working through their scheduled breaks.
during that time. Under The Defendant's meal break policy,
non-exempt hourly employees were not completely relieved of duties
during meal periods were denied pay for those on duty meal periods.
The Defendant continues to require hourly employees to remain on
duty and subject to interruptions during meal breaks. The Defendant
does not pay its hourly employees for this time worked off the
clock, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was an hourly licensed nurse practitioner for The
Defendant.

PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC. is a healthcare services company
headquartered in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
          SCHMIDT KRAMER PC
          209 State Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17101
          Phone: 717-888-8888
          Facsimile: 717-232-6467
          Email: scooper@schmidtkramer.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Court Approves Class Notice in Stedman Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOEL STEDMAN, et al., v.
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE CO., Case No. 2:18-cv-01254-RSL (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik entered an order approving
the proposed Class Notice and notice program.

Progressive's objection to the class definition is overruled.

Progressive argues that the class, as certified by the Court in
July 2021, is an impermissible "fail-safe class" because it assumes
a contested fact 19 and therefore prevents the entry of an adverse
judgment against class members because their inclusion in the class
is conditioned on success on the merits.

Progressive Direct operates as an insurance company. The Company
underwrites auto, fire, marine, and casualty insurance.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WZwPgT at no extra charge.[CC]

PRUDENT FIDUCIARY: Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARI AHRENDSEN, BARRY
CLEMENT, LISA BUSH, and THOMAS KALLAS, on behalf of the World
Travel, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a
class of all other persons similarly situated, v. PRUDENT FIDUCIARY
SERVICES, LLC, et. al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02157-HB (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

    (a) certifying the Class for settlement purposes and
        granting preliminary approval of the Settlement
        Agreement;

    (b) approving the proposed Class Notice;

    (c) approving Analytics Consulting, LLC as the Settlement
        Administrator;

    (d) approving the Plan of Allocation; and

    (e) setting a date for a Fairness Hearing.

Subject to the Court's approval, the Parties have settled this
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") class action for
a payment of $8,700,000 in cash (an average recovery of
approximately $11,950 per Class Member before any fees and
expenses).

Should the Court grant final approval, every eligible Class Member
will receive their portion of the Net Proceeds according to a Plan
of Allocation ("POA"). The proposed Settlement Class meets all the
criteria for conditional certification and the Settlement Agreement
satisfies all of the criteria for preliminary approval, providing
an excellent result for the Class.

This class action is brought on behalf of participants and
beneficiaries of the World Travel, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership
Plan (the "Plan" or "World Travel ESOP"). The Second Amended
Complaint alleges that Defendants violated ERISA in connection with
the purchase of shares of Company common stock by the Plan on
December 20, 2017 (the "ESOP Transaction").

The Plaintiffs Shari Ahrendsen and Barry Clement filed their
original Complaint on May 11, 2021. On July 30, 2021, the Trustee
filed a motion to dismiss and the Selling Shareholders (then
including Defendants James R. Wells and Richard G. Wells) filed a
motion to dismiss on August 9, 2021.

The Plaintiffs, then including Lisa Bush, filed an Amended
Complaint on August 30, 2021 and Defendants' motions to dismiss
were therefore denied as moot.

The Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
September 23, 2021, and the Parties completed briefing those
motions on October 25, 2021. On February 1, 2022, the Court denied
the Trustee's motion to dismiss; denied Defendant James A. Wells'
motion to dismiss; and granted Defendants' James R. Wells' and
Richard G. Wells' motion to dismiss.

Prudent Fiduciary provides professional Independent Fiduciary,
ERISA Consulting, and Expert Witness services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan 25,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I2mSLu
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patricia Mulvoy Kipnis, Esq.
          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
          Patrick O. Muench, Esq.
          Laura E. Babiak, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 300
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (856) 324-8219
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          E-mail: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com
                  gporter@baileyglasser.com
                  rjenny@baileyglasser.com
                  pmuench@baileyglasser.com
                  lbabiak@baileyglasser.com

                - and -

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

QUAKE LED: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quake LED, LLC. The
case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Quake LED, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00840
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2023).

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

Quake Led -- https://quakeled.com/ -- is a lighting industry that
offers flood, spot or combo lighting patterns and gives options of
lighting that can fit aesthetics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


RELIABLE PARTS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reliable Parts, Inc.
The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Reliable Parts, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00842 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2023).

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

Reliable Parts, Inc. -- https://www.reliableparts.com/ --
distributes appliance and barbecue parts. The Company offers home
care products, kitchen appliance parts, laundry appliance parts,
and water filters.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


RENEWAL BY ANDERSON: Carroll Sues Over Video Privacy Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH CARROLL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RENEWAL BY ANDERSON LLC and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV02007 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., January 30, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for the Video Privacy Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have secretly reported
to Facebook all key data regarding the viewing habits of visitors
on the website, www.renewalbyanderson.com. When a visitor watches a
video on the website while logged into Facebook, the Defendants
transmit the visitor's identifying information and video viewing
habits to Facebook without consent. As a result of the Defendants'
unlawful conduct, Facebook can bombard the website's visitors with
more ads about the Defendants' products, says the suit.

Renewal By Anderson LLC is a manufacturer of windows and doors
headquartered in Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
         Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
         PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
         4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
         Newport Beach, CA 92660
         Telephone: (949) 706-6464
         Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
         E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
                 vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com

RESURGENT CAPITAL: Blackman Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
Michael Blackman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Resurgent Capital Services, L.P.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00114-VAB (D. Conn., January 30, 2023)
is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of
Connecticut consumers against the Defendant seeking damages and
declaratory relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

On June 4, 2022, Defendant sent the Plaintiff an initial collection
letter regarding the alleged debt owed. The Letter contains the
following "G Notice" language that the Defendant purports "[t]he
state of CT requires" as follows: "Unless you notify us within 30
days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of
this debt, or any portion of it, we will assume this debt is valid.
If you notify us in writing within 30 days after receiving this
notice that you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion
of it, we will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of
a judgment and mail you a copy of such judgment or verification. If
you request of us in writing, within 30 days after receiving this
notice, we will provide you with the name and address of the
original creditor, if different from the current creditor."

A "G Notice" is an included statement within a letter that outlines
the specific rights a person has if he/she questions the debt.

According to the complaint, the letter violates the "G Notice"
requirement because the letter provides conflicting information
concerning the debt dispute period. Accordingly, the Letter is
materially misleading because it is open to more than one
reasonable interpretation of the debt dispute period, at least one
of which is inaccurate, says the suit.

Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. is a third-party debt collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

RESURGENT CAPITAL: Penny Files FDCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital
Services, L.P. The case is styled as Christopher Penny,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., Case No. 7:23-cv-00465-DCC
(D.S.C., Feb. 1, 2023).

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

Resurgent Capital Services is a manager and servicer of domestic
and international consumer debt portfolios for credit grantors and
debt buyers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dawn Marie McCraw, Esq.
          CONSUMER ATTORNEYS PLC
          8245 N 85th Way
          Scottsdale, AZ 85258
          Phone: (602) 807-1527
          Email: dawn@pricelawgroup.com


ROSNERS INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rosners, Inc. The
case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Rosners, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00844-JHR
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2023).

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

Rosners, Inc. -- https://www.rosners.com/ -- is a family-owned
showroom since 1979 focusing on brand-name home & outdoor cooking
appliances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com

RUST-OLEUM CORP: Faces Class Suit Over False Ads of Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of NewsWire reports that Rust-Oleum 'Paint &
Primer In One' products are falsely advertised, class action says
in the case-captioned Nemirovsky v. Rust-Oleum Corporation, Case
1:23-cv-00977.

A proposed class action claims Rust-Oleum misleadingly advertises
some of its "paint-and-primer-in-one" products given that the items
do not effectively adhere to surfaces on their own without first
applying primer separately.

The 25-page complaint alleges that consumers are led to believe the
products contain both paint and primer and, as such, can properly
cover any surface in one shot, thereby saving the money and effort
needed to buy and apply primer separately. Despite Rust-Oleum's
representations, independent testing of the products demonstrated
that one coat did not adequately adhere to the tested surfaces,
even when applied as instructed, and the products showed
"significant bleed through" after around a week, the lawsuit
relays.

Per the suit, reasonable consumers expect that they will get in
just one item the full results of both a paint and primer—an
essential base coat applied before painting to ensure proper
adhesion and prevent later peeling. Because Rust-Oleum's marketing
claims are false, the case says, consumers have been forced to
incur additional time and money "in order to achieve a properly
painted surface."

