/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230217.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, February 17, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 36

                            Headlines

1ST PHORM INTERNATIONAL: Scheibe Files Suit in S.D. California
3M COMPANY: Broy Suit Removed to C.D. California
ACME NASHVILLE: Hook Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
AHEAD PRODUCTS: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AHS EMPLOYEE HR: May Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

AMERICOR FUNDING: Moser Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
APPLE INC: Popa Suit Transferred to N.D. California
ARGENT TRUST: Kloss Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
ARMADA MI OPCO: Underpays Certified Nurse Assistants, Harris Says
ATRIUS HEALTH: Merrill Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

AVARTARA LLC: Faces Darby Suit Over Unlawful Labor Policies
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Pipeling Sues Over False Representation
BEYOND MEAT INC: Cascio Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
BEYOND MEAT INC: Garcia Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Court Certifies Truck & Helper Class in Espinal

BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER: Suit Filed in Mass. Super. Ct.
CALYX ENERGY III: Lerblance Sues to Recover Unpaid Royalty
CCL CONTRACTS: Haynes Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Lawhorn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CENTENE MGMT: $750K Class Settlement in Foon Suit Wins Prelim. OK

CHILDREN'S PLACE: Kuczun Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
COINBASE GLOBAL: S.D. New York Dismisses Underwood Securities Suit
DENVER WEST HOTEL: Meggs Sues Over ADA Violation
ENDORS TOI INC: Amato Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
EZRICARE LLC: Browne Sues Over Contaminated Artificial Tears

FAIR FINANCIAL: Faces Engle Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
FII USA: Faces Allen Suit Over Unpaid Overtime and Retaliation
FLORISSANT, MO: Bid to Certify Class in Baker Suit Granted in Part
GENERAL MOTORS: Amended Fleury Class Suit Dismissed W/o Prejudice
MDL 2918: Appearance of Expert for Separate Depositions Sought

MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Cohen v. Blackbaud
MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Duranko v. Blackbaud
MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Gignac v. Blackbaud
MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Zielinski v. Blackbaud
MDL 3062: Chuck Day Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C.

MDL 3062: Jenkins Anticompetitive Suit Tranferred to M.D.N.C.
MG BILLING: Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply in Vandiver Suit OK'd
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: To Settle Securities Suit in N.D. Ga.
MPC HOLDINGS: Bain Sues Over Welding Inpectors' Unpaid Overtime
NEW ENGLAND REALTY: Faces White Class Suit in Massachusetts

NIKOLA CORP: Court Dismisses Consolidated Borteanu Securities Suit
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: $15-Mil. Class Deal in SEPTA Wins Prelim. Nod
PIONEER BANCORP: Has Until Feb. 28 to Respond to Brandes Class Suit
PIONEER BANCORP: Has Until Feb. 28 to Respond to O'Malley Suit
SAN DIEGO, CA: Appointment of Counsel in Sekerke v. Arkwright Nixed

TELLURIDE RESORT: Alvarez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
ULTA SALON: Cabiltes Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics

                        Asbestos Litigation



                            *********

1ST PHORM INTERNATIONAL: Scheibe Files Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1st Phorm
International, LLC.  The case is styled as Jacob Scheibe,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. 1st
Phorm International, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00215-GPC-BLM (S.D.
Cal., Feb. 6, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

1st Phorm -- https://1stphorm.com/ -- is a supplement company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles C. Weller, Esq.
          11412 Corley Court
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Phone: (858) 414-7465
          Fax: (858) 300-5137
          Email: legal@cweller.com


3M COMPANY: Broy Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kari Broy, Mye Elliott, Scotty Ponce, Christy
Ehli, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals
v. The 3M Company formerly known as: Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Co., Decra Roofing Systems, Inc., Case No.
CVRI2204687 was removed from the Riverside County Superior Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on Feb. 6, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00194 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability.

3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational
conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel David Queen, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue 47th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 229-5147
          Email: dqueen@mayerbrown.com


ACME NASHVILLE: Hook Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Hook, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Acme Nashville, LLC d/b/a Acme Feed & Seed, Case No.
3:23-cv-00108 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 6, 2023), is brought to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant generally paid the Plaintiff and those she seeks to
represent an hourly wage lower than $7.25 per hour under the tip
credit provisions of the FLSA. The Defendant, however, failed to
satisfy the requirements for utilizing the tip credit to meet their
minimum wage and overtime obligations to their tipped employees.
The Defendant failed to satisfy the requirements for utilizing the
tip credit for several reasons, including but not limited to:
failing to provide tipped employees with the required notice before
taking the tip credit; requiring tipped employees to share tips
with non-tipped employees who have no or insufficient customer
interaction; and requiring tipped employees to perform large
amounts of non-tip producing duties while being paid at a tipped
hourly rate of less than the $7.25 per hour minimum wage, including
during periods of time when they were not serving customers. As a
result of these violations, the Defendant is not permitted to rely
on the "tip credit" to satisfy their minimum wage and overtime
obligations under the FLSA and therefore have failed to pay the
required minimum wage, pursuant to the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant at their Acme Feed & Seed
restaurant and bar.

Acme Nashville, LLC d/b/a Acme Feed & Seed owns and operates a
restaurant and bar in Nashville, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          Nicole A. Chanin, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Philips Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Phone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                 jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
                 nchanin@barrettjohnston.com


AHEAD PRODUCTS: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ahead Products Inc.
The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Ahead Products Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-01052 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2023).

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

AHEAD Products Inc. -- https://www.aheaddrumsticks.com/ -- is one
of the top companies in innovative drum products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AHS EMPLOYEE HR: May Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aries May and Diamond Williams, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AHS Employee HR, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00245-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind., Feb. 7, 2023), is brought arising
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act ("OMWFSA"), for the Defendant's failure to pay the
all earned minimum and overtime wages.

AHS failed to pay the Plaintiffs one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all time they spent working in excess of 40
hours in a given workweek. AHS paid the Plaintiffs
non-discretionary bonuses, but AHS did not include all of these
payments as part of the Plaintiffs' regular rates of pay for the
purposes of paying overtime. AHS violated the FLSA and OMWFSA by
automatically deducting a thirty-minute meal break from each and
every shift the Plaintiffs worked in excess of eight hours
regardless of whether the Plaintiffs were able to take a meal
break, regardless of whether they were permitted to take a full
thirty-minute meal break, and regardless of whether they were
completely relieved from duty for thirty-minutes, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by AHS as State Tested Nurse Aids
("STNA").

AHS operates a network of short-term, inpatient psychiatric
hospitals focusing on elderly patients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Phone: 847-986-5889
          Facsimile: 847-673-1228
          Email: mike@fradinlaw.com


AMERICOR FUNDING: Moser Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Americor Funding,
LLC. The case is styled as Cameron Moser, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Americor Funding, LLC, Case No.
4:23-cv-10008-KMM (S.D. Fla., Feb. 7, 2023).

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

Americor -- https://americor.com/ -- provides debt solutions to
thousands individuals and families all over the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN PA
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com

               - and -

          Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          31 Samana Drive
          Miami, FL 33133
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


APPLE INC: Popa Suit Transferred to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ashley Popa, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00095
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Feb. 7, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00548-AGT to the
proceeding.

The nature suit is stated as Other Contract.

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

The Plaintiffs are 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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stephen Francis Raiola, Esq.
          PIETRAGALLO, GORDON, ALFANO, BOSICK & RASPANTI LLP
          One Oxford Centre, 38th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 263-4373
          Email: SFR@Pietragallo.com


ARGENT TRUST: Kloss Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Kloss, on behalf of the TPI Hospitality Employee Stock
Ownership Plan and a class of similarly situated participants of
the Plan v. ARGENT TRUST CO., Torgerson Properties, Inc. (d/b/a TPI
Hospitality), TPI Hospitality ESOP Committee, and Thomas R.
Torgerson, Case No. 0:23-cv-00301 (D. Minn., Feb. 7, 2023), is
brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA"), against Defendants as a result of the Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the Plan in
violation of ERISA, to the detriment of the Plan and its
participants.

In 2015, TPI became 100% employee-owned when it formed the TPI
Hospitality Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP" or the "Plan")
and appointed Argent as the Trustee of the ESOP. Argent, in its
capacity as trustee of the ESOP, authorized the acquisition of 100%
of TPI's stock (200,000 shares) for $10,000,000.00 ($50.00 per
share). Heralded by media sources as one of the largest ESOPs in
the hospitality industry across the country, the Plan provided a
valuable retirement benefit and compensation to TPI's employees.

Around the same time as the ESOP's formation, TPI's business
ventures expanded into Florida. TPI formed several business
entities to purchase and operate beach-front property in Fort Myers
Beach that were eventually named as a variation of TPI-FMB, LLC.
News sources from this time period indicated that Thomas Torgerson
intended for TPI to continue current operations on these
properties, which included retail and restaurant spaces as well as
rental and hotel units, with the possibility for improvements in
the future. A few years later in 2018, TPI announced plans to
develop a Margaritaville Resort on these properties. The
Margaritaville Resort in Fort Meyers Beach was TPI's biggest
project ever and was expected to generate substantial profits for
TPI.

Rather than allow TPI's employees to receive the benefit of the
expected profits from the Margaritaville Resort development, TPI
terminated the ESOP, and Argent sold the ESOP's TPI stock to a John
Dammermann for less than fair market value in 2020. Specifically,
Dammermann purchased the ESOP's shares for $500,000.00 ($2.50 per
share), a small fraction of the ESOP's 2015 purchase price.
Dammermann is Thomas Torgerson's long-time friend and co-investor
in the Margaritaville Resort and other hotel properties. The 2020
transaction allowed Thomas Torgerson and Dammermann to reap the
expected windfall from the Margaritaville Resort and excluded the
Plan and its participants from sharing in the anticipated profits
from the Margaritaville Resort. A similar Margaritaville Resort in
Florida was sold for $270 million in 2021, illustrating the
potential value of TPI's Margaritaville Resort project.

The Plaintiff and other participants would have received additional
benefits from their accounts had the ESOP received fair market
value for its shares. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the
ERISA to remedy Defendants' unlawful conduct, recover losses to the
Plan, and obtain other appropriate relief as provided by ERISA,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a former TPI Hospitality employee who had an
individual account in the ESOP.

TPI operates dozens of hotels and restaurants in Minnesota and
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          Brock J. Specht, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-256-3200
          Facsimile: 612-338-4878
          Email: lukas@nka.com
                 bspecht@nka.com

               - and -

          Daniel Feinberg, Esq.
          Todd Jackson, Esq.
          FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP
          2030 Addison St., Suite 500
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Phone: (510) 269-7998
          Fax: (510) 269-7994
          Email: dan@feinbergjackson.com
                 todd@feinbergjackson.com

ARMADA MI OPCO: Underpays Certified Nurse Assistants, Harris Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARMADA MI OPCO LLC; ARMADA VILLAGE MI
WELLNESS LLC; HARPER WOODS MI OPCO LLC; NORTHWEST MI OPCO LLC;
NORTHWEST OPCO HOLDCO LLC; REDFORD MI OPCO LLC; REDFORD VILLAGE MI
WELLNESS LLC; ROSEVILLE MI OPCO LLC; SAMARITAN MI OPCO LLC;
SOUTHGATE MI OPCO LLC; WARREN MI OPCO LLC; WAYNE MI OPCO LLC; d/b/a
The Orchards Michigan, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-10319-GAD-KGA (E.D. Mich., Feb. 7, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' systemic failure to include all remuneration in their
overtime computations in willful violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Harris was hired by the Defendants as a certified nursing
assistant at the Orchards at Southgate location in March 2022.    


The Defendants jointly own and operate a chain of nursing homes
throughout Michigan, commonly known as The Orchards Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          141 East Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
          Kalamazoo, MI 49007
          Telephone: (269) 250-7500
          Facsimile: (269) 250-7503
          E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Albert J. Asciutto, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          1 Towne Sq., 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48375
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: aasciutto@sommerspc.com

ATRIUS HEALTH: Merrill Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atrius Health, Inc.
The case is styled as Pamela Merrill, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Atrius Health, Inc., Case No.
2384CV00339 (Cal. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Feb. 7, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Torts."

Atrius Health -- https://www.atriushealth.org/ -- is an American
not-for-profit, 501 tax-exempt organization, and the largest
independent physician-led healthcare organization in the
Northeastern U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Gordon, Esq.
          GORDON LAW GROUP LLP
          585 Boylston St.
          Boston, MA 02116

               - and -

          Samuel Kennedy-Smith, Esq.
          DUDDY GOODWIN AND POLLARD
          446 Main St 16th Floor
          Worcester, MA 01608


AVARTARA LLC: Faces Darby Suit Over Unlawful Labor Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS DARBY, on his own behalf and on behalf of the general
public, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
AVARTARA, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, LATOYA
ALEXANDER, an individual and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 23STCV02643 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Feb. 7, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions
Code, and the Fair Employment & Housing Act.

The complaint stems from the Defendants' alleged disability
discrimination; failure to accommodate in the form of time off from
work to care for Plaintiff's medical conditions; failure to engage
in an interactive process in assessing the Plaintiff's disability;
discrimination and harassment on the basis of age; failure to take
reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, harassment, retaliation
in the work place; wrongful termination; failure to provide meal
and rest periods; failure to pay all wages; failure to pay minimum
wages; failure to comply with itemized employee wage statements;
failure to timely pay wages due at termination; failure to
reimburse for business expenses; failure to pay for all hours
worked, including overtime hours; failure to provide place of
employment that is safe and healthful; and engagement in unfair
competition.

The Plaintiff began working for Defendant in April 2021. On
February 7, 2022, he suffered from a work related injury resulting
to a medical condition that caused him to not be able to work.
Rather than accommodating his serious medical conditions, Defendant
retaliated against him by wrongfully terminating him on February
11, 2022 for pretextual reasons, says the Plaintiff.

Avartara, LLC was founded in 2007. The company's line of business
includes providing facilities support management and consulting
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Otkupman, Esq.
          Nidah Farishta, Esq.
          OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
          5743 Corsa Ave, Suite 123
          Westlake Village, CA 91362
          Telephone: (818) 293-5623
          Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
          E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com
                  Nidah@OLFLA.com

BAYER HEALTHCARE: Pipeling Sues Over False Representation
---------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Pipeling, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, BAYER CORPORATION,
BAYER AG, and ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00601
(D.N.J., Jan. 5, 2023) is bought against the Defendant false and
misleading representation that the  Seresto flea and tick collars
(the "Seresto Collars")--some of the top-selling flea and tick
preventative collars in the country--are safe to use on pets.

The Seresto Collars have been associated with tens of thousands of
pet injuries and approximately 2,500 pet deaths. The Defendants hid
that information from, and patently misled, consumers. Indeed, even
after reports of Seresto's serious side effects became public,
Defendants have downplayed the reports and continued to represent
that Seresto is safe for pets to use when it is not.

At no point have Defendants disclosed this information to United
States consumers. To the contrary, they have maintained and
represented that Seresto Collars are safe for pets to use. Despite
Defendants' claims, Seresto Collars have resulted in millions of
dollars in damages for pet owners--both in the form of collars that
they overpaid for or would have never purchased had consumers known
of Seresto's dangers, and also in veterinary and other medical
expenses incurred by pet owners with pets injured by the Seresto
Collar and its pesticides.

The Defendants, of course, have not warned consumers because
Seresto Collars accounted for more than $300 million in revenue in
2019 alone. Seresto pet collars are an enormous business segment,
and, consequently, Defendants have refused to make the product
safer or warn consumers about the potential risks. While Defendants
sell Seresto Collars as "veterinary medicine," that is a misnomer.
The over-the-counter collars do not constitute "medicine" but
rather, are toxic pesticides that can harm--and even kill--pets.

