---

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

              Monday, February 20, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 37

                            Headlines

2192 NIAGARA: New York Court Refuses to Dismiss Davis Labor Suit
450 NORTH: Renewed Bid for Conditional Class Certification Filed
ADELPHIA THREE: Hall Wins Bid for Class Certification
AMAZON.COM INC: Marcelo Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
AMERICAN BROADCASTING: Ex-American Idol Contestant Files Labor Suit

AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Drug Price-Rigging Suits Consolidated
AMI LANDSCAPING: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Tecotl Alleges
ANNAPOLIS, MD: Federal Judge Certifies Housing Class Action Suit
APRIO LLP: Hearing on Pending Class Cert. Bid Set for Feb. 23
ASTROTECH CORP: Stein Suit Settlement for Court Approval

AUDIBLE INC: Bid to Seal Opposition Temporarily OK'd
BANK OF AMERICA: Schertzer Appeals Reconsideration Bid Ruling
BOSTIK INC: Curry Seeks Conditional Certification of FLSA Class
BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Peters Suit
BPS DIRECT: Sielski Suit Remanded to San Bernardino Superior Court

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Anders Seeks to Certify Classes
CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due April 11
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Class Certification Scheduling Order Entered
CEREBRAL INC: Lawsuit Probe Over Privacy Violation Concerns
CHARLES SCHWAB: Wright Appeals Summary Judgment to 9th Circuit

CL WEST MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wolfolk Alleges
COLUMBIANA COUNTY, OH: Class Suit Filed Following Train Derailment
CRUSADER INSURANCE: Faces Anchors & Whales Class Suit
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Edwards Seeks to Certify Class
D&H CONTRACTING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Williams Alleges

DEWITT, MI: Mich. App. Affirms Summary Disposition Against Holland
DIRECTV GROUP: Final Judgment and Dismissal Issued in Perez Suit
DIRECTV LLC: Eighth Circuit Affirms Remand of Creve Coeur Suit
DIRT CHEAP: Conditional Status of Proposed FLSA Class Sought
DLOCAL LIMITED: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims

DRDGOLD LTD: South Africa Silicosis Class Action Can Proceed
DUNGARVIN OHIO: 2nd Joint Bid for Conditional Certification Filed
ELECTROMED INC: June 5 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
EVENTIDE CREDIT: Seeks Leave to File Certain Exhibits

FII USA: Not Fully Paying Wisconsin Employees, Class Suit Says
FIRST ENERGY: Class Certification Hearing Set for March 17
FIRST ENERGY: Settlement in Buldas Suit Satisfied on Dec. 7, 2022
FIRST ENERGY: Settlement in Emmons Suit Wins Final Approval
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Deravakian Suit Administratively Closed

FLORIDA: Lawmakers Back DeSantis' Migrant Relocation Plan
FORD MOTOR: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Rathman Suit
FRONTIER MGMT: Invalid Opt-In Consent Forms Stricken in Wright Suit
GARNER, CT: Vega, et al., Files Bid for Class Certification
GEORGIA: Hogan Seeks to Certify Class of Detainees

GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 10
GLOBUS MEDICAL: Lifshitz Law Investigates Securities Claims
GREENSBORO, NC: PFAS Water Contamination Class Action Pending
HAIN CELESTIAL: Bid to Dismiss Anderberg Amended Complaint Nixed
HANESBRANDS INC: Continues to Defend Roman Class Suit in California

HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Levins Amended Complaint Tossed w/o Prejudice
HEIDI WASHINGTON: Bownes, et al., Lose Bid for Summary Judgment
HIGHBRIDGE CONSTRUCTION: Customer Seeks Class Action After Closure
HONDA MOTOR: Faces Baylor Securities Suit Over 3.23% Share Drop
IHEARTMEDIA INC: Faces Digital Privacy Class Action in Florida

IMPERIAL COUNTY: Miscalculated Pension Contributions, Suit Says
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due March 14
J. RIVELLO: Edwards Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
KIA MOTORS: Sanchez Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
KIA MOTORS: Sanchez, et al., Seek to Certify Classes, Subclasses

LETTERMAN CORP: Velasquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
LIVE VENTURES: Continue to Defend Sieggreen Class Suit in Nevada
LIVE VENTURES: Continues to Defend Sanchez Labor Class Suit
LOS ANGELES, CA: Plan to Cut Trees for Sidewalk Repairs Halted
MADAVOR MEDIA: Case Management Order Entered in Kasul Suit

MAKITA USA: Court Narrows Claims in May Suit
MARIETTA AREA: Court Narrows Claims in McCumbers Suit
MARIETTA AREA: Court Narrows Claims in Tallman Suit
MARIETTA AREA: Court Narrows Claims in Tucker Suit
MASSACHUSETTS: Class Action Over SNAP Benefits Pending

MDL 2924: Zantac Products Liability Litigation Pending
MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Allen v. Blackbaud
MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Clayton v. Blackbaud
MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Eisen v. Blackbaud
MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Graifman v. Blackbaud

MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Imhof v. Blackbaud
MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces Automotive Defect Class Action in Georgia
MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces Subframe Corrosion Class Action Lawsuit
NATIONAL BANK: Faces Suit Over Financial Discrimination in Canada
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Former Head Coach Files Class Action

NESTLE USA: Settles Coffee-Mate Class Action for $10 Million
NEW YORK, NY: Forest, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
NGL ENERGY: Underwood Class Settlement for Court Approval
NIO INC: Asks Court Permission to Submit Enclosed Sur-Reply
NOVARTIS INC: Settlement in Principle Reached in Class Suit

NOVARTIS INC: Sued Over Carcinogens in Hypertension Meds
NUVASIVE INC: Halper Sadeh Investigates Securities Violations
OASIS LEGAL: Hit With Class Suit Over Consumer Fraud Act Violation
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: May 19 Fairness Hearing on SEPTA Settlement
PEPSICO INC: Court Narrows Claims in Boone Class Suit

PERFECT BAR: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 28
PHILLIP HART BAUGNIET: Faces Sexual Abuse Class Action in Quebec
PL PHASE: Wilson Class Certification Bid Due March 13
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Drummond Bid for Time Extension Partly OK'd
R. KEITH: Fails to Pay Respiratory Therapists' OT Wages Under FLSA

RANGE RESOURCES: Approval of Settlement in Frederick Suit Affirmed
RAZVAN POP: Sapphire Trucking Wins Class Certification Bid
REALPAGE INC: Facing Class Actions Over Rental Pricing Software
RESTORATION HOLDINGS: Krausslach Files Bid for Conditional Status
RING LLC: Class Cert Bid Extended by 90 Days in White Suit

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Court Sets Case Schedule in Moore Class Suit
ROIVANT SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Immunovant Securities Suit
SESEN BIO INC: Settles Consolidated Shareholder Suit in NY Court
SHIFTPIXY INC: Faces Splond Labor Suit in NV Court
SNAP INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in Delaware Court

SNAP INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Misleading Statements
STAR ENTERTAINMENT: PFM Files Shareholder Class Action Suit
SUN LIFE: Lewis-Abdulhaadi Files Bid for Class Certification
SUNVALLEYTEK INT'L: Oh Must File Class Certification Bid by March 3
SUPERCELL OY: Mai Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit

SWISS RE: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Essential Suit Denied
THOMSON REUTERS: Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal
TIERNO CARE: Castro Files Bid for Class Certification
TIERNO CARE: Castro Seeks to Certify Home Health Aides Class
TJ INSPECTION: Fails to Pay Inspectors' OT Wages Under FLSA

TRADER JOE'S: Faces Class Actions Over Dark Chocolate Products
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Hoffman Loses Bid for Class Certification
TWITTER INC: Protesters Support Laid-Off Workers Amid Class Action
ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Waivers Added to Contracts Amid Lawsuits
UMG RECORDINGS: Waite, et al., Bid for Class Certification Junked

UNITED HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss Certain Tamburrino Claims Granted
UNITED STATES: Asylum Seekers Allowed to Proceed Under Pseudonyms
UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Still Left Behind Despite Settlement
UNITED STATES: Calapristi Peititions for Writ of Certiorari
W.L. GORE: Residents Invited to Class Suit Over PFAS Chemicals

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
WHITESTONE HOME: Faces Robertson Class Suit Over Higher Tax Rates
XPLORE INC: Faces Suit Over Misleading Sales Tactics in Manitoba
XPO INC: 2nd Circuit Affirms Labul Class Suit Dismissal
XTO ENERGY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Response


                            *********

2192 NIAGARA: New York Court Refuses to Dismiss Davis Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard J. Arcara of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation and denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
lawsuit styled MICHELE DAVIS and VICTORIA BLASZAK, on behalf of
themselves and all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. 2192 NIAGARA STREET, LLC, CLASSIC EVENTS AT THE LAFAYETTE, LLC,
EVENTS AT THE FOUNDRY, LLC, MOLLY FORD KOESSLER, WILLIAM KOESSLER,
and RIVERFRONT ON THE NIAGARA, LLC, d/b/a ACQUA, Defendants, Case
No. 15-CV-429-RJA (W.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs brought this asserted class action against the
Defendants alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). They claim that they were
employed as hourly banquet servers at various restaurants owned or
operated by the Defendants, and that they were improperly deprived
of compensation for the work they performed.

Currently before the Court are the Defendants' objections to
Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio's Report and Recommendation
issued June 9, 2021, which recommends denying the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first cause of action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, and the Defendants' request that the
Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over three of
the Plaintiff's four state law claims.

The Defendants object to the Report and Recommendation on the
grounds that (1) under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a), the Court has no
supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' first cause of
action under NYLL Section 196-d (the "Gratuity Claim") because it
is neither parallel to the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims nor does it
arise out of the same compensation policies as the Plaintiffs' FLSA
claims; and (2) under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c), the Court should
elect not to exercise jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' Gratuity
Claim, the Plaintiffs' fifth cause of action alleging NYLL spread
of hours violations (the "Spread of Hours Claim"), and the
Plaintiffs' sixth cause of action alleging NYLL Wage Theft
Prevention Act violations (the "WTPA Claim") based on the factors
set out in Section 1367(c).

Upon a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, and after
reviewing the record and the submissions from the parties, Judge
Arcara adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

The Report and Recommendation found that the Court has supplemental
jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' Gratuity Claim under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1367(a) because it arose from the same common nucleus of
operative facts as the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims. Judge Foschio
relied on Salim Shahriar v. Smith & Wollensky Rest. Grp., Inc.,
which found that NYLL and FLSA actions clearly derive from a common
nucleus of operative facts if they arise out of the same
compensation policies and practices of a defendant.

Therefore, because the Magistrate Judge determined the Gratuity
Claim involved the same compensation policies and practices as the
FLSA claims, he concluded that the Court has supplemental
jurisdiction.

The Defendants object on the grounds that Judge Foschio purportedly
misapplied Shahriar. First, they argue that Shahriar also held that
"parallel" claims under the NYLL and FLSA share a common nucleus of
operative facts. However, nowhere in Shahriar does the Second
Circuit prescribe this as alternate grounds for establishing
supplemental jurisdiction, Judge Arcara points out. Furthermore,
even if it did, the Defendants concede that these grounds for
supplemental jurisdiction would be in addition to the "same
compensation policies and practices" grounds.

Therefore, Judge Arcara finds that the Plaintiffs' purported
failure to allege "parallel" claims would not even require
dismissing those claims. Accordingly, the Defendants'
interpretation of Shahriar is both incorrect and irrelevant to the
Report and Recommendation's analysis.

Second, the Defendants argue that the Gratuity Claim is not a part
of the "same compensation policies" as the FLSA claims because
gratuities only factor into the Plaintiffs' overtime wages (the
subject of the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims) if the Defendants availed
themselves of a "tip credit." However, Judge Arcara finds, nothing
in Shahriar indicates an alleged gratuity must calculate into the
specific compensation disputed under the FLSA claims in order to be
considered a part of the "same compensation policies and practices"
as the state claims.

Accordingly, determining whether the Defendants availed themselves
of the tip credit is unnecessary at this stage to establish
supplemental jurisdiction, Judge Arcara holds. It is sufficient
that the Gratuity Claim and the FLSA claims involve the Defendants'
compensation practices for work allegedly performed in connection
with the banquet contracts, as Judge Foschio reasoned.

And third, the Defendants argue that the Gratuity Claim is not a
part of the "same compensation policies and practices" as the FLSA
claims because the alleged gratuities were set out in
customer-facing banquet contracts and depend on customer
interpretations of the terms. However, Judge Arcara finds that the
Defendants fail to explain how the alleged gratuity's inclusion in
the banquet contracts bars its involvement in an employer's broader
compensation policies and practices. As stated, the Gratuity Claim
is based on compensation for the same work performed, at the same
events, by the same employees as the FLSA claims.

The Court agrees with Judge Foschio that these claims, therefore,
arise from the same compensation policies or practices, even if
they involve different specific terms or contracts.

Accordingly, based on the precedent set out in Shahriar and the
allegations indicating the Plaintiffs' Gratuity Claim and FLSA
claims arise from the same compensation policies and practices, the
Court finds that these claims arise from the same common nucleus of
operative facts. Therefore, the Court may exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the Gratuity Claim under 28 U.S.C. Section
1367(a).

Magistrate Judge Foschio also recommends denying the Defendants'
motion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. Section 1367(c). If the requirements of 28 U.S.C. Section
1367(a) are met, Section 1367(c) allows a court to nonetheless
elect, in its discretion, to decline jurisdiction over the state
claim if the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
among other factors.

The Court says it should only refuse to exercise jurisdiction based
on one or more of these factors if doing so would promote judicial
economy, fairness, convenience, and comity. The Court agrees with
Judge Foschio's analysis that these factors do not weigh in favor
of declining jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' Gratuity, Spread of
Hours, and WTPA Claims, and finds that the Defendants' objections
fail to raise any grounds for declining jurisdiction.

Preliminarily, the Defendants concede that the third factor is
inapplicable, because all claims with original jurisdiction have
not been dismissed by the Court. They assert, however, that the
remaining three factors enumerated in Section 1367(c) "strongly"
support their argument that the Court should decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Regarding the first factor, the Defendants argued in their motion
papers that the New York Court of Appeals decision in Samiento v.
World Yacht Inc., 10 N.Y.3d 70 (2008) indicates the Plaintiffs'
Gratuity Claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law. Judge
Foschio found to the contrary, however, that the Plaintiffs'
Gratuity Claim did not raise a novel or complex issue of state law
and Samiento does not demonstrate a "conflict between treatment of
the mandatory charges under New York tax laws and the DOL's
regulations issued with respect to NYLL Section 106-a."

The Defendants object to this conclusion on the grounds that
Samiento did not resolve this purported conflict, and instead found
only that the employer's treatment of a charge for tax purposes is
acceptable evidence of whether that charge should be considered a
gratuity. Judge Arcara holds that there is no conflict forcing the
Court to rule on a novel issue of state law should it retain
jurisdiction.

Regarding the second factor, Judge Foschio found that the state
claims do not substantially predominate over the FLSA claims, since
any possible damages disparity is irrelevant and the factual bases
of the claims are similar. The Defendants object and argue that the
state claims substantially predominate over the FLSA claims because
there are no directly parallel claims under FLSA.

However, predominance is not determined by slight differences in
the precise legal requirements of each claim, but by the factual
determinations regarding the Defendant's practices, Judge Arcara
opines. The same general factual determinations regarding the
Defendants' compensation practices underlie both the state and
federal claims in this case. The Defendants do not set forth any
factual disputes pertaining to the Plaintiffs' state claims that
are not generally relevant to their FLSA claims, as well, much less
any factual disputes substantially predominating over the case.

Lastly, as to the fourth factor, Judge Foschio found no exceptional
circumstances indicating the Court should decline jurisdiction
here. The Defendants argue that the stresses of the pandemic and
the federal courts' caseload are sufficient reasons to decline
jurisdiction. The Court disagrees, especially considering the fact
that granting the Defendants' motion would not even fully dispose
of this case.