Rust-Oleum's "paint-and-primer-in-one" products have garnered
numerous complaints from consumers on retail websites, the filing
says. Reviews on Home Depot's site, for instance, claim the
Rust-Oleum paint "crackled [sic] under [the] second coat," "takes
several coats to make an impression" and is "very watery when
applied," the lawsuit reports.

The plaintiff, a New York resident, bought Rust-Oleum Painter's
Touch 2x Ultra Cover Paint + Primer on Amazon.com in August 2022,
the complaint says. As the suit tells it, the man learned that to
get adequate surface coverage, he had to apply multiple coats of
paint after allowing the previous layers to dry. The plaintiff
wound up using "more than double the recommended amount of paint"
in order to achieve sufficient results, the case claims.

The products at issue in the lawsuit include, but are not limited
to, the following items:

Rust-Oleum Painter's Touch 2x Ultra Cover, Paint + Primer
Rust-Oleum Studio Color, Interior Advanced Paint & Primer
Rust-Oleum Universal Aged Metallic Paint & Primer in One Spray
Paint
Rust-Oleum Universal Flat Metallic Paint & Primer in One Spray
Paint
Rust-Oleum Universal Flat Paint & Primer in One Spray Paint
Rust-Oleum Universal Forged Hammered Paint & Primer in One Spray
Paint
Rust-Oleum Universal Gloss Spray Paint & Primer in One Spray Paint
Rust-Oleum Universal Hammered Paint & Primer in One Spray Paint
Rust-Oleum Universal Pearl Metallic Paint & Primer in One Spray
Paint
Rust-Oleum Universal Matte Paint & Primer in One Spray Paint
Rust-Oleum Universal Metallic Paint & Primer in One Spray Paint
Rust-Oleum Universal Mist Metallic Paint & Primer in One Spray
Paint
Rust-Oleum Universal Satin Paint & Primer in One Spray Paint
Zinsser Covers Up Ceiling Paint & Primer In One
Zinsser Paint & Primer In One Ceiling Spray Paint
Zinsser Paint & Primer In One Ceiling Paint
Rust-Oleum Universal Premium Matte Metallic Paint & Primer in One
Spray Paint

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

SAFETY HARBOR: Alba Sues Over Nurse Assistants' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Daysi M. Alba, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. Safety Harbor Facility Operations, LLC,
d/b/a Living Center of Safety Harbor, Defendant, Case No.
8:23-cv-00212-JSM-JSS (M.D. Fla., January 31, 2023) is an action
against the Defendant to recover monetary damages for Plaintiff's
unpaid regular and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a nurse assistant from
approximately May 01, 2022, through January 12, 2022, or 36 weeks.

Safety Harbor Facility Operations, LLC is a nursing home located
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SALT OPTICS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Salt Optics, Inc. The
case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Salt Optics, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00846
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2023).

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

Salt Optics, Inc. -- https://saltoptics.com/ -- is a premium
eyewear brand from coastal California that is committed to quality
construction and timeless design inspired by effortless
beauty.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com

SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Seeks More Time to Oppose 2nd Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLON JOHNSON;
CHRISTOPHER CROWELL; KIMBERLEY JEAN MCLEOD; SHAUNA LEE LANDIS;
JANIELLE GUZMAN; GERALD WAYNE CRUTCHER; and RAFAEL DIAZ on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO; SAN BERNARDINO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF JOHN
MCMAHON, individually; PAUL WYNN, individually; JON BILLINGS,
individually; RICK BESSINGER, individually; ROBERT GUILLEN,
individually; Does 1 through 10, Case No. 5:18-cv-01121-GW-AFM
(C.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
granting their ex parte application to:

   -- extend the time within which they have to oppose the
      Plaintiffs' second motion for class certification,

   -- continue the hearing date on plaintiffs' motion, and

   -- modify the court's scheduling order to allow class
      discovery; declarations of Matthew P. Harrison, Kellian
      Summers, Dawn M. Flores-Oster.

This ex parte Application is made prior to the expiration of the
filing deadline established by the Court in its Order of November
29, 2022.

The Defendants are without fault in causing the crisis that
requires ex parte relief. The urgency and therefore good cause for
this ex parte application is highlighted by the Court's Order of
November 29, 2022, which, based on the parties' Stipulation, set
the briefing schedule on plaintiffs' Second Motion for Class
Certification.

The Defendants must protect their interests before the current due
date of their opposition, and after they have had the opportunity
to depose the newly-identified witnesses on which plaintiffs rely
to support their Motion.

On January 13, 2023, the plaintiffs, in accord with this Court's
Order dated November 29, 2022, filed their notice of notion and
second motion For class certification. Instead of seeking leave to
file an amended complaint before they filed their motion, however,
the plaintiffs instead simply identified nearly 40 new individuals
on whose Declarations they rely to support their motion.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan 25, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ydm784 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Dana Alden Fox, Esq.
          Matthew P. Harrison, Esq.
          Dawn M. Flores-Oster, Esq.
          Kellian Summers, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 250-1800
          Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
          E-mail: Dana.Fox@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Matthew.Harrison@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Dawn.Flores-Oster@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Kellian.Summers@lewisbrisbois.com

SAZERAC CO: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Designed Mini Bottles
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of NewsWire reports that A class action alleges
Sazerac Company has misleadingly designed mini bottles of Southern
Comfort to appear identical to the larger of the product,
particularly when it comes to taste in the case-captioned Del
Rosario v. Sazerac Company, Inc., Case 1:23-cv-01060.

A proposed class action alleges Sazerac Company has misleadingly
designed mini bottles of Southern Comfort to appear identical to
the larger of the product, particularly when it comes to taste.

The 11-page lawsuit claims that although reasonable consumers
expect the mini, 99-cent bottles of Southern Comfort to contain
fruit and spice-flavored liqueur just as the larger bottles do, the
products, in truth, contain only a "negligible" amount of hard
liquor. Consumers who rely on Sazerac Company's representations are
unaware that the look-alike mini bottles, often sold at gas
stations and convenience stores, actually contain a malt beverage
made with about "one thimble" of whisky per 2,500 gallons, the case
claims.

The complaint explains that the mini and full-size bottles of
Southern Comfort are adorned with the same outer grooves, and their
label designs contain the same colors, themes, fonts, symbols and
spacing. According to the suit, Sazerac instructs sellers to
advertise the product as "shots, " reinforcing the impression that
the bottles contain small servings of hard liquor.

However, the filing says, the mini product subtly distinguishes
itself with small, difficult-to-read font as a "Malt Beverage With
Natural Whiskey Flavors, Caramel Color and Oak Extract. "

Although federal regulations require companies to identify any
"added flavoring material" on a product's front label, the Alcohol
and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) says consumers who read the
word "whiskey" are likely to assume that a product's alcohol
content is derived from the distilled spirit, the case relays. The
suit also says the description "Oak Extract" falsely implies that
the malt beverage base was aged in oak barrels.

Moreover, the case argues, Sazerac "could have alerted buyers that
what they are buying has little connection to the distilled spirits
this beverage has been known for" by qualifying "Southern Comfort"
with the word "brand."

Instead, the company knew potential customers were seeking the
qualities of the regular variety of Southern Comfort, including
whiskey and/or distilled spirits aged in oak barrels, and
"developed its marketing and labeling to directly meet their needs
and desires," the lawsuit contends.

The complaint further alleges that, in violation of TTB
regulations, Sazerac avoids paying extra taxes by adding trace
amounts of whiskey to the product's malt base before it ferments.
Southern Comfort's status as a malt beverage also allows Sazerac to
evade certain state regulations that would otherwise prohibit it
from selling the product outside of liquor stores, the filing
says.

The lawsuit looks to cover anyone in New York, West Virginia,
Montana, New Mexico, Alabama, North Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa,
Mississippi, Alaska or South Carolina who purchased mini bottles of
Southern Comfort applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC: AHIC Wins Summary Judgment v. Turner
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as David Turner, et al., v.
Schneider Electric Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-11006-NMG (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton
entered an order:

   1. allowing the motion of defendant Aon Hewitt Investment
      Consulting (AHIC) for summary judgment;

   2. allowing the motion of defendant Schneider Electric
      Holdings for partial summary judgment; and

   3. denying as moot the motion of defendant Aon Hewitt
      Investment Consulting for partial relief from stipulation
      regarding class certification.