Had the Defendants disclosed the existence of the serious safety
risks associated with use of the Seresto Collars, and made
Plaintiff aware of such risks, Plaintiff either would not have
purchased or used the Seresto Collar, or else would have paid
significantly less for it. Consequently, Plaintiff did not receive
the benefit of her bargain. Due to Defendants' misrepresentations
and omissions, Plaintiff did not receive the product she intended
to purchase--that is, a flea and tick collar which was fit for its
ordinary purpose, the safe administration of flea and tick
prevention to her cat. Thus, Plaintiff did not receive the benefit
of her bargain, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Seresto Collars and used them on her cat.

Bayer began importing, distributing, marketing, and selling Seresto
Collars across the United States in March 2012.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Breit, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          450 East 50th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (347) 668-8445
          Email: mbreit@milberg.com

               - and -

          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          3833 Central Ave.
          St. Petersburg, FL 33713
          Phone: (865) 247-0080
          Email: rsoffin@milberg.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Michael Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: (816) 945-7110
          Fax: (816) 945-7118
          Email: mwilliams@williamsdirks.com

BEYOND MEAT INC: Cascio Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kathlyn Cascio, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Beyond Meat, Inc., Case No.
2:22-cv-04018 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 7, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00678 to the
proceeding.

The nature suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Beyond Meat, Inc. -- https://www.beyondmeat.com/ -- is a Los
Angeles–based producer of plant-based meat substitutes founded in
2009 by Ethan Brown.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC
          111 North Wabash Ave. Ste. 100
          The Garland Building
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Fax: (215) 789-4462
          Email: klaukaitis@ecf.courtdrive.com

               - and -

          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite
          Washington, DC 20016
          Phone: (202) 429-2290
          Fax: (202) 429-2294
          Email: lwhite@masonllp.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Phone: (202) 429-2290
          Email: gmason@wbmllp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Marvin Stanley Putnam, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          10250 Constellation Blvd., Ste. 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (424) 653-5500
          Fax: (424) 653-5501
          Email: marvin.putnam@lw.com

               - and -

          Robin M. Hulshizer, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Phone: (312) 876-7700
          Email: robin.hulshizer@lw.com


BEYOND MEAT INC: Garcia Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Richard D. Garcia, Erica Nichols Cook, Jennifer
Speer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Beyond Meat, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-00297 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 7,
2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00677 to the
proceeding.

The nature suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Beyond Meat, Inc. -- https://www.beyondmeat.com/ -- is a Los
Angeles–based producer of plant-based meat substitutes founded in
2009 by Ethan Brown.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          Brian O. Marty, Esq.
          SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C.
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Phone: (515) 223-4567
          Fax: (515) 223-8887
          Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
                 marty@sagwlaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT, LLC
          150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Fax: (312) 741-1019
          Email: beth@feganscott.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas D. Story, Esq.
          ACLU OF IOWA FOUNDATION
          505 Fifth Avenue, Suite 808
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Phone: (515) 710-8230
          Email: thomas.story@aclu-ia.org


BOB'S DISCOUNT: Court Certifies Truck & Helper Class in Espinal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OMAR A. ESPINAL, FREDY O.
CARBAJAL, ARLEN Y. MARTINEZ, OSCAR RENE CALDERON ROMERO and
WELLINGTON TORRES, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated persons, v. BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE, LLC and
XPO LAST MILE, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-02854-JMV-JBC (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge John Michael Vazquez entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification:

   "All individuals that were based out of the Defendants'
   Edison and Carteret, New Jersey warehouses that performed
   truck driving and/or helper functions for the Defendants from
   April 26, 2015 through to January 2017 out of the Edison
   Facility and from May 1, 2017 through to the present out of
   the Carteret Facility, who did not have direct contracts with
   either Defendant, and who worked more than forty hours per
   week performing deliveries for Defendants."

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have "met their burden of
proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there is a
reliable and administratively feasible mechanism for determining
class membership."

This putative class action arises from allegations that the
Defendants failed to pay overtime to Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants Bob's and XPO for
violations of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), the New
Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"), and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class:

The Named Plaintiffs are five individuals who allegedly worked as
drivers and helpers for Defendants for varying periods between May
2012 and June 2018.

XPO is a "third-party provider of end-to-end goods management and
logistics services for companies such as Bob's."


Bob's Discount offers couches, sofas, tables, dinning room sets,
mattresses, home accents, entertainment centers, desks, file
cabinets, book cases, and stools.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40xy1LH at no extra charge.[CC]

BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER: Suit Filed in Mass. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boston Medical Center
Corporation. The case is styled as John Doe 1, John Doe 2,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Boston Medical Center Corporation, Case No. 2384CV00326 (Mass.
Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Feb. 6, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Business Litigation."

Boston Medical Center -- https://www.bmc.org/ -- is a non-profit
514-bed academic medical center in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Shapiro, Esq.
          SHAPIRO AND TEITELBAUM LLP
          55 Union St 4th Floor
          Boston, MA 02108


CALYX ENERGY III: Lerblance Sues to Recover Unpaid Royalty
----------------------------------------------------------
Richard C. Lerblance, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Calyx Energy III, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00047-KEW (Feb.
6, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid royalty arising out of Calyx
Energy's breach of its express and implied duties under oil and gas
leases to pay royalty to the Plaintiff and the putative Class on
the full production of natural gas (and all constituents) from
wells in Oklahoma (the "Oklahoma Wells") in which plaintiff and the
Class own mineral interests.

The Defendant used its position as operator and oil and gas working
interest owner to secretly underpay royalty due the Plaintiff and
the putative Class Members on production of gas and its
constituents from the Oklahoma Wells. The Defendant accomplished
this by taking improper deductions from royalty payments, including
but not limited to: deducting direct and indirect, post-production
fees for gathering, compression, dehydration, processing, marketing
and/or other similar services required to transform the raw
wellhead gas into marketable products; and not paying royalty on
natural gas produced from the Oklahoma Wells that Calyx Energy
used, caused to be used and/or allowed third parties to use off the
lease premises as fuel to, inter alia, power compressors and other
machinery and equipment in gathering system and/or gas plant
operations (hereinafter, "Fuel Gas").

The Defendant secretly underpaid royalty to the Class by failing to
disclose to Plaintiff and other putative Class Members on their
monthly royalty checkstubs that the Defendant was not paying
royalty on the full volume and value of production from the
Oklahoma Wells.

The Plaintiff brings this action to recover the royalty the
Defendant owes Plaintiff and all similarly situated Oklahoma
royalty interest owners for its uniform breach of express and
implied covenants to pay royalty on the full production of natural
gas (and all constituents) from the Oklahoma Wells, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff owns mineral interests in Oklahoma wells, operated by
Calyx Energy.

Calyx Energy has owned propeny Interests, operated wells, marketed
gas and paid royalty to mineral interest owners in Hughes County,
Oklahoma, in addition to other counties in Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
          Lisa Baldwin, Esq.
          Drew Pate, Esq.
          Cody L. Hill, Esq.
          NIX PATTERSON, LLP
          8701 Bee Cave Road, Suite 500
          Austin, TX 78746
          Phone: (512) 328-5333
          Facsimile: (512) 328-5335
          Email: bbeckwotth@nixlaw.com
                 jangelovich@nixlaw.com
                 lbaldwin@nixlaw.com
                 dpate@nixlaw.com
                 codyhill@nixlaw.com

               - and -

          Susan Whatley, Esq.
          NIX PATTERSON, LLP
          P.O. Box 178
          Linden, TX 75563
          Phone: (903) 215-8310
          Email: swhatley@mxlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Bunage, Esq.
          WHITTEN BURRXGE
          512 N. Broadway Ave, Suite 300
          Oklahoma City, 0K 73102
          Phone: (405) 516-7800
          Facsimile: (405) 516-7859
          Email: mbumage@whittenbumagelaw.com


CCL CONTRACTS: Haynes Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dustin Haynes, individually and for others similarly situated v.
CCL CONTRACTS CONSULTANCY INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00448 (S.D. Tex.,
Feb. 7, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages from CCL the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA").

The Plaintiff and the Straight Time Employees regularly worked more
than 40 hours a week. But the Defendant did not pay Haynes and the
Straight Time Employees overtime. Instead of paying overtime as
required by the FLSA, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff and the
Straight Time Employees the same hourly rate for all hours worked,
including those in excess of 40 hours in a single week (or
"straight time for overtime"). The Defendant never paid the
Plaintiff or the Straight Time Employees a guaranteed salary. This
collective action seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and
other damages owed to these workers, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as Night Shift Supervisor
from July 2021 through July 2022.

CCL is a privately held corporation that provides recruiting and
staffing services to the energy industry throughout North and South
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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


CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Lawhorn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centene Management
Company, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Joanne Rodelle Lawhorn,
and all others similarly situated v. Centene Management Company,
LLC, Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2023-00334211-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 6, 2023).

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

Centene -- https://www.centene.com/ -- is the largest Medicaid
managed care organization in the country and provides a portfolio
of services to government sponsored healthcare programs.[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


CENTENE MGMT: $750K Class Settlement in Foon Suit Wins Prelim. OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELE FOON, Plaintiff, v. CENTENE MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01420 AC (E.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Allison Claire of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California grants the Plaintiff's
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement.

Foon brings the putative class action against Defendants Centene
Management Co., LLC, Centene Corp., Cenpatico Behavioral Health
LLC, Envolve Holdings, Inc., and Nebraska Total Care, Inc.,
alleging class violations of the Labor Code including failure to
provide rest breaks, failure to reimburse, failure to furnish
accurate itemized wage statement, and violations of the Business
and Profession Code Section 17200. On the consent of all parties,
the case was reassigned to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes.

Foon brought the putative wage-and-hour and Private Attorney
General ("PAGA") class action against the Defendants and Does 1-10,
inclusive, for compensatory and statutory damages, penalties,
injunctive relief, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees resulting
from the Defendants' unlawful conduct.

On July 17, 2014, Foon became employed with Cenpatico in Texas. Her
position was classified as exempt at the time she was first
employed by Cenpatico. The Plaintiff received a series of
promotions until she became Utilization Manager (Specialty Therapy
& Rehabilitative Services) while working in Texas. Her employment
with Cenpatico was terminated and she was then hired by Envolve.
Her employment with Envolve was then terminated and she was rehired
by Nebraska Total Care. Cenpatico, Envolve, and Nebraska Total Care
are separate and distinct legal entities.

The Plaintiff alleges that though these are separate legal
entities, it is clear based on the control exerted over these
wholly owned subsidiaries that there is a unity of interest between
Centene and Cenpatico, Envolve, and Nebraska Total Care such that
they are all controlled and operated by Centene. In January 2019,
the Plaintiff moved locations to Lodi, California as a remote
employee of Nebraska Total Care.

The operative First Amended Complaint alleges that, for both exempt
and non-exempt employees who were expected to work from home, the
Defendants failed to reimburse business expense; also, for
non-exempt employees the FAC alleges that the Defendants failed to
pay all wages earned, provide compliant meal and rest breaks and
timely pay wages. The Labor Code Section 2802 allegation,
applicable to the entire class, claims that both exempt and
non-exempt employees were not reimbursed for the costs of using
their own personal telephones, computers, office space and
utilities while working remotely for Defendants. The home office
expenses were approximately $235 to $300 per month. The higher cost
of $300 a month for home office expenses resulted from living in
cities such as Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, and San
Francisco.

The Plaintiff alleges that several of the Defendants' actions and
policies violated and continue to be in violation of the California
Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. (predicate
statutes, including Cal. Labor Code) and California Labor Code.
She, on behalf of herself and Class Members, in addition to the
claims set forth under California Business and Professions Code
section 17200, et al. and the California Labor Code, brings a PAGA
action and seeks penalties for violations of the California Labor
Code section 2699, et seq., including without limitation sections
201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 218.5, 221-224, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558,
1174, 1174.5, 1182.12, 1194, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2751, and
2698 et seq., applicable IWC California Wage Orders and California
Code of Regulations.

The Plaintiff asserts class claims, including: (1) Violation of
Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512 (Failure to Provide Rest Breaks)
(2) Violation of Labor Code Sections 2800, et seq. (Reimbursement
of Expenses) (42 U.S.C. Section 1983); (3) Violation of Labor Code
Section 226 (Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements);
(4) "Violation of Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et
seq. (Unfair Business Practices); (5) Violations of Labor Code
Sections 2698 et seq. (Private Attorney General Act); (6) Violation
of Labor Code Sections 1198.5 et seq. (Failure to Produce Records
upon Request); (7) Violations of Labor Code Sections 201-203 et
seq. (Unpaid Wages).

The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages. The California Class includes
California employees (non-exempt and exempt) who worked from home
from June 20, 2015 to July 12, 2021. Due to the shorter one-year
statute of limitations on PAGA, the PAGA group includes California
employees (non-exempt and exempt) who worked from home between
April 18, 2018 and July 15, 2021. The release extends to Dec. 31,
2021. at 8.

In November of 2020, the Defendants notified the Plaintiff of
another pending wage and hour class action in the Northern District
of California, Del Toro v. Centene Corporation, et al., Case No.
4:19-cv-05163-YGR. The counsel in this case agreed to cooperate
with Del Toro counsel in joint prosecution of the cases. The
parties engaged in substantial early discovery efforts and on May
21, 2021, the Foon and Del Toro parties participated in a full-day
mediation, at which they reached a tentative settlement.

On Dec. 1, 2022, the Plaintiff submitted a notice of a tentative
class action settlement asking the Court to issue an order (1)
granting preliminary approval of the proposed Joint Stipulation of
Class Action Settlement; (2) appointing Plaintiff as the Class
Representative; (3) appointing Plaintiff's counsel as Class
Counsel; (4) appointing ILYM Group, Inc. as the Settlement
Administrator; (5) approving the form of notice to the Class and
Notice Procedures; and (6) setting the hearing date for a Motion
for Final Approval. The motion is now before the Court.

The Settlement Class to be conditionally certified consists of 98
California-based employees employed between June 20, 2015 and July
15, 2021, sub-classed as follows: (1) 48 non-exempt remote
employees who worked from home; and (2) 50 exempt remote employees
who worked from home. The PAGA Period is from April 18, 2018 to
July 15, 2021.

The Total Settlement Amount is $750,000, which will be used to (a)
compensate Class Members; (b) make a $28,125 penalty payment to the
LWDA (75% of the $37,500 PAGA allocation); and (c) pay the approved
Settlement Administrator's Expenses, the Class Representative's
service payment, and Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and costs. The
employer-side payroll taxes on the wage portion of the settlement
will be paid separately and in addition to the Total Settlement
Amount.

The participating Class Members will be paid pursuant to an
allocation formula based on the subclass for each Class Member and
the number of workweeks they worked for Defendants during the Class
Period. Each Class Member's Individual Settlement Payment will be
calculated by dividing the Class Member's Individual Workweeks by
the Total Workweeks, and multiplying the resulting ratio by the Net
Settlement Amount. For tax purposes, the Individual Settlement
Payments will be allocated as follows: 30% as wages, 40% as
interest and expense reimbursements, and 30% as penalties.

The proposed Settlement provides an average payment of
approximately $6,000.00 per class member for the exempt sub-class
group (50 individuals) and $9,375.00 per class member for the
non-exempt sub-class group (48 individuals). The Settlement will
also provide a payment of $28,125 to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency (i.e., 75% of the amount allocated to
resolve the PAGA allegations). Defendants have also brought their
practices into compliance with California law as of March 2020.

It is a non-reversionary settlement. To make the relief provided by
the Settlement as accessible to the Class Members as possible, the
parties have agreed to eliminate the claims process. Each Class
Member who does not submit a timely and valid opt-out request
within 45 days after the Notice Packet is first mailed will be
automatically mailed a check for his or her pro rata portion of the
Settlement. If approved, the Settlement will fully resolve the
lawsuit.

Judge Claire finds, on a preliminary basis, that the Settlement
Agreement: (1) is the product of informed and non-collusive
negotiations; (2) has no obvious deficiencies; (3) falls within the
range of possible approval; and (4) the Class Notice is, in all
respects, fair, reasonable, adequate, and in compliance with all
applicable requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the California and United States Constitutions.