Accordingly, none of the 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c) factors
establish a compelling reason for the Court to decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the Defendants' Gratuity, Spread of
Hours, and/or WTPA Claims.

Upon de novo review of the Report and Recommendation and the
underlying record, Judge Arcara denies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(b)(1) and for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge
Foschio's Report and Recommendation and herein, the Defendants'
motion to dismiss. The case is recommitted to Magistrate Judge
Foschio for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated Jan. 26,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3b3dzas8 from
Leagle.com.


450 NORTH: Renewed Bid for Conditional Class Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OCTAVIO COLLADO, v. 450
NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC, D/B/A KIKI ON THE RIVER, RJ RIVER, LLC AND
ROMAN JONES, Case No. 1:22-cv-23074-BB (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
entered an order conditionally certifying Count I of the Second
Amended Complaint as a collective action comprised of:

   "all captains, servers, and/or bussers who worked for
   the Defendants from September 23, 2019, to the present at
   Kiki on the River, who received tips from the "tip pool"
   controlled by Defendants, and to award the following
   additional relief:

   a. To appoint Mr. Collado as the Representative of the Class
      with authority to negotiate and appear at settlement
      conferences / mediations for the Class;

   b. To appoint Brian H. Pollock, Esq. of the FairLaw Firm as
      counsel for the Class;

   c. To require that within 10 days hereof, Defendants format
      and produce electronically an Excel spreadsheet that
      contains for each member of the Putative Class one row
      containing in each column each person's full name, last
      known home address, cellular telephone number, and email
      address to facilitate the preparation and sending of
      notice;

   d. To permit Mr. Collado to send notice by email, text
      message, and by U.S. Mail to each member of the Putative
      Class;

   e. To require the Defendants to post the Notice in a
      conspicuous place in Defendants' offices in either an
      employee break room, next to the Minimum Wage Notice
      posters located in Defendants' places of business, or
      other conspicuous location routinely visited by
      Defendants' tipped employees at Kiki on the River (and
      declare doing this);

   f. To require Defendants to include a copy of the Notice and
      the proposed opt-in / Consent to Join form in the next
      paycheck/paystub provided to all current captains,
      servers, assistants, and/or bussers (and provide Mr.
      Collado with a Declaration attesting to completion);

   g. To permit Mr. Collado to send out a letter/email/text
      message reminding members of the Putative Class of their
      right to join in this lawsuit and the deadline for same;
      
   h. To text/call each member of the Putative Class to ensure
      that each received the Notice and then the reminder; and

   i. To award such other and further relief as the Court deems
      just and proper."

Mr. Collado filed this lawsuit on September 23, 2022 Since then,
seven other tipped former employees of Defendants who worked at
Kiki on the River joined this case as Opt-In Plaintiffs.

Mr. Collado served a letter on Defendants pursuant to the Florida
Minimum Wage Act dated November 10, 2022, in preparation for
amending the Complaint to include claims pursuant to Florida law,
to which Defendants did not respond.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DSYpFW at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
          FAIRLAW FIRM
          135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770
          Coral Gables, FL 33146
          Telephone: (305) 230-4884
          E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com

ADELPHIA THREE: Hall Wins Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE HALL on behalf of
herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ADELPHIA THREE CORP., et. Al, Case No.
1:21-cv-01106-CPO-EAP (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Christine P. O'Hearn
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification:

    1. The class defined below is certified:

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

    2. The Plaintiff Michelle Hall is appointed as the Class
       Representative.

    3. McOmber McOmber & Luber, P.C. is appointed as Class
       Counsel.

    4. The Defendants shall produce to Plaintiff within 10 days
       of the entry the Order a list in an accurate computer-
       readable data file containing information necessary to
       facilitate notice, including: the names, last known
       mailing addresses, dates of employment, job title, phone
       numbers, and email addresses of all individuals who have
       worked as Tipped Employees for Defendants since January
       25, 2015.

    5. The Plaintiffs are authorized to send class notice by
       U.S. mail, substantially in the form attached to their
       Motion for Class Certification, to those individuals in
       the data file within 60 days from receipt of the complete
       data file.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YgTSpb at no extra charge.[CC]

AMAZON.COM INC: Marcelo Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELSON MARCELO, et al., v.
AMAZON.COM,INC., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-07843-JD (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order transferring the case to
the Western District of Washington.

The Plaintiffs are sixteen individuals from California who agreed
to deliver packages for defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon
Logistics, Inc., through a smartphone app called Amazon Flex.

The Plaintiffs say that they were misclassified as independent
contractors rather than Amazon employees. They allege a dozen
federal and California labor law claims against Amazon.

Amazon has asked to compel arbitration of the claims and dismiss
the complaint, or, in the alternative, to transfer, dismiss, or
stay the case under the first-to-file rule. Transfer is ordered to
the Western District of Washington.

The case is one of several lawsuits alleging that Amazon
misclassified Amazon Flex delivery drivers as independent
contractors. One of the first cases, Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
was filed in 2016 in the Western District of Washington.

The Rittmann plaintiffs allege claims against Amazon under federal
and California labor laws, and other state labor laws, and seek to
represent a class of "all delivery drivers who have contracted
directly with Amazon to provide delivery services in California
between three years since they brought this complaint and the date
of final judgment in this matter."

Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing
on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital
streaming, and artificial intelligence.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DSYsSe at no extra charge.[CC]



AMERICAN BROADCASTING: Ex-American Idol Contestant Files Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Nguyen, writing for The Epoch Times, reports that former
"American Idol" contestant Normandy Vamos is suing the show's
producers, alleging that she is a victim of wage theft and that she
was treated as a "laughingstock" for the sake of "viral fame,"
according to a press release on Feb. 7.

Vamos auditioned for season 20 of the ABC talent show in February
2020, performing Tina Turner's hit "Proud Mary."

The 30-year-old filed a wage and hour class action lawsuit on Feb.
3 in Los Angeles Superior Court against ABC and the production
companies behind the show on behalf of herself and unpaid or
underpaid performers over the past four years.

In the lawsuit, the Baltimore native said that contestants from
last season were asked to remain at a Los Angeles hotel to audition
for the chance to advance to the "Hollywood Week" portion of the
show.

Under California law, they should have been compensated as
employees from the time they arrived at the hotel because their
performances could possibly air on American Idol, Vamos' lawyer
Chantal Payto said in the release.

However, producers asked the contestants to be available for up to
15 hours a day with no compensation.

The lawsuit also alleges that contestants were made to sign
"work-for-hire" contracts that signed away their copyrights to the
performances.

Vamos is suing for failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
minimum wage, and failure to provide uninterrupted rest periods,
among other complaints.

"American Idol's producers seem to feel they can break labor laws
and exploit ambitious young performers simply because they may be
eager for a shot at becoming the next Jennifer Hudson or Carrie
Underwood," Payton said.

"Vamos and other performers who create content for American Idol
have rights as employees, but the producers have chosen to ignore
those rights. They treated them as so-called volunteers, when in
reality they are employees who should be paid."

The singer also alleges she was made a "laughing stock" in the
audition process for the sake of reality TV because of her
high-pitched voice.

Before her audition in front of judges, the producers instructed
Vamos to drive home to retrieve a carrot-shaped purse she owns in
order to help create a viral moment.

The reality TV star explains the purse played a "prominent role" in
the audition and alleged the contrast between her outfit and her
surprisingly low-pitched singing voice "provided plenty of material
for the judges to pick apart." [GN]

AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Drug Price-Rigging Suits Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amerisourcebergen Corporation disclosed in its Form 20-F report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2023, that in December 2019,
Reliable Pharmacy, together with other retail pharmacies and North
Sunflower Medical Center, filed a civil antitrust complaint against
multiple generic drug manufacturers, and also included claims
against its subsidiaries ABDC and H.D. Smith, and other drug
distributors and industry participants.

The case is filed as a putative class action and plaintiffs purport
to represent a class of drug purchasers including other retail
pharmacies and healthcare providers. The case has been consolidated
for multidistrict litigation proceedings before the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The
complaint alleges that ABDC, H.D. Smith, and others in the industry
participated in a conspiracy to fix prices, allocate markets and
rig bids regarding generic drugs. In March 2020, the plaintiffs
filed a further amended complaint.

On July 15, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On May 25, 2022, the Court granted the motion to dismiss
without prejudice. On July 1, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, again including claims against the Company and other
drug distributors and industry participants. On August 21, 2022,
the Company and other industry participants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. All briefs on the motion were filed
with the court in November 22, 2022.

Amerisourcebergen Corporation is a wholesale of drugs proprietaries
& druggists' sundries.


AMI LANDSCAPING: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Tecotl Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARTURO LOPEZ TECOTL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMI LANDSCAPING INC. and MICHAEL BARRAL, as
an individual,, Case No. 2:23-cv-00785 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2023)
seeks to recover compensatory damages and liquidated damages for
Defendants' egregious violations of Federal and New York State
labor laws arising out of the Plaintiff's employment with the
Defendants located at 18 Stengel Place, Smithtown NY 11787.

During Mr. Tecotl's employment with corporate Defendant, he was
regularly required to work 52 hours or more hours each week. The
Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half
for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a work week, a
blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA
and NYLL.

Mr. Tecotl was allegedly paid by Defendants a flat hourly rate of:

     i. $27.00 per hour without regard for the number of hours
        worked from January 2017 until December 2019;

    ii. $30.00 per hour without regard for the number of hours
        worked from January 2020 until December 2020; and

   iii. $35.00 per hour without regard for the number of hours
        worked from January 2021 until December 2021.

Mr. Tecotl was employed by the Defendant from March 2005 until
December 2021 and from March 2022 until September 2022.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591

ANNAPOLIS, MD: Federal Judge Certifies Housing Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Ritzel at capitalgazette.com reports that a federal judge
has certified a class action lawsuit that pits approximately 1,700
public housing residents against the city of Annapolis.

The class action follows a 2020 settlement that awarded $1.8
million in damages to 52 HACA residents, who claimed the city's
failure to inspect nearly 800 public housing units led to extensive
mold and other hazardous living conditions, and discriminated
against Black residents.

That court-approved settlement established that residents of the
Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis are entitled to payments
of more than $17,000 each from the city. With the class action
status certified by U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake, the
city could face paying comparable damages to all HACA residents, a
total liability of nearly $30 million..

Mitchelle Stephenson, a spokesperson for the city, had no comment
and said any response that city attorneys have to Blake's class
action ruling will be delivered in court.

The city already has filed suit against HACA, arguing the housing
authority also should be held liable, as it was the first case. The
original 52 residents received $900,000 from both the city and from
HACA, but the class-action plaintiffs did not sue the housing
authority.

Carrie Blackburn Riley, attorney for HACA, had no comment on the
class certification. "Our response to the court will be through
litigation," she said.

HACA now has until Feb. 27 to submit a list of residents who lived
at five HACA properties between May 7, 2018, and May 7, 2021. P.
Joseph Donahue, attorney representing the plaintiffs, said he
expects the number to be about 1,700 people.

"This is just the next step necessary to achieving the justice our
clients deserve," Donahue said in a statement.

The city's legal troubles with HACA stem from a 2019 complaint
targeting Mayor Gavin Buckley, former housing authority Executive
Director Beverly Wilbourn and City Council, saying they conspired
to "suspend city inspections of HACA properties" and allow Wilbourn
to decrease the quality standard for the housing authority's
residents, more of 90% of whom are Black. (Buckley and Wilbourn
were later dropped as defendants in the case.)

Other rental units in the city, meanwhile, continued to receive
inspections.

The initial lawsuit included detailed allegations from 29 residents
in five of HACA's six public housing communities -- Newtowne 20,
Harbour House, Eastport Terrace, Morris H. Blum Senior Apartments
and Robinwood. Buckley and the city were culpable, the complaint
said, because when the mayor took office in 2017, he discontinued
the practice of inspecting HACA units. Several more families
eventually joined the suit.

The May 2021 complaint, which now has been certified as a class
action lawsuit, was filed jointly by Donahue and class action
experts at the Holland Law Firm on behalf of HACA residents Tamara
Johnson and Tyonna Holli. Donahue submitted the case soon after
filing a wrongful-death lawsuit for the estate of HACA resident
DaMon Fisher, who died in June 2020 of pulmonary disease acerbated
by mold issues.

While the Fisher and class action suits have not been consolidated,
they are legally related, Donahue said, with cross-references in
most court filings. Both cases are pending before Blake. Hearings
could begin as early as June in what has become an increasingly
complicated web of cross-claims and counter lawsuits.

In May, the city filed a third-party complaint against the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development and Secretary Marcia
Fudge. In that lawsuit, the city accuses the federal government of
discriminating against Black Annapolis residents by failing to
adequately fund the housing authority.

In court filings, HUD has denied those claims and requested for the
complaint to be dismissed. Blake is expected to issue a ruling on
that request in March. Nationwide, federal appropriations to public
housing authorities are down 17% since 2000, according to The
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Urban Institute.
Federal policies have shifted from public housing communities,
instead funneling funds toward voucher programs and public/private
partnerships.

HUD has declined to participate in discovery thus far, indicating
that Department of Justice attorneys are confident HUD will not be
held liable in either the class action suit or the Fisher case.
Buckley recently met with Fudge in Washington, and said at a
January council meeting that he's invited her to visit Annapolis.

HACA, meanwhile, has filed claims against the city, arguing
Annapolis should be held more financially liable in the Fisher and
class action cases and help pay HACA's legal costs.

While all this legal maneuvering continues, HACA residents will
start receiving letters in the mail informing them they are now
parties in the class action lawsuit. Blake's order includes text
for the notice that must be sent to residents within 35 s.

"This lawsuit is about whether the Defendants violated the Civil
Rights Act of 1968, otherwise known as the Fair Housing Act, which
makes it illegal for the City of Annapolis to have a policy that
has a different or disparate impact on a protected group of its
citizens. The Defendants deny that they violated any laws," the
notice explains.

Any HACA residents who wish to opt out of the class action case --
either because they disagree with the case or wish to sue
individually -- must provide written notification to the court by
mid-May. More information for HACA residents is posted on the
Holland firm's website:
hollandlawfirm.com/johnson-v-city-of-annapolis-class-action/. [GN]

APRIO LLP: Hearing on Pending Class Cert. Bid Set for Feb. 23
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW LECHTER, et al., v.
APRIO, LLP, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01325-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon.
Judge Amy Totenberg entered an order directing the counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing to address Plaintiffs' pending
Motion for Class Certification on February 23, 2023 at 2:30 P.M. in
Courtroom 2308.

Counsel should advise the Court's Courtroom Deputy, Mr. Harry
Martin, if they have any conflicts with that time. In addition to
the arguments they have raised in the briefing regarding the
Plaintiffs' proposed class, counsel should be prepared to address
whether the Court should consider certifying a narrower class
involving the nine transactions in which the named Plaintiffs
personally invested.

Aprio is a premier business advisory and certified public
accounting firm that advises clients and associates on how to
achieve what's next.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x6rQ3C at no extra charge.[CC]


ASTROTECH CORP: Stein Suit Settlement for Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
Astrotech Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 13, 2023, that the Stein
stockholder class suit awaits approval of the Delaware Court of
Chancery.

On April 15, 2021, a putative stockholder of the Company commenced
a class action and derivative lawsuit in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, Stein v. Pickens, et al., C.A. No. 2021-0322-JRS (the
"Stein Action"), in which it was alleged, among other things, that
the Company improperly included broker non-votes in the tabulation
of votes counted in favor to approve an amendment to the Company's
Certificate of Incorporation (the "2020 Certificate Amendment")
and, thus the 2020 Certificate Amendment was defective.

The Company investigated those allegations and does not believe
that the filing and effectiveness of the 2020 Certificate Amendment
was either invalid or ineffective.