According to AHIC, at least some of the named plaintiffs and
proposed class representatives were current Plan participants when
the parties submitted the class stipulation. After discovery,
however, AHIC learned that the only named plaintiff who remained a
Plan participant had withdrawn the balance of his account from the
Plan.

Because none of the proposed class representatives are current Plan
participants nor Schneider employees, AHIC asserts they have no
Article III standing to pursue claims seeking an injunction or
other prospective relief.

AHIC contends that any certified class should extend only to claims
for monetary relief, not prospective remedies. Because the Court
will allow AHIC's motion for summary judgment and dismiss AHIC from
this proceeding, AHIC's motion for partial relief from the class
stipulation will be denied as moot.

The Plaintiffs are seven former employees of Schneider Electric who
participated in the Schneider Electric 401(k).

They filed the instant action on behalf of the Plan against
Schneider Electric, the two committees that oversee the Plan and
AHIC, the Plan's investment manager.

In their complaint, plaintiffs bring a variety of claims under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29
U.S.C. sections 1001 et seq., arising out of alleged improper
investment decisions which resulted in losses to participants'
retirement savings and excessive administrative fees.

Schneider Electric is a North American subsidiary of a
multinational energy technology company. It maintains a pension
plan as part of its employee benefits package, whereby its
employees and former employees may contribute toward their
retirement through 401(k) contributions.

The Plan holds over $4.5 billion in assets across all investments.
The Plan offers a range of investment options, including
target-date funds and other stock and bond investment choices.

Schneider Electric is a North American subsidiary of a
multinational energy technology company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Xg7mjL at no extra charge.[CC]

SELECT REHABILITATION: Manzella Sues to Recover Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adrianna Manzella and Michele Dzula, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SELECT REHABILITATION LLC and
SELECT PT, OT & SLP REHABILITATION NEW YORK PLLC, d/b/a SELECT
REHAB, ANNA GARDINA WOLFE, and MICHAEL CAPSTICK individually, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00860 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2023), is brought to recover
overtime wages which Defendants failed to pay in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL"); the Plaintiffs also seek payment of all wages for meal
breaks which they neither took or which were not bona fide,
non-working meal breaks pursuant to NYLL.

The Plaintiffs were not paid the required overtime compensation at
a rate of one and one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per work week for the period of
January 30, 2020 to the date of the final disposition of this
action. The Plaintiffs and the Class were all subject to
Defendants' common policy and/or practice of not paying overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week
during the NYLL Class Period; and, all suffered to have to work
without bona fide meal breaks of 30 minutes of non-working,
uninterrupted breaks thus violating NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were recruited by and hired by the Defendants.

Select NY allegedly provides professional physical, occupational
and speech therapy services in skilled nursing facilities and other
locations throughout New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 248–5550
          Fax: (516) 248-6027
          Email: mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com

               - and -

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq
          FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
          6916 West Linebaugh Avenue, # 101
          Tampa, FL 33625
          Phone: (813) 639-9366
          Fax: (813) 639-9376
          Email: Mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
                 Mail@feldmanlegal.us


SEQUIUM ASSET: Appeals Court Dismissed FDCPA Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Accounts Recovery reports that Appeals Court affirms dismissal of
FDCPA class action over issues with letter in the case-captioned
Velez-Aguilar v. Sequium Asset Solutions.

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal
of a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class-action case for
failure to state a claim in favor of a defendant that was sued for
sending a collection letter to the plaintiff that allegedly
referenced an incorrect balance, did not itemize the debt, did not
indicate whether interest was accruing, and whether the inclusion
of attorney's fees and reference to the original creditor were
misleading or deceptive.

A judgment was entered against the plaintiff back in 2009 for the
amount of $4,052.78. The court issued a writ of execution in the
amount of $4,518.78, which included attorney's fees and additional
court costs. Two more writs of execution were issued — one in
2011 and one in 2015 — for $4,687.79 and $4,733.99.

In 2021, the defendant sent the plaintiff a collection letter,
offering to settle the debt for 65% of the balance that was owed.
The balance, according to the letter, $4,424.60 and listed the
original creditor and the current creditor.

The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the letter violated the FDCPA in
a number of ways. A District Court judge granted the defendant's
motion to dismiss, which the plaintiff appealed to the Third
Circuit.

The plaintiff argued that:

The defendant engaged in deceptive, abusive, and unfair collection
practices by mis-stating the amount that was due.

The letter violated the FDCPA because it did not explicitly
indicate the character of the debt

That including attorney's fees in the original judgment was
misleading or deceptive

That referencing the name of the current creditor was false or
misleading

The Appeals Court didn't buy any of the plaintiff's arguments,
noting that the letter listed only one amount that was due, which
would not confuse or mislead a least sophisticated borrower. As
well, there was "no basis for inferring that the debt continued to
be subject to increase from interest or other costs, not least
because Sequium's offer to settle for '65% of the balance due'
effectively rendered the debt static," the Appeals Court wrote.
Finally, there was nothing misleading about how the current
creditor was identified in the letter, the Appeals Court noted.
[GN]

SEVEN SMITH: Rana Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Zeeshan Rana, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SEVEN SMITH LLC D/B/A DOMINO'S PIZZA, CLIFTON W. DUNN,
and ANA C. RODRIQUEZ, Case No. 2:23-cv-00571 (D.N.J., Feb. 1,
2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the
New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), promulgated regulations,
and common law, all to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
hours owed to himself and similarly situated Delivery Drivers
employed by Defendants at their Domino's Pizza stores.

The Defendants employ Delivery Drivers who use their own automobile
for delivering pizza and other food items at the benefit of the
Defendants. The Defendants failed to reimburse Delivery Drivers for
the automobile expenses associated with deliveries, which is
considered a "kick-back" to the employer. The result: Delivery
Drivers' wages are not "free and clear", and their net hourly pay
falls below the applicable minimum wage, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Delivery Driver
from April 4, 2022 to August 26, 2022.

The Defendants own and operate a Domino's Pizza franchise store
located in Bayonne, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          Matthew A. Luber, Esq.
          Tyler J. Burrell, Esq.
          McOMBER McOMBER & LUBER, P.C.
          39 East Main Street
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Phone: (856) 985-9800
          Fax: (856) 263-2450


SHOP-VAC: Gair Suit Files Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDICE GAIR on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. SHOP-VAC CORPORATION
and GREAT STAR TOOLS, USA, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00976-MWB (M.D.
Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, in
furtherance of her claims under the Worker Adjustment Retraining
and Notification ("WARN") Act:

   (a) certifying a class of Plaintiff and all persons:

           (i) who worked at or reported to Defendant Shop
               Vac Corporation's ("Shop Vac") Facility in
               Williamsport, Pennsylvania,

          (ii) who were terminated from employment on or about
               September 15, 2020 and within 90 days of that
               date, or as the reasonably foreseeable
               consequence of the mass layoff or plant closing
               ordered by Shop Vac on or about September 15,
               2020,

         (iii) who are "affected employees" within the meaning
               of 29 U.S.C. section 2101(a)(5) and (iv) who have
               not filed a timely request to opt-out of the
               class;

   (b) appointing Raisner Roupinian LLP as Class Counsel;

   (c) appointing Plaintiff as the Class Representative;

   (d) approving the form and manner of Notice, and (e) such
       further relief as this Court may deem proper.

Shop-Vac develops and manufactures vacuum cleaners.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan 24,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HSSH9p
at no extra charge.[CC]


SIX FLAGS: Duane Morris Attorneys Discuss Ruling in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP on Feb. 8 disclosed that on January 18,
2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
reversed and remanded the district court's order dismissing the
putative securities class action with prejudice, holding that
plaintiff sufficiently alleged that a major theme park operator
(the "Company") and two of its executives made material
misstatements and omissions in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Oklahoma Firefighter
Pension and Retirement Systems v. Six Flags Entertainment
Corporation, No. 21-10865, 2023 WL 228268 (5th Cir. 2023). Largely
on information from a former employee ("FE"), the complaint alleged
that defendants misled investors by projecting unrealistic or
impossible timelines for opening theme parks in China. After
significantly discounting the FE's allegations, the district court
dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Fifth Circuit reversed,
holding that the complaint adequately alleged the FE's personal
knowledge of the relevant topics and that the FE's allegations
should be discounted "only minimally."