Judge Claire also finds that, on a preliminary basis, the
Settlement is fair, just, adequate, and reasonable to all members
of the Class when balanced against the probable outcome of further
litigation relating to class action certification, liability and
damages issues, and potential appeals of rulings. Good cause
appearing, the motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement is granted.

As part of preliminary approval, Judge Claire finds for settlement
purposes only, that the class meets the requirements of Rules 23(a)
and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
conditionally certifies the class for the purposes of settlement
as: "all California-based employees of Defendants employed from
June 20, 2015 through July 16, 2021 ("Class Period") as follows:
(1) all non-exempt remote employees who had work-from-home
arrangements that started prior to March 20, 2020; and (2) all
exempt remote employees who had work-from-home arrangements that
started prior to March 2020.

Judge Claire approves and appoints the Plaintiff as the
Representative Plaintiff of the Class for settlement purposes only,
subject to Final Approval. Settlement Class Members who do not
enter an appearance through their own attorneys will be represented
by Class Counsel.

Judge Claire approves and appoints the Plaintiff's counsel as the
Class Counsel for settlement purposes only, subject to Final
Approval.

Judge Claire finds the proposed class notice and the proposed
method of dissemination reasonably and adequately advises the class
of the information required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(c)(2)(B). She also finds that the mailing to the class members'
present or last known address constitutes an effective method of
notifying them of their rights with respect to the proposed
settlement. Accordingly, not later than 35 days from the date of
the Order, the settlement administrator will mail the Notice
Packets to each class member.

Requests for exclusion from the settlement must be mailed to the
counsel at any address provided for in the class notice, postmarked
no later than 45 days from the initial mailing of the Notice
Packets to the class. If the notice response deadline falls on a
Saturday or federal holiday, it will be extended to the next day
when the U.S. Postal Service is open.

Any Settlement Class Member who did not elect to be excluded from
the Settlement by submitting a Request to be Excluded by the
Objection/Exclusion Deadline may, but need not, submit objections
to the proposed Settlement by filing and serving an Objection to
the Settlement by the Objection/Exclusion Deadline: no later than
45 days from the initial mailing of the Notice Packets to the
Class.

All Settlement Class Members who do not seek to be excluded from
the Settlement by submitting a Request for Exclusion by the
Objection/Exclusion Deadline are enjoined from proceeding against
the Settling Defendants, including their present or former elective
and/or appointive boards, agents, servants, employees, consultants,
departments, commissioners, attorneys, officials and officers, and
all other individuals and entities, whether named or unnamed in the
Action, as to the claims asserted in the Action in the event the
final settlement is approved.

Within 14 days of the notice response deadline, the class counsel
will file their application for awards of reasonable attorneys'
fees and litigation expenses and class representative service
payments.

The counsel will submit a Motion for Order Granting Final Approval
of the Class Action Settlement with a noticed hearing date in
accordance with the Local Rules of this Court and the Standing
Orders of Magistrate Judge Allison Claire, located on the Court's
website. The hearing will be set to occur not sooner than 80 days
from the date of filing the motion. All papers in support of the
Motion for Order Granting Final Approval of the Class Action
Settlement will be filed at least twenty-eight calendar days before
the final fairness/final approval hearing.

The final approval hearing will be held before Judge Claire at a
date to be noticed in the motion for final approval.

Pending further order of the Court, all proceedings in the matter
except those contemplated by this order and in the settlement
agreement are stayed.

The Court expressly reserves the right to adjourn or to continue
the final approval hearing from time-to-time without further notice
to class members, except that a notice of continuance will be
provided to all class members who submit a notice of objection. In
the event the settlement does not become final for any reason, the
preliminary approval order will be of no further force or effect
and the fact that the parties were willing to stipulate to class
certification as part of the settlement will have no bearing on,
and not be admissible in connection with, the issue of whether a
class should be certified in a non-settlement conference.

The motion for preliminary approval is granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8mv4va from Leagle.com.


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Kuczun Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Children's Place
Retail Stores, Inc. The case is styled as Zofia Kuczun, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Children's Place
Retail Stores, Inc. d/b/a The Children's Place, Case No.
1:23-cv-01010 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2023).

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

The Children's Place Inc. -- https://www.childrensplace.com/us/home
-- is a specialty retailer of children's apparel and accessories
headquartered in Secaucus, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jonathan Bell, Esq.
          BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 208
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 280-3008
          Fax: (516) 706-4692
          Email: jb@belllg.com


COINBASE GLOBAL: S.D. New York Dismisses Underwood Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER UNDERWOOD, et al., Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. COINBASE
GLOBAL, INC., COINBASE, INC., and BRIAN ARMSTRONG, Defendants, Case
No. 21 Civ. 8353 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants
the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The case involves the modern financial concoctions known as
crypto-assets. Also sometimes called "cryptocurrencies," "tokens,"
or "crypto-securities," these are digital assets created and traded
in the digital world.

Coinbase operates two online digital trading platforms on which
users can transact in the cryptoeconomy. The Amended Complaint
("AC") alleges that among the assets that Coinbase enables
customers to buy and sell on these platforms are ones qualifying as
securities. It alleges that these include 79 digital assets known
as the "Tokens." It alleges that, notwithstanding Coinbase's
practice of transacting in these securities with the Plaintiffs and
other users, Coinbase is not registered with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission ("SEC") as an exchange or broker-dealer.

On this basis, the Lead Plaintiffs -- each of whom transacted in
the Tokens on the Coinbase platform -- bring three sets of claims:
(1) under Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, for
damages arising from Coinbase's sale or solicitation of
unregistered securities; (2) under Section 29(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, arising from illegal contracts Coinbase
entered into with its users to purchase and sell securities in
violation of the Exchange Act's registration requirements; and (3)
under state law, based on Coinbase's sale of unregistered
securities and failure to register as a broker-dealer.

They also bring control-person claims against Coinbase Global and
its CEO, Armstrong, who allegedly orchestrated Coinbase's strategy
to profit by violating the securities laws. These claims are
brought on behalf of a nationwide class consisting of all persons
or entities who transacted in the Tokens on the Coinbase trading
platforms between Oct. 8, 2019 and the AC's filing on March 11,
2022 (the "class period"), and of subclasses keyed to citizens of
three states who so traded during that period.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class defined as
"all persons or entities who transacted in the Tokens on the
Coinbase Platform and/or the Coinbase Pro Platform during the Class
Period." They also seek certification of three subclasses: (1) "all
persons or entities who transacted in the Tokens on a Coinbase
platform during the Class Period while in the State of California";
(2) "all persons or entities who transacted in the Tokens on a
Coinbase platform during the Class Period while in the State of
Florida"; and (3) "all persons or entities who transacted in the
Tokens on a Coinbase platform during the Class Period while in the
State of New Jersey."

Pending now is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the AC for failure
to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
and 8(a).

Judge Engelmayer first considers the AC's claims under the
Securities Act, then those under the Exchange Act, and then its
state-law claims. Relevant to all is a single premise -- that the
Tokens are securities. The AC alleges that each of the 79 Tokens is
a security pursuant to the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, and
the test articulated for "investment contracts" in SEC v. W.J.
Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946). In support, the AC, for each Token,
alleges that this digital asset has characteristics indicative of a
security. To this end, the AC alleges how the Token was introduced
to the public; whether investors expected to receive profits from
it; whether any marketing has been performed for it, and if so, by
whom; which entities, if any, centrally manage it; and, during the
Class Period, which plaintiffs engaged in "losing transactions"
involving it.

The AC brings two claims under the Securities Act: in Count One,
for the offer and sale of unregistered securities against Coinbase
Global, Inc. and Coinbase, Inc., under Sections 5 and 12(a) of the
Securities Act; and, in Count Two, for control-person liability by
Coinbase Global, Inc. and Brian Armstrong, under Section 15 of the
Securities Act, based on the violations in Count One.

Judge Engelmayer opines that (i) the Plaintiffs have not pled that
Coinbase either qualified as the user's "immediate seller," or
"passed title, or other interest in the security, to the buyer for
value"; (ii) the AC does not pled direct solicitation by Coinbase,
it does not plead that the Plaintiffs purchased and sold the Tokens
as a result of such solicitation; and (iii) the primary violation
that is the basis for the Section 15 claims is the Section 12(a)
claim against Coinbase in Count One. For these reasons, he
dismisses Count One and Count Two for failure to state a claim.

The AC brings several sets of related claims under the Exchange
Act. First, it brings claims to rescind illegal contracts to pay
transaction fees to an unregistered exchange against Coinbase
Global, Inc. and Coinbase, Inc., under Sections 5, 15(a)(1) and
29(b) of the Act (Counts Three and Four). Second, it brings claims
to rescind illegal contracts to purchase securities from an
unregistered exchange against Coinbase Global, Inc. and Coinbase,
Inc., under Sections 5, 15(a)(1) and 29(b) of the Exchange Act
(Counts Five and Six). Third, it brings a claim under Section 20
for control-person liability against Coinbase Global, Inc. and
Armstrong; this claim is based upon the violations alleged in
Counts Three through Six (Count Seven).

Judge Engelmayer addresses first the claims of direct violations of
the Act (Counts Three through Six) and then addresses the
control-person claim (Count Seven). He dismisses the AC's Counts
Three through Six under the Exchange Act, holding that these claims
do not identify a contract between the Plaintiffs and Coinbase that
would support rescission. And the agreement that the Plaintiffs'
predecessor pleading identified as covering such transactions, the
User Agreement, definitely would not.

In addition, the control-person claims are premised on the AC's
substantive Exchange Act claims, which Judge Engelmayer has
dismissed. It follows that the control-person claims must also be
dismissed for want of a well-pled primary violation.

Judge Engelmayer next determines whether to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the AC's state-law claims, brought under
California, Florida, and New Jersey laws (California), (Florida),
(New Jersey). He opines that no circumstances counsel in favor of
the Court's exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' state-law claims. The Court has not invested the
resources necessary to resolve these non-federal claims, and
factors of convenience, fairness, and comity do not require the
Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Judge Engelmayer
accordingly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
these claims. These claims are dismissed without prejudice.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Engelmayer dismisses the AC. As to
the Plaintiffs' federal-law claims, his assessment is that granting
leave to amend would be futile. The Plaintiffs have already had an
opportunity to amend their complaint, and as reviewed, they did so
by adding numerous allegations that directly contradicted their
initial Complaint. And the Plaintiffs have made only a perfunctory
request for leave to amend anew in the event of the AC's
dismissal.

In their opposition to the motion to dismiss, they ask that
"permission to replead be granted" should the Court dismiss the
claims. But the Plaintiffs have not identified any concrete
amendments or additions, let alone ones that might cure the
deficiencies afflicting their Securities Act and Exchange Act
claims. This supports denial of leave to amend.

And given Judge Engelmayer's analysis, he says it is difficult to
see how any revised such claims could overcome the Plaintiffs'
factual averments in the Complaint and the terms of the User
Agreement. He therefore dismisses the Plaintiffs' federal claims
with prejudice. The dismissal is, however, without prejudice as to
the Plaintiffs' state-law claims, which have been dismissed based
on a decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

For these reasons, Judge Engelmayer dismisses all claims in the AC.
The federal claims are dismissed with prejudice. The state-law
claims are dismissed without prejudice.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion
pending at docket number 58, and to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/53rb28ts from Leagle.com.


DENVER WEST HOTEL: Meggs Sues Over ADA Violation
------------------------------------------------
John Meggs, an individual, on their behalf and on behalf of all
other mobility-impaired individuals similarly-situated v. Denver
West Hotel LeaseCo, L.L.C., Case No. 1:23-cv-00345 (D. Colo., Feb.
6, 2023), is brought for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff has visited the Towneplace on multiple occasions, his
last visit occurring on or about August 29, 2022. The Plaintiff
stayed at the Towneplace as an overnight guest and bone fide
purchaser in order to avail himself of the goods and services
offered to the public within but found that the Property was
littered with violations of the ADA, both in architecture and in
policy. The Plaintiff was guest in Room 103. the Plaintiff has a
reservation to return to Towneplace on May 5, 2023; he also intends
to return on or about August 25, 2023, during a subsequent trip to
the Denver area. He intends to revisit Towneplace not only as an
overnight guest but also to monitor any progress made with to
respect to ADA compliance--he sincerely hopes that his return is
not made in vain. The Plaintiff has personally encountered exposure
to architectural barriers and otherwise harmful conditions that
have endangered his safety at the Towneplace, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a paraplegic, with no use of his legs, stemming
from a severe spinal cord injury and therefore has a physical
impairment that substantially limits many of his major life
activities.

The Defendant's property, also known as Towneplace Golden Suites is
a hotel located in Tabor Street, Golden, Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq.
          SHADINGER LAW, LLC
          717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7
          Vineland, NJ 08360
          Direct: (609) 319-5399
          Office: (609) 236-3211
          Fax: (609) 900-2760
          Email: js@shadingerlaw.com


ENDORS TOI INC: Amato Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Endors Toi, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Michaela Amato, individuallly on behalf
of herself, and all others similarly situated v. Endors Toi, Inc.,
Endors Toi, Pbc, Elefante, Inc., Humble Investments, LLC, Joy
Reserve, Does 1-100, Case No. CGC23604512 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Feb. 7, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

Endors Toi which also operates under the name Western Flower
Company is a cannabis wholesale membership club that saves members
40% on popular brands and products, delivered to your doo.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary Raymond Basham, Esq.
          BASHAM LAW GROUP
          8801 Folsom Boulevard, Suite 280
          Sacramento, CA 95826
          Email: gary@bashamlawgroup.com
          Phone: (916) 282-0841
          Fax: (916) 266-7478


EZRICARE LLC: Browne Sues Over Contaminated Artificial Tears
------------------------------------------------------------
DEMANY BROWNE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. EZRICARE LLC; and DELSAM PHARMA
LLC;. Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01019 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2023)
is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself
and all persons similarly situated who purchased EzriCare
Artificial Tears and Delsam Pharma Artificial Tears, against the
Defendants for unjust enrichment and violation of the New York
General Business Law.

According to the complaint, Defendants' artificial tears are
adulterated and contaminated with "a rare, extensively
drug-resistant strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria." The
presence of the Pseudomonas Aeruginosa bacteria in the products is
due to, among other things, Defendants' violation of Current Good
Manufacturing Processes (as identified by the Food and Drug
Administration), including "lack of appropriate microbial testing,
formulation issues (the company manufactures and distributes
ophthalmic drugs in multi-use bottles, without an adequate
preservative), and lack of proper controls concerning
tamper-evident packaging," says the suit.

These alleged violations, along with the presence of this rare and,
in some cases, deadly, bacteria pose a significant and severe
health risk to consumers, such as Plaintiff and the putative class,
who purchased and used Defendants' products.

EZRICARE LLC and Delsam Pharma, LLC manufacture, design, import,
advertise, label, distribute, market, and sell several
over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles D. Moore, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 South 5th Street, Suite 1900
          Minneapolis, MN 55402  
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          E-mail: cmoore@reesellp.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC
          737 Bainbridge Street, #155
          Philadelphia, PA 19147
          Telephone: (215) 789-4462
          E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com

FAIR FINANCIAL: Faces Engle Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN ENGLE, individually and as an aggrieved employee in his
representative capacity, Plaintiff v. FAIR FINANCIAL CORP., a
Delaware corporation; SHIFT TECHNOLOGIES INC., a Delaware
corporation; BRAD STEWART, an individual; GEORGE ARISON, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
23STCV02615 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 7, 2023) arises
from the Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices in
violation of the California Labor Code, the Fair Employment &
Housing Act, and the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.

The complaint stems from the Defendants' discrimination on basis of
disability; retaliatory conduct; harassment on the basis of
disability; wrongful termination; and failure to provide at least
60 days' notice upon mass layoff and termination.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in December 2020 as a
senior software engineer until his termination on April 22, 2022.
   