Nevertheless, to resolve any uncertainty, on April 30, 2021, the
Company filed a validation proceeding in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, In re Astrotech Corporation, C.A. No. 2021-0380-JRS,
pursuant to Section 205 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

On October 6, 2021, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the
Company's request and confirmed and validated the 2020 Certificate
Amendment.

Thereafter, a settlement in principle was reached with the
Plaintiffs in the Stein Action and the parties to the Stein Action
presented the settlement to the Court for approval.  

The Company is currently awaiting a Court decision.

Astrotech Corporation is an Austin, Texas-based commercial
aerospace company. The Company currently owns, operates and
maintains spacecraft processing facilities; prepares and processes
scientific research in microgravity; and develops and manufactures
chemical sensor equipment.

AUDIBLE INC: Bid to Seal Opposition Temporarily OK'd
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Golden Unicorn
Enterprises, Inc. et al v. Audible, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-07059-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman
entered an order that the Defendant's motion to seal its opposition
is granted temporarily.

The Court will assess whether they keep the materials at issue
sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion.

Pursuant to Section 7(C) of the Court's Individual Rules and
Practices in Civil Cases, Audible respectfully seeks leave to file
certain exhibits from their Opposition under seal or in redacted
form. Further, pursuant to the parties' procedure that the Court
approved for sealing or redacting documents related to Audible's
Opposition, Audible seeks to seal its Opposition and all exhibits,
pending Plaintiffs' review and potential motion to seal or redact.


As discussed in Audible's letter‐motion to seal materials from
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, although there is a
presumption of public access, a court must balance "countervailing
factors," including privacy interests as well as confidential and
proprietary business information.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JTIPO9 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian D. Buckley, Esq.
          FENWICK & WEST LLP
          1191 Second Avenue, 10th Floor
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 389-4510
          E-mail: BBuckley@fenwick.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Schertzer Appeals Reconsideration Bid Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTEN SCHERTZER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
entered in the lawsuit entitled Kristen Schertzer, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Bank of America, NA, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00264-JM-MSB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.

On February 5, 2019, Plaintiffs Schertzer, Hicks and Covell
initiated this proposed (or putative) class action by filing suit.
The basis of the Plaintiffs' claims arise from the fees charged by
Bank of America, NA (BANA) to its account holders for balance
inquiries performed at out-of-network (OON) Automatic Teller
Machines (ATMs).

On May 31, 2019, a second amended complaint was filed alleging
original jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) of
2005 and, specifically under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d)(2) and
setting forth a total of 13 claims against the Defendants
individually and collectively. Combined, the claims were for: (1)
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (2)
conversion; (3) negligence; (4) violation of the California's False
Advertising Law (FAL); (5) violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (6) breach of contract; and (7) breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

On March 4, 2020, the Court granted the Defendants' motions to
dismiss with leave to amend. On March 24, 2020, the operative third
amend complaint was filed, again claiming original jurisdiction
under CAFA.

On July 29, 2021, Plaintiff Hicks and Defendant Cash Depot filed a
joint motion for voluntary dismissal with prejudice, which was
granted by the court. Cash Depot was dismissed as a party to this
litigation.

On Nov. 29, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment.

On Oct. 16, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

On Apr. 4, 2022, the Court granted the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment and denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class
through an Order entered by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller.

On Nov. 14, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration,
motion for relief from Judgment, and a motion to alter judgment.

On January 3, 2023, Judge Miller ruled on the Motion for
Reconsideration and on the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment or for
Relief from Judgment.

The appellate case is captioned Kristen Schertzer, et al v. Bank of
America, NA, Case No. 23-55104, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 2, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Brittany Covell and Kristen Schertzer Mediation
Questionnaire was due February 9, 2023;

   -- Appellants transcript is due on April 3, 2023;

   -- Appellants Brittany Covell and Kristen Schertzer opening
brief is due on May 15, 2023;

   -- Appellee Bank of America, NA answering brief is due on June
14, 2023; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants KRISTEN SCHERTZER, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Todd David Carpenter, Esq.
            LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
            1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
            San Diego, CA 92101
            Telephone: (619) 762-1900

                   - and -

            Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
            KALIELGOLD, PLLC
            950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
            Berkeley, CA 94710
            Telephone: (202) 350-4783

                   - and -

            Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
            KALIELGOLD, PLLC
            1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
            Washington, DC 20005
            Telephone: (202) 615-3948

                   - and -

            Jae Kook Kim, Esq.
            LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
            117 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600
            Pasadena, CA 91105
            Telephone: (626) 550-1250

Defendant-Appellee BANK OF AMERICA, NA is represented by:

            Amanda L. Groves, Esq.
            Shawn R. Obi, Esq.
            WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP
            333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
            Los Angeles, CA 90071
            Telephone: (213) 615-1851

BOSTIK INC: Curry Seeks Conditional Certification of FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA CURRY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. BOSTIK, INC., Case
No. 3:22-cv-00370-DJH-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order granting his motion for Conditional Certification
and authorize him to issue notice of this action to:

   "all production and warehousing technicians who work or have
   worked for Defendant at the Louisville Plant within the last
   3 years."

The Plaintiff also requests that the notice also be posted at the
Louisville Plant. Once Defendant has produced collective action
members' names and contact information and notices have been
issued, collective action members should have a 90-day window to
return a signed consent form.

The Plaintiff Curry worked as a maintenance mechanic in the
production area at Bostik's manufacturing facility located in
Louisville, Kentucky (the "Louisville Plant").

Bostik's Louisville Plant manufactures over 200 adhesive products
and employs a staff of approximately 50 to 99 technicians in its
production and warehousing areas. The Plaintiff and those similarly
situated were not paid for off-the-clock work and did not receive
time-and-a-half for hours worked in excess of 40 a week in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Additionally, the Plaintiff frequently worked 10-to-12-hour shifts
and was not permitted to take scheduled rest breaks or bona fide
meal breaks, as required by 29 C.F.R. section 785.19.

Bostik is a manufacturer and distributor of adhesives and sealants
for the construction, industrial and consumer markets.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 30,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40Tp1Az
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
          Shoshana Savett, Esq.
          EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
          411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Telephone: (215) 867-2399
          E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
                  lverderame@edelson-law.com
                  ssavett@edelson-law.com

                 - and -

          Mark N. Foster, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Telephone: (270) 213-1303
          E-mail: Mfoster@MarkNFoster.com

BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Peters Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Wendy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment in the lawsuit styled RHETT PETERS v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: D (1), Case No. 17-4479 (E.D.
La.).

Before the Court is BP's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America Production
Company, and BP p.l.c. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.,
Transocean Holdings, LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and
Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. (collectively
"Defendants") have joined in this Motion. Plaintiff Rhett Peters
opposes the Motion. The Defendants have filed a Reply in support of
their Motion.

The case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico in 2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf
Coast. On Jan. 11, 2013, United States District Judge Carl J.
Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out
of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon
Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "MSA")
(Brown v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., Civ. A. No. 18-9927, 2019 WL
2995869, at *1 (E.D. La. July 9, 2019) (Africk, J.)).

However, certain individuals, referred to as "B3" plaintiffs,
either opted out of or were excluded from the MSA (In re Oil Spill
by Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in Gulf of Mexico, on Apr. 20, 2010,
No. MDL 2179, 2021 WL 6053613, at *2 (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2021)).
Plaintiff Rhett Peters opted out of the MSA and, accordingly, is a
B3 plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed the individual action against the Defendants on
May 1, 2017, to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a
result of the oil spill. In 2010, the Plaintiff worked as a beach
cleanup worker, tasked with cleaning up oil and oil-covered debris
from the beaches and coastal areas in Gulfport and Biloxi,
Mississippi. He alleges that the Defendants' negligence and
recklessness in both causing the Gulf oil spill and subsequently
failing to properly design and implement a clean-up response caused
him to suffer myriad injuries including elevated blood pressure,
headaches, dizziness, loss of consciousness, rash, swelling,
contact dermatitis, sinus congestion, drainage, shortness of
breath, difficulty breathing, reactive airway disease, chronic
bronchitis, chemically-induced asthma, blurred vision, eye redness,
and eye itchiness.

Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks to recover economic damages,
personal injury damages--including damages for past and future
medical expenses and for pain and suffering--punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.

The Defendants filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on
June 13, 2022, asserting that they are entitled to summary judgment
because the Plaintiff has not produced an expert report or any
expert testimony in support of his exposure-related health
complaints--a necessary requirement under controlling Fifth Circuit
precedent--and, thus, cannot prove that his alleged medical
conditions were caused by his exposure to substances related to the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The Plaintiff's deadline to produce expert reports was April 7,
2022. However, he did not provide his expert report to the
Defendants until June 17, 2022, more than two months after the
expert report deadline had passed and several days after the June
13, 2022 deadline to file motions in limine challenging expert
reports.

In his response to the Defendants' Motion, the Plaintiff explains
that his causation experts were unable to meet the Court's April 7,
2022 disclosure deadline due to the sheer number of expert reports
due in such a compressed timeframe. He opposes the Motion,
explaining that while he failed to timely provide the Defendants
with his expert report, he has since remedied the basis for the
Defendants' Motion by providing his expert report to them.

Notably, Judge Vitter says, the Plaintiff did not move for a
continuance of the expert report deadlines nor has he moved for
leave for late disclosure of his expert witness. Moreover, the
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that good cause exists to amend
the Scheduling Order to allow him leave to exchange untimely expert
reports with the Defendants.

Judge Vitter holds that the Plaintiff has not provided any
admissible expert testimony on general causation in this case. As
discussed, the Plaintiff neither moved to continue the relevant
expert report deadlines in this matter nor did he move for late
disclosure of his expert witness. Moreover, he has not demonstrated
good cause as for his failure to abide by the deadlines in the
Court's Scheduling Order.

Even if the Court were to consider the untimely report of Dr.
Jerald Cook, the Court notes that this Court has previously
excluded identical versions of Dr. Cook's Report in numerous other
B3 cases, finding that Dr. Cook fails to meet controlling Fifth
Circuit precedent for reliability and helpfulness of expert
opinions in a toxic exposure case. Accordingly, the Court would
exclude Dr. Cook from testifying in this matter, as well, leaving
the Plaintiff without expert testimony on general causation.

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

Hence, Judge Vitter grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment. The Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants are
dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order & Reasons dated Jan. 26,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4ee8td72 from
Leagle.com.


BPS DIRECT: Sielski Suit Remanded to San Bernardino Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dolly M. Gee of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California remands to the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of San Bernardino the lawsuit styled
Paul Sielski, et al. v. BPS Direct, LLC, et al., Case No. ED CV
22-2052-DMG (KKx) (C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Paul Sielski, Chris Fairless, and Kenneth Johnson filed
the Motion to Remand ("MTR").

On May 3, 2019, Allan Candelore and Steve Frye filed a complaint in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino asserting claims for violation of California's Unruh
Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code sections 51 and 51.5. Candelore
and Frye, who identify as men, alleged that "Ladies' Day Out"
promotional events held on April 28, 2018, and March 30, 2019, at
Bass Pro stores operated by the Defendants violated California's
anti-discrimination statutes. Candelore and Frye asserted their
claims on behalf a proposed class of "All Bass Pro Shop male
patrons who were treated unequally based on their sex" during the
events at specific stores in California.

On Oct. 22, 2019, Sielski filed a separate complaint, asserting
claims for violations of (1) the Unruh Act, Cal. Civ. Code sections
51, 51.5, and 51.6, (2) California's False Advertising Law, Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500, et seq., and (3) negligence,
arising out of the 2019 Ladies' Day Out event. Sielski asserted his
claims on behalf of "[a]ll Bass Pro Shop male and non-binary
patrons who were treated unequally based on their sex" during the
2019 event at the same California stores.

The Candelore and Sielski cases were consolidated by an order
issued June 24, 2020. On Oct. 14, 2021, Candelore, Frye, and
Sielski filed a consolidated First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), in
which they asserted claims for violations of the Unruh Act, the
False Advertising Law, and negligence. The FAC asserted claims on
behalf of the named plaintiffs and "[a]ll Bass Pro Shop male and
nonbinary persons, including, but not limited to, gay, transgender,
African-American, Latino, Asian-American, American Indian, elderly,
minor, and disabled male and nonbinary patrons, whom Defendants
treated unequally or discriminated against based on the patrons'
sex" during the 2018 and 2019 Ladies' Day Out events.

The FAC alleges that there were "hundreds" of male and non-binary
customers inside the Defendants' stores during the promotions, and
"at least scores," who were present at allegedly discriminatory
seminars and demonstrations that were part of the promotions. The
Plaintiffs, therefore, alleged that "the Class is believed to
include at least scores of members."

On Feb. 24, 2022, the Plaintiffs sent the Defendants a settlement
email in which they estimated the size of the class at
approximately 3,000 men, who bought something at one of the four
stores in question on the date of the 2018 and 2019 Ladies' Day Out
events. The email explained that this estimate was based on a list
of names of individuals, who purchased items in the Bass Pro stores
at issue on the day of the Ladies' Day Out events in 2018 and 2019,
of whom the Plaintiffs say they identified "an estimated 3,216
male-like names."

The Plaintiffs, therefore, estimated that, based on the Unruh Act's
provision for $4,000 per violation in statutory damages, their
damages would be approximately $12 million.

On June 17, 2022, Candelore and Frye dismissed their claims with
prejudice.

In September 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") in state court, and on Oct. 6,
2022, the parties stipulated to permit the Plaintiffs to file their
SAC. The SAC was filed on Oct. 14, 2022. The SAC adds Fairless and
Johnson as Plaintiffs, drops the negligence claim, and asserts that
"the class is believed to number over one hundred members." The
SAC's proposed class definition also explicitly adds:

     [T]hose male (i.e. men, guys) and non-binary persons who saw
     Defendants' advertisements [for Ladies' Day Out] and chose
     not to attend the Ladies Day Out' events, and those male
     (i.e. men, guys) who actually visited Defendants' stores in
     California during the Ladies Day Out events.

On Nov. 17, 2022, the Defendants removed this action to this Court,
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d). On Dec. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs timely moved to
remand, on the basis that the Defendants' removal was untimely.

As relevant here, CAFA permits a defendant to remove a class action
in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. The issue in
this case is when the Defendants became aware that the amount in
controversy in this action was greater than $5 million. The
Plaintiffs contend that their Feb. 24, 2022 settlement demand made
that apparent, and was an "other paper" that triggered the
Defendants' right to remove.

The Defendants contend, among other things, that the Plaintiffs'
settlement demand was unreasonable and, therefore, did not trigger
their right to remove. In the alternative, the Defendants argue
that even if the Plaintiffs' settlement demand did trigger their
right to remove, the filing of the SAC revived that right.

Because the Plaintiffs' settlement demand constituted a reasonable
estimate of the value of their claims, the Court concludes that it
triggered the deadline for the Defendants to remove. The
Plaintiffs' failure to remove within 30 days of the delivery of the
settlement demand, therefore, renders removal untimely, Judge Gee
holds.

The Defendants also argue that even if the settlement demand
triggered their deadline to remove, the "so-called 'revival
exception'" applies, because the Plaintiffs' filing of the SAC so
fundamentally changed the nature of their case "as to constitute
substantially a new suit begun that day," citing Dunn v. Gaiam,
Inc., 166 F.Supp.2d 1273, 1279 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (citing Samura v.
Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 715 F.Supp. 970, 972 (N.D. Cal.
1989)).

Judge Gee notes that the Plaintiffs' SAC clearly adds a new theory
of discrimination: discriminatory advertising. In the SAC, the
Plaintiffs assert that prior to and on Saturday, March 30, 2019,
the Defendants advertised the Ladies' Day Out events to the public
by means of postal mailers, emails, webpages, social media
postings, text messages, banners, flyers, etc. They assert that
"many thousands" of California residents saw these advertisements.
The class definition in the SAC includes men and non-binary
individuals, who saw the Defendants' advertisements, and did not
attend the Ladies' Day Out events.