The Company, a major U.S. theme park operator, announced that it
had partnered with a Chinese real estate developer (the
"Developer") to build 11 theme parks at three different locations
in China. According to the complaint, the Company projected that
some of the parks would open as early as late 2019, with all 11
opening by 2021, and that these parks would contribute at a minimum
$60 million to the Company's annual EBITDA post-opening. The
complaint alleges that, throughout 2018, the Company stated that
the China park projects were "progressing nicely towards their
anticipated opening dates" as scheduled. The complaint further
alleges that, in February 2019, the Company stated that the China
parks would be delayed by 6 to 12 months due to macroeconomic
events impacting the Developer. After a series of additional
statements throughout the year regarding further delays, in January
2020, the Company disclosed that the Developer had defaulted on its
payment obligations, which could lead to the termination of all
projects in China, and that they expected a negative $1 million
revenue adjustment and one-time charges of approximately $10
million. In February 2020, the Company announced that the
agreements with the Developer were terminated.

Plaintiff filed suit, alleging that defendants knew that the
projected timelines were unrealistic and impossible. The complaint
relied primarily on allegations from the FE, a former Director of
International Construction and Project Management whose
responsibilities included overseeing the construction of the China
parks, ensuring that the Developer was building the parks correctly
and safely, and reporting on their progress internally at the
Company. According to the complaint, the FE believed that it was
"obvious" as early as May 2018 that the parks could not open on
schedule because the Developer had not funded the theme park rides
or commissioned the necessary blueprints, had barely begun
construction, and had fallen behind on making licensing payments to
the Company. The complaint also alleged that the FE prepared weekly
presentations to Company executives regarding the lack of progress
at the parks, and that the FE had direct contact with the Developer
and knew about its financial conditions. The complaint corroborated
the FE's allegations with a photo of one of the park sites in April
2018 that showed essentially no construction. Finally, the
complaint also alleged that the Company improperly recognized
revenue on the China parks and misstated its compliance with GAAP,
which allowed the Company to recognize certain revenues related to
the China parks only if there was "progress toward completion of
[the Developer's] performance obligations."

The Fifth Circuit held that the complaint sufficiently alleged a
securities fraud claim with respect to the majority of the alleged
misstatements. As an initial matter, the Court noted that it may
rely on assertions from confidential sources if the person is
described with sufficient detail and those details "substantiate
that the source has the necessary knowledge." The Court held that
the allegations regarding the FE sufficiently detailed his position
as one whose responsibilities were "directly relevant to the events
at issue" and corroborated by at least one photo, and therefore
"should be discounted only minimally for his anonymity and lack of
corroborating witnesses."

With respect to the alleged misstatements, the Court held that
statements that "all our parks are progressing nicely towards their
anticipated opening dates," "the timing of the parks remains
exactly the same as previously discussed," and that although the
park opening in one location had shifted back a month or two the
others were on-time, were not forward-looking statements that fell
within the PSLRA's safe harbor. First, although the deadlines were
future projections, the statements related to the Company's present
construction progress. Second, there were no meaningful cautionary
statements related to the actual risk at issue -- i.e., that the
parks might be significantly delayed or fail to ever open. Third,
the complaint sufficiently alleged facts supporting its assertions
that the statements were misleading, including that certain
necessary steps had not taken place on schedule, that the
construction sites showed no meaningful progress, and that the
Developer was unable to pay the vendors. Notably, the Court
rejected defendants' argument that plaintiff needed to show that
timely completion was categorically "impossible," stating that such
a requirement would raise plaintiff's burden at the pleading stage.
Finally, the Court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged
scienter based on allegations that (i) the FE prepared weekly
presentations about the lack of infrastructure and progress for
Company executives, and (ii) defendants were motivated to hide the
true nature of the parks' progress to achieve the target EBITDA
that would have entitled the individual defendants to receive
equity awards of 300% and 600% of their base salaries.

With respect to the alleged improper revenue recognition, the Court
held that it was not unreasonable to infer that defendants
overstated the revenue that depended on the projected opening
dates. The Court credited plaintiff's arguments that because the
Company's statements regarding the scheduled opening dates were
false, any recognized revenue during those quarters (which
plaintiff claimed were allowed only if there was progress in the
development) also must have been erroneous, and also that the
Company's one-time downward revenue adjustment in 2018 was an
acknowledgment of its overstatement. [GN]

SONY INTERACTIVE: Motion to Dismiss Over Antitrust Claim Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Burkett of Courthouse News Service reports that Judge refuses
to dismiss class action antitrust claims against Sony. The class
action alleges Sony illegally prevented retailers from selling
digital download cards for PlayStation games.

It's not "game over" yet in a class action suit accusing Sony
Interactive Entertainment of anticompetitive conduct.

Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in the Northern District
of California denied Sony's request to dismiss a consolidated
amended class action complaint alleging the company wiped out
retail competition for its massively popular games by preventing
retailers from selling digital download codes, giving Sony sole
control over the distribution of its PlayStation products.

Sony's competitors -- companies such as Nintendo and Microsoft --
allow their customers to purchase download codes for their games
from retailers, offering gamers the opportunity to shop around and,
potentially, save a few bucks.

The plaintiff PlaySation users' initial complaint was dismissed in
July 2022 for failing to explain how Sony "generated a revenue
stream from the sale of download codes by third party retailers,
but Seeborg ruled that the amended ruling adequately describes how
Sony previously sold digital game cards to retailers, who when take
a commission on each sale and give the remainder of the profit to
Sony. The amended complaint also describes how Sony previously sold
download codes to the games' publishers and allowed them to deal
directly with retailers.

"While Plaintiffs do not identify how lucrative this practice was,
the avernments provide enough detail to support the conclusion that
Sony's conduct was, in any event, profitable," Seeborg wrote.

Referring to Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., the
plaintiffs argued that Sony's decision in 2019 to cut out retailers
from download code sales, was a move to sacrifice short-term
profits for long-term gain in "order to obtain higher profits in
the long run from the exclusion of competition." The plaintiffs say
the dip in Sony's fiscal year 2019 sales demonstrate that.

Sony argued the plaintiffs fell short of proving how the company's
"'only conceivable rationale or purpose'" of its conduct was to
harm competition. Seeborg said that while the plaintiffs are
required under FTC v. Qualcomm Inc. to ultimately prove that, the
amended complaint alleges facts supporting such an assertion, "if
just barely"

By suggesting that Sony's financial performance with its retailers
was not the reason for Sony's decision to curtail retail sale of
download codes, and by denying the idea the video game company
hoped to save costs by alleging they continued selling gift cards
through those same retailers anyway, plaintiffs stated a claim,
Seeborg said.

Plaintiffs' attorney Michael Buchman declined to comment. Attorneys
for Sony did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [GN]

STAR ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
CasinoBeats reports that Star Entertainment hit with fourth class
action amid misconduct allegations.

Shine Lawyers has cited "revelations of alleged misconduct" in
causing the Star Entertainment stock price "to plummet" after the
casino operator was hit with a fourth class action lawsuit.

The Brisbane-based group noted that the "claim overlaps
considerably with the separate securities class actions" also in
motion, with a further intention to defend the proceedings issued.

The claim alleges that between March 29, 2016, and May 25, 2022,
The Star "failed to make disclosures to the market" about
money-laundering, links to organised crime, fraud, corruption,
terrorism-financing fears and associated regulatory risks involved
as a result.

This, said Star, relates to alleged misleading representations and
failure to disclose information which should have been, including
about its systems and processes for compliance with anti-money
laundering and counterterrorism financing obligations, and conduct
relating to junkets, accounts with the Bank of China Macau and
China Union Pay transitions.

The class action alleges that the company's conduct was misleading,
deceptive and in conflict with the interests of its shareholders.
It's further alleged that the firm was in breach of its continuous
disclosure obligations.

After these misconduct allegations were revealed in October 2021,
said Shine Lawyers, Star's share price fell by 23 per cent and,
following additional revelations, has now lost more than $1bn off
its market value.

Craig Allsopp, Shine's Joint Head of Class Actions,, said: "We
allege Star knew, or ought to have known, that this wide ranging
misconduct occurred and that it would have a hugely detrimental
impact for its shareholders once exposed."

"Star represented to investors that it was a safe bet, when it was
anything but, and we'll be looking to hold Star to account for
their losses."

On March 30, 2022, Australian law firm Slater and Gordon filed a
class action lawsuit against Star for what it called "misleading or
deceptive" representations regarding compliance with regulatory
obligations.

The filing, said Slater and Gordon, had been made on behalf of
investors who acquired shares between March 29, 2016, and March 16,
2022, who were seeking compensation amid a price decline "by more
than 25 per cent, wiping more than A$1bn from the company's
value".