Fair Financial Corp. develops mobile software with headquarters in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nilay U. Vora, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Atteberry, Esq.
          Lou Egerton-Wiley, Esq.
          THE VORA LAW FIRM, P.C.
          201 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 300
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (424) 258-5190
          E-mail: nvora@voralaw.com
                  jatteberry@voralaw.com
                  lou@voralaw.com

FII USA: Faces Allen Suit Over Unpaid Overtime and Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTTY ALLEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FII USA, INC. d/b/a FOXCONN, Defendant, Case
No. 23-cv-160 (E.D. Wis., Feb. 7, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant seeking relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws for Plaintiff's unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed
upon wages, and for retaliation relating to Plaintiff's termination
of employment.

In approximately August 2022, Defendant hired Plaintiff as an
hourly-paid, non-exempt employee working primarily at Defendant's
Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin location. On January 30, 2023, Defendant
terminated Plaintiff's employment.

FII USA, Inc. is a global professional design and manufacturing
service provider of communication network equipment, cloud service
equipment, precision tools, and industrial robots.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FLORISSANT, MO: Bid to Certify Class in Baker Suit Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS BAKER, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF
FLORISSANT, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-CV-1693 NAB (E.D. Mo.),
Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, grants in part
and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

Named Plaintiffs Thomas Baker, Sean Bailey, Nicole Bolden, Allison
Nelson, and Meredith Walker were arrested and detained in the
Florissant jail at various times. They filed the "debtors' prison"
action as a putative class action under Rule 23. They allege that
their constitutional rights were violated by Florissant's policies
and practices of arresting and jailing individuals in inhumane
conditions when these individuals could not pay bonds or other
fines or fees, without inquiring into their ability to pay or
considering alternatives to detention, without a neutral
determination of probable cause to justify their continued
confinement (in the case of warrantless arrests) or an initial
appearance before a judge (in the case of arrests on warrants), and
without affording them counsel.

The Plaintiffs' original complaint was filed on Oct. 31, 2016. The
First Amended Complaint was filed on Dec. 13, 2016. After
significant discovery and over the opposition of the Defendant, the
Second Amended Complaint was filed on March 8, 2021.

The Plaintiffs' seven claims for relief assert that Florissant's
unlawful conduct included: (1) jailing them for their inability to
pay the City, or by forcing them to make payments in order to avoid
jail; without providing an indigence analysis (Fourteenth
Amendment); (2) imprisoning them without appointing adequate
counsel (Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments); (3) using indefinite and
arbitrary detention (Equal Protection and Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment); (4) maintaining deplorable conditions in the
Florissant Jail (violation of due process and constitutes
impermissible punishment); (5) using jail and threats of jail to
collect debts owed to the City (Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment); (6) issuing and serving invalid warrants,
including those based solely on nonpayment of monetary debt (Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments); and (7) extended detention of the
warrantless arrestees without a neutral judicial finding of
probable cause based on sworn evidence (Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments).

The Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second amended complaint
that proposed seven modified classes which reconfigured and added
to the four original classes in the original and First Amended
Complaint. On May 6, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint, granting leave to correct information but denying leave
to add a new plaintiff, reconfigure and add class categories. On
May 7, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider and
correct record, asking the Court to reconsider a finding and to
include five of the Plaintiffs' seven modified classes previously
rejected by the Court.

Rather than seek an amendment to the deadline to move for class
certification, on May 21, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the present
motion for class certification while their motion to reconsider was
pending. In their motion, the Plaintiffs seek certification of four
of the seven modified classes that were the subject of their motion
for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, stating they believe
the Court's ruling as to the requested modified classes was based
on factual error.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of four of the seven "Modified
Classes" that were the subject of their motion for leave to file a
Second Amended Complaint, stating they believe the Court's ruling
as to the requested Modified Classes was based on a factual error.
They further assert they can seek Modified Classes because
definitions do not have to mirror the complaint.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following Modified
Classes:

     Class 1 (the Jailed Class): All persons held in the City of
Florissant jail on behalf of the City of Florissant for failure to
satisfy a bond, fine, fee, (excluding warrant recall fees, letter
fees, and/or failure to appear fees, as defined in Watkins v. City
of Florissant, No. 16SL-CC00165 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct. filed Jan.
2016)), surcharge, and/or costs without (1) an indigency hearing,
(2) a finding that they were a flight risk, or (3) a finding that
they were a danger to the community from Oct. 31, 2011 to present
(excluding individuals jailed pursuant to a domestic violence
hold).

     Class 3 (the Arbitrary Detention Subclass): All persons held
in the City of Florissant jail, between Oct. 31, 2011 to present,
on a Failure to Appear warrant for the City of Florissant who were
not brought before a judge for a first appearance or arraignment
(excluding individuals jailed pursuant to a domestic violence
hold).

     Class 4 (the Paid Fines Class): All persons who paid fines
and/or fees to the City of Florissant (excluding warrant recall
fees, letter fees, and/or failure to appear fees, as defined in
Watkins v. City of Florissant, No. 16SL-CC00165 (St. Louis Co. Cir.
Ct. filed Jan. 2016)) without an indigency hearing from Oct. 31,
2011 to present.

     Class 5 (the Warrantless Detention Subclass): All persons held
past booking and assignment of bail in the City of Florissant jail
on behalf of the City of Florissant without a warrant from Oct. 31,
2011 to present. (Excluding individuals jailed pursuant to a
domestic violence hold).

The Plaintiffs assert that at the certification stage, they (and
the Court) are permitted to seek certification of modified versions
of the class definitions in their original Complaint, which they
seek to do. Accordingly, they submitted alternate class definitions
to the Court for certification, termed "Modified" and "Original"
Classes, allegedly consisting of the same groups of individuals
subject to Florissant's unconstitutional treatment. They assert
that the only difference between the proposed classes is that the
Modified Classes include smaller classes for each different
jailing-based constitutional deprivation, whereas the Original
Classes group the jailing violations together.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of the Classes contained in the
operative First Amended Complaint ("Original Classes") as follows:

     First Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Class: All persons who
currently owe or who will incur debts to the City of Florissant
from fines, fees (excluding warrant recall fees, letter fees,
and/or failure to appear fees, as defined in Watkins v. City of
Florissant, No. 16SL-CC00165 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct. filed Jan.
2016)), costs, or surcharges arising from cases prosecuted by the
City of Florissant.

     Second Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Class: All persons
who, either because they owe debts to the City of Florissant or for
any other reason, will become in the custody of the City of
Florissant and thereby subjected to its post-arrest wealth-based
detention procedures.

     Paid Fines Class: All persons, whether or not such person has
ever been jailed, who have paid any amount to the City of
Florissant to satisfy fines, fees (excluding warrant recall fees,
letter fees, and/or failure to appear fees, as defined in Watkins
v. City of Florissant, No. 16SL-CC00165 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct.
filed Jan. 2016)), costs, or surcharges arising from cases in the
City court and who have not been provided an opportunity to prove
indigence.

     Jailed Class: All persons who have been jailed by the City of
Florissant for nonpayment of fines, fees (excluding warrant recall
fees, letter fees, and/or failure to appear fees, as defined in
Watkins v. City of Florissant, No. 16SL-CC00165 (St. Louis Co. Cir.
Ct. filed Jan. 2016)), costs, or surcharges arising from cases in
the City court and who (1) were not provided an opportunity to
prove indigence prior to jailing; (2) were not considered a danger
to the community by notation in the City's file; and (3) were not
designated as a flight risk at the time of jailing.

In response to the motion to reconsider, the Defendant filed a
motion for contempt and sought an order that the Plaintiffs may not
seek certification of classes they were denied leave to include in
their proposed second amended complaint. The Court ultimately
denied the Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider with respect to adding
to and reconfiguring the original classes. It also denied the
Defendant's motion for contempt, finding they failed to establish a
legal basis for the proposition that the Plaintiffs cannot seek
certification of classes they were denied leave to include in their
complaint.

The Defendant filed its opposition to the motion to certify on
April 12, 2021, and the Plaintiffs filed a reply on May 14, 2021.
On Aug. 13, 2021, Judge Baker heard oral argument from both sides
on the motion.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Modified Classes do not expand the
total number of Class Members. Rather, Classes 1, 3, and 5 are
purportedly all groups of Class members comprising two of the
Original Classes: the Jailed Class and the Second Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief Class. The Plaintiffs contend that the Modified
Class 4 is comprised of the individuals as the Original Paid Fines
Class and the First Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Class.
Florissant opposes class certification on several grounds.

Judge Baker explains that to be certified as a class, the
Plaintiffs must meet all of the requirements of Rule 23(a).

First, the Plaintiffs seek Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) certification
of Modified Class 1 (which they deem to effectively be "the Jailed
Class").

Judge Baker finds that (i) Florissant does not challenge the
Plaintiffs' assertion that the members of this class number in the
thousands; (ii) common questions of fact and law unite the
Plaintiffs' and the putative class members' claims; (iii) Baker,
Bailey, Bolden, Nelson, and Walker satisfy the typicality and
adequacy criteria of Rule 23(a) and are suitable Class
Representatives for Modified Class 1; and (iv) resolution of their
claims in a single forum would also serve judicial economy
interests.

Accordingly, Judge Baker certifies Modified Class 1 under Rule
23(b)(3) and appoints named Plaintiffs Baker, Bailey, Bolden,
Nelson, and Walker as the Class Representatives.

Next, the Plaintiffs seek Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) certification of
Modified Class 3. They contend that this is a subclass of Modified
Class 1/the Jailed Class and refer to this group as an arbitrary
detention subclass. All named Plaintiffs seek to represent this
class.

Judge Baker holds that (i) common questions of fact and law unite
Plaintiffs and the putative class members' claims for relief; (ii)
Baker, Bailey, Bolden, Nelson, and Walker satisfy the typicality
and adequacy criteria of Rule 23(a) and are suitable Class
Representatives for Modified Class 3; and (iii) certification of
this class is superior to individual litigation. Accordingly, she
certifies Modified Class 3 under Rule 23(b)(3) and appoint named
Plaintiffs Baker, Bailey, Bolden, Nelson, and Walker as the Class
Representatives.

The Plaintiffs then seek Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) certification of
Modified Class 5. They contend that this is a subclass of Modified
Class 1/the Jailed Class and refer to this group as the warrantless
detention subclass. The Plaintiffs propose Bolden as the sole named
Plaintiff to represent this class.

Judge Baker denies certification of the Modified Class 5. She holds
that the Plaintiffs have presented insufficient evidence to show
that Bolden or any named Plaintiffs meet the criteria of this
class. Olsen has not formally amended his expert report, and the
Plaintiffs have not sought leave for him to do so.

The Plaintiffs also seek Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) certification of
Modified Class 4. They contend that this class is comprised of
members of the Original Paid Fines Class and the Original First
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief class. Florissant does not argue
the Modified Class 4 expands the membership broader than the
Original Classes. The Plaintiffs propose Baker, Bolden, Nelson, and
Walker as the named Plaintiffs to represent this class.

Judge Baker finds that (i) while the original definition of
Modified Class 4 is too general, she accepts the Plaintiffs' more
narrowed proposal ("Narrowed Modified Class 4"); (ii) the Narrowed
Modified Class 4 is ascertainable from municipal court records and
is adequately limited to the indigent; (iii) Baker, Bolden, Nelson,
and Walker were subject to the allegedly unconstitutional conduct
at issue and are appropriate representatives of this narrowed
class; (iv) Baker, Bolden, Nelson, and Walker satisfy the Rule
23(a) requirements for class certification; and (v) certification
of this class is superior to other methods of adjudication.

Because the Narrowed Modified Class 4 satisfies the requirements of
Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), Judge Baker certifies Narrowed Modified
Class 4 under Rule 23(b)(3) and appoints named Plaintiffs Baker,
Bolden, Nelson, and Walker as Class Representatives.

Finally, the Plaintiffs request Rule 23(b)(2) certification for
each of the four Modified Classes, seeking injunctive relief in the
form of individualized hearings to determine a person's ability to
pay, with such hearings to occur prior to assessments of fines,
imposition of bonds, and/or incarceration or the threat of
incarceration for nonpayment.

For class certification purposes, Judge Baker holds that the
Plaintiffs have shown that a class-wide injunction may be the only
way to ensure the City's compliance with its constitutional duties.
She grants Rule 23(b)(2) certification of Modified Class 1,
Modified Class 3, and Narrowed Modified Class 4.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is
granted in part and denied in part.

Named Plaintiffs Baker, Bailey, Bolden, Nelson, and Walker are
appointed as the Class Representatives to represent the Modified
Class 1, defined as follows: All persons held in the City of
Florissant jail on behalf of the City of Florissant for failure to
satisfy a bond, fine, fee, (excluding warrant recall fees, letter
fees, and/or failure to appear fees, as defined in Watkins v. City
of Florissant, No. 16SL-CC00165 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct. filed Jan.
2016)), surcharge, and/or costs without (1) an indigency hearing,
(2) a finding that they were a flight risk, or (3) a finding that
they were a danger to the community from Oct. 31, 2011 to present
(excluding individuals jailed pursuant to a domestic violence
hold).

Named Plaintiffs Baker, Bailey, Bolden, Nelson, and Walker are
appointed as the Class Representatives to represent the Modified
Class 3, defined as follows: All persons held in the City of
Florissant jail, between October 31, 2011 to present, on a Failure
to Appear warrant for the City of Florissant who were not brought
before a judge for a first appearance or arraignment (excluding
individuals jailed pursuant to a domestic violence hold).

Plaintiffs Baker, Bolden, Nelson, and Walker are appointed as the
Class Representatives to represent the Narrowed Modified Class 4,
defined as follows: All persons who paid fines and/or fees to the
City of Florissant (excluding warrant recall fees, letter fees,
and/or failure to appear fees, as defined in Watkins v. City of
Florissant, No. 16SL-CC00165 (St. Louis Co. Cir. Ct. filed Jan.
2016)) after being jailed on a warrant issued by Florissant and
without an indigency hearing from Oct. 31, 2011 to present.

John Waldron and Blake Strode of ArchCity Defenders, Inc., 440 N.
4th Street, Suite 390, St. Louis, Missouri 63102; Andrea R. Gold of
Tyco & Zavareei LLP, 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC
20036; and Ryan Keane and Nathaniel Carroll of Keane Law LLC, 7711
Bonhomme Ave., Suite 600, St. Louis, Missouri 63105, are appointed
as the Class Counsel.

The parties, within 30 days of entry of the Order, will submit a
proposed joint scheduling plan that includes the parties' positions
concerning when a referral of this action to mediation would be
most productive, and any other appropriate deadlines and dates for
anticipated motions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n8bmdct from Leagle.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Amended Fleury Class Suit Dismissed W/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL FLEURY, individually and on behalf of a class,
Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03862
(N.D. Ill.), Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants
GM's motion to dismiss Fleury's amended complaint for failure to
state a claim.

Fleury bought a used 2016 Chevrolet Impala Flex Fuel—a car which
GM had represented could run on a combination of E85 (85% ethanol)
and gasoline. But when Fleury began using E85 exclusively, his car
broke down. He filed the lawsuit on July 26, 2022 and an amended
complaint on Sept. 20, 2022.

Fleury brings a putative class action, seeking to represent a class
of GM Flex Fuel vehicle owners with Illinois addresses. He brings
three claims against GM. First, Fleury alleges a violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA), 815 ILCS 505/2. Second, he
alleges common-law fraud. Third, Fleury alleges breach of express
warranty.

On Nov. 21, 2022, GM moved to dismiss Fleury's amended complaint
for failure to state a claim.

Initially, Fleury claims that GM's failure to disclose that Flex
Fuel vehicles cannot run exclusively on E85 was deceptive and
unfair, in violation of the ICFA, 815 ILCS 505/2.

Judge Kendall opines that (i) Fleury has failed to plead with
particularity that he relied on an affirmative false or deceptive
statement; (ii) Fleury has not connected the dots between the
purported omission and a particular communication by GM which he
relied on; and (iii) Fleury does not allege that his Impala lacked
E85 FlexFuel capability. Thus, Fleury has failed to plead with
particularity that GM made any deceptive omission.