This change could change the Defendants' potential exposure, as it
may include a larger number of class members, Judge Gee says. It
also changes the Plaintiffs' theory of the case somewhat, and will
alter discovery. Still, the Defendants cite to no caselaw for the
idea that new allegations that potentially expand the proposed
class and expand--but do not fundamentally change--the Plaintiffs'
theory of the case is significant enough to revive the right of
removal. The changes effectuated by the SAC are merely incremental,
not transformative, Judge Gee points out.

Because the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs' SAC does not so
substantially alter the nature of their claims as to constitute
essentially a new suit, the filing of the SAC did not revive the
Defendants' right to remove.

In light of the foregoing, the Plaintiffs' MTR is granted. The Jan.
27, 2023 hearing on this matter is vacated. Because the Defendants'
Notice of Removal was not objectively unreasonable, the Court
denies the Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees.

This action is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Bernardino. The Defendants'
pending motion to dismiss is denied, without prejudice, as moot.
The Jan. 27, 2023 hearing is vacated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 26, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/36an6m77 from Leagle.com.


CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Anders Seeks to Certify Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR ANDERS ET AL., v.
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-00179-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their leave to bring a motion for class
certification specific to women's lacrosse, pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify lacrosse-only classes of
current and future female Fresno State students to eliminate the
sex-based discrimination within Fresno State's athletic
department.

Certification of such classes in Title IX athletics cases is
appropriate because Title 26 IX compliance is necessarily assessed
on a program-wide basis, not based on an individual student-27
athlete's experiences.

Thee Plaintiffs request certification of the following proposed
classes:

   (a) Current and future female Fresno State students who:

         (i) have lost membership on the women's varsity
             lacrosse team at Fresno State;

        (ii) have sought but not achieved membership on the
             women's varsity lacrosse team at Fresno State;
             and/or

       (iii) are able and ready to seek membership on a women's
             varsity lacrosse team at Fresno State but have not
             done so due a lack of opportunity; and

   (b) Current and future female Fresno State students who:

         (i) participate or have participated in women's varsity
             lacrosse at Fresno State; and/or

        (ii) are able and ready to participate in women's
             varsity lacrosse at Fresno State but have been
             deterred from doing so by the treatment received by
             female varsity intercollegiate student-athletes at
             Fresno State.

The proposed classes satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12 23(a). The proposed classes are so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable, there are questions of law
and fact common to the classes, the claims of the proposed class
representative are typical of the class claims, and the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the classes.

Moreover, the proposed class representative, Taylor Anders, and
counsel for the class meet the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a)(4). The Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in
support of their Motion for Certification of Lacrosse Only Classes
and, in the Alternative Subclasses is attached hereto.


California State is a public university system in California.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HEksBq at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lori Bullock, Esq.
          Arthur H. Bryant, Esq.
          Cary Joshi, Esq.
          Joshua I. Hammack, Esq.
          Nicole L. Ballante, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, L.L.P.
          309 East 5th Street Suite 202B
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: (515) 416-9051
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          E-mail: lbullock@baileyglasser.com
                  abryant@baileyglasser.com
                  cjoshi@baileyglasser.com
                  jhammack@baileyglasser.com
                  nballante@baileyglasser.com

                - and -

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
          Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          P.O. Box 1311
          Monterey, CA 93942
          Telephone.: (713) 751-0400
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
          E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
                  cbc@caddellchapman.com
                  aet@caddellchapman.com

CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due April 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Caribou Biosciences, Inc. (Caribou" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: CRBU) and certain officers and directors. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, and docketed under 23-cv-00609, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Caribou common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents (defined
below) issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering conducted on or about July 23, 2021 (the "IPO" or
"Offering"); and/or (b) Caribou securities between July 23, 2021
and December 9, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired (a)
Caribou common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering
Documents issued in connection with the Company's IPO, and/or (b)
Caribou securities during the Class Period, you have until April
11, 2023 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Caribou is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that engages
in the development of genome-edited allogeneic cell therapies for
the treatment of hematologic malignancies and solid tumors in the
United States and internationally. The Company is developing, among
other product candidates, CB-010, an allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T
cell therapy[1] that is in a Phase 1 clinical trial, referred to as
"ANTLER", to treat relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin
lymphoma ("r/r B-NHL"). [[1] Anti-CD19 CAR-T cells are administered
as a type of therapy for relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell
lymphomas ( i.e., cancers that start in the lymph system).]

According to Defendants, CB-010 is the first clinical-stage
allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy with programmed cell death
protein 1 ("PD-1") removed from the CAR-T cell surface by a
genome-edited knockout of the PDCD1 gene, which purportedly sets
CB-010 apart from other allogeneic CAR-T cells by, inter alia,
improving the "persistence" of antitumor activity.

On July 1, 2021, Caribou filed a registration statement on Form S-1
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in
connection with the IPO, which, after several amendments, was
declared effective by the SEC on July 22, 2021 (the "Registration
Statement").

On July 23, 2021, pursuant to the Registration Statement, Caribou's
common stock began publicly trading on the Nasdaq Global Select
Market ("NASDAQ") under the ticker symbol "CRBU". That same ,
Caribou filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection
with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the
Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and, collectively with the
Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents").

Pursuant to the Offering Documents, Caribou issued 19 million
shares of common stock to the public at the Offering price of
$16.00 per share for proceeds of $282.72 million to the Company,
before expenses, and after applicable underwriting discounts.

The Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result,
contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading
and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations
governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
CB-010's treatment effect was not as durable as Defendants had led
investors to believe; (ii) accordingly, CB-010's clinical and
commercial prospects were overstated; and (iii) as a result, the
Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the
Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to
state information required to be stated therein.

On June 10, 2022, Caribou issued a press release reporting
"[p]ositive" data from the ANTLER Phase 1 clinical trial. Among
other results, Caribou reported that "[a]t 6 months following the
single dose of CB-010, [only] 40% of patients remained in CR
[complete response] (2 of 5 patients) as of the May 13, 2022 data
cutoff date", prompting investor concern over the durability of the
CB-010 treatment.

On this news, Caribou's stock price fell $1.78 per share, or
20.41%, to close at $6.94 per share on June 10, 2022.

Then, on December 12, 2022, Caribou issued a press release
"report[ing] new 12-month clinical data from cohort 1 in the
ongoing ANTLER Phase 1 trial, which [purportedly] show[ed]
long-term durability following a single infusion of CB-010 at the
initial dose level 1 (40x106 CAR-T cells)." Among other results,
Caribou reported that "3 of 6 patients maintained a durable CR at 6
months" and "2 of 6 patients maintain a long-term CR at the
12-month scan and remain on the trial", thereby confirming investor
fears that the CB-010 treatment lacked significant durability.

On this news, Caribou's stock price fell $0.81 per share, or 9.03%,
to close at $8.16 per share on December 12, 2022.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. To, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN]

CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Class Certification Scheduling Order Entered
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANTIAGO v. CAVALRY
PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08332 (D.N.J.),
the Hon. Judge Michael A Hammer entered a class certification
scheduling order as follows:

  -- As discussed during the January        March 24, 2023
     30, 2023 telephone status
     conference, any renewed
     motion for class certification
     shall be filed by:

  -- Any opposition shall be filed          April 17, 2023
     by:

  -- Any reply shall be filed by:           April 24, 2023

All motion papers shall strictly comply with Local Civil Rules 7.1
and 7.2. Counsel are reminded that they may contact the Undersigned
at any time to continue settlement negotiations regardless of the
pendency of the class-certification motion.

The suit alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act
involving consumer credit.

Cavalry Portfolio is a debt collection agency.[CC]

CEREBRAL INC: Lawsuit Probe Over Privacy Violation Concerns
-----------------------------------------------------------
legalscoops.com reports that on February 2, 2023, two members of
the United States Senate sent a letter to Cerebral, Inc. where they
"express our concern regarding reports that Cerebral is tracking
and sharing sensitive and personally-identifiable health data with
third-party social media and online search platforms such as Google
and Facebook that monetize this data to target advertisements,"
using what is known as the Meta Pixel tracking cookie. What is of
particular concern is that Cerebral's website was used by more than
200,000 patients in 2020 and 2021 alone.

Cerebral operates through its website at cerebral.com. It claims to
be "a mental health telemedicine company that is democratizing
access to high quality mental health care for all."

Cerebral also offers services for those with alcohol dependence and
monthly subscriptions for medication and therapy for mental health
conditions, including ADHD, anxiety, and depression. The San
Francisco-based company has been valued at $4.8 billion after a
$300 million funding round last December.

Cerebral's website asks patients to answer a series of questions
covering conditions such as depression, anxiety, and bipolar
disorder. Although Cerebral's website claims that information
entered on these intake forms is confidential and secure, this
information is reportedly sent to advertising platforms, along with
the information required to identify users. This data is highly
personal and can be used to target advertisements for services that
may be unnecessary or that, according to the U.S. Senate, may be
"potentially harmful physically, psychologically, or emotionally."

This Senate request for information comes shortly after the FTC
brought a groundbreaking enforcement action against telehealth and
prescription discount company GoodRx and obtained a $1.5 million
penalty and an agreement barring the company from sharing users'
sensitive health data with third-party advertisers.

On November 30th, 2022, a spokesperson for Cerebral wrote in an
email, "We are removing any personally identifiable information,
including name, date of birth, and zip code from being collected by
the Meta Pixel," suggesting that before that date, it was providing
third-party advertisers access to that information. However, as
late as December 7, 2022, Cerebral's website was still collecting
personally identifiable information. Tracking such private
information also could reveal sensitive and personal material
leading to other forms of privacy and security breaches.

This is not the first allegation of privacy-related issues made
against Cerebral. In a lawsuit filed in California state court in
April 2022, a former Cerebral employee alleged he was fired in
retaliation for objecting to the company's plans to "egregiously
put profits and growth before patient safety" after he raised
several concerns to Cerebral leadership during his time at the
company. The Complaint also alleges that Cerebral does not adhere
to regulations concerning the privacy and security of patient data
and that "employees and former employees could gain unauthorized
access to confidential patient medical information," potentially
compromising tens of thousands of patient records.

And August 19, 2022, a related medical provider group Cerebral
Medical Group, P.A. notified the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services about a security breach incident involving over
6,100 patients stemming from unauthorized access and disclosure of
certain types of patient information.

If you have used Cerebral's services over the last two years, your
personal information may have been disclosed to third-party
advertisers such as Facebook and Google without your informed
authorization or consent. [GN]

CHARLES SCHWAB: Wright Appeals Summary Judgment to 9th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT WRIGHT is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled
Robert Wright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 3:20-cv-05281-LB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The Plaintiff contends that an alleged malfunction of Schwab's
online brokerage system incorrectly processes certain types of
trades, causing him and class members to acquire investments they
did not order. The Plaintiff brings claims under California's
Unfair Competition Law seeking an order enjoining the allegedly
misleading business practices.

On Oct. 3, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment,
which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Laurel
Beeler on Dec. 31, 2022.

The Court ruled that the Plaintiff knew there were issues and did
not contact Schwab. The undisputed facts show his lack of
performance, and there is no genuine issue of material fact that
his non-performance was excused.

The appellate case is captioned Robert Wright v. Charles Schwab &
Co., Inc., Case No. 23-15148, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 2, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Robert Wright Mediation Questionnaire was due
February 9, 2023;

   -- Appellant transcript is due on March 31, 2023;

   -- Appellant Robert Wright opening brief is due on May 10,
2023;

   -- Appellee Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. answering brief is due on
June 9, 2023; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERT WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
            BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
            501 West Broadway
            San Diego, CA 92101

                   - and -

            Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
            ROBBINS, LLP
            5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300
            San Diego, CA 92122
            Telephone: (619) 525-3990

Defendant-Appellee CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC. is represented by:

            Daniel Petrocelli, Esq.
            O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
            1999 Avenue of the Stars, 8th Floor
            Los Angeles, CA 90067
            Telephone: (310) 246-6850

                   - and -

            Matthew David Powers, Esq.
            O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
            Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 984-8898

CL WEST MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wolfolk Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
FREDERICK WOLFOLK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CL WEST MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00109 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 6, 2023) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Wolfolk was employed by the Defendant as staff.

CL WEST MANAGEMENT, LLC manages hotels and other businesses
throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
     J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
     JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT
     OWEN & BRYANT
     262 German Oak Drive
     Memphis, TN 38018
     Telephone: (901) 754-8001
     Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
     Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
            rbryant@jsyc.com

COLUMBIANA COUNTY, OH: Class Suit Filed Following Train Derailment
------------------------------------------------------------------
Leigh Barr at ideastream.org reports that class action lawsuits are
being filed by those displaced by a massive train derailment and
fire in East Palestine, a village located in Columbiana County on
the border with Pennsylvania.

A Norfolk Southern freight train derailed in the village and caught
fire. The governor issued an evacuation order over concerns that
five of the cars, carrying the chemical, vinyl chloride, could
catastrophically explode. Residents were cleared to return home.

The train was traveling from Madison, Illinois on its way to
Conway, Pennsylvania. The derailment underscored concerns safety
advocates have expressed about the transport of chemicals through
populated areas. Although the Federal Railroad Administration says
trains are the safest way to move dangerous cargo over long
distances.

The arrest of a reporter at Governor DeWine's media briefing on the
derailment is now the focus of coverage. Police pushed reporter,
Evan Lambert of NewsNation, to the ground and handcuffed him during
the briefing. Lambert spent several hours in jail before being
released. He faces charges criminal trespassing and disorderly
conduct.

The government's lead investigator has been testifying in the
racketeering trial of former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder
and former Ohio Republican Party Chairman Matt Borges. FBI Special
Agent Blane Wetzel spent s laying out various aspects of the
government's complicated case against Householder and Borges,
including recorded phone calls, text messages and hidden camera
video. The defense had the chance to begin cross-examination.

Householder and Borges are accused of accepting $60 million in
bribes through a dark money group to pass House Bill 6 which
contained a bailout for two Ohio nuclear power plants, then-owned
by FirstEnergy Solutions.

Governor DeWine says the state will apply for federal money to
study whether its feasible to expand Amtrak passenger rail service
in Ohio. The federal government set aside $66 billion in its 2021
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for rail service. Ohio will apply for
$500,000 grants from the Federal Railroad Administration to study
each potential route. The state is still deciding how many new or
expanded routes to study.

Guests:
   -- Anna Huntsman, Akron-Canton Reporter, Ideastream Public    
      Media
   -- Abigail Bottar, Akron-Canton Reporter, Ideastream Public
     Media
   -- Karen Kasler, Statehouse News Bureau Chief, Ohio Public
     Radio/TV
   -- Andy Chow, News Editor, Statehouse News Bureau [GN]

CRUSADER INSURANCE: Faces Anchors & Whales Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Unico American Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 23, 2023, that on
March 23, 2021, ten policyholders sued its insurance company
subsidiary Crusader Insurance Company in a putative class action
entitled "Anchors & Whales LLC et al. v. Crusader Insurance
Company," Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Francisco (CGC-21-590999).

The action alleged that Crusader wrongly denied claims for business
interruption coverage made by bars and restaurants related to
COVID-19 and related government orders that limited or halted
operations of bars and restaurants. The action further alleged that
Crusader acted unreasonably in denying the claims, and it sought as
damages the amounts allegedly due as contract benefits under the
insurance policies, attorneys' fees and costs, punitive damages and
other unspecified damages.

The lawsuit alleged a putative class of all bars and restaurants in
California that were insured by Crusader for loss of business
income, who made such a claim as a result of "one or more
Governmental Orders and the presence of the COVID-19 virus on the
property," and whose claim was denied by Crusader. On October 1,
2021, Crusader was granted its motions on the pleadings without
leave to amend and the lawsuit was dismissed. On December 15, 2021,
Anchors & Whales LLC filed a notice of appeal with California Court
of Appeals, 1st Appellate District, Division 2 (A164412). Crusader
has filed a respondent brief and plaintiffs have filed their reply
brief.