This was followed up on November 7 of the same year, the firm was
hit with a second class action lawsuit after law firm Maurice
Blackburn filed proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Phi Finney McDonald cited an alleged a failure to comply with
anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing obligations
in filing a class action against the company. [GN]

STONEHILL COLLEGE: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stonehill College,
Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, for himself and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Stonehill
College, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00864 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2023).

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

Stonehill College -- https://www.stonehill.edu/ -- is a private
Roman Catholic liberal arts college in Easton, Massachusetts.[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


T-MOBILE US: Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach Investigated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Silver Golub & Teitell LLP of PR Newswire reports that Silver Golub
& Teitell LLP, a plaintiffs' class action law firm headquartered in
Connecticut, is investigating claims against T-Mobile in connection
with a new data breach which exposed the sensitive information of
over 37 million T-Mobile account holders. T-Mobile has begun
notifying impacted customers that their data has been compromised.
T-Mobile has confirmed this is a distinct incident from the 2021
data breach.

T-Mobile has disclosed it discovered the data breach on January 5,
2023. T-Mobile says e a bad actor obtained customer information
through an API without authorization. An API provides applications
with access to data and if not properly secured, they can be
exploited by bad actors to steal large amounts of information
stored by companies like T-Mobile. As a result of the breach,
impacted customers should anticipate being targeted by phishing
scams and should look out for identity theft attempts.

If T-Mobile has notified you that you have been impacted by the
data breach and you would like to learn more about your rights,
please contact SGT by emailing SGT attorney Brett Burgs at
bburgs@sgtclassactions.com or by visiting SGT's website and
submitting your information. [GN]

T-MOBILE US: Polhill Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against T-Mobile US, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Edward Polhill, Steven Vash, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. T-Mobile US,
Inc., T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00489-MLB (N.D. Ga.,
Feb. 1, 2023).

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Candace Noelle Smith, Esq.
          Connely Doize, Esq.
          John C. Herman, Esq.
          Peter M. Jones, Esq.
          HERMAN JONES LLP
          3424 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 1650
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Phone: (404) 504-6508
          Fax: (404) 504-6501
          Email: csmith@hermanjones.com
                 cdoize@hermanjones.com
                 jherman@hermanjones.com
                 pjones@hermanjones.com


T-MOBILE: Fails Yet Again to Protect Customers' Info, Ferguson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TAMARA FERGUSON and BRIAN HEINZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. T-MOBILE USA, INC.
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00142-JCC (W.D. Wash., January 31,
2023) seeks compensation under principles of common law for
negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and
breach of confidence, for their damages and those of fellow Class
members arising from the Defendant's conduct of exposing the
personal information of 37 million of its pre- and post-paid
customers, including Plaintiffs.

According to the complaint, just one day before it appeared at a
hearing asking the Court in In re T-Mobile Customer Security Data
Breach Litigation, MDL No. 3019 (W.D. Mo.) to finally approve its
settlement of claims related to its August 2021 data breach,
T-Mobile disclosed yet another data breach. This time, T-Mobile
exposed the personal information of its pre- and post-paid
customers. According to T-Mobile, the stolen personal identifying
information includes customers' names, email addresses, phone
numbers, billing addresses, dates of birth, account numbers, and
details of their service plans.

As the target of many data breaches in the past, T-Mobile knew its
systems were vulnerable to attack. Yet it failed to implement and
maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate
to the nature of the information to protect its customers' personal
information, yet again putting millions of customers at great risk
of scams and identity theft, says the suit.

T-Mobile USA, Inc. is an American wireless network operator.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
          Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
                  jdennett@tousley.com
                  kboyd@tousley.com

TEJAS ENERGY: Nunez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------
Jason Kirk Nunez, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. TEJAS ENERGY, INC., SANDRA WILLIAMS, and CASEY
WILLIAMS, Case No. 6:23-cv-00012-H (N.D. Tex., Feb. 1, 2023), is
brought against Defendants to recover unpaid overtime that is
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants required the Plaintiff and the other individuals
employed by the Defendants to work 12 hour shifts as demanded,
sometimes for 7 days in a week. Defendants did not pay the
Plaintiff or any other individual employed by them overtime for
hours worked over 40 in a single work week. The Defendants have
implemented a business plan that maximizes profit by misclassifying
employees as independent contractors and not paying these employees
the full amount of wages that are due under the FLSA. This allows
The Defendants to obtain an unfair advantage over competitors who
follow the law in their employment practices, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired as a drill-out supervisor by the Defendants
from May to August of 2022.

The Defendants hire individuals to conduct drill out operations and
oil flowback completions in the Western and Northern parts of
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TIDEWATER FINANCE: Johnson Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABRIALE JOHNSON, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. TIDEWATER FINANCE
COMPANY, d/b/a/ TIDEWATER MOTOR CREDIT and TIDEWATER CREDIT
SERVICES, a Virginia corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-01656-RDB (D.
Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the Class,

   2. appointing class counsel,

   3. approving the content, form, and manner of notice proposed
      to be sent to all members of the Class, and

   4. scheduling a fairness hearing.

Plaintiff's counsel has consulted with the Defendants' counsel
regarding the motion, and Defendants do not oppose the motion.

Tidewater provides finance to retail consumer goods.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan 25,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jvJACt
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5003
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: sharris@milberg.com
                  tpacheco@milberg.com

TIMEC SERVICES: Wilson Discrimination Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARVONTE WILSON and DOMONIQUE DANIELS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TIMEC
SERVICES COMPANY, INC.; FERROVIAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.;
VALERO REFINING COMPANY-CALIFORNIA; DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS; and DOES
1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. FCS059129, was
removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County
of Solano, 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-00172-WBS-KJN to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts causes of action for racial discrimination in
violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981,
and Government Code Section 12940, discrimination based on
perceived disability in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 12112, and
negligence.

TIMEC SERVICES COMPANY, INC. is a provider of maintenance and
mechanical construction services.[BN]

Defendant DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC. is represented by:

          Holly Williamson, Esq.
          Karen Jennings Evans, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          50 California Street, Suite 1700
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 975-3700
          Facsimile: (415) 975-3701
          E-mail: hwilliamson@HuntonAK.com
                  kevans@HuntonAK.com

TIMECO SYSTEMS: Griffin Files Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Timeco Systems, Inc.
The case is styled as Shannon Griffin, on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated individuals v. Timeco Systems, Inc., Case No.
8:23-cv-00222-SCB-MRM (M.D. Fla., Feb. 1, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

TIMECO -- https://timeco.com/ -- offers employee time tracking
software that makes tracking hours, scheduling, and PTO requests
simple.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Lee Richards, Esq.
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          1800 SE 10th Ave., Suite 205
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Phone: (954) 871-0050
          Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com


TINKER FEDERAL: Stafford Privacy Suit Removed to W.D. Okla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHAKIRA STAFFORD, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TINKER FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION; BOKF, N.A., d/b/a TRANSFUND, A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; and
FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
CJ-2022-5078, was removed from the District Court of Oklahoma
County, Oklahoma, to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma on January 27, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Oklahoma assigned
Case No. 5:23-cv-00089-JD to the proceeding.

The suit asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se based on
violations of federal law, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, declaratory relief, violation of the Oklahoma Consumer
Protection Act, and invasion of privacy.

Tinker Federal Credit Union is a credit union headquartered in
Tinker AFB, Oklahoma.[BN]

Defendant Tinker Federal Credit Union is represented by:

          Lyndon W. Whitmire, Esq.
          Kelsey A. Chilcoat, Esq.
          PHILLIPS MURRAH P.C.
          Corporate Tower, Thirteenth Floor
          101 North Robinson
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235-4100
          Facsimile: (405) 235-4133
          E-mail: lwwhitmire@phillipsmurrah.com

               - and -

          Tammy B. Webb, Esq.
          Anna A. El-Zein, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
          E-mail: tbwebb@shb.com
                  aelzein@shb.com

TPG INC: Faces Assad Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE ASSAD and CHRISTOPHER L. BEUER, Plaintiffs v. TPG INC., TPG
CANNES AGGREGATION, L.P., SHARAD S. MANSUKANI, KATHERINE WOOD, PAUL
V. CAMPANELLI, STEPHEN C. FARRELL, TODD B. SISITSKY, and W. CARL
WHITMER, Defendants, Case No. 2023-0096-LWW (Del. Ch., January 27,
2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated former Convey stockholders, to
recover damages as a result of Defendants' breaches of fiduciary
duty.