Next, Fleury claims that GM's nondisclosure of the fact that Flex
Fuel vehicles cannot run exclusively on E85 without risking sudden
failure offends public policy, is "unscrupulous and unethical," and
"presents a safety hazard."

Since Fleury's unfairness claim depends on an alleged failure to
disclose a defect -- and accordingly, sounds in fraud -- Judge
Kendall opines that Rule 9(b) applies. Nonetheless, she holds that
Fleury's unfairness claim would fail under either pleading
standard. First, Fleury has not sufficiently alleged that GM
violated any Illinois public policy. Second, Fleury has failed to
allege an immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous practice.
Third, Fleury has failed to allege a substantial injury. Since
Fleury has not sufficiently alleged any deceptive or unfair
conduct, he has failed to state an ICFA claim.

Fleury then contends that GM committed fraud by making false and
misleading statements and omissions about the use of E85 with Flex
Fuel vehicles.

Fleury's fraud claim, like his ICFA claim, fails. Judhe Kendall
says Fleury has not alleged with particularity that GM made any
false representations on which Fleury relied in buying his 2016
Impala. The "E85" window sticker and the statement that the 2016
Impala has Flex Fuel capability are not false or deceptive
representations. And Fleury did not rely on any statements in the
owner's manual in buying the car. His allegations do not suggest a
fiduciary or special relationship between GM and the putative
class. Without a duty to disclose, Fleury cannot sufficiently
allege fraudulent concealment. Accordingly, Fleury's fraud claim
fails.

Finally, on the face of Fleury's complaint, his breach of express
warranty claim against GM is time-barred. Fleury's breach of
express warranty claim against GM accrued on the date of the
Impala's delivery to its first owner in June 2016—more than four
years before Fleury filed this lawsuit in July 2022. Accordingly,
his claim is untimely and must be dismissed.

For these reasons, GM's motion to dismiss is granted. Counts I to
III are dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2km44275 from
Leagle.com.


MDL 2918: Appearance of Expert for Separate Depositions Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In IN RE: HARD DISK DRIVE
SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No.
3:19-md-02918-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Class Plaintiffs move to compel
TDK 2 and NHK 3 (together with the Defendants) to produce their
class certification expert, Dr. Lauren J. Stiroh, for separate
depositions in the End-User and Reseller Actions.

EUPs and Reseller Plaintiffs seek one deposition of Dr. Stiroh,
each, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(a), and
in the alternative, for good cause under the Deposition Protocol
given that Dr. Stiroh's report offers separate arguments that are
used in Defendants' Oppositions to each of their Motions for Class
Certification.

The Defendants believe the Deposition Protocol provides that
Reseller and End-User Plaintiffs are entitled to one deposition of
Dr. Stiroh and that Class Plaintiffs have not identified good cause
to justify a second deposition.

The parties have met and conferred through email and on a
videoconference call on January 23, 2023, have reached impasse, and
have complied with Section 9 of the Northern District's Guidelines
for Professional Conduct.

EUPs and Resellers filed motions for class certification in their
respective cases on October 11, 2022.

Those motions were supported by different experts -- Dr. Janet Netz
for EUPs and Dr. Michael Williams for Resellers. ECF Nos. 601-6,
607-4. On December 23, 2022, the Defendants filed separate
oppositions to EUPs' and Resellers' class motions, and separate
motions to exclude the opinion testimony of Drs. Netz and Williams.
The Defendants submitted the expert report of Dr. Lauren J. Stiroh
in each case in support of their filings. Dr. Stiroh's analyses and
opinions raise myriad disparate challenges to EUPs' and Resellers'
respective motions and experts' opinion testimony. As a result,
EUPs and Resellers face numerous unique criticisms that Dr. Stiroh
raised and that they must address in responding to Defendants'
separate class certification oppositions and motions to exclude.

Those filings are due March 6, 2023, necessitating completion of
the depositions of Dr. Stiroh during the week of February 13, 2023.


EUPs seek certification of 29 statewide classes comprising all
persons and entities who, from January 2003 to December 2016, in 28
states and the District of Columbia, purchased Standalone Storage
Devices or Computers, not for resale, which included hard disk
drive ("HDD") suspension assemblies ("SAs") that were manufactured
or sold by Defendants (the "EUP Classes").

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RG7o30 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William V. Reiss, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          1325 Avenue of Americas, Suite 2601
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
          E-mail: wreiss@robinskaplan.com

                - and -

          Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
          ZELLE LLP
          555 12th Street, Suite 1230
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (415) 693-0700
          Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
          E-mail: cmicheletti@zellelaw.com

                - and -

          Victoria Sims, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: vicky@cuneolaw.com

                - and -

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          LARSON | KING, LLP
          30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6518
          Facsimile: (651) 789-4818
          E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michelle Park Chiu, Esq.
          J. Clayton Everett, Jr., Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
          E-mail: michelle.chiu@morganlewis.com
                  clay.everett@morganlewis.com

                - and -

          Mark G. Weiss, Esq.
          Mark H. Hamer, Esq.
          BAKER MCKENZIE LLP
          815 Connecticut Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 452-7077
          Facsimile: (202) 416-7177
          E-mail: mark.hamer@bakermckenzie.com
                  mark.weiss@bakermckenzie.com

MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Cohen v. Blackbaud
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cohen v. Blackbaud Inc et
al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00948 (D.S.C., Filed Mar. 31, 2021), the Hon.
Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a provisional order sealing
the plaintiffs' expert reports and motion for class certification.

The Court recognizes the Order is provisional in nature such that
after the process for challenging the confidentiality designations
is complete Plaintiffs will re-file their expert reports in support
of their motion for class certification.

The Court observes that the Plaintiffs' motions to seal were filed
on December 16, 2022, thereby providing the public with notice and
opportunity to object to the Motions.

Further, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have complied with the
requirements set forth in the Amended Stipulated Confidentiality
Order (ASCO) and Local District Court Rule 5.03 when filing the
instant Motions to Seal. Based on the parties' briefs and a review
of the proposed information to be sealed, the Court is persuaded
that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated the need to
provisionally grant the Motions to Seal according to the ASCO..
Under these circumstances, the Court has considered less drastic
alternatives to sealing and determined that such alternatives would
not provide adequate protection.

The Cohen case is consolidated in MDL No. 2972 Blackbaud, Inc.,
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.

The nature of suit states torts -- personal injury -- other
personal injury.

Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents. [CC]

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ltpV6Q at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Duranko v. Blackbaud
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Duranko v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00054 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 7, 2021), the Hon. Judge
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a provisional order sealing the
plaintiffs' expert reports and motion for class certification.

The Court recognizes the Order is provisional in nature such that
after the process for challenging the confidentiality designations
is complete Plaintiffs will re-file their expert reports in support
of their motion for class certification.

The Court observes that the Plaintiffs' motions to seal were filed
on December 16, 2022, thereby providing the public with notice and
opportunity to object to the Motions.

Further, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have complied with the
requirements set forth in the Amended Stipulated Confidentiality
Order (ASCO) and Local District Court Rule 5.03 when filing the
instant Motions to Seal. Based on the parties' briefs and a review
of the proposed information to be sealed, the Court is persuaded
that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated the need to
provisionally grant the Motions to Seal according to the ASCO..
Under these circumstances, the Court has considered less drastic
alternatives to sealing and determined that such alternatives would
not provide adequate protection.

The Duranko case is consolidated in MDL No. 2972 Blackbaud, Inc.,
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.

The nature of suit states torts -- personal injury -- other
personal injury.

Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HVZZZ8 at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Gignac v. Blackbaud
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gignac, et al., v.
Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00419 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a provisional order sealing the
plaintiffs' expert reports and motion for class certification.

The Court recognizes the Order is provisional in nature such that
after the process for challenging the confidentiality designations
is complete Plaintiffs will re-file their expert reports in support
of their motion for class certification.

The Court observes that the Plaintiffs' motions to seal were filed
on December 16, 2022, thereby providing the public with notice and
opportunity to object to the Motions.

Further, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have complied with the
requirements set forth in the Amended Stipulated Confidentiality
Order (ASCO) and Local District Court Rule 5.03 when filing the
instant Motions to Seal. Based on the parties' briefs and a review
of the proposed information to be sealed, the Court is persuaded
that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated the need to
provisionally grant the Motions to Seal according to the ASCO..
Under these circumstances, the Court has considered less drastic
alternatives to sealing and determined that such alternatives would
not provide adequate protection.

The Gignac case is consolidated in MDL No. 2972 Blackbaud, Inc.,
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.

The nature of suit states torts -- personal injury -- other
personal injury.

Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.[CC]

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YG9d28 at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Zielinski v. Blackbaud
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zielinski v. Blackbaud,
Case No. 3:20-cv-04513 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson,
Jr. entered a provisional order sealing the plaintiffs' expert
reports and motion for class certification.

The Court recognizes the Order is provisional in nature such that
after the process for challenging the confidentiality designations
is complete Plaintiffs will re-file their expert reports in support
of their motion for class certification.

The Court observes that the Plaintiffs' motions to seal were filed
on December 16, 2022, thereby providing the public with notice and
opportunity to object to the Motions.

Further, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have complied with the
requirements set forth in the Amended Stipulated Confidentiality
Order (ASCO) and Local District Court Rule 5.03 when filing the
instant Motions to Seal. Based on the parties' briefs and a review
of the proposed information to be sealed, the Court is persuaded
that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated the need to
provisionally grant the Motions to Seal according to the ASCO..
Under these circumstances, the Court has considered less drastic
alternatives to sealing and determined that such alternatives would
not provide adequate protection.

The Zielinski case is consolidated in MDL No. 2972 Blackbaud, Inc.,
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.

The nature of suit states torts -- personal injury -- other
personal injury.

Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DU2JVq at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 3062: Chuck Day Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Chuck Day Farms Partnership, on behalf of
themselves v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG; SYNGENTA CORPORATION;
SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC; CORTEVA, INC.; BASF SE; BASF
CORPORATION; BASF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS GROUP; NUTRIEN AG
SOLUTIONS, INC., HELENA AGRI-ENTERPRISES, LLC; and DOE
CO-CONSPIRATOR DISTRIBUTORS AND RETAILERS 1-200, Case No.
1:22-cv-02222-JMS-MG, was transferred from the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on
Feb. 7, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00118 to the proceeding.

The Chuck Day Farms case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3062, IN
RE: CROP PROTECTION PRODUCTS LOYALTY PROGRAM AGREEMENTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas D.
Schroeder.

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages in the form of overcharges
incurred by Plaintiff and the Classes due to the Manufacturer
Defendants', Co-conspirator Distributors', and Retailers'
violations of the antitrust laws in the markets for certain crop
protection products in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton
Act.

Syngenta Crop Protection AG is a company headquartered in Basel,
Switzerland with its North American headquarters in Greensboro,
North Carolina.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tristan Carl Fretwell, Esq.
          Jackie M. Bennett, Jr., Esq.
          TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
          1 Indiana Sq #3500
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 713-3500
          E-mail: tfretwell@taftlaw.com
                  jbennett@taftlaw.com

MDL 3062: Jenkins Anticompetitive Suit Tranferred to M.D.N.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Justin W. Jenkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. CORTEVA, INC.; SYNGENTA CROP
PROTECTION AG; SYNGENTA CORP.; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC; CHS
INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; JOHN DOE DEFENDANT WHOLESALERS
1-5; AND JOHN DOE DEFENDANT RETAILERS 6-10, Case No.
1:22-cv-01976-RLY-DLP, was transferred from the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on
Feb. 7, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00117 to the proceeding.

The Jenkins case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3062, IN RE: CROP
PROTECTION PRODUCTS LOYALTY PROGRAM AGREEMENTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas D.
Schroeder.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of similarly situated direct
purchasers of certain crop protection products, which include
herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides, manufactured by the
Defendants, who were harmed by having to purchase CPPs at prices
that were inflated due to Defendants' anticompetitive conduct.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed
company.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christine A. Varney, Esq.
          David Marriott, Esq.
          Margaret Thorner Segall, Esq.
          CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
          825 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 474-1000
          E-mail: cvarney@cravath.com
                  dmarriott@cravath.com
                  msegall@cravath.com  

               - and -

          John R. Maley, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP
          11 South Meridian Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 231-7464
          Facsimile: (317) 231-7433
          E-mail: jmaley@btlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark E. Anderson, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          501 Fayetteville Street Suite 500
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 755-6678
          Facsimile: (919) 755-6581
          E-mail: manderson@mcguirewoods.com

MG BILLING: Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply in Vandiver Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES VANDIVER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MG BILLING LIMITED d/b/a
Probiller, and Does 1-50, Defendants, Civil Action No.
1:21-cv-02960-CNS-MDB (D. Colo.), Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado:

   a. grants Mr. Vandiver's Motion for Reconsideration;

   b. denies Probiller's Motion for Issuance of Certified
      Question; and

   c. grants Probiller's Motion for Leave to File A Sur-Reply.

In October 2022, Probiller filed its Answer to Mr. Vandiver's
Complaint, and the Magistrate Judge lifted the discovery stay. The
Magistrate Judge amended the case's scheduling order in November
2022. In December 2022, Mr. Vandiver filed his reconsideration
motion regarding the Court's Oct. 4, 2022 Order. The
reconsideration motion is fully briefed, and in January 2023
Probiller filed its motion for leave to file a surreply regarding
Mr. Vandiver's reconsideration motion. In January 2023, Probiller
filed its motion requesting the Court issue a certified question to
the Colorado Supreme Court regarding Mr. Vandiver's Colorado
Consumer Protection Act ("CCPA") claim.

Judge Sweeney examines Mr. Vandiver's arguments regarding the
CCPA's 2022 amendment and the availability of class-wide relief
under the statute in his reconsideration motion. She finds no
evidence of clear legislative intent -- in either the CCPA's facial
language or the legislative history of its 2022 amendment -- that
overcomes the presumption of prospectivity the Court must apply.
She also finds that Section 6-1-113(2.9) retroactively applies to
Mr. Vandiver's CCPA claim, and its application is not impermissibly
retrospective. Lastly, Probiller's agreement to litigate Mr.
Vandiver's claims in Colorado and proceed under Colorado law is no
more than a "mere expectation" that Colorado law regarding the
remedies available under the CCPA would "remain unchanged for
Probiller's future benefit.

For these reasons, Judge Sweeney holds that the Colorado General
Assembly did not clearly express its intent for Section
6-1-113(2.9) to apply retroactively. However, and crucially,
Section 6-1-113(2.9) is a remedial and procedural -- not
substantive -- statutory provision. Therefore, Section 6-1-113(2.9)
applies retroactively to Mr. Vandiver's CCPA claim. Retroactive
application of Section 6-1-113(2.9) does not violate Probiller's
due process rights. Accordingly, Mr. Vandiver may pursue his CCPA
claim on a class-wide basis.

Probiller argues in its Motion for Issuance of Certified Question
that the Court should certify the question of whether the CCPA's
2022 amendment applies retroactively to the Colorado Supreme
Court.

Judge Sweeney denies Probiller's motion. She says the Colorado
Supreme Court has analyzed a wide variety of retroactive statutes,
remedial and substantive. These analyses have provided ample
guidance for how courts should determine whether statutes are
substantive or remedial in nature, retroactive or retrospective.
Fundamentally, the Colorado Supreme Court's cases have proven
"clear and instructive" in the Court's own analysis of the CCPA and
the retroactivity of its 2022 amendment. Therefore, the Colorado
Supreme Court has a provided a reasonably clear and principled
course for the Court's resolution of Mr. Vandiver's reconsideration
motion.