Unico American Corporation is an insurance holding company based in
California.


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Edwards Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JIMMY EDWARDS, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CSX
TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 7:18-cv-169-BO (E.D.N.C.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of persons generally being residents,
      businesses, and nonprofit organizations located in certain
      parts of southwest Lumberton;  

   2. certifying that the class under the following parts of
      Rule 23: 23(a), 23(b)(2), 23(c)(4), and/or, in the
      alternative, 23(b)(3); and

   3. appointing of the Plaintiffs' counsel as co-lead counsel
      for the class under Rule 23(g).

CSX is a freight railroad company operating in the Eastern United
States and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3liVwYG at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew E. Lee, Esq.
          Mark R. Sigmon, Esq.
          Jeremy R Williams, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
          900 West Morgan St.
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          E-mail: mlee@milberg.com
                  msigmon@milberg.com
                  jwilliams@milberg.com

                - and -

          William F. Cash III, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO,
          RAFFERTY, PROCTOR,
          BUCHANAN, O'BRIEN, BARR &
          MOUGEY, P.A.
          316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435-7059
          E-mail: bcash@levinlaw.com

                - and -

          Adam Edwards, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: adam@gregcolemanlaw.com

D&H CONTRACTING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Williams Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
TREVOR WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. D&H CONTRACTING, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00031-DPM (E.D. Ark., Feb. 6, 2023) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Williams was employed by the Defendant as lineman.

D&H CONTRACTING, INC. provides full service residential and
commercial renovations and remodelling. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris Burks, Esq.
          WH LAW
          1 Riverfront Pl. Suite 745
          North Little Rock, AR 72114
          Tel: (501) 891-6000
          Email: chris@wh.law

DEWITT, MI: Mich. App. Affirms Summary Disposition Against Holland
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Michigan affirms the trial court's order
granting summary disposition in favor of the Defendants in the
lawsuit captioned ADAM A. HOLLAND, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. DEWITT PUBLIC
SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEWITT PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, and
DEWITT PUBLIC SCHOOLS SUPERINTENDENT, Defendants-Appellees, Case
No. 360706 (Mich. App.).

In this action involving the Plaintiff's complaints about the
adoption of a mask policy by the Defendants in light of the
COVID-19 pandemic, the Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial
court's order granting summary disposition in favor of Defendants
DeWitt Public School District, DeWitt Public Schools Board of
Education (School Board), and DeWitt Public Schools
Superintendent.

The Plaintiff initiated the lawsuit as a purported class action
suit challenging the pandemic-related mask policy implemented at
the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year in the DeWitt Public
School District, where his children attend school. He, an attorney,
acted as both the named plaintiff and plaintiffs' counsel. He
claimed that the mask policy had been unlawfully implemented by
order of the Superintendent without adoption and approval by the
School Board.

As an initial matter, although the parties have spent a great deal
of energy throughout this case debating the wisdom and
effectiveness of face masks and policies requiring the use of face
masks for mitigating the spread of COVID-19, the case does not
actually involve resolution of those issues, the Panel notes. The
single count of the Plaintiff's complaint was labeled "Declaratory
Judgment and Permanent Injunction." Both declaratory relief and
injunctive relief are remedies rather than stand-alone claims, the
Court of Appeals says, citing Wiggins v City of Burton, 291
Mich.App. 532, 558-559, 561; 805 N.W.2d 517 (2011).

The Plaintiff's complaint specifically alleged that the School
Board effectively delegated its policymaking authority as a public
body subject to the Open Meetings Act (OMA), MCL 15.261, et seq.,
and the Superintendent's deliberations and decision to adopt the
Mandatory Mask Policy was made without a meeting open to the public
in violation of the Open Meetings Act. He sought to invalidate the
mask policy and permanently enjoin the Superintendent and School
District employees from enforcing or issuing further mask policies
unless approved by the School Board. He also sought exemplary
damages, costs, and attorney fees.

Reading the complaint in the instant case as a whole to determine
the gravamen of the Plaintiff's claim, the Court of Appeals
observes that he included allegations that the mask policy was
implemented in violation of the OMA and further allegations clearly
demonstrating that he sought invalidation of the mask policy and an
injunction prohibiting (1) enforcement of the policy, (2) adoption
of such a policy through unilateral action by the Superintendent
without the approval of the School Board, and (3) any further
violation of the OMA. These claims mirror those statutory causes of
action available under the OMA to invalidate a public body's
decision made in violation of the OMA's requirements and to enjoin
further ongoing OMA violations.

Further, the Plaintiff's allegations that the Superintendent did
not have lawful authority to issue the mask policy without adoption
by the School Board and that the School Board could not effectively
delegate such authority to allow the Superintendent to act
unilaterally on this issue essentially amount to a claim that the
requirements of the OMA could not be circumvented in accomplishing
the desired end of instituting the subject mask policy.

On appeal, the Plaintiff explicitly states in his reply brief that
injunctive relief is not at issue on appeal. The Plaintiff has,
therefore, waived and abandoned any claim under MCL 15.271 for an
injunction based on alleged ongoing OMA violations.

Next, although the Plaintiff also asserted that he was seeking
exemplary damages, such damages are only available under the OMA in
cases of intentional conduct by a member of a public body.

In his complaint, the Plaintiff did not name any individuals other
than the Superintendent and, thus, did not raise a proper claim
under MCL 15.273(1) for an intentional violation of the OMA by a
public official, the Court of Appeals holds. This leaves a
potential claim under MCL 15.270 to invalidate a decision based on
an alleged violation of the OMA. The Plaintiff's complaint clearly
sought to invalidate the mask policy.

Moreover, on appeal, the Plaintiff states his requested relief as
follows: "The lower court's Opinion and Order should be reversed,
and judgment should be entered in my favor declaring: (1) that the
Policy is invalid; and (2) that the Superintendent does not have
authority to issue District Covid policy, communicable disease
policy, or any policy, specifically including but not limited to
any mask mandates or quarantines of uninfected pupils."

To the extent the Plaintiff merely seeks a declaratory judgment,
the Court of Appeals holds that such relief is not available under
the OMA. However, this conclusion makes no difference to the
Panel's analysis. Whether the Plaintiff's claim is understood as
one for declaratory relief or to invalidate the mask policy, the
Court of Appeals says it would nonetheless reach the same
determination based on the legal analysis set forth here that the
Plaintiff did not establish a violation of the OMA.

The School District also had the following relevant policy in
effect: 8450 -- CONTROL OF CASUAL-CONTACT COMMUNICABLE DISEASES:
The Board of Education recognizes that control of the spread of
communicable disease spread through casual-contact is essential to
the well-being of the school community and to the efficient
District operation. . . . "In order to protect the health and
safety of the students, District personnel, and the community at
large, the Board shall follow all State statutes and Health
Department regulations which pertain to immunization and other
means for controlling casual-contact communicable disease spread
through normal interaction in the school setting."

The Court of Appeals notes that the language in Policy 8450 is
broad enough to provide the Superintendent with the authority to
act as she did in this instance to respond to the evolving
circumstances of the pandemic. In doing so, she was acting in her
individual executive capacity to implement policy and was not
subject to the OMA. The mask protocol is not inconsistent with the
School Board policies.

The Court of Appeals adds that there is no language in Policy 8450
limiting the authority of the Superintendent to implement
administrative guidelines regarding the spread of communicable
diseases, contrary to the Plaintiff's narrow reading. Accordingly,
whether characterized as a request for declaratory relief or to
invalidate the mask policy, the Court of Appeals finds that the
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the OMA was violated.

To the extent the Plaintiff raises other potential issues, the
Court of Appeals holds that he has not stated any of them in a
sufficiently clear manner for the Panel to be able to discern the
precise legal basis on which he believes this Court could provide
him any appellate relief.

Affirmed. The Defendants having prevailed are entitled to costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 26, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mnt98p5f from Leagle.com.


DIRECTV GROUP: Final Judgment and Dismissal Issued in Perez Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Josephine L. Staton of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California issued a final judgment in the
lawsuit styled DONEYDA PEREZ as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECTV GROUP HOLDINGS,
LLC, a Delaware Corporation, LONSTEIN LAW OFFICES, P.C., a New York
Professional Corporation; SIGNAL AUDITING, INC., a New York
Corporation, JULIE COHEN LONSTEIN and WAYNE M. LONSTEIN,
Defendants, Case No. 8:16-CV-01440-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal.).

On Jan. 23, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

For the reasons stated in the Order, judgment is entered in
accordance with the Order and this action is dismissed with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Judgment dated Jan. 26, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2fjw8pnh from Leagle.com.


DIRECTV LLC: Eighth Circuit Affirms Remand of Creve Coeur Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled City of Creve Coeur, Missouri, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v.
DirecTV LLC, Defendant-Appellant. DISH Network Corporation; DISH
Network, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 21-3090 (8th Cir.), the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirms the
order granting Creve Coeur's motion to remand.

A Missouri statute, the Video Services Providers Act ("VSPA"),
allows local governments to impose fees on video service providers,
such as cable companies. The statute predates the now-popular
internet-based streaming services. Defendants DirecTV and Dish
Network provide video services in part through the Internet.

The City of Creve Coeur filed the class action in Missouri state
court on behalf of local government authorities, seeking a
declaratory judgment that the Defendants are liable under the VSPA
and implementing local ordinances, plus injunctive relief, an
accounting of unpaid fees, and damages. The Defendants removed the
action based on diversity jurisdiction and the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA).

The district court (the Honorable Ronnie L. White, U.S. District
Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri) remanded the action to
state court. After the state court entered an interlocutory order
declaring that VSPA payments are fees, rather than taxes, DirecTV
filed a second notice of removal, arguing this order established
the required federal jurisdiction.

The district court (the Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, U.S. District
Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri) granted Creve Coeur's
motion to remand, City of Creve Couer v. DirecTV, LLC, No.
4-21-CV-0122-AGF, 2021 WL 3674065, at *2-5 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 17,
2021). DirecTV appeals. The Court of Appeals affirms, though on
somewhat different grounds.

After this action was filed, the Defendants promptly removed in
August 2018, claiming the district court had original jurisdiction
because there was Section 1332(a) complete diversity, and Section
1332(d)(2) diversity jurisdiction as expanded by CAFA.

Creve Coeur moved to remand, arguing (i) the Defendants failed to
demonstrate the jurisdictional prerequisites for removal, either
complete diversity or CAFA diversity; (ii) the Tax Injunction Act
(TIA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1341, prohibited the district court from
exercising jurisdiction; and (iii) the doctrine of comity supported
remand. The district court granted the motion and remanded based on
the Supreme Court's decision in Levin v. Commerce Energy, Inc., 560
U.S. 413 (2010).

Back in state court, the Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing in
part that, under Missouri law, VSPA fees are pure taxes, and
therefore, applying VSPA to streaming video service would violate
the Hancock Amendment to the Missouri Constitution, which prohibits
political subdivisions from levying taxes without prior voter
approval.

The Plaintiff's January 2020 Consolidated Memorandum in Opposition
countered that the Hancock Amendment does not apply because the VSP
fees are charged in exchange for a specific privilege enjoyed by
the Defendants -- the right to provide video programming through
the public right-of-way.

The state court's Dec. 30, 2020 Order denying the motion to dismiss
concluded that the Defendants' Hancock Amendment argument is not
sufficiently persuasive to support a Motion to Dismiss because the
legal standard at this stage dictates that the Plaintiff receives
the benefit of the doubt in factual questions. The court noted
that, while the Plaintiff argues the Fee is not a tax to avoid the
Hancock Amendment's application, the Plaintiff argued the opposite
in order to escape federal jurisdiction.

No doubt spurred by this dicta, DirecTV returned to federal court,
filing a second Notice of Removal on Jan. 29, 2021. The Notice
argued the district court has diversity jurisdiction under CAFA and
that a second removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3).
In the first motion to remand, the Notice explained, the Plaintiff
argued for the application of the TIA and comity-based abstention
by characterizing the VSP fees as taxes. The Court manifested its
acceptance of the Plaintiff's characterization of the VSP fees as
common-law taxes through its numerous references to 'tax,' 'taxes,'
'taxation,' or the 'TIA' nearly two dozen times in the remand
decision.

Therefore, when the Plaintiff "changed course" after remand to
avoid the Hancock Amendment, and the state court ruled that VSP
fees did not constitute common-law taxes, at least not as a matter
of law, that Order for the first time made it unambiguously
ascertainable that the Creve Coeur action was removable despite any
state-tax based comity concerns, according to Circuit Judge James
B. Loken, writing for the Panel.

Though creative, the argument is without merit for multiple
reasons, Judge Loken holds. First, the district court's remand
order plainly stated that the remand was based on comity principles
as articulated in Levin, not on "state-tax based comity concerns."
Comity as a basis to remand was raised and fully argued in the
first remand proceeding.

Second, the Supreme Court in Levin emphatically stated that the
century-old comity doctrine is not limited to the
state-tax-interference concerns that later led Congress to enact
the TIA. Indeed, as the district court noted, in Levin the Court
concluded that because the comity doctrine justifies dismissal of
respondents' federal court action, the district court need not
decide whether the TIA would itself block the suit.

Third, the state court's December 2020 Order addressed,
preliminarily, only the VSPA fee-or-tax issue under state law.
Judge Loken points out it did not address the broader
considerations comity addresses, as confirmed in Levin -- "fiscal
operations," not just tax collection.

The state court order in no way overruled or even undermined the
basis for the district court's first remand order. Therefore, Judge
Loken holds DirecTV failed to establish the essential basis for a
second removal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3) -- an order or
other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is
one which is or has become removable. A second removal under
Section 1446(b)(3) requires a "different factual basis" underlying
a new theory for removal. Whatever else may be ascertained from the
state court's December 2020 Order, Judge Loken says it did not
affect removability.

The party seeking removal has the burden to establish federal
subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Loken notes.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court of Appeals concludes DirecTV
failed to meet that burden. Accordingly, the Panel need not
consider the other issues addressed by the district court. Nor do
the Panel express any view as to the merits of Creve Coeur's class
action claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 26, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4bykf6em from Leagle.com.


DIRT CHEAP: Conditional Status of Proposed FLSA Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMICYA WADDELL, ET AL.,
On Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated v. DIRT
CHEAP, INC. and HIDEOUT ON 36, INC. d/b/a THE HIDEOUT CLUB, Case
No. 2:22-cv-02205-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff Tamicya
Waddell and Opt-In Plaintiffs Tayzhli Bankhead, Alison Hissem,
Chelsey McReynolds, and Ashley Nichols ask the Court to enter an
order:

   1. conditionally certifying the Plaintiffs' Proposed FLSA
      Class pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Section
      216(b), to include all individuals that worked or
      performed as exotic dancers for, at, or in Defendants'
      Hideout Club during the period January 2020 through the
      present ("the FLSA Class Members);

   2. directing the Defendants shall produce to the Plaintiffs'
      counsel, in a usable electronic format, identifiers for
      all FLSA Class Members including each individual's (I)
      full legal name; (ii) mailing addresses; (iii) email
      addresses; and (iv) cellular telephone numbers; and

   3. directing the Plaintiffs' counsel (or a third-party
      administrator) shall serve a copy of the Court Approved
      FLSA Class Member Notice and the Court Approved FLSA Class
      Member Opt-In Consent Form on each FLSA Class Member by
      (i) United States mail; (ii) email; and (iii) text
      message.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IkIJxP at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Athena M. Herman, Esq.,
          ATHENA HERMAN LAW, LLC
          300 N.E. Perry Avenue
          Peoria, IL 61603
          Telephone: (309) 966-0248
          Fax: (309) 674-7989
          E-mail: athena@athenahermanlaw.com

                - and -

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.,
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
          E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Garth E. Flygare, Esq.,
          SMALLHORN LAW LLC
          600 Jackson Avenue
          Charleston, IL 6192
          Telephone: (217) 248-5253
          E-mail: gflygare@smallhornlaw.com

DLOCAL LIMITED: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 11
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of DLocal Limited DLO resulting from allegations
that dLocal may have issued materially misleading business
information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased dLocal securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=11762 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On November 16, 2022, Muddy Waters Research
("Muddy Waters") published a report entitled "DLO: 'History Never
Repeats Itself, but it Does Often Rhyme,'" which concluded that
"DLO is likely a fraud" and stated that the Company "has repeated
disclosures about its TPV and accounts receivable that flatly
contradict one another. There is also a contradictory discrepancy
between two key subsidiaries' accounts payable and accounts
receivable. These types of seemingly innocuous misstatements are,
instead, often signs of cooked books because it can become quite a
strain to keep the numbers straight once you start manipulating
them." In addition, the report stated that "Management and
directors dumped an extraordinary ~$1 billion in shares within the
first five months of DLO being public. A spate of recent high-level
departures brings to mind the idiom about 'rats fleeing a sinking
ship.'"