On June 21, 2022, Convey's majority stockholder, TPG, Inc.,
announced that it had executed an agreement to acquire the
remaining Convey shares that it did not already own for $10.50 per
share in cash. By the time the transaction was announced, TPG had
delivered its written consent approving the transaction, which
under the terms of the merger agreement, effectively prohibited
Convey's board of directors from considering superior proposals.
The transaction was not subject to approval by a majority of
Convey's minority stockholders. The transaction closed on October
7, 2022.

According to a September 1, 2022 information statement that Convey
filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the transaction, TPG informed the Company that it
wanted to take Convey private again in late April 2022. The sham
negotiations that followed do not bear any hallmarks of fairness.
Convey's Chairman, Sharad S. Mansukani, a TPG Senior Advisor,
convened the Board to form a special committee of directors to
consider a transaction with TPG. The special committee members
acted in a manner that was entirely consistent with their manifest
allegiance to TPG. The Committee repeatedly declined to reach out
to third parties to solicit alternative bids or test the fairness
of TPG's offers and counter-offers. Instead, the Committee
purportedly concluded, without any investigation or evidence, that
no third parties were purportedly interested in acquiring the
Company, says the suit.

By the acts alleged herein, the TPG Defendants breached their
fiduciary duty of loyalty to Convey's public stockholders. The
transaction was the product of unfair dealing, was initiated,
timed, structured, negotiated, and approved by the Board and TPG
Cannes, and was priced to serve TPG's interests at the expense of
Convey's public stockholders, the suit asserts.

TPG Inc. is a publicly traded Delaware corporation and global asset
manager. TPG's investments include large-scale, control-oriented
private equity investments in healthcare.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kimberly A. Evans, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 499-3600

               - and -

          Kevin H. Davenport, Esq.
          Eric J. Juray, Esq.
          Stacey A. Greenspan, Esq.
          Seth T. Ford, Esq.
          PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
          1310 N. King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 888-6500  
          
               - and -

          Joel Fleming, Esq.
          Amanda R. Crawford, Esq.
          Saranna E. Soroka, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP   
          260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600  
          
               - and -

          Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
          David Tejtel, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
          493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
          Bedford Hills, NY 10507
          Telephone: (888) 529-1108
          
               - and -

          Lee D. Rudy, Esq.
          J. Daniel Albert, Esq.
          Lauren Lummus, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          
               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          Brian D. Stewart, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290

               - and -

          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          Adrienne Bell, Esq.
          KASKELA LAW LLC
          18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
          Newtown Square, PA 19073
          Telephone: (484) 258-1585  

               - and -

          Stephen E. Jenkins, Esq.
          Richard D. Heins, Esq.
          ASHBY & GEDDES
          500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
          P.O. Box 1150
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 654-1888

TRICIA E-BILLING: Misclassifies Employees, Davis Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
TERI DAVIS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. TRICIA E-BILLING SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 4:23-cv-10250-GAD-KGA (E.D. Mich., January 31, 2023) is a
collective action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act on
behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals who
perform or have performed services for the Defendant, and who were
wrongfully classified as independent contractors, but who Defendant
exercised control over and treated like employees.

The Plaintiff was assigned one optometry office to bill for by
Defendant's owner Tricia Eddy. One month later, Ms. Eddy assigned
Plaintiff two more offices to bill. In August 2022, Ms. Eddy asked
Plaintiff to begin working full time and assigned her two more
offices to bill, providing her with a 50-cent pay increase while
expecting five times the work. The Plaintiff asserts that she was
employed as an "Independent Contractor" by Defendant, where she was
"exempt" from overtime and paid an hourly wage for her work.

Tricia E-Billing Solutions, LLC is a domestic profit corporation
whose registered business address is in Okemos, Ingham County,
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq.
          Colin H. Wilkin, Esq.
          HURWITZ LAW PLLC
          340 Beakes St., Suite 125
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (844) 487-9489
          E-mail: noah@hurwitzlaw.com
                  colin@hurwitzlaw.com

UNITED ELECTRICAL: Seeks Dismissal of FLSA Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Tabakman, Esq., of Fox Rothschild LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that when an employer is sued in a FLSA
class/collective action, a big bone of contention often is the
definition of the class and what should or should not be in the
notice that gets sent to putative class members. Often, the Court
will direct certain specifics to go in the notice and usually these
instructions are followed. In an interesting and instructive case,
an employer is now claiming that the plaintiffs disregarded court
instructions on the definition of the class in the notice. The
employer now wants the case dismissed. The case is entitled Heeg et
al. v. United Electrical Contractors Inc. and was filed in federal
court in the Western District of Michigan.

The Court defined the class as electricians employed by the Company
for three years prior to complaint filing, who did not receive
overtime. The plaintiffs maintained they could include laborers in
this group but the Company objected, arguing these workers were not
electricians. In an unusual stance, the plaintiffs also contend
there is an open ended time period for the class members. The
Company charges that the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers has reached out to potential class members about joining
the action but claim the union was not authorized to make these
overtures and the list of potential class members was improperly
provided to the Union, violating the court-imposed protective
order.

The Company has also tried to obtain the list of those who joined
and the consent forms filed by these class members, but it charges
that the plaintiffs' lawyer refused to turn them over. Although the
Company has now belatedly received the list, it has yet to receive
the consent forms. The Company asserts that "the only logical
motivation for Plaintiffs' eleventh hour attempt to redefine the
class and withhold the opt-in information is to thwart the
scheduled mediation, needlessly protract this litigation and waste
resources."

The suit is yet another working time, preliminary/postliminary
action. The seven employees who began the case allege the Company
did not compensate them for the time they spent collecting tools
and loading them onto trucks, before they left for their first job
site. There were also alleged mandatory trainings that were not
compensated. They also charge that their $2 per hour per diem
allowances were not included in their regular rates when overtime
was computed. The Company denies the allegations asserting workers
are paid for all time they enter and it is their responsibility to
put in for this "extra" work.

The Takeaway

This is an interesting case because, usually, the sending out of
Notice, after the haggling about what should be in them and the
time frames allowed for opting in, is a ministerial, administrative
function. Here, it seemingly was not and we will see where this
goes. The lesson for management side practitioners, as I have
always said, is be creative and look for any way out of a case.

You might just find one . . .[GN]


VISIBLE CHANGES: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Maddy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Veronica Maddy, et al. v.
Visible Changes, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07750-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered a case management plan and
scheduling order as follows:

  -- Depositions shall be completed by:       May 23, 2023

  -- Requests to Admit shall be served        April 17,2023
     no later than:

  -- All discovery shall be completed no      July 7, 2023
     later than:

Visible Changes retails beauty and hairdressing services. The
Company offers a wade range of beauty and make up products for men,
women, and children.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HUQpXs at no extra charge.[CC]

VIVINT SOLAR: Class Settlement in Dekker Suit Wins Prelim. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERRIE DEKKER, et al., Plaintiffs v. VIVINT SOLAR,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. C 19-07918 WHA (N.D. Cal.),
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants the parties' motion for preliminary
approval of their class action settlement.

At the hearing on the motion, the Court identified deficiencies in
the proposed settlement agreement and class notice. After the
parties submitted an amended settlement agreement and class notice
and renewed their request for preliminary approval, the Court
determined that the parties had not addressed all of its concerns.
Namely, they had not clarified for the class members the scope of
the settlement, adjusted ambiguous language on the parties' intent,
ensured that class members received meaningful responses to
inquiries regarding the settlement, and altered provisions to make
language internally consistent throughout.

The parties submitted another amended settlement agreement and
class notice and renewed their request for preliminary approval.
Although they meaningfully addressed the stated concerns, the Court
explained that certain deficiencies remained. Now the parties have
submitted a further amended settlement agreement and class notice
and renewed their request for preliminary approval once more.

Judge Alsup finds that preliminary approval of a settlement is
appropriate if the proposed settlement appears to be the product of
serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious
deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential treatment to
class representatives or segments of the class, and falls within
the range of possible approval. He has determined that there are no
longer obvious deficiencies in the settlement agreement and class
notice.

Accordingly, Judge Alsup grants preliminary approval of the
settlement. The fairness hearing remains scheduled for July 12,
2023, at 8:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2esz7dau from Leagle.com.