Consistent with her analysis, Judge Sweeney grants Mr. Vandiver's
Motion for Reconsideration, denies Probiller's Motion for Issuance
of Certified Question, and grants Probiller's Motion for Leave to
File A Sur-Reply.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/epatkeu2 from Leagle.com.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: To Settle Securities Suit in N.D. Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K current report
dated January 16, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 17, 2023, that on January 16, 2023, the
company announced that it has entered into an agreement with
plaintiffs to resolve the previously disclosed securities class
action lawsuit.

The company and certain of its executive officers were named as
defendants in this lawsuit initially filed on January 3, 2020, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia. The settlement of this case is subject to the usual and
customary final documentation, public notice and court approval.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. is into manufacturing of carpets and rugs
based in Georgia.


MPC HOLDINGS: Bain Sues Over Welding Inpectors' Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN BAIN, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MPC HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A PLATTE RIVER INSPECTION
SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00353 (D. Colo., Feb. 7,
2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from
Defendant MPC Holdings under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint alleges PRIS of improperly paying Plaintiff and
similarly situated a flat amount for each day worked without
overtime compensation, which PRIS disguises as an hourly pay
scheme, instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA.

Plaintiff Bain worked for PRIS as a welding inspector from
approximately January 2018 until July 2022 in Texas, New Mexico,
Colorado, and Utah.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

NEW ENGLAND REALTY: Faces White Class Suit in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
New England Realty Associates Limited Partnership disclosed in its
Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2022,, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January
19, 2023, that on December 19, 2022, it was named in a class action
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts captioned "Billie Jo White v. RealPage, Inc., et al,"
Case No. 1:22-cv-12134, United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts.

RealPage, Inc. is allegedly the developer of a certain software
platform known as "AI Revenue Management" (previously known as
"YieldStar"). The complaint alleges that through the combined use
of RealPage's revenue management services, which allegedly included
collecting non-public data regarding various factors influencing
rents and generating a suggested rental price for each of the units
controlled by a Defendant Property Manager using its services, the
company was named as part of a rental "price-fixing cartel" in
violation of federal and state anti-trust laws. The complaint seeks
class certification and unspecified damages, trebled, together with
attorney's fees and other injunctive relief.

New England Realty Associates Limited Partnership is an operator of
apartment buildings based in Massachusetts.


NIKOLA CORP: Court Dismisses Consolidated Borteanu Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Daniel Borteanu, et al., Plaintiffs v. Nikola
Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-20-01797-PHX-SPL (D.
Ariz.), Judge Steven P. Logan of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona grants the two Motions to Dismiss filed by:

   a. Defendant Nikola and Individual Defendants Kim J. Brady,
      Steve Girsky, Mark A. Russell, Steven Shindler, and Britton
      M. Worthen; and

   b. Defendant Trevor Milton.

The lawsuit is a private securities class action filed by Lead
Plaintiff Nikola Investor Group II -- comprised of Vincent Chau,
Stanley Karcynski, and George Mersho -- against Nikola, several of
the company's officers, and the company's founder, former CEO, and
former Executive Chairman Milton. Nikola is a publicly traded
Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Arizona. It designs
and manufactures electric vehicles and their components.

The Plaintiff's Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was
filed on behalf of all investors who purchased the common stock of
Nikola between June 4, 2020 and Feb. 25, 2021. It alleges that the
Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
misrepresenting numerous aspects of Nikola's business and
operations.

The Plaintiff alleges that these misrepresentations inflated
Nikola's stock value. It alleges that when the falsity of the
misrepresentations came to light, Nikola's stock value dropped
dramatically, causing significant losses and damages for the
plaintiff class members.

The Complaint alleges that while the Defendants misrepresented
numerous aspects of Nikola's operations, the fraud can be broken
down into nine categories of misrepresentations, including that (i)
Nikola had developed a fully operational, zero-emissions tractor
trailer truck powered by hydrogen fuel cell technology—the Nikola
One; Nikola had, in hand, over 14,000 purchase orders for its
trucks, which represented 2 to 3 years of production and billions
in revenue; and (iii) Nikola was producing hydrogen at a fraction
of the cost industry experts believed was possible and that Nikola
was in the process of establishing a nation-wide network of
hydrogen refueling stations, which would produce inexpensive
hydrogen for the Nikola One and Nikola's other vehicles to operate
on.

For each of these categories, the Complaint alleges specific
statements made by specific Defendants at varying times. Defendant
Milton's alleged misstatements primarily occurred via Twitter and
during various interviews he conducted. The Individual Defendants'
alleged misstatements primarily occurred in certain SEC filings
that they signed. All these alleged misstatements can be imputed to
Defendant Nikola. The Plaintiff also alleges a scheme to defraud
against Defendant Milton and the Individual Defendants.

On April 8, 2022, Defendant Nikola and the Individual Defendants
moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint. That same day,
Defendant Milton filed his own separate Motion to Dismiss in which
he adopts the other Defendants' reasoning in part and offers his
own separate arguments as to why the Complaint should be dismissed.
On May 9, 2022, the Plaintiff filed single Response addressing both
motions to dismiss. On June 8, 2022, the Defendants filed their
Reply briefs, with Defendant Milton once again filing his
separately from the other Defendants.

To state a claim for securities fraud under Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5, a plaintiff must demonstrate with particularity (1) a
material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant; (2)
scienter; (3) a connection between the misrepresentation or
omission and the purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance upon
the misrepresentation or omission; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss
causation. The Defendants assert that the Plaintiff failed to
adequately plead the first, second, and sixth elements -- that is,
that the Plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated a material
misrepresentation or omission, scienter, and loss causation.

Judge Logan has considered the arguments of both parties with
respect to the first element. He finds that the Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged that the Individual Defendants and Defendant
Nikola made material misstatements in the SEC filings, though he
finds that some of the statements alleged in this regard are not
actionable and dismissed. He also finds that the Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged that Defendant Milton made materially
misleading or false statements. Finally, Judge Logan dismisses the
Plaintiff's scheme liability claim against the Individual
Defendants because it failed to allege that they engaged in any
conduct in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme. The Plaintiff's
scheme liability claim against Defendant Milton, however,
survives.

Judge Logan then finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded
scienter with respect to Defendant Milton. He reaches this
conclusion based on the Plaintiff's detailed, particularized
factual allegations showing Defendant Milton's knowledge of the
relevant facts, the statements of his fellow Nikola officers and
employees, the allegations of Nikola officials warning Defendant
Milton about his misrepresentations on multiple occasions, the
allegations related to his role within the company, and -- to a
minimal extent -- on the allegations related to his motives and
opportunities to commit fraud. The factual allegations related to
Defendant Milton's clear knowledge of relevant facts may, on their
own, be sufficient to create a strong inference of scienter. Even
if they are not, however, a strong inference of scienter certainly
exists when all the allegations are viewed collectively.

As a final point, Defendant Milton's arguments against a finding of
scienter are unpersuasive, Judge Logan holds. Even without those
allegations, the Plaintiff sufficiently pleads scienter. Defendant
Milton offers additional arguments that appear to be focused on a
few specific alleged misstatements, though it is not entirely
clear. Regardless, these arguments do not meaningfully change Judge
Logan's overall scienter analysis. To the extent Defendant Milton
wishes to assert such arguments aimed at specific misstatements in
an effort to narrow the Plaintiff's case against him, Defendant
Milton will have additional opportunities -- such as summary
judgment -- to do so.

Having dismissed the Plaintiff's claims against the Individual
Defendants, Judge Logan only addresses the element of loss
causation as it relates to Defendant Milton. Defendant Milton does
not make his own arguments and instead relies on the arguments made
by the other Defendants in their Motion.

Judge Logan finds that the Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently
allege loss causation because -- by not specifying which
misstatements or omissions were implicated in each alleged
corrective disclosure -- it failed to plausibly allege a causal
connection between Defendant Milton's alleged misrepresentations
and the injuries it suffered.

In conclusion, Judge Logan finds that the Plaintiff failed to
adequately allege any Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 claim against the
Defendants. This leaves only its claim for control person liability
under Section 20(a) (Count III). To state a Section 20(a) claim
against individual defendants, a plaintiff must allege a primary
violation of federal securities law. The Plaintiff has failed to do
so. Thus, its Section 20(a) claim against the Individual Defendants
and Defendant Milton is dismissed.

Leave to amend a deficient complaint should be freely given "when
justice so requires." When dismissing for failure to state a claim,
a district court should grant leave to amend unless it determines
that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of
other facts. Judge Logan finds that none of these factors are
present and that leave to amend is appropriate.

Accordingly, he grants the Defendants' Notice of Supplemental
Authority and the Lead Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental
Authority. He has fully considered the supplemental authority
noticed by both parties.

Judge Logan denies the Lead Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial
Notice.

Judge Logan grants the Motions to Dismiss.

The Lead Plaintiff's Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint is
dismissed with leave to amend. If it chooses to do so, the Lead
Plaintiff will have until no later than April 3, 2023, to file an
Amended Complaint consistent with the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8e6nvt from Leagle.com.


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: $15-Mil. Class Deal in SEPTA Wins Prelim. Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:12-cv-00993 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Yvette Kane of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania grants Southeastern
Transportation Authority's Unopposed Motion for Entry of an Order
Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Establishing Notice Procedures,
and Setting Settlement Hearing Date.

On May 12, 2012, SEPTA filed the putative class action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) against Orrstown
Financial Services, Inc. ("Orrstown"), Orrstown Bank (the "Bank"),
Anthony Ceddia, Jeffrey W. Coy, Jeffrey W. Embly, Bradley S.
Everly, Mark K. Keller, Andrea Pugh, Thomas R. Quinn, Jr., Gregory
Rosenberry, Kenneth R. Shoemaker, Glenn W. Snoke, John S. Ward, and
Joel R. Zullinger (collectively, the "Orrstown Defendants"),
alleging securities violations in connection with Orrstown's March
2010 public offering of approximately 1.4 million shares of common
stock, which raised almost $40 million.

SEPTA's claims related to Orrstown's report of significant losses
for the fourth quarter of 2011, and the filing of its 2011 Annual
Report on March 15, 2012, which disclosed that Orrstown had a
"material weakness" in its internal controls and did not maintain
effective internal control over the process to prepare and report
information related to loan ratings and its impact on the allowance
for loan losses as of Dec. 31, 2011. Its claims also related to
Orrstown's March 23, 2012 revelation that it had entered into an
agreement with the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank and a consent
order writh the Pennsylvania Department of Banking, requiring
Orrstown to revise its underwriting and credit administration
policies and strengthen its credit risk management practices.

On Aug. 20, 2012, the Court appointed SEPTA as the Lead Plaintiff
and approved Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP as the
Lead Counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act.

On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed a First Amended Complaint, adding as
Defendants Orrstown's auditor Smith Elliott Kearns & Co. LLC
("SEK") and the underwriters involved in the Offering, Janney
Montgomery Scott, LLC and Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. (the
"Underwriter Defendants"), and alleging that the Defendants issued
materially untrue and/or misleading statements and omissions in
violation of both the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act
of 1934.

EPTA asserted claims on behalf of two classes: (1) the "Securities
Act Class," i.e., persons and/or entities who purchased Orrstown
common stock pursuant to, or traceable to, Orrstown's Feb. 8, 2010
Registration Statement and March 23, 2010 Prospectus Supplement
(the "Offering Documents") issued in connection with its secondary
stock offering in March 2010 and were damaged thereby; and (2) the
"Exchange Act Class," i.e., persons and/or entities who purchased
Orrstown common stock on the open market between March 15, 2010 and
April 5, 2012 (the "class period")3 and were damaged thereby. SEPTA
acquired Orrstown stock pursuant to the Offering Documents for the
March 2010 Offering and also purchased Orrstown common stock on the
open market during the class period. Following extensive briefing,
the Court dismissed SEPTA's claims for failure to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted.

Subsequently, SEPTA, with the Court's permission, filed a Second
Amended Complaint against the same Defendants. All the Defendants
moved to dismiss the SAC, and while their motions were pending, on
Sept. 27, 2016, the Orrstown Defendants filed a Notice of
Subsequent Event in Further Support of their Motion to Dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint. Pursuant to the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC")'s Order Instituting Administrative and
Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the
Securities Act of 1933, Sections 4C and 21C of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 102(e) of the Commission's Rules of
Practice, Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and
Cease-and-Desist Orders, Orrstown was required to pay a civil
monetary penalty of $1 million, and Quinn, Everly, and Embly were
required to pay civil penalties of $100,000 each.

On Dec. 7, 2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss as to SEK
and the Underwriter Defendants and granted in part and denied in
part the Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss. After the issuance
of the Court's Dec. 7, 2016 Order regarding the parties' motions to
dismiss the SAC, the claims remaining in this case consisted of
Exchange Act claims under Section 10(b) and rule 10b-5 against
Orrstown, the Bank, Quinn, Everly, and Embly, as well as a Section
20(a) claim for control person liability against Quinn, Everly, and
Embly.

In April 2019 SEPTA sought leave to file its operative pleading,
the Third Amended Complaint. After requesting supplemental briefing
and hearing argument, the Third Circuit issued its Opinion and
Judgment affirming the Court's Order permitting the filing of the
TAC on Sept. 2, 2021.

After Defendants filed answers to the TAC, on Oct. 5, 2022, the
Court held a status conference with the parties, at which time they
informed the Court that they planned to re-engage in settlement
discussions. Subsequently, the parties separately re-engaged with
Mr. Robert Meyer, an experienced JAMS mediator, on several
occasions to discuss their respective positions, and, on Oct. 28,
2022, the parties engaged in a full-day mediation session with Mr.
Meyer.

Thereafter, Mr. Meyer presented the parties with a mediator's
proposal to assist them in coming to an agreement-in-principle to
resolve this case. The parties accepted Mr. Meyer's proposal and,
on Nov. 7, 2022, executed a memorandum of understanding setting
forth their agreement-in-principle to resolve and settle the case
in exchange for a total payment of $15 million to the proposed
Class, inclusive of fees and costs. The parties then negotiated the
terms of the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement.

The parties' Stipulation provides that the Defendants will pay a
total of $15 million ("Settlement Amount") in exchange for the
release of all claims that were or could have been asserted
relating to Defendants' conduct as set forth in the TAC. Of the
total Settlement Amount, Orrstown will pay $13 million and SEK will
pay $2 million. The costs of notice to the Class and the costs of
settlement administration ("Notice and Administration Fees"),
court-approved attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, taxes, and
any other Court-approved fees or expenses are to be paid from the
Settlement Fund (which consists of the Settlement Amount plus any
interest earned thereon).

The balance of the Settlement Fund is to be distributed pursuant to
the proposed Plan of Allocation to Class Members submitting timely,
valid claims, and whose payments would equal $10 or more. Any
balance remaining after a reasonable period of time after the
initial distribution date will be reallocated among Authorized
Claimants in an equitable fashion, if feasible. The Stipulation
provides that any de minimis balance remaining in the Net
Settlement Fund will be distributed to MidPenn Legal Services, or a
non-profit non-sectarian organization chosen by the Court.

On Dec. 8, 2022, SEPTA filed its Unopposed Motion for Entry of An
Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Establishing Notice
Procedures, and Setting Settlement Hearing Date. By way of the
instant motion, SEPTA seeks an Order that: (1) preliminarily
approves the proposed $15 million class action Settlement with
Defendants; (2) preliminarily certifies the proposed Class for
purposes of the Settlement only; (3) preliminarily appoints
Plaintiff SEPTA to represent the Class; (4) preliminarily appoints
Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP as the Class
Counsel; (5) appoints a Settlement Claims Administrator; (6)
approves the form, content, and plan for dissemination of the
long-form notice ("Notice"), Claim Form, and summary form of the
Notice for publication ("Summary Notice"), attached as Exhibits
A-1, A-2, and A-3 to the Preliminary Approval Order (Exhibit A to
the Stipulation), respectively; (7) preliminarily approves the Plan
for Allocation for the Net Settlement Fund as set forth in the
Notice; (8) establishes deadlines and procedures for Class Members
to opt-out or exclude themselves from the Class and Settlement or
to object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or Class
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses; and (9) schedules a final fairness hearing on
the proposed Settlement.