On this news, dLocal's stock price fell $10.76 per share, or 50%,
to close at $10.46 per share on November 16, 2022.

Then, on December 1, 2022, Muddy Waters published a second report
stating that dLocal has held calls with clients from several banks,
stressing that it had separated client funds from its own. The
report also said that dLocal's calls with clients were
"non-specific" and "sweet-talking," and that "all [the Company]
needed to do to address this issue was provide an explanation as to
how the cash flows reconcile."

On this news, dLocal's stock price fell $2.21 per share, or 15%, to
close at $12.39 per share on December 1, 2022.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

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

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

DRDGOLD LTD: South Africa Silicosis Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Harkavy, writing for ICLG.com, reports that South Africa's
Supreme Court of Appeal has ruled that a class action over
incurable disease suffered by miners can proceed. South African
mining companies DRDGold (DRD) and East Rand Proprietary Mines
(ERPM) have failed to persuade the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) to
overturn the Johannesburg High Court's November 2022 certification
of a class action on behalf of mineworkers who contracted
silicosis, an incurable and progressive pneumoconiosis associated
with gold mining, or pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) by inhaling large
amounts of silica dust. The lawsuit originally named 32 defendant
mining companies but the majority have either entered into, or are
currently negotiating, settlement agreements, with only DRD and
ERPM holding out to appeal against the certification. A further
four companies have neither settled nor appealed and will therefore
be joined in the class action when it is filed. In the event, the
mining companies' gamble did not pay off and, on 6 February, the
SCA dismissed the companies' bid, with Judge Christiaan van der
Merwe rejecting the appeal. In echoes of a November 2022
development in Merricks v Mastercard, where the Court of Appeal in
England allowed the inclusion of 3 million claimants who have died
since the case was filed in 2016, the appellants asked the SCA to
overturn the decision of the Johannesburg High Court to develop the
common law by allowing families of miners who have subsequently
died, or may die pending the resolution of the case, to benefit
from any eventual damages award or settlement. The SCA ruled that
the issue was not appealable and struck it out without hearing any
arguments, effectively greenlighting what is set to be the largest
class action in South African history. [GN]

DUNGARVIN OHIO: 2nd Joint Bid for Conditional Certification Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORA DUVALL & ALEXIS ROSS,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. DUNGARVIN
OHIO, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03372-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the
Parties file joint stipulation to conditionally certify a
collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and move the
Court to approve Notice and Consent Form to be sent to the putative
collective members, who are defined as follows:

   "All Ohio current and former hourly Direct Support
   Professional ("DSP") employees (including those with
   different titles whose primary job function was to perform
   DSP duties) of Dungarvin Ohio, LLC (including anyone who
   allegedly was employed by another Dungarvin entity) who (i)
   worked in Ohio; (ii) were paid for 40 or more hours of work
   in any workweek since February 1, 2020; and (iii) traveled to
   multiple clients' homes within the same day during such
   workweek(s) ("Potential Opt-Ins").

The Parties will provide notice to the Potential Opt-Ins in
accordance with the following schedule:

   1. The Parties jointly submit the proposed Notice and Consent
      to Join forms to be  authorized by the Court;

   2. Within 14 days of the Court's entry of an Order approving
      the Parties' Notice Packet, and ruling on the Parties'
      dispute, the Defendants shall provide to Named Plaintiffs'
      counsel a list (in Microsoft Office Excel format)
      containing the names, last known addresses (including zip
      code), cellular telephone numbers, and personal email
      addresses (to the extent that Defendants have email
      addresses) of/for the Potential Opt-Ins.

   3. Named Plaintiffs' counsel will (a) mail (via first class
      U.S. mail) and (b) email to the Potential Opt-Ins within
      14 days of receiving the list.

Dungarvin Ohio provides a variety of supports to children and
adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3llpGui at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
          Tristan T. Akers, Esq.
          1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telphone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  takers@mcoffmanlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Barry Y. Freeman, Esq.
          1375 East 9th Street, 10th Floor
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 615-4850
          Facsimile: (216) 623-0134
          E-mail: bfreeman@ralaw.com

ELECTROMED INC: June 5 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2021, DataBreaches noted reports that Electromed had been
hacked, and the incident affected employees and customers.
Electromed later reported the incident to HHS as impacting 47,200
patients. According to subsequent disclosures, this was a
ransomware incident that Electromed had discovered in June. In
September 2021, a potential class action lawsuit was filed against
the Minnesota firm.

Top Class Actions reports that Electromed settled the lawsuit for
$825,000 without admitting wrongdoing or liability. The case is
Lutz, et al. v. Electromed Inc., Case No. 0:21-cv-02198-KMM-DTS, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

NOTE: the deadlines for objection and exclusion reported on Top
Class Actions appear to be in error. According to the official
settlement site at https://electromeddatasettlement.com/:

Claim Form Mailing: January 3, 2023
Objection Deadline: March 2, 2023
Exclusion Deadline: March 2, 2023
Claim Deadline: April 1, 2023
Final Approval Hearing: June 5, 2023

DataBreaches noted that the settlement does include a committment
to security enhancements:

59. Remedial Measures/Security Enhancements: Electromed agrees to
implement and/or to keep in place the following information
security enhancements to ensure a similar incident does not recur:

a. Subscription (with annual renewals) for a leading network
monitoring tool that is constantly searching for suspicious
behavior and potential malware on Electromed's network;
b. Installation of a leading network monitoring tool on all
endpoints;
c. Global password reset for all user and administrative accounts;
d. Multifactor authentication for all administrative accounts and
all employees using VPN remote access;
e. Discontinuation of practice of allowing employees to review the
daily digest of potential SPAM; and;
f. Enhanced policies and procedures addressing use of multifactor
authentication and consequences for the repeated clicking on
phishing emails.

60. Costs associated with these business practice commitments (aka
injunctive relief) should be paid by Electromed separate and apart
from other settlement benefits.

20/20 Eye Care Network, Hearing Care Network
In June 2021, DataBreaches reported on a significant and somewhat
puzzling data security incident involving Eye Care Network and
Hearing Care Network. In January 2021, some data from their S3
storage bucket was removed, and all data in the bucket was
reportedly deleted. The entities notified more than 3.2 million
patients of the incident, which they described as involving insider
wrongdoing.

Top Class Actions explains that 20/20 Eye Care Network and 20/20
Hearing Care Network are health plan networks that provide vision-
and hearing-care coverage. The two networks are part of iCare
Acquisition, which has agreed to pay $3 million to settle the
breach claims without any admission of wrongdoing.

The case is Desue, et al. v. 20/20 Eye Care Network Inc., et al.,
Case No. 0:21-cv-61275-RAR, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.  The official settlement site is
2020EyeCareDataBreach.com.

DataBreaches notes that there doesn't seem to be any provision in
the settlement agreement that requires any enhanced security or
other security measures by the defendants. [GN]

ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEMEZZ HAMILTON, v.
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS INC., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10860-PGG-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding
general pretrial management:

  -- The class action has been referred to Magistrate Judge
     Barbara Moses for general pretrial management, including
     scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions,
     and settlement, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

     All pretrial motions and applications, including those
     related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions
     to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive
     relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification
     under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and
     in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in
     Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at
     https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties and
     counsel are cautioned:

     1. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery
        must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close
        of discovery set by the Court.

     2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions
        requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly
        after the need for such an application arises and must
        comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and § 2(b) of Judge
        Moses's Individual Practices. It is the Court's practice
        to decide discovery disputes at the Rule 37.2
        conference, based on the parties' letters, unless a
        party requests or the Court requires more formal
        briefing. Absent extraordinary circumstances, discovery
        applications made later than 30 days prior to the close
        of discovery may be denied as untimely.

     3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
        conferences are not required, but may be requested where
        counsel believe that an informal conference with the
        Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the
        issues.

     4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
        proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or
        to extend a deadline must be made in writing and in
        compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual
        Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or
        extensions will not be entertained.

     5. In accordance with section 1(d) of Judge Moses's
        Individual Practices, letters and letter-motions are
        limited to four pages, exclusive of attachments.
        Courtesy copies of letters and letter-motions filed via
        ECF are required only if the filing contains voluminous
        attachments. Courtesy copies should be delivered
        promptly, should bear the ECF header generated at the
        time of electronic filing, and should include tabs for
        the attachments.

     6. If you are aware of any party or attorney who should
        receive notice in this action, other than those
        currently listed on the docket sheet, please notify
        Courtroom Deputy Tamika Kay at (212) 805-0228
        immediately.

Enterprise Holdings is a family-owned, world-class portfolio of
brands.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I7zroX at no extra charge.[CC]

EVENTIDE CREDIT: Seeks Leave to File Certain Exhibits
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANA DUGGAN, Individually
and on behalf of persons similarly situated, v. MATT MARTORELLO and
EVENTIDE CREDIT ACQUISITIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-12277-JGD (D.
Mass.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting
their leave to file certain exhibits to their Opposition to Motion
for Class Certification under seal in accordance with Local Rule
7.2 and the Court's Protective Order and Supplement to Protective
Order.

The Defendants have filed their Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification. In support of that Opposition, Defendants
rely on:

   (1) excerpts of certain deposition transcripts,

   (2) business records, transactional documents, and
       communications produced by Big Picture Loans, LLC and
       Ascension  Technologies, LLC (the "Tribal Entities"), and

   (3) business records produced by other third parties,
       including the Tribal Entities' counsel and bank.

Pursuant to the Protective Order, upon Defendants' filing of the
Schedule 1 Exhibits under seal, any party seeking to preserve the
confidentiality of the material shall have ten calendar days to do
so. Id. Defendants will promptly notify the Tribal Entities of the
filing so that they may take the necessary steps to preserve
confidentiality, should they so desire.

The Defendants filed a similar opposition to a motion for class
certification in the Richard Smith, Jr. v. Matt Martorello matter,
which is currently pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Oregon (Case No. 3:18-cv-01651-AR).

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jYkkVx at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bernard R. Given, Esq.
          Bethany D. Simmons, Esq.
          LOEB & LOEB LLP
          10100 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 282-2000
          Facsimile: (310) 282-2200
          E-mail: bgiven@loeb.com
                  bsimmons@loeb.com

                - and -

          Ian D. Roffman, Esq.
          Michael J. Leard, Esq.
          NUTTER, MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP
          Seaport West, 155 Seaport Blvd.
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 439-2000
          Facsimile: (617) 310-9000
          E-mail: iroffman@nutter.com
                  mleard@nutter.com

FII USA: Not Fully Paying Wisconsin Employees, Class Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corrinne Hess at Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that Foxconn
employees working at the company's Mount Pleasant facility filed a
federal class action lawsuit alleging the company regularly shaved
time off from their weekly timesheets and failed to pay them earned
overtime.

The lawsuit, filed Feb. 7 in the U.S. Eastern District of
Wisconsin, by Scotty Allen against FII USA, inc. doing business as
Foxconn, alleges the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

The lawsuit gives a small glimpse into what is happening at Foxconn
where little is known, despite the company saying it employs about
1,000 people and receiving $37.4 million in state tax credits.

In a statement, Foxconn Technology Group said it would not comment
on the specifics of the lawsuit.

"At this time, we are currently looking into the matter and have no
comment regarding the allegation," the statement said.

                Hourly Employees Repeatedly Not Paid

Allen was hired as an hourly employee in August 2022, the lawsuit
says. He was fired by the company in January after complaining
about his timecard being altered, according to the lawsuit.

Allen was an assembly operator. The class action lawsuit says it
represents all "current and former hourly employees who perform
similarly-titled positions."

According to the lawsuit:

Foxconn does not fully compensate hourly employees, instead the
time clock rounds to the closest hour, to the detriment of the
employee.

Employees were not paid bonuses, overtime and other incentive
awards.
On multiple occasions employees complained to supervisors about
unlawful practices of changing or altering time clocks.

On Jan. 19, Allen complained to his supervisor about altering his
"clock in" and/or "clock out" times during the work. His supervisor
allegedly did not respond and Allen was instead terminated on Jan.
30 because of his complaints.

The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial. [GN]

FIRST ENERGY: Class Certification Hearing Set for March 17
----------------------------------------------------------
First Energy Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 13, 2023, that the class
certification hearing for consolidated securities class suit is
scheduled on March 17, 2023.

In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation (S.D. Ohio); on July
28, 2020 and August 21, 2020, purported stockholders of FE filed
putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal
securities laws. Those actions have been consolidated and a lead
plaintiff, the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association,
has been appointed by the court.

A consolidated complaint was filed on February 26, 2021. The
consolidated complaint alleges, on behalf of a proposed class of
persons who purchased FE securities between February 21, 2017 and
July 21, 2020, that FE and certain current or former FE officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing
misrepresentations or omissions concerning FE’s business and
results of operations.

The consolidated complaint also alleges that FE, certain current or
former FE officers and directors, and a group of underwriters
violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
as a result of alleged misrepresentations or omissions in
connection with offerings of senior notes by FE in February and
June 2020.

The class certification hearing is scheduled to take place on March
17, 2023.

FirstEnergy Corp., through its subsidiaries, provides various
electric utility services in the United States. The Company is
based in Akron, Ohio.


FIRST ENERGY: Settlement in Buldas Suit Satisfied on Dec. 7, 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First Energy Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 13, 2023, that the settlement for
the Buldas and Hudock consolidated class suit was satisfied on
December 7, 2022.

Smith v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al., Buldas v. FirstEnergy Corp. et
al., and Hudock and Cameo Countertops, Inc. v. FirstEnergy Corp. et
al. (S.D. Ohio, all actions have been consolidated); on July 27,
2020, July 31, 2020, and August 5, 2020, respectively, purported
customers of FE filed putative class action lawsuits against FE and
FESC, as well as certain current and former FE officers, alleging
civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act violations
and related state law claims.

FE agreed to a class settlement to resolve these claims on April
11, 2022. In the fourth quarter of 2021, FirstEnergy recognized a
pre-tax reserve of $37.5 million in the aggregate with respect to
these lawsuits and the Emmons lawsuit.

On June 22, 2022, the court preliminarily approved the class
settlement and the final fairness hearing was held on November 9,
2022.

On December 5, 2022, the court issued an order memorializing its
final approval of the class settlement.

The settlement amount was satisfied on December 7, 2022.

FirstEnergy Corp., through its subsidiaries, provides various
electric utility services in the United States. The Company is
based in Akron, Ohio.

FIRST ENERGY: Settlement in Emmons Suit Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
First Energy Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 13, 2023, that the Southern
District of Ohio issued a final written order that approved the
Emmons class suit settlement on December 5, 2022.