W.L. GORE: Oraliza Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled SONNY BOY ORALIZA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES,
INC., and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive Defendants, Case No.
22CV394059, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Santa Clara to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on January
27, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:23-cv-00415 to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges the following violations of the California
Labor Code: (1) failure to pay minimum wages, (2) failure to pay
overtime wages, (3) failure to provide meal periods, (4) failure to
permit rest breaks, (5) failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and (6) failure to pay all wages due upon separation of
employment. The suit also alleges: (1) violations of the California
Business and Professions Code and (2) a claim for the recovery of
civil penalties pursuant to California's Private Attorneys General
Act.

W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational
manufacturing company specializing in products derived from
fluoropolymers.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Barbara I. Antonucci, Esq.
          Andrea N. Rawlins, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP
          601 Montgomery Street, Suite 350
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 918-3000
          Facsimile: (415) 918-3034
          E-mail: bantonucci@constangy.com
                  arawlins@constangy.com

WALGREEN CO: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment v. Theda Jackson-Mau
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THEDA JACKSON-MAU, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. WALGREEN CO.
and INTERNATIONAL VITAMIN CORPORATION, Case No.
1:18-cv-04868-FB-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Frederic Block
entered an order:

   1. granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and

   2. denying Jackson-Mau's motion for partial summary judgment.

However, a claim that one "paid for something they did not get" can
be sufficient, Kurtz, 321 F.R.D. at 551, as can allegations that
they paid a premium price due to a deception, Rodriguez.

Under the latter approach, a plaintiff need not "provide a
comparison product in order to support her price premium theory."

Jackson-Mau does not allege having suffered any bodily injury as a
result of using the Product, or that it lacked any advertised
efficacy. Instead, her claims center on her having allegedly
"received less than what was promised." She defends her claim by
setting forth a premium price theory of injury -- arguing that the
product she received was "totally undesirable" and had no value
whatsoever, citing testimony by Dr. Jesse David concerning the
market value of supplements in general and his knowledge of
consumer demand for glucosamine.

However, no portion of the cited testimony supports Jackson-Mau's
argument that there is no consumer demand for supplements
containing the glucosamine blend. Instead, the testimony
Jackson-Mau points to only establishes when there could be zero
market value for a product in the abstract.

This is one of several recent suits in courts around the country
against manufacturers and retailers of glucosamine supplements. 1
As with many of these cases, the plaintiff here alleges violations
of state consumer protection statutes and seeks class
certification. Plaintiff Theda Jackson-Mau purchased a glucosa
mine-based joint health supplement (the "Product") produced and
sold by the Defendants.

Glucosamine is a chemical compound marketed to alleviate symptoms
of osteoarthritis, namely joint pain.

Walgreen Co. provides online medical products. The Company sells
prescription refills, health info, contact lenses, and other
products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RBHHk7 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl L. Stine, Esq.
          Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq.
          Philip M. Black, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Ave.
          New York, NY 1002

The Defendants are represented by:

          Courtney J. Peterson, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
          1290 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10104

WELLS FARGO: Hearing Sets on Feb. 27 Over Auto-Loan Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Ennis of Banking Dive reports that the bank was aware in 2016
that it charged customers for unnecessary insurance but kept
investors in the dark, shareholders claimed, in a case that was set
for trial February 27, 2023.

Wells Fargo will pay $300 million to settle a class-action lawsuit
from shareholders who argued the bank knew it was charging
customers for unnecessary auto-collision protection insurance but
not telling investors, the law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
said in a statement.

A trial in the case was set to start Feb. 27. The settlement is
pending approval by a judge in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

"While we disagree with the allegations in this case, we are
pleased to have resolved this legacy issue," a Wells Fargo
spokesperson told Bloomberg and Reuters in a statement.

Shareholders, led by the Construction Laborers Pension Trust for
Southern California, sued Wells Fargo in 2018, alleging the bank
misled them when then-CEO Tim Sloan said in November 2016 that he
was "not aware of any issues" with Wells Fargo's sales practices
and culture.

The New York Times, in July 2017, however, published a story
indicating that bank executives were aware the company had
improperly charged more than 800,000 customers for auto collision
protection insurance. An internal report obtained by the
publication showed that roughly 274,000 customers were put into
delinquency and nearly 25,000 vehicles were wrongfully repossessed
in the process.

The bank had ended the practice by the time the article was
published, but didn't disclose that to investors, Robbins Geller
said. However, a week after The New York Times article surfaced,
Wells Fargo disclosed in a Securities and Exchange Commission
filing that it had been aware of the issue since 2016.

"When companies conceal widespread abusive or unfair business
practices that harm their customers, investors often get injured,
as well, " Scott Saham, a Robbins Geller partner, said in a
statement.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for investors who bought Wells
Fargo shares between Nov. 3, 2016, and Aug. 3, 2017, according to
Reuters. The investors also claim the bank concealed its auto
insurance issues from the Senate Banking Committee in November
2016, the wire service reported. [GN]

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whirlpool
Corporation. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Whirlpool Corporation,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00848 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2023).

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

The Whirlpool Corporation -- https://www.whirlpoolcorp.com/ -- is
an American multinational manufacturer and marketer of home
appliances, headquartered in Benton Charter Township,
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


[*] Canabbis Company Must Face Class-Action SEC Disclosure Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Troutman Pepper disclosed that on January 6, a federal judge for
the Western District of New York denied a cannabis and tobacco
engineering company's attempt to dismiss claims that it concealed a
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation to
bolster stock prices, finding that investors bringing the suit
sufficiently alleged that the company both had the opportunity and
motive to hide the investigation and made public statements about
the investigation it knew to be false.

Background

According to the complaint, between February 2016 and July 2019,
the defendants -- the company, along with its former CEO and former
CFO -- allegedly failed to disclose it was in the middle of an
ongoing SEC investigation in its SEC filings and public-facing
statements. The company also allegedly issued multiple press
releases solely to deny the investigation's existence.

In 2016, the company executed multiple stock offerings to raise
funds. However, at some point before these offerings, the SEC began
to investigate the company for allegations of material weaknesses
in its internal accounting practices. Yet, despite its execution of
the multiple stock offerings, the company failed to disclose the
SEC investigation in any of its 2016 10-K and 10-Q filings or
statements to the public regarding the stock offerings. Indeed,
even though the defendants disclosed in the SEC filings that issues
existed with the company's accounting practices, they failed to
disclose the existence of the SEC investigation.

In October 2018 and April 2019, an anonymous source published
reports, alleging that the company failed to disclose the SEC's
investigation in periodic filings with the SEC. In response to
these allegations, the company issued press releases that
discredited the author's allegations, while still denying the
existence of the SEC's investigation.

In November 2019, investors filed an amended class-action
complaint. The complaint was initially dismissed in its entirely in
January 2021, then partially revived on appeal by the Second
Circuit in May 2022. The Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of
the plaintiffs' Rule 10b-5(b) material misrepresentation claim,
holding that the defendants had a duty to disclose the SEC
investigation because the company addressed its accounting
weaknesses in its 10-Ks and 10-Qs, and "therefore, disclosing the
SEC Investigation was necessary to tell the whole truth."

The company's most recent motion to dismiss argued that the
plaintiffs did not meet the scienter requirement of their 10b-5(b)
claim, having failed to establish that the company had motive to
hide the SEC's investigation or had engaged in conscious
misbehavior or recklessness. Additionally, the motion asserted that
the plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently plead the loss causation
element of their 10b-5(b) claim, which requires a showing that the
defendants "concealed something from the market that, when
disclosed, negatively affected the value of the security."

The court disagreed with the defendants' submission, finding that
the plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts to meet the scienter
and loss causation requirements for the 10b-5(b) claim.
Specifically, the court found that the company's three 2016 stock
offerings were sufficient motive to omit the SEC investigation in
its 10-K and 10-Q filings, reasoning that notice of the SEC
investigation likely would have negatively affected the company's
share prices. The court also found that the plaintiffs' allegations
that the company issued press releases denying the existence of the
SEC investigation were sufficient circumstantial evidence of
conscious misbehavior or recklessness. Finally, the court found
that the plaintiff's allegations that the disclosure of the
previously concealed SEC investigation negatively affected the
company's share prices sufficiently established loss causation.