Judge Kane finds that (i) the proposed Settlement Class satisfies
the requirements of Rule 23; and (ii) the proposed Notice's form
and substance meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) and 23(e)(1), as well as the PSLRA and due
process.

Accordingly, Judge Kane grants the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement and preliminarily
certifies the proposed Settlement Class. She also approves the
proposed Notice to the Settlement Class, and the appointment of
Kroll Settlement Administration, LLC, to serve as the Claims
Administrator for the Settlement, and will schedule a Settlement
Hearing. An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2023 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2su8n9t5 from Leagle.com.


PIONEER BANCORP: Has Until Feb. 28 to Respond to Brandes Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pioneer Bancorp Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2023, that the deadline for
the Company to respond to the Brandes putative class suit is on
February 28, 2023.

On September 2, 2022, Brandes & Yancy PLLC and Ricardo's
Restaurant, Inc., two alleged clients of Southwestern, filed a
putative class action complaints were filed against the Pioneer
Parties in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany
County. It seeks to assert claims on behalf of all current or
former Southwestern clients based on the same set of facts as the
DOJ, AXH, and Granite Solutions complaints as described below, and
the alleged taxes sought in the DOJ, Southwestern, and NatPay
complaints.

It asserts claims against the Pioneer Parties for conversion, gross
negligence, unjust enrichment, money had and received, tortious
interference with contract, aiding and abetting fraud, and a
declaratory judgment.

It also seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, plus
pre-judgment interest, costs, expenses, disbursements, and
reasonable attorneys' fees.

The Pioneer Parties acknowledged service of the complaints as of
December 30, 2022.

By agreement among the parties, the Pioneer Parties' deadline to
respond to the complaints currently is February 28, 2023.

On October 31, 2019, Southwestern Payroll Services, Inc. filed a
complaint against the Company and the Bank ("Pioneer Parties"),
Michael T. Mann, Valuewise Corporation, MyPayrollHR, LLC and Cloud
Payroll, LLC (the "Mann Parties") in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of New York. The complaint alleged
that the Pioneer Parties (i) wrongfully converted certain funds
belonging to Southwestern, (ii) engaged in fraudulent and wrongful
collection and retention of funds belonging to Southwestern, and
(iii) committed gross negligence and that Southwestern is entitled
to a constructive trust limiting how the Pioneer Parties distribute
the funds in question, which are about $9.8 million. On November
26, 2019, the Pioneer Parties moved to dismiss Southwestern's fraud
claim, which also postponed the Pioneer Parties' deadline to file
an answer until 14 days after the court decided the motion to
dismiss. On December 10, 2019, Southwestern filed a response to the
Pioneer Parties' motion to dismiss and an amended complaint, which
rendered the Pioneer Parties' motion to dismiss moot. The amended
complaint named several additional corporate entities affiliated
with the Mann Parties as co-defendants and asserted claims against
the Pioneer Parties for declaratory judgment, conversion, actual
and constructive fraud, gross negligence, unjust enrichment and
constructive trust, and an accounting. The amended complaint sought
a monetary judgment of at least $9.8 million. Each party has filed
numerous motions in the proceedings. On January 10, 2020, the
Pioneer Parties moved again to dismiss Southwestern's fraud claim
in the amended complaint, which also postponed the Pioneer Parties'
deadline to file an answer to the amended complaint until 14 days
after the court decided the motion to dismiss. On April 16, 2020,
the court granted the Pioneer Parties' motion to dismiss
Southwestern's fraud claim. On April 30, 2020, Southwestern filed a
motion for both leave to file a second amended complaint and for
reconsideration of the court's dismissal of Southwestern's fraud
claim. On May 1, 2020, the Pioneer Parties filed their answer to
Southwestern's amended complaint. The Pioneer Parties asserted
numerous affirmative defenses, counterclaims against Southwestern,
and cross-claims against certain of the Mann Parties, including for
common law fraud under New York law and violations of the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"). The
Pioneer Parties contend that the actions of Southwestern and
certain of the Mann Parties resulted in damages of $15.6 million,
plus pre-judgment interest. On July 7, 2020, the court granted
Southwestern leave to file a second amended complaint, which
Southwestern filed on July 16, 2020. Southwestern's second amended
complaint asserted claims against the Pioneer Parties for
declaratory judgment, conversion, actual and constructive fraud,
gross negligence, unjust enrichment and constructive trust, and an
accounting – and sought a monetary judgment of at least $9.8
million. On July 30, 2020, the Pioneer Parties filed an amended
answer to Southwestern's second amended complaint, which asserted
the same affirmative defenses, counterclaims, and cross-claims as
the Pioneer Parties' prior answer to Southwestern's amended
complaint. On March 16, 2021, the Pioneer Parties filed a second
amended answer to Southwestern's second amended complaint, which
asserted certain additional affirmative defenses but was otherwise
identical to the Pioneer Parties' amended answer. On October 8,
2021, Southwestern moved for leave to file a proposed third amended
complaint, which would add Granite Solutions Groupe, Inc. as a
plaintiff and would assert claims against the Pioneer Parties for
declaratory judgment, conversion, fraud, negligence/gross
negligence, unjust enrichment/money had and received, violations of
RICO, aiding and abetting conversion, and aiding and abetting fraud
– and would seek a monetary judgment of at least $39 million. The
Pioneer Parties vigorously dispute the assertions and claims in
Southwestern's proposed third amended complaint. On November 15,
2021, the Pioneer Parties filed papers in opposition to
Southwestern's motion for leave to file its proposed third amended
complaint. On September 12, 2022, the Court entered a memorandum
decision and order denying Southwestern's motion. On September 26,
2022, Southwestern appealed that decision to the district judge
presiding over the case. On October 17, 2022, the Pioneer Parties
filed their response in opposition to the appeal. On October 26,
2022, the court granted Southwestern leave to file a reply in
further support of the appeal, which was filed on November 7, 2022.
The appeal is currently pending before the court. This matter is
currently in discovery.

On December 10, 2019, National Payment Corp. ("NatPay") filed a
motion to intervene as a plaintiff in Southwestern's lawsuit
against the Pioneer Parties and the Mann Parties as described
above. On January 10, 2020, the Pioneer Parties filed opposition to
NatPay's motion to intervene. On August 4, 2020, the magistrate
judge issued a decision recommending that NatPay be allowed to
intervene, which was subsequently accepted by the court. NatPay
filed its complaint in intervention on August 18, 2020. NatPay's
complaint includes claims for declaratory judgment, conversion,
fraud, gross negligence, unjust enrichment and constructive trust,
and for an accounting against the Pioneer Parties. The prayer for
relief in NatPay's complaint seeks "compensatory damages in an
amount of no less than $4 million" (the complaint also seeks
punitive damages and interest in unspecified amounts). On September
8, 2020, the Pioneer Parties filed their answer and affirmative
defenses to NatPay's complaint. On March 16, 2021, the Pioneer
Parties filed an amended answer to NatPay's complaint, which
asserted certain additional affirmative defenses but was otherwise
identical to the Pioneer Parties' answer. On October 8, 2021,
NatPay moved for leave to file a proposed amended complaint, which
would assert claims against the Pioneer Parties for declaratory
judgment, conversion, fraud, negligence/gross negligence, unjust
enrichment/money had and received, violations of RICO, aiding and
abetting conversion, and aiding and abetting fraud – and would
seek a monetary judgment of at least $11.4 million. The Pioneer
Parties vigorously dispute the assertions and claims in NatPay's
proposed amended complaint. On November 15, 2021, the Pioneer
Parties filed papers in opposition to NatPay's motion for leave to
file its proposed amended complaint. On September 12, 2022, the
Court entered a memorandum decision and order granting NatPay's
motion only to the limited extent of allowing NatPay to assert its
proposed claim for unjust enrichment and otherwise denied the
motion On September 26, 2022, NatPay appealed that decision to the
district judge presiding over the case. On October 17, 2022, the
Pioneer Parties filed their response in opposition to the appeal.
On October 26, 2022, the court granted NatPay leave to file a reply
in further support of the appeal, which was filed on November 7,
2022. The appeal is currently pending before the court. This matter
is currently in discovery.

On April 30, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"), with the
authorization of a delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury, filed
a civil complaint against the Company and the Bank (and Cloud
Payroll, LLC) in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of New York. The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the Pioneer Parties wrongfully set off approximately $7.3
million from an account held by Cloud Payroll to apply towards
debts allegedly owed to the Bank by Cloud Payroll and other
affiliates of Michael Mann. The complaint alleges that the funds in
question were comprised of payroll taxes and thus subject to a
statutory trust under 26 U.S.C. § 7501 that prohibited the Bank
from setting off those funds to apply towards debts owed to the
Bank. The complaint seeks return of any payroll taxes, plus
interest. The Pioneer Parties moved to dismiss the DOJ's complaint
against them on October 1, 2020. On October 21, 2020, the DOJ filed
an amended complaint, which mooted the Pioneer Parties' motion to
dismiss the DOJ's original complaint. The amended complaint dropped
one of the DOJ's claims against the Pioneer Parties but continues
to seek return of any payroll taxes, plus interest. The amended
complaint relates to the same set of facts described above in "Mann
Entities Related Fraudulent Activity." and the alleged payroll
taxes, plus interest, sought in this proceeding may be part of the
recovery sought in the Southwestern and NatPay complaints described
above. On November 4, 2020, the Pioneer Parties filed their answer
and affirmative defenses to the DOJ’s amended complaint. By order
dated November 19, 2021, discovery in this matter was stayed to
permit the parties to discuss a potential resolution. On November
9, 2022, the parties submitted a joint status report advising the
court that the matter had not been resolved and requesting that the
court enter a schedule for completion of discovery. The court
thereafter entered an order on November 14, 2022 setting a schedule
for completion of discovery. This matter is currently in
discovery.

On August 31, 2020, AXH Air-Coolers, LLC filed a complaint against
the Pioneer Parties, and unnamed employees of the Pioneer Parties
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
New York. The complaint alleges that the Pioneer Parties (i)
wrongfully converted certain tax funds belonging to AXH, (ii) were
unjustly enriched by the wrongful taking of tax funds belonging to
AXH, and (iii) were grossly negligent in allowing AXH's tax funds
to be misappropriated, offset, converted, or stolen. The prayer for
relief in AXH's complaint seeks $336,000, plus penalties and
interest, attorney's fees, and punitive damages. The complaint
relates to the same set of facts as the DOJ complaint as described
above, and the alleged taxes sought in the DOJ, Southwestern, and
NatPay complaints. On November 5, 2020, the Pioneer Parties moved
to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On November 22, 2021, the
court dismissed AXH's conversion, gross negligence, and accounting
claims against the Pioneer Parties without prejudice. On December
12, 2021, AXH moved for leave to file a proposed amended complaint,
which would assert claims for conversion, gross negligence, and
unjust enrichment against the Pioneer Parties and seeks the same
damages as AXH's original complaint.  The Pioneer Parties
vigorously dispute the assertions and claims in AXH's proposed
amended complaint. On January 14, 2022, the Pioneer Parties filed
papers in opposition to AXH's motion for leave to file its proposed
amended complaint, and the Pioneer Parties also cross-moved to
dismiss AXH's unjust enrichment claim or, in the alternative, for
reconsideration of the court's decision not to dismiss AXH's unjust
enrichment claim. On August 2, 2022, the court denied AXH's motion
for leave to file a proposed amended complaint asserting a claim
for conversion but granted AXH leave to file an amended complaint
containing claims for gross negligence and unjust enrichment. On
August 12, 2022, AXH filed an amended complaint asserting gross
negligence, unjust enrichment, and accounting claims against the
Pioneer Parties. On August 26, 2022, the Pioneer Parties filed
their answer to the amended complaint. The Pioneer Parties
vigorously dispute the claims and allegations in AXH's amended
complaint. This matter is currently in discovery.

Pioneer Bancorp, Inc. is a mid-tier stock holding company whose
wholly owned subsidiary is Pioneer Bank. The Bank is a New York
State chartered savings bank whose wholly owned subsidiaries are
Pioneer Commercial Bank, Anchor Agency, Inc. and Pioneer Financial
Services, Inc. It provides diversified financial services through
the Bank and its subsidiaries, with 22 offices in the Capital
Region of New York State.

PIONEER BANCORP: Has Until Feb. 28 to Respond to O'Malley Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pioneer Bancorp Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2023, that the deadline for
the Company to respond to the O'Malley putative class suit is on
February 28, 2023.

On September 2, 2022, O'Malley's Oven LLC and Legat Architects,
Inc., two alleged clients of MyPayrollHR.Com, LLC and ProData
Payroll Services, Inc., affiliates of Cloud Payroll, LLC
(collectively, "Cloud Payroll"), filed a putative class action
complaints against the Pioneer Parties in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York for Albany County. The two named plaintiffs seek
to assert claims on behalf of all current or former Cloud Payroll
clients based on the same set of facts as the DOJ, AXH, and Granite
Solutions complaints as described below, and the alleged taxes
sought in the DOJ, Southwestern, and NatPay complaints.
.
It asserts claims against the Pioneer Parties for conversion, gross
negligence, unjust enrichment, money had and received, tortious
interference with contract, aiding and abetting fraud, and a
declaratory judgment.

It also seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, plus
pre-judgment interest, costs, expenses, disbursements, and
reasonable attorneys' fees.

The Pioneer Parties acknowledged service of the complaints as of
December 30, 2022.

By agreement among the parties, the Pioneer Parties' deadline to
respond to the complaints currently is February 28, 2023.

On October 31, 2019, Southwestern Payroll Services, Inc. filed a
complaint against the Company and the Bank ("Pioneer Parties"),
Michael T. Mann, Valuewise Corporation, MyPayrollHR, LLC and Cloud
Payroll, LLC (the "Mann Parties") in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of New York. The complaint alleged
that the Pioneer Parties (i) wrongfully converted certain funds
belonging to Southwestern, (ii) engaged in fraudulent and wrongful
collection and retention of funds belonging to Southwestern, and
(iii) committed gross negligence and that Southwestern is entitled
to a constructive trust limiting how the Pioneer Parties distribute
the funds in question, which are about $9.8 million. On November
26, 2019, the Pioneer Parties moved to dismiss Southwestern's fraud
claim, which also postponed the Pioneer Parties' deadline to file
an answer until 14 days after the court decided the motion to
dismiss. On December 10, 2019, Southwestern filed a response to the
Pioneer Parties' motion to dismiss and an amended complaint, which
rendered the Pioneer Parties' motion to dismiss moot. The amended
complaint named several additional corporate entities affiliated
with the Mann Parties as co-defendants and asserted claims against
the Pioneer Parties for declaratory judgment, conversion, actual
and constructive fraud, gross negligence, unjust enrichment and
constructive trust, and an accounting. The amended complaint sought
a monetary judgment of at least $9.8 million. Each party has filed
numerous motions in the proceedings. On January 10, 2020, the
Pioneer Parties moved again to dismiss Southwestern's fraud claim
in the amended complaint, which also postponed the Pioneer Parties'
deadline to file an answer to the amended complaint until 14 days
after the court decided the motion to dismiss. On April 16, 2020,
the court granted the Pioneer Parties' motion to dismiss
Southwestern's fraud claim. On April 30, 2020, Southwestern filed a
motion for both leave to file a second amended complaint and for
reconsideration of the court's dismissal of Southwestern's fraud
claim. On May 1, 2020, the Pioneer Parties filed their answer to
Southwestern's amended complaint. The Pioneer Parties asserted
numerous affirmative defenses, counterclaims against Southwestern,
and cross-claims against certain of the Mann Parties, including for
common law fraud under New York law and violations of the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"). The
Pioneer Parties contend that the actions of Southwestern and
certain of the Mann Parties resulted in damages of $15.6 million,
plus pre-judgment interest. On July 7, 2020, the court granted
Southwestern leave to file a second amended complaint, which
Southwestern filed on July 16, 2020. Southwestern's second amended
complaint asserted claims against the Pioneer Parties for
declaratory judgment, conversion, actual and constructive fraud,
gross negligence, unjust enrichment and constructive trust, and an
accounting – and sought a monetary judgment of at least $9.8
million. On July 30, 2020, the Pioneer Parties filed an amended
answer to Southwestern's second amended complaint, which asserted
the same affirmative defenses, counterclaims, and cross-claims as
the Pioneer Parties' prior answer to Southwestern's amended
complaint. On March 16, 2021, the Pioneer Parties filed a second
amended answer to Southwestern's second amended complaint, which
asserted certain additional affirmative defenses but was otherwise
identical to the Pioneer Parties' amended answer. On October 8,
2021, Southwestern moved for leave to file a proposed third amended
complaint, which would add Granite Solutions Groupe, Inc. as a
plaintiff and would assert claims against the Pioneer Parties for
declaratory judgment, conversion, fraud, negligence/gross
negligence, unjust enrichment/money had and received, violations of
RICO, aiding and abetting conversion, and aiding and abetting fraud
– and would seek a monetary judgment of at least $39 million. The
Pioneer Parties vigorously dispute the assertions and claims in
Southwestern's proposed third amended complaint. On November 15,
2021, the Pioneer Parties filed papers in opposition to
Southwestern’s motion for leave to file its proposed third
amended complaint. On September 12, 2022, the Court entered a
memorandum decision and order denying Southwestern's motion. On
September 26, 2022, Southwestern appealed that decision to the
district judge presiding over the case. On October 17, 2022, the
Pioneer Parties filed their response in opposition to the appeal.
On October 26, 2022, the court granted Southwestern leave to file a
reply in further support of the appeal, which was filed on November
7, 2022. The appeal is currently pending before the court. This
matter is currently in discovery.

On December 10, 2019, National Payment Corp. ("NatPay") filed a
motion to intervene as a plaintiff in Southwestern's lawsuit
against the Pioneer Parties and the Mann Parties as described
above. On January 10, 2020, the Pioneer Parties filed opposition to
NatPay's motion to intervene. On August 4, 2020, the magistrate
judge issued a decision recommending that NatPay be allowed to
intervene, which was subsequently accepted by the court. NatPay
filed its complaint in intervention on August 18, 2020. NatPay's
complaint includes claims for declaratory judgment, conversion,
fraud, gross negligence, unjust enrichment and constructive trust,
and for an accounting against the Pioneer Parties. The prayer for
relief in NatPay's complaint seeks "compensatory damages in an
amount of no less than $4 million" (the complaint also seeks
punitive damages and interest in unspecified amounts). On September
8, 2020, the Pioneer Parties filed their answer and affirmative
defenses to NatPay's complaint. On March 16, 2021, the Pioneer
Parties filed an amended answer to NatPay's complaint, which
asserted certain additional affirmative defenses but was otherwise
identical to the Pioneer Parties' answer. On October 8, 2021,
NatPay moved for leave to file a proposed amended complaint, which
would assert claims against the Pioneer Parties for declaratory
judgment, conversion, fraud, negligence/gross negligence, unjust
enrichment/money had and received, violations of RICO, aiding and
abetting conversion, and aiding and abetting fraud – and would
seek a monetary judgment of at least $11.4 million. The Pioneer
Parties vigorously dispute the assertions and claims in NatPay's
proposed amended complaint. On November 15, 2021, the Pioneer
Parties filed papers in opposition to NatPay's motion for leave to
file its proposed amended complaint. On September 12, 2022, the
Court entered a memorandum decision and order granting NatPay's
motion only to the limited extent of allowing NatPay to assert its
proposed claim for unjust enrichment and otherwise denied the
motion On September 26, 2022, NatPay appealed that decision to the
district judge presiding over the case. On October 17, 2022, the
Pioneer Parties filed their response in opposition to the appeal.
On October 26, 2022, the court granted NatPay leave to file a reply
in further support of the appeal, which was filed on November 7,
2022. The appeal is currently pending before the court. This matter
is currently in discovery.

On April 30, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"), with the
authorization of a delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury, filed
a civil complaint against the Company and the Bank (and Cloud
Payroll, LLC) in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of New York. The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the Pioneer Parties wrongfully set off approximately $7.3
million from an account held by Cloud Payroll to apply towards
debts allegedly owed to the Bank by Cloud Payroll and other
affiliates of Michael Mann. The complaint alleges that the funds in
question were comprised of payroll taxes and thus subject to a
statutory trust under 26 U.S.C. § 7501 that prohibited the Bank
from setting off those funds to apply towards debts owed to the
Bank. The complaint seeks return of any payroll taxes, plus
interest. The Pioneer Parties moved to dismiss the DOJ's complaint
against them on October 1, 2020. On October 21, 2020, the DOJ filed
an amended complaint, which mooted the Pioneer Parties' motion to
dismiss the DOJ's original complaint. The amended complaint dropped
one of the DOJ's claims against the Pioneer Parties but continues
to seek return of any payroll taxes, plus interest. The amended
complaint relates to the same set of facts described above in "Mann
Entities Related Fraudulent Activity." and the alleged payroll
taxes, plus interest, sought in this proceeding may be part of the
recovery sought in the Southwestern and NatPay complaints described
above. On November 4, 2020, the Pioneer Parties filed their answer
and affirmative defenses to the DOJ’s amended complaint. By order
dated November 19, 2021, discovery in this matter was stayed to
permit the parties to discuss a potential resolution. On November
9, 2022, the parties submitted a joint status report advising the
court that the matter had not been resolved and requesting that the
court enter a schedule for completion of discovery. The court
thereafter entered an order on November 14, 2022 setting a schedule
for completion of discovery. This matter is currently in
discovery.

On August 31, 2020, AXH Air-Coolers, LLC filed a complaint against
the Pioneer Parties, and unnamed employees of the Pioneer Parties
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
New York. The complaint alleges that the Pioneer Parties (i)
wrongfully converted certain tax funds belonging to AXH, (ii) were
unjustly enriched by the wrongful taking of tax funds belonging to
AXH, and (iii) were grossly negligent in allowing AXH's tax funds
to be misappropriated, offset, converted, or stolen. The prayer for
relief in AXH's complaint seeks $336,000, plus penalties and
interest, attorney's fees, and punitive damages. The complaint
relates to the same set of facts as the DOJ complaint as described
above, and the alleged taxes sought in the DOJ, Southwestern, and
NatPay complaints. On November 5, 2020, the Pioneer Parties moved
to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On November 22, 2021, the
court dismissed AXH's conversion, gross negligence, and accounting
claims against the Pioneer Parties without prejudice. On December
12, 2021, AXH moved for leave to file a proposed amended complaint,
which would assert claims for conversion, gross negligence, and
unjust enrichment against the Pioneer Parties and seeks the same
damages as AXH's original complaint.  The Pioneer Parties
vigorously dispute the assertions and claims in AXH's proposed
amended complaint. On January 14, 2022, the Pioneer Parties filed
papers in opposition to AXH's motion for leave to file its proposed
amended complaint, and the Pioneer Parties also cross-moved to
dismiss AXH's unjust enrichment claim or, in the alternative, for
reconsideration of the court's decision not to dismiss AXH's unjust
enrichment claim. On August 2, 2022, the court denied AXH's motion
for leave to file a proposed amended complaint asserting a claim
for conversion but granted AXH leave to file an amended complaint
containing claims for gross negligence and unjust enrichment. On
August 12, 2022, AXH filed an amended complaint asserting gross
negligence, unjust enrichment, and accounting claims against the
Pioneer Parties. On August 26, 2022, the Pioneer Parties filed
their answer to the amended complaint. The Pioneer Parties
vigorously dispute the claims and allegations in AXH's amended
complaint. This matter is currently in discovery.

Pioneer Bancorp, Inc. is a mid-tier stock holding company whose
wholly owned subsidiary is Pioneer Bank. The Bank is a New York
State chartered savings bank whose wholly owned subsidiaries are
Pioneer Commercial Bank, Anchor Agency, Inc. and Pioneer Financial
Services, Inc. It provides diversified financial services through
the Bank and its subsidiaries, with 22 offices in the Capital
Region of New York State.


SAN DIEGO, CA: Appointment of Counsel in Sekerke v. Arkwright Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEITH WAYNE SEKERKE, Plaintiff v. ADAM ARKWRIGHT, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01045-JO-AHG (S.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California denies Sekerke's Motion for
Appointment of Counsel, Motion to Serve Interrogatories, and Motion
to Reopen Discovery and Appoint Expert Witness.

The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis and
currently incarcerated at Valley State Prison, filed a civil
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 relating to incidents
that occurred while incarcerated at San Diego Central Jail in San
Diego, California.

On Jan. 17, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for
Appointment of Counsel. He seeks to convert his individual claims
into a class action, and argues that the counsel is necessary due
to the complexity of the case and due to his difficulty locating
additional plaintiffs and evidence.

On Jan. 23, 2023, the Defendant filed a notice informing the Court
that he opposes the Plaintiff's motion. It requests a briefing
schedule for the filing of his opposition, to avoid any ambiguity
regarding this motion being construed as an ex parte application
that is unopposed. In its discretion, to avoid delay, the Court
takes the Plaintiff's motion under submission without an
opposition.

First, Judge Goddard examines the threshold requirements that the
Plaintiff is indigent and has made a reasonably diligent effort to
secure counsel. She acknowledged the Plaintiff's indigence when the
Court granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. However, the
Plaintiff does not include any information in his motion about
whether he has attempted to secure counsel on his own. The
Plaintiff's lack of funds alone does not demonstrate that efforts
to secure counsel necessarily would be futile.

Though the Plaintiff did not satisfy a threshold requirement, for
completeness, Judge Goddard proceeds to the next step of the
analysis to determine whether the Plaintiff can show exceptional
circumstances justifying court-appointed counsel by examining the
likelihood of him succeeding on the merits and his ability to
proceed without counsel.

Although the Plaintiff is indigent, Judge Goddard finds that he has
failed to show that he made reasonable efforts to obtain counsel or
that exceptional circumstances require appointment of counsel.
Thus, she denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel
without prejudice.

In his motion to serve interrogatories and requests for admission
to various non-parties, the Plaintiff seeks permission to serve
interrogatories on another inmate, 16 correctional facility
employees, and two former correctional facility psychologists. He
contends that these non-parties, especially the two psychologists,
are vital witnesses because they personally experienced the
conditions he alleges in his complaint.

Judge Goddard says the Plaintiff requests to serve interrogatories
on non-parties, which is not permitted by the Federal Rules. As
such, his request to serve interrogatories on non-parties is
denied. The Plaintiff also mentioned seeking a subpoena duces tecum
to serve interrogatories and request for admissions upon
non-parties. However, a subpoena duces tecum does not include
provisions for interrogatories or requests for admission. As such,
the Plaintiff's request to use a Rule 45 subpoena to serve
interrogatories or requests for admission on non-parties is also
denied.

Thus, since the Plaintiff's request is not consistent with Rule
26(b)(1) or (2), Judge Goddard denies leave to take 19 depositions
by written questions and the Plaintiff's request is denied. SHe
encourages the parties to work together to ensure that this matter
is resolved on the merits and will hear argument regarding the case
schedule at the upcoming discovery conference.

In his motion to reopen discovery and appoint an expert witness,
the Plaintiff requests a court-appointed expert for three main
reasons: (1) the Plaintiff is unable to obtain his own expert
because he cannot afford one, (2) the medical issues in the case
are complex, and (3) because he disagrees with the report produced
by the Defendant's expert, providing arguments and exhibits to
refute the expert's findings. He explains that he can call the
Defendant and his experts] liars until he is blue in the face, but
it is easier to just prove them wrong and prove them to be liars.

Judge Goddard is not persuaded that an expert should be appointed.
First, the Plaintiff is asking the Court to appoint an expert
witness to advocate on his behalf. Second, his inability to pay for
an expert is not a basis for the Court to appoint experts within
its discretion. Third, the Plaintiff has not adequately explained
why an appointed neutral expert is necessary to assist the Court in
understanding the case. Therefore, Judge Goddard denies the
Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Expert Witness.

Relatedly, the Plaintiff requests that the Court reopens discovery
so that he can obtain certain medical records to refute the
Defendant's expert report.

Judge Goddard notes that the expert discovery deadline has not yet
passed. Thus, she denies the Plaintiff's request as moot. Insofar
as the Plaintiff is requesting to reopen fact discovery, though the
Court is inclined to rule that the Plaintiff has not shown the
diligence necessary to find good cause to extend the discovery
deadline, Judge Goddard defers ruling on that issue until the
upcoming discovery conference, where the Court will discuss the
matter with both sides.

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Goddard denies without
prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Motion
to Serve Interrogatories, and Motion to Appoint Expert Witness. She
denies as moot the Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Expert Discovery.
Insofar as the Plaintiff is requesting to reopen fact discovery,
she defers ruling on that issue until the upcoming discovery
conference.

Judge Goddard orders the Defendant's counsel and the Valley State
Prison Litigation Coordinators to ensure that a copy of the Order
is provided to the Plaintiff since he is unlikely to receive the
mailed copy in time.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2cvmhrt8 from Leagle.com.


TELLURIDE RESORT: Alvarez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
KARINA RUIZ ALVAREZ, KARLA GONZALEZ VELEZ, GABRIELA MOCTEZUMA
CASTILLO, and AMELIA COLON CHAIREZ, on their own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TELLURIDE
RESORT PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a MADELINE HOTEL & RESIDENCES, MOUNTAIN
PREMIER CLEANING SERVICES, L.L.C., and ADRIANA SANTA ANA
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00354 (D. Colo., Feb. 7, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay
Standards Order, the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, and the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act.

The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failure to provide mandatory compensated rest
breaks, breach of H-2B employment contract, retaliatory discharge
in response to demanding overtime wages, failure to provide public
health emergency leave, confiscation of government identification
document, and attempted forced labor.

The Plaintiffs and other Mexican citizen guestworkers were employed
by the Defendants and were brought to the United States by
Defendant MPC as housekeepers at the Madeline Hotel at times
between February 7, 2020 and the present.

Telluride Resort Partners, LLC, does business under the trade name
Madeline Hotel & Residences, which operates hotel and resort
located in Telluride, Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Natasha Viteri, Esq.
          TOWARDS JUSTICE
          PO Box 371680, PMB 44465
          Denver, CO 80237-5680
          Telephone: (720) 441-2236
          E-mail: natasha@towardsjustice.org

               - and -

          Andrew H. Turner, Esq.
          MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC
          1490 Lafayette St. #304
          Denver, CO. 80218
          Telephone: (303) 305-8230
          E-mail: andrew@milsteinturner.com

ULTA SALON: Cabiltes Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
---------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTA CABILTES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC;
GLAMST, LLC; ADVICE ME SRL; and PERFECT CORP., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00768 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 7, 2023) is a class action for money
damages arising from Defendants' violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act in that Defendants illegally
collected, stored and used Plaintiff's and other similarly situated
individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information
without informed written consent, in direct violation of BIPA.

The Plaintiff and the Class Members are Illinois customers that had
their "biometric information" collected and stored by Defendants or
their agents through, inter alia, copying/recording of their
respective facial and hand geometry and possibly other individual
biometric data points. The Defendants' receipt, collection,
storage, and/or trading of the Plaintiff's and Class members'
biometric data was systematic and done without first obtaining the
written release required by the law, says the suit.

Further, the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class
members with a retention schedule or guidelines for permanently
destroying Plaintiff's or the Class members' biometric identifiers
or biometric information which constitutes an independent violation
of the statute, the suit alleges.

Ulta Salon is a health and beauty company which utilizes both brick
and mortar stores and an online marketplace to reach its many
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          8 N. Court St. Suite 403
          Athens, OH 45701
          Telephone: (847) 986-5889
          Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

               - and -

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

                        Asbestos Litigation


                            *********

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 ***