Takeaways

This case serves as a reminder to companies and their directors and
officers that their legal and ethical obligations to their
shareholders are persistent, regardless of circumstance. Indeed,
the very thing that incentivizes the reluctance to disclose a
particular event or item can, at times, provide fuel for a
plaintiff's claims. Companies should engage in thorough and
particularized due diligence to assess the specific circumstances
of the potential disclosure and the risks the company faces both in
the event of disclosure and nondisclosure. These disclosure
assessments should include a review as to what a company previously
said to avoid having a misleading impression. The vigilance is
particularly important because, as happened here, potential
liability can be pervasive and subject subsequent management groups
to scrutiny caused by the acts of previous directors and officers.
When faced with an issue that may require disclosure, companies
should engage counsel as a resource at the onset of the assessment
process. [GN]

[*] Independent Contractors Rule to Impact Workplace Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., and Jennifer A. Riley, Esq., of Duane
Morris, disclosed that over the past two years, the U.S. Department
of Labor, in particular, has continued to roll out worker-friendly
rules that could have a cascading impact on workplace class
actions, including rules designed to wipe out the pro-business
policies of the Trump Administration. Such efforts continued on
multiple fronts in 2022, including with respect to rules regarding
businesses' utilization of independent contractors and their use of
the tip credit.

As to the former, effective January 6, 2021, the DOL during the
Trump Administration adopted an Independent Contractor Rule that
addressed the circumstances under which a worker qualifies as an
independent contractor. The Rule arguably made it easier for
companies, including companies operating in the gig economy, to
utilize independent contractors. Although the DOL under the Biden
Administration withdrew the Rule in May 2021, in March 2022, a
federal district court in Texas found the DOL's withdrawal of the
Rule unlawful. Although the DOL appealed the decision in May 2022,
it later abandoned the appeal and, instead, on October 13, 2022,
the DOL issued a proposed new rule on independent contractor
status. It described the proposed framework as "more consistent
with longstanding judicial precedent" and stated that the DOL
"believes the new rule [will] preserve essential worker rights and
provide consistency for regulated entities." The rule is likely to
fuel further litigation in 2023 and have a cascading impact on the
workplace class action landscape as it impacts litigation and
potential recoveries.

The DOL's efforts to regulate use of the tip credit have met
similar controversy. The FLSA, at 29 U.S.C. Section 203(m), permits
an employer to use the tips received by tipped workers to satisfy a
portion of its minimum wage obligation. In 1988, however, the DOL
added a rule (the 80/20 Rule) to its Field Operations Handbook that
purported to require employers to pay employees at the full minimum
wage rate for time spent performing non-tip-producing tasks that
exceeded 20% of their workweek. Multiple courts attempted to apply
this guidance so as to require employers to separate tasks
performed by tipped workers into categories of tip-producing,
non-tip-producing, and unrelated tasks, and the ensuring litigation
over these issues has plagued the hospitality industry, in
particular, over the past decade.

In November 2018, the DOL under the Trump Administration issued an
opinion letter withdrawing the 80/20 Rule and, in February 2019, it
amended the Field Operations Handbook to include a "reasonable
time" standard, explaining that "an employer of an employee who has
significant non-tip related duties which are inextricably
intertwined with [his or her] tipped duties should not be forced to
account for the time that employee spends doing those intertwined
duties." In December 2020, the DOL issued the Tip Regulations Final
Rule. After twice delaying the effective date of the Final Rule, on
October 23, 2021, the DOL under the Biden Administration withdrew
and replaced the Final Rule. In doing so, the DOL resurrected the
80/20 Rule and purported to limit the tip credit to
non-tip-producing work that directly supports tip-producing work
and does not exceed "a continuous period" of 30 minutes. The new
rule went into effect on December 28, 2021. In 2022, the Restaurant
Law Center and Texas Restaurant Association filed suit seeking to
invalidate the new final rule. On February 22, 2022, the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas denied their
much-watched emergency motion seeking to enjoin nationwide
enforcement of the new final rule but did not issue a ruling on the
merits, and the appeal remains pending in the Fifth Circuit. The
results are apt to fuel additional litigation in 2023.

The ultimate result is apt to elucidate the limits of agency
rule-making authority and test the impact of the U.S. Supreme
Court's recent ruling in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection
Agency, 142 S.Ct. 2587 (2022). In that case, the Supreme Court
considered the validity of the Environmental Protection Agency's
new Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule that was promulgated under
Clean Air Act (CAA). It held that, under the major questions
doctrine, the agency must point to "clear congressional
authorization" for the authority it claims. The government failed
to offer such authorization, instead pointing to a "vague statutory
grant" that the Supreme Court found "not close to the sort of clear
authorization required by our precedents." Id. at 2614.

The changing tide of the Biden Administration's policies has been
slow to impact other areas. Whereas the DOL acted swiftly to
reverse course on many fronts, over most of the past year, the EEOC
continued to operate with a Trump-appointed majority of
commissioners.

During 2022, however, the EEOC continued to operate with a
Trump-appointed majority of commissioners.  Although President
Biden quickly named two Democrats for the five-member Commission,
Charlotte E. Burrows and Jocelyn Samuels, as Chair and Vice Chair,
respectively, the commission retained a Republican-appointed
majority until former chair Janet Dhillon's resignation on November
18, 2022. Although such expiration opened the door to a
Democratic-appointed majority, the Senate has not yet confirmed a
replacement.

As the DOL continued efforts to work an about-face on the
rule-making front, the EEOC's year-over-year activity remained
fairly steady. During fiscal year 2022, the EEOC filed 94 lawsuits.
The EEOC's year-over-year activity remained fairly steady.  During
fiscal year 2022, the EEOC filed 94 lawsuits, including 92 merits
lawsuits and two subpoena enforcement actions.  This number marked
a significant decrease from the filings during fiscal year 2021,
when the EEOC filed 124 lawsuits, including 116 merits lawsuits.
This year's filing data more closely resembles fiscal year 2020,
when the EEOC filed 97 total lawsuits, including 93 merits
lawsuits.

Notably, the EEOC's California district offices in San Francisco
and Los Angeles combined for 13 filings this past year, which is
identical to the combined 13 cases they filed in fiscal year 2021.

According to the EEOC, it filed 13 systemic lawsuits this past
year, the same number it filed during fiscal year 2021.  The EEOC
reported that it has 29 pending systemic cases, which accounted for
16% of the EEOC's docket in fiscal year 2021. This data has not yet
been published for fiscal year 2022.

In contrast, by the end of FY 2018, the EEOC had 71 systemic cases
on its active docket, two of which included over 1,000 victims, and
systemic cases accounted for 23.5% of its active lawsuits in that
year, likely reflecting a stalling in the ability of its
Democratic-appointment members to push this aspect of the EEOC's
agenda.

Comparing its monetary recovery to previous years, the EEOC
recovered $535.5 million in all types of cases in FY 2020, $486
million in FY 2019, and $505 million in FY 2018.

In sum, whereas companies continued to see pro-business rules
promulgated by the Trump Administration withdrawn and overwritten
in 2022, courts continued to impose hurdles to agency rulemaking,
the success of which will continue to be seen in 2023. Enforcement
activity remained steady as political appointments remain pending.

Employers are apt to see increased activity in 2023 as the EEOC in
particular gains its full component of Biden appointees and can
exercise its majority power to advance its agenda. [GN]

[*] Texas AG Joins Amicus Briefs on Advocacy Settlement Funds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Paxton has joined two Montana-led cert-stage
amicus briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing against
advocacy groups receiving large funds in settlement cases when the
victims receive little or nothing. At issue are cy pres awards,
which are awards often granted to non-class third-party advocacy
organizations when courts decide that they can do more for a class
than the class members could do for themselves.  

In the case of William Yeatman v. Kathryn Hyland, et al., despite
evidence showing that funds could be distributed to class members,
the New York City-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit opted instead to give $2.25 million to an outside
organization and no funds to class members. This violates both
federal rules and the rights of the class members. As the brief in
the case states: "Cy pres awards pose another pernicious problem to
class members. They divert settlement funds to non-class
third-party advocacy organizations that promote certain viewpoints
while depriving class members of the funds owed to them."

In the case of Anna St. John v. Lisa Jones, et al., the St.
Louis-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a
district court's decision to approve an approximately $39 million
settlement that directed only 30% of the funds to the actual class
members; the rest was paid to an outside organization. The brief
opposes this unjust outcome: "But making further distributions to
class members -- whether to newly identified class members or
already participating class members -- should always be the
preferable remedy [rather] than giving awards to non-class
third-party organizations that don't even allege an injury."

To read the amicus brief in William Yeatman v. Kathryn Hyland, et
al., click here
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Yeatman%20v%20Hyland.pdf

To read the amicus brief in Anna St. John v. Lisa Jones, et al.,
click here
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/St.%20John%20v.%20Jones%20Montana%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf
[GN]


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***