Emmons v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al. (Common Pleas Court, Cuyahoga
County, OH); on August 4, 2020, a purported customer of FirstEnergy
filed a putative class action lawsuit against FE, FESC, the Ohio
Companies, along with FES, alleging several causes of action,
including negligence and/or gross negligence, breach of contract,
unjust enrichment, and unfair or deceptive consumer acts or
practices.

FE agreed to a class settlement to resolve these claims on April
11, 2022.

In the fourth quarter of 2021, FirstEnergy recognized a pre-tax
reserve of $37.5 million in the aggregate with respect to this
lawsuit and the lawsuits above consolidated with Smith in the S.D.
Ohio alleging, among other things, civil violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

On June 22, 2022, the court preliminarily approved the class
settlement and the final fairness hearing was held on November 9,
2022.

The S.D. Ohio issued a final written order approving the settlement
on December 5, 2022.

FirstEnergy Corp., through its subsidiaries, provides various
electric utility services in the United States. The Company is
based in Akron, Ohio.

FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Deravakian Suit Administratively Closed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAFFI P. DERAVAKIAN, v.
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-23428-CMA (S.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga entered an order that:

   1. The class action is administratively closed without
      prejudice to the parties to file appropriate motions
      regarding notice and approval of a class settlement or a
      stipulation for dismissal within 120 days of the date of
      the Order.

   2. If the parties fail to complete the expected settlement,
      either party may request the Court to reopen the case. The
      parties shall mediate the case, as scheduled, on March 16,
      2023.

   3. The Clerk shall close this case for administrative
      purposes only. Any pending motions are denied as moot.

FirstSource is a debt collection agency focused on consumer debt,
especially auto loans and medical bills.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xbwH3I at no extra charge.[CC]



FLORIDA: Lawmakers Back DeSantis' Migrant Relocation Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
Steve Contorno, writing for CNN, reports that Florida lawmakers on
Feb. 10 approved an expansion of Gov. Ron DeSantis' controversial
program to relocate migrants, giving the Republican leader
authority to transport individuals from anywhere in the country.

The measure, now headed to DeSantis' desk after passing the GOP-led
House on a 77-34 vote, would allow his administration to pick up
where the governor left off last year when he sent two planes of
migrants from San Antonio, Texas, to Martha's Vineyard,
Massachusetts. The attention-grabbing act thrust DeSantis into the
middle of the national debate on immigration, earning the potential
2024 hopeful praise from conservatives and widespread condemnation
from migrant advocacy groups and the White House.

The program had stalled amid multiple legal challenges and
questions as to whether the DeSantis administration had violated
state law by rounding up migrants in Texas. The budget law that
created the $12 million program specified that the money was set
aside to relocate "unauthorized aliens from this state."

At DeSantis' urging, lawmakers meeting in a special session this
week voted to remove the restriction on where the state could pick
up migrants. The program would also come under the purview of the
Florida Division of Emergency Management. Because DeSantis has
declared a state of emergency related to immigration, this would
allow the administration to award millions of dollars in no-bid
contracts to companies to move migrants across the country with
little public disclosure.

The legislation comes as Florida has experienced a spike of
migrants from Cuba and Haiti attempting to reach the state's coast
by boat. However, the bill's sponsor, GOP state Sen. Blaise
Ingoglia, said giving the DeSantis administration freedom to
conduct missions outside of Florida would help stem the flow of
migrants into the state.

"The state of Florida is currently in a state of emergency because
of the ineptness and the incompetence of the federal government
when it comes to immigration policy," Ingoglia said on Feb. 7
during a committee hearing on the bill. "In fact, I would say that
someone should declare the federal government itself its own
disaster area."

The bill passed the state House on Feb. 10 over the strong
objections of Democrats, who said the state does not have a
constitutional role in addressing the country's immigration issues.
It passed the state Senate on a 27-12 party-line vote Feb. 8.
Republicans hold supermajorities in both chambers.

"There's nobody at this table who honestly thinks that we have a
good immigration policy right now," state Sen. Jason Pizzo, a Miami
Democrat, said at a news conference on Feb. 6. "There's no one at
this table who will say Joe Biden is doing a great job with
immigration. However, it's their authority."

In September, individuals working on behalf of the DeSantis
administration in San Antonio convinced 49 migrants -- most if not
all asylum-seekers from Venezuela -- to board two flights headed to
Martha's Vineyard. As the migrants arrived in Massachusetts to the
confusion of locals, DeSantis took credit for arranging the mission
during an appearance on Fox News.

Public records have since shed light on the clandestine mission,
which included hiring a company with close ties to a DeSantis
administration official to arrange the flights and using a woman
named "Perla" to help convince migrants to take the flights.

Attorneys for the migrants have filed a class-action lawsuit,
saying their clients were misled into agreeing to the flights and
had been told that they would arrive to find housing, jobs and help
with the immigration process. In fact, nobody on Martha's Vineyard
even knew they were coming, local officials have said. A migrant
who aided Perla told CNN that he was misled into helping her
recruit migrants for the trip.

On Feb. 8, Ingoglia said it was on the migrants to inform the
federal government of their location. He insisted that the state
would only transport people voluntarily and said that so-called
sanctuary jurisdictions are better equipped to provide resources
for migrants than Florida.

Under the legislation, $10 million would be reallocated to the
program under the state Division of Emergency Management for use
through June. DeSantis in his proposed budget set aside another $12
million to continue the program.

Democrats suggested that Republicans were retroactively cleaning up
DeSantis' missteps during the mission to Martha's Vineyard and
helping him raise his profile so he can run for president in 2024.

"What we're doing right now is carrying the water for the governor,
knowing that what he did was wrong, and you are holding your nose
to vote for this and saying that it's right," said state Sen.
Shevrin Jones. "This is wrong. It is not becoming of us as a state.
It is not becoming of us as human beings, and it's definitely not
becoming of our resources and how we are about to spend taxpayers'
dollars."

State Sen. Debbie Mayfield, a Republican, bristled at that
suggestion.

"If the federal government was doing their job and securing our
border, we would not have to be addressing this issue in Florida,"
she said. "To me, it's just that simple."

The governor's controversial flights could resume between now and
mid-March after Vertol Systems, the contractor for the program that
flew migrants to Martha's Vineyard, filed an extension to its
proposals for two additional migrant flights through March 15,
according to new documents obtained by CNN.

CNN previously reported that Vertol Systems was paid $950,000 by
the Florida Department of Transportation to fly migrants from Texas
to Illinois and Delaware, however, those flights were never
conducted. In total, Vertol Systems has received $1,565,000 from
the state under DeSantis' program.

Vertol Systems has repeatedly refused to comment on the migrant
flights, or answer any of CNN's inquiries about their contract.
[GN]

FORD MOTOR: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Rathman Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID M. RATHMAN,
individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 6:21-cv-00610-ADA-JCM
(W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey C. Manske entered an amended
scheduling order as follows:

      Date                                  Event

  August 27, 2021     Discovery commences on all issues.

  November 19, 2021   Deadline for Plaintiff to join additional
                      parties. It is not necessary to file a
                      motion to join additional parties prior to
                      this date. Thereafter, it is necessary to
                      obtain leave of Court to join additional
                      parties.

  April 1, 2023       Fact Discovery Deadline. Any fact
                      discovery requests must be propounded so
                      that the responses are due by this date.

  March 1, 2023       Plaintiff shall file Motion for Class
                      Certification, designate expert witnesses,
                      and make Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures with
                      respect to all expert opinions on which
                      Plaintiff relies in support of class
                      certification.

  April 1, 2023       Deadline to complete the depositions of
                      Plaintiff's class-certification experts.

  April 14, 2023      Defendants shall file its opposition to
                      Plaintiff's motion for Class
                      Certification, designate expert witnesses,
                      and make Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures with
                      respect to all expert opinions on which
                      Defendant reliesin support of class
                      certification.

  May 15, 2023       Deadline to complete the depositions of
                     Ford's class-certification experts.


  June 2, 2023       Plaintiff shall file reply in support of
                     its Motion for Class Certification.

Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer.

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

FRONTIER MGMT: Invalid Opt-In Consent Forms Stricken in Wright Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California signed the parties' stipulation
and order to strike invalid opt-in consent forms in the lawsuit
titled JOSHUA WRIGHT, LORETTA STANLEY, HALEY QUAM, and AIESHA
LEWIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. FRONTIER MANAGEMENT LLC, FRONTIER SENIOR LIVING, LLC,
and GH SENIOR LIVING, LLC dba GREENHAVEN Trial ESTATES ASSISTED
LIVING, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01767-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal.).

Between April 16, 2020, and Aug. 6, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed
opt-in consent forms for 33 individuals, who indicated their desire
to join in this collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).

Pursuant to the operative complaint, the FLSA Collective was
defined as: all individuals, who have submitted Opt-In Consent
Forms in the Federal Action and worked for Defendants as
non-exempt, hourly employees between March 13, 2017, and March 1,
2022.

Pursuant to the Court's March 17, 2020 stipulated order granting
conditional certification of the Collective and to facilitate
notice under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), the FLSA Collective was
defined as all current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
Frontier Management LLC, Frontier Senior Living, LLC, and GH Senior
Living, LLC dba Greenhaven Estates Assisted Living, in the United
States after March 16, 2017.

On Aug. 29, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval for Class and Collective Action Settlement,
and defined the FLSA Collective pursuant to the Parties' Class
Action Settlement Agreement and Release as: all individuals, who
have submitted Opt-In Consent Forms in the Federal Action and
worked for Defendants as non-exempt, hourly employees between March
13, 2017, and March 1, 2022.

Following the Parties' investigation, the following individuals'
opt-in consent forms are invalid, given that the individuals were
employed as exempt employees between March 13, 2017, and March 1,
2022, and thus do not meet the collective definition: Opt-in Nos.
11 [Jaclyn Almaguer], 14 [Bianca Bacy], 33 [Linda Christiansen], 34
[Myron Clifton], 65 [Caleb Gaines], 83 [Stacy Herbert], 95 [Marlene
Laderman], 135 [Devin Snider], 142 [Edwin Toroitich], 145 [Lisa
Wagoner]), 189 [Stephanie Runge], 190 [Ashley Johnson], 208 [Kristi
Fullerton], 228 [Mahin Haji-Sharifi], 268 [Karen Wood]), 289
[Janice McKinley], 314 [Ronald Smith], 330 [Joseph Yencsik], 359
[Mallory Hymes], 401 [Bridge McIntyre], 402 [Andrew Means], 476
[Pamela Chandler]), 581 [Tammy Cahill], 585 [Debra Netzel], 592
[Justin Fuchs], 633 [Sabrina Lazare-Rivera]), 642 [Charlotte
Pineda]), 684 [Yekeatha Harrell], 722 [Kristina Vaughan], 730
[Eytan Zfira], 754 [Abel Gonzales]), and 861 [Jonathan Johnson]).

Following the Parties' investigation, the following individual's
opt-in consent form is invalid, given that the individual did not
work for Frontier Management LLC, Frontier Senior Living, LLC, or
GH Senior Living, LLC dba Greenhaven Estates Assisted Living, and
thus does not meet the collective definition: Opt-In No. 951
[Tyquinn Brown]).

The Parties agree that the opt-in consent forms mentioned are
invalid and should be stricken.

In light of the invalid nature of these opt-in consent forms, the
Parties sought and obtained Court approval to strike the Opt-In
Consent forms.

A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order dated Jan.
26, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/36wn7mr4 from
Leagle.com.

Carolyn H. Cottrell -- ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com -- Ori
Edelstein -- oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com -- Michelle S. Lim --
mlim@schneiderwallace.com -- SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY
LLP, in Emeryville, California, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and
the Putative Class and Collective.

Barbara I. Antonucci -- bantonucci@constangy.com -- Sarah K.
Hamilton -- shamilton@constangy.com -- Oscar Peralta --
operalta@constangy.com -- CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP,
in San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendants FRONTIER
MANAGEMENT LLC, FRONTIER SENIOR LIVING, LLC and GH SENIOR LIVING,
LLC dba GREENHAVEN ESTATES ASSISTED LIVING.


GARNER, CT: Vega, et al., Files Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARRY VEGA, et al., v.
ANGEL QUIROS, Commissioner of Correction, et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-00107-JBA (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for
class certification.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of two damages classes -- a
Current Inmate Damages Class and a Former Inmate Damages Class --
that will include inmates who, either as post-conviction prisoners
or pre-trial detainees, have been exposed, or are continuing to be
exposed, to dangerous levels of radon in excess of acceptable
standards while housed at Garner Correctional Institution.

The Current Inmate Damages Class and Former Inmate Damages Class
will seek to compensate those who, as a result of radon exposure at
Garner, have developed, or may in the future develop, medical
conditions linked to high radon exposure.

The Plaintiffs also seek certification of an Inmate Injunctive
Relief Class for all persons currently incarcerated at Garner
who are facing ongoing violations of their federal constitutional
rights as a result of Defendants' failure to remediate the
excessive radon levels at Garner and provide the inmates with
proper medical screening and management.

The Plaintiffs include MICHAEL CRUZ; KENYA BROWN; JEFFREY PERRY;
LEE GRENIER; TAVORUS FLUKER; ANTHONY ROGERS; THOMAS MARRA; LAWRENCE
TOWNSEND; TERRENCE EASTON; LAMONT SAMUEL; IAN COOKE; JOHN BOSSE;
and J. MICHAEL FARREN; BRETT FENNESSY; EMISAEL TIRADO on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated.

The Defendants include ROLLIN COOK, former Commissioner of
Correction; SCOTT SEMPLE, former Commissioner of Correction; JAMES
DZURENDA, former Commissioner of Corrections; LEO ARNONE, former
Commissioner of Correction; THERESA LANTZ, former Commissioner of
Correction; JAMES ARMSTRONG, former Commissioner of Correction;
LAWRENCE MEACHUM, former Commissioner of Correction; HENRY FALCONE,
Former Warden, Garner Correctional Institution;  DENISE DILWORTH,
former Warden, Garner Correctional Institution; ANTHONY CORCELLA,
former Warden, Garner Correctional Institution; AMONDA HANNAH,
Former Warden, Garner Correctional Institution; CRAIG WASHINGTON,
Warden, Garner Correctional Institution; STEVEN LINK, Director,
Department of Correction Engineering and Facilities Management; and
DAVID BATTEN, former Director, Department of Correction Engineering
and Facilities Management; RICHARD PEASE, Environmental Engineering
Services of the Department of Correction, all in their individual
and official capacities.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YOU3HU at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David X. Sullivan, Esq.
          Thomas J. Finn, Esq.
          Paula Cruz Cedillo, Esq.
          Justyn P. Stokely, Esq.
          McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
          CityPlace I, 36th Floor
          185 Asylum Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 275-6700
          Facsimile: (860) 724-3397
          E-mail: dsullivan@mccarter.com
                  tfinn@mccarter.com
                  pcedillo@mccarter.com
                  jstokely@mccarter.com

                - and -

          Martin J. Minnella, Esq.
          MINNELLA, TRAMUTA, & EDWARDS, LLC
          40 Middlebury Road
          Middlebury, CT 06762
          Telephone: (203) 573-1411
          Facsimile: (203) 757-9313
          E-mail: pcrean@mtelawfirm.com

GEORGIA: Hogan Seeks to Certify Class of Detainees
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hogan v. Kemp. et al.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-05138-AT-CCB (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order certifying a detainee class defined as:

   "The Plaintiff and all other similarly situated State of
   Georgia offenders confined within the Georgia Department of
   Corrections and whom are now under the authority and
   jurisdiction of the State of Georgia's State Board of Pardons
   and Parole."

The Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC) is an agency of the
U.S. state of Georgia operating state prisons.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class  dated Jan. 30,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I0C2jh
at no extra charge.[CC]

GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 12
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of securities of Global Payments, Inc., (NYSE: GPN)
between October 31, 2019 and October 18, 2022, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been
filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the
Court no later than April 10, 2023.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Global Payments securities during the
Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of
any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee
arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Global Payments class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=11841 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 10, 2023. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1)  Active Network used deceptive
and abusive acts and practices to dupe its customers into enrolling
into Active Network's own discount club; (2) since July 2011,
Active Network, and by extension, Global Payments, was aware of
such unauthorized conduct and that it was violating relevant
regulations and laws aimed at protecting its consumers; (3) since
2011, Global Payments failed to properly monitor its subsidiary
from engaging in such unlawful conduct, detect and stop the
misconduct, and identify and remediate harmed consumers; (4) all
the foregoing subjected the Company to a foreseeable risk of
heightened regulatory scrutiny or investigation; (5) Global
Payments' revenues were in part the product of Active Network's
unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; and (6) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Global Payments class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=11841 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

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

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

GLOBUS MEDICAL: Lifshitz Law Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lifshitz Law PLLC on Feb. 11 announced an investigation into
possible breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the sale of
SUMO to affiliates of Francisco Partners for $12.05 per share in
cash.

If you are a SUMO investor, and would like additional information
about our investigation, please complete the Information Request
Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780
or e-mail at info@lifshitzlaw.com.

Globus Medical, Inc. (NYSE: GMED)

Lifshitz Law PLLC announces an investigation into possible breach
of fiduciary duties in connection with the merger of GMED and
NuVasive, Inc. whereby NuVasive shareholders will receive 0.75 of a
share of GMED Class A common stock for each share of NuVasive
common stock.

If you are a GMED investor, and would like additional information
about our investigation, please complete the Information Request
Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780
or e-mail at info@lifshitzlaw.com.

NuVasive, Inc. (NASDAQ: NUVA)

Lifshitz Law PLLC announces investigation into possible breach of
fiduciary duties in connection with the sale of NUVA to Globus
Medical, Inc. for 0.75 of a share of Globus Medical Class A common
stock for each share of NUVA common stock.

If you are a NUVA investor, and would like additional information
about our investigation, please complete the Information Request
Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780
or e-mail at info@lifshitzlaw.com.

Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: CSII)

Lifshitz Law PLLC announces an investigation into possible breach
of fiduciary duties in connection with the sale of CSII to Abbott
Laboratories for $20.00 per common share.

If you are a CSII investor, and would like additional information
about our investigation, please complete the Information Request
Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780
or e-mail at info@lifshitzlaw.com.

Contact:

Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
Lifshitz Law PLLC
Phone: 516-493-9780
Facsimile: 516-280-7376
Email: info@lifshitzlaw.com [GN]

GREENSBORO, NC: PFAS Water Contamination Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham News reports that when Pittsboro resident and Clean Haw
River co-founder Katie Bryant founded the initiative in 2020, she
made it her mission to advocate for action against industries
discharging dangerous chemicals, including PFAS, into the Haw
River, Pittsboro's main source of water.

Naturally, she felt thrilled when the town's board of commissioners
voted unanimously to sue the manufacturers responsible for the
creation and discharge of PFAS.

"It was a relief," Bryant said. "Because it's exhausting trying to
get people to do what they need to do and just constantly hitting
roadblocks, constantly wanting to give up. But I knew in the
background, things were slowly happening . . . so I'm excited."

Pittsboro commissioners voted in July to engage Sher Edling LLP, a
California-based firm with extensive experience in
environmental-related legal processes, to investigate potential
sources of PFAS discharges upstream. Commissioners followed up two
weeks ago by voting unanimously to sue PFAS manufacturers, becoming
the first municipal government in North Carolina to pursue legal
action against PFAS producers.

Activists like Bryant have advocated -- through demonstrations,
presentations to the board and other municipalities and more -- for
Pittsboro to take action against those responsible for the
generations of pollution caused by PFAS.

Bryant and her fellow co-founder, Dr. Jessica Merricks, started
Clean Haw River in 2020 to advocate for clean water for Pittsboro,
a problem that's plagued the town for years. Both Bryant and
Merricks are Pittsboro residents, so they've also been victims of
the polluted waterways and water supply.

"My family's been overexposed," Bryant said. "My husband needs more
monitoring than the average person in the United States, and my
children are there as well."

PFAS, per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals, are considered likely
human carcinogens and consistently found in raw water samples from
the Haw, which is Pittsboro's source of drinking water.

PFAS may also be linked to increased cholesterol levels, decreased
vaccine response in children, changes in liver enzymes, increased
risk of high blood pressure or preeclampsia in pregnant women,
decreases in infant birth weights, and an "increased risk for
kidney and testicular cancer," according to the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry.

Merricks -- a biology professor at Elon University -- said
Pittsboro's decision to pursue litigation against PFAS
manufacturers was "a long time coming." While she's only lived in
Pittsboro since 2019, she's monitored her home's water and
installed an under-the-sink filter as a safeguard.

"We had been in our house just a few months when that vague letter
came through the mail, about the water, and we sprung into action
as quickly as we could," Merricks said. "We've just been dealing
with the financial burden of it."

Merricks said she was glad the town decided to pursue litigation,
but it doesn't necessarily make up for years residents had been
consuming the likely human carcinogens.

"It's been terribly inconvenient, stressful, annoying and a
completely unnecessary amount of stress on us to have to deal with
it," she said.

Bryant and Merricks also worked with the town to come up with
recommendations for solutions to the water crisis through their
appointments to the Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force. Bryant also
was the person who recommended the law firm -- Sher Edling LLP --
pursuing the litigation against PFAS manufacturers on the town's
behalf.

"I had to take a big step back and not overdo it and push and yell
and scream and kick and fight," Bryant said. "They have definitely
slowly made their way -- like a sloth -- towards this moment, but
I'm happy I'm so happy that they finally did."

Clean Haw River wasn't the only organization fighting for clean
water for Pittsboro residents. The Haw River Assembly, created in
1982, advocates for clean water along both the Haw River and the
Jordan Lake watershed.

Haw River Riverkeeper Emily Sutton has been with the Haw River
Assembly since 2016 and served with Merricks and Bryant on the
Pittsboro Water Quality Task Force. When she heard about the
board's vote to sue PFAS producers, her first reaction was relief.

Still, Sutton said she still felt action could've come sooner.

"We've been trying to get the town of Pittsboro to take meaningful
action on this issue for six years, and we have presented at
countless town council meetings and county commissioners meetings
trying to get the town of Pittsboro to protect the members of their
community," she said.

The Haw River Assembly filed multiple class-action lawsuits against
municipalities, including Greensboro and Burlington, for the role
their water treatment plants played in discharges of chemicals such
as PFAS and 1,4-Dioxane.

Sutton said when she read through the contents of Pittsboro's
51-page lawsuit, however, she was concerned with the approach the
law firm appears to be taking.

"Their goal is to go after the manufacturers of these chemicals
themselves, rather than the industries who are responsible for
polluting their drinking water supply," Sutton said. "We're talking
about DuPont and Chemours and all of these large corporations who
think this is very small issue."

While the approach is different than what the Haw River Assembly is
doing in its litigation, Sutton said there is the potential for the
Pittsboro suit to bring forth actual change.

"Now I do think that there's a meaningful strategy here, and I hope
that other municipalities take a similar route," she said. "If
these compounds can be removed from manufacturing processes as a
whole, then that protects communities throughout the globe."

The Haw River Assembly is still working to hold industries
responsible for the discharges accountable, and she said she will
continue to urge Pittsboro to take action against the polluters as
well as manufacturers.

"We've been able to identify the sources of pollution within the
cities," Sutton said. "But these industries who have just dumped
toxins into our surface water for decades need to be held
accountable by the people that they're poisoning."

Merricks said she and Bryant are also working to campaign for
further legislation at the state level to address the possibility
of regulating PFAS, along with other unregulated substances.

"Every term we end up with a handful of bills related to PFAS, and
none of them make it to a vote," Merricks said. "I think we're very
much focused on supporting those representatives who have the
citizens' best interests at heart and trying to advocate for those
people to get in office or stay in office -- that's important to
us."

Clean Haw River is also in the process of pursuing its own class
action lawsuit against polluters and PFAS manufacturers, according
to Bryant. She said while Clean Haw River is in the beginning
stages of planning this undertaking, she and Merricks want to
extend their activism beyond Chatham County's borders to
neighboring communities, including Sanford.

For now, though, Bryant said she's optimistic in the direction her
town is going in fighting for clean water for its residents.

"This lawsuit is the stepping point -- it's the beginning of the
end of this pollution," Bryant said. "Pittsboro has made a giant
step . . . It's the beginning of the end of a really terrible time.
I hope this even makes more major changes in the U.S. and our
state." [GN]

HAIN CELESTIAL: Bid to Dismiss Anderberg Amended Complaint Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEIDI ANDERBERG,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. THE
HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
3:21-cv-01794-RBM-NLS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Ruth Bermudez
Montenegro entered an order denying the defendant's motion to
dismiss plaintiff's first amended class action complaint.

Accepting all factual allegations in the FAC as true and construing
the pleadings in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court
finds Plaintiff's FAC is sufficient to survive the Defendant's
Motion. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion is denied.

The main allegation in this action is that the "Reef Friendly"
label on Defendant's Products is misleading to consumers because
the ingredients in the Products are harmful to reefs.

Although monetary damages may ultimately fully address Plaintiff's
harm, at this stage of the litigation there is "an ongoing,
prospective nature to [plaintiff's allegations]" given her
contention that she and other future purchasers will continue to be
misled.

On March 2, 2022, Defendant The Hain Celestial filed a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff Heidi Anderberg's First Amended Class Action
Complaint.

The Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion on April 11, 2022,
and Defendant filed a reply on April 18, 2022. The Plaintiff
subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority on June 20,
2022 and August 29, 2022.

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant "advertises as an organic and
natural products company which participates in almost all natural
categories with well-known brands, including Alba Botanica," which
produces sunscreen.

Hain Celestial is an American food company whose main focus is
natural foods and botanically-based personal care products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YbPyY4 at no extra charge.[CC]



HANESBRANDS INC: Continues to Defend Roman Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hanesbrands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 7, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Roman class suit in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

On October 7, 2022, a putative class action was filed against
"Hanes Brands [sic], Inc." alleging, among other things,
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, unfair business practices under the California Business
and Professions Code, and violations of the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act in connection with the
ransomware incident. The litigation is entitled, Roman v. Hanes
Brands [sic], Inc., and is pending in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

The pending lawsuit seeks, among other things, monetary and
injunctive relief.

The Company is vigorously defending this matter and believes the
case is without merit.

Hanesbrands Inc. is a marketer of everyday basic innerwear and
active wear apparel based in North Carolina.





HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Levins Amended Complaint Tossed w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELAINE LEVINS and WILLIAM
LEVINS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC, d/b/a ARS ACCOUNT
RESOLUTION SERVICES, Case No. 1:17-cv-00928-CPO-EAP (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Christine P. O'Hearn entered an order dismissing without
prejudice the amended complaint.

As such, the pending motions are denied as moot. Having concluded
that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action,
the pending motions will be denied as moot, and Plaintiffs'
Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

The Court did not hear oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 78.1.
For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that it lacks Article
III standing and thus the Amended Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice. As such, the pending motions are denied as moot.

This case concerns alleged violations of the "true name"
requirement of the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act ("FDCPA").
While attempting to collect a medical debt from Plaintiffs, HRRG
left a series of voicemail messages on Plaintiffs' telephone in
which it identified itself as "ARS."

The Plaintiffs allege this violates the "true name" requirement
under the FDCPA, while Defendant maintains it permissibly referred
to itself as "ARS." In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs seek
statutory damages only for the alleged violation of the FDCPA.

On February 12, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
Complaint alleging violations of the FDCPA.

The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on April 12, 2017.
Thereafter, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint, which this Court granted on September 26, 2017.


On January 24, 2020, the Defendant filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment seeking dismissal of the sole remaining claim.

Healthcare Revenue provides collection services to healthcare
sector.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DQ6hYY at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Phillip D. Stern, Esq.
          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christian M. Scheuerman, Esq.
          Jonathan Stuckel, Esq.
          MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY
          535 Route 38 East, Suite 501
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002

HEIDI WASHINGTON: Bownes, et al., Lose Bid for Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELVIN BOWNES, ANTHONY
RICHARDSON, TIMOTHY BROWNELL, and JAMES GUNNELS, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, v. HEIDI WASHINGTON and
JONG CHOI, Case No. 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-JJCG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon.
Judge Laurie J. Michelson entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment;

   2. granting the Plaintiffs' motion to file a sur-reply to the
      extent that the Court did not consider the COMS data in
      addressing Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and

   3. granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion
      for summary judgment as follows:

      -- Bownes' facial challenge to the two-year rule is
         dismissed;

      -- Class IIA's Eighth Amendment claim based on inadequate
         diagnosis of periodontitis and caries will proceed to
         trial;

      -- The inadequate-treatment claim under the Eighth
         Amendment brought by members of Class IIB with
         gingivitis who have not yet served two years will
         proceed to trial, but the same claim brought by members
         of Class IIB with gingivitis who have served two years
         will be dismissed;

      -- The inadequate-diagnosis claim under the Eighth
         Amendment brought by members of Class IIB with
         gingivitis will be dismissed;

      -- The inadequate-diagnosis and inadequate-treatment
         claims under the Eighth Amendment brought by members of
         Class IIB with healthy gums will be dismissed;

      -- Class IIC's Eighth Amendment claim based on inadequate
         treatment of periodontitis will proceed to trial;

      -- Class III's and James Gunnels' claim based on MDOC's
         provision of dentures is dismissed; and

      -- Timothy Brownell's claim based on MDOC's provision of
         urgent care is dismissed.

The parties are to complete a 90-day period of discovery that will
close on April 30, 2023. Defendants are to produce to Plaintiffs
COMS data that Defendants intend to use at trial.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3X8zfKk at no extra charge.[CC]

HIGHBRIDGE CONSTRUCTION: Customer Seeks Class Action After Closure
------------------------------------------------------------------
ctvnews.ca reports that a homeowner, whose two-story house addition
was left incomplete, is considering a class-action lawsuit after
losing a large sum of money to Highbridge Construction.

The east Ottawa company's abrupt closure left customers, workers
and contractors in the lurch and in some cases, owed hundreds of
thousands of dollars.

As Chris Thomas looks at the wood framing of his ceiling, water
drips from the floor above, pooling on the floor below, adding to
the pile of ice forming on the interior of his home addition
project and problems.


"It's tough, we've been saving up for a home improvement and we
decided this was a good thing for our family to do," Thomas says.
"Now I'm scrambling; it's not even half built and we need to get it
done because we can't just leave it like this."

The two-story addition to the back of Thomas's Glebe home would
include a first floor powder room and living space, while the
second floor would be used as a master bedroom and ensuite.

Currently, the framing is in place, along with some electrical and
duct work. The exterior wood is exposed to the elements and up
until a short while ago, there was no roof. Thomas had to have that
installed himself.

Thomas says Highbridge Construction promised the project would be
completed by last September, but it was a build barraged by
problems and constant delays.

"They framed the second story one foot too low, they had to
completely tear it off and rebuild the thing because they didn't
bother checking to ensure that it was level with the floor they
needed to connect to in the house," Thomas said, adding some
irreplaceable, century-old bricks were smashed off the side of his
house as well.

"I thought I did my due diligence. As it turns out now as I get
more and more information, I clearly didn't do enough. We've paid
70 per cent of the project up until now and at best maybe 40 per
cent is done, maybe I'm not even sure."

Thomas is amongst a growing list of people who say they have lost
tens of thousands of dollars after the construction company
abruptly ceased operations.

Contractors, as well as employees were left in the lurch, some who
say paycheques bounced.

Workers were allowed to enter the Orleans office after the property
manager locked the door, posting a sign in the window, which claims
Highbridge owes more than $100,000 in rent.

"I came to pick up my personal things," says former employee Sharri
Fermoyle. "We were devastated (when the company shuttered), the
group of us . . . . hopefully you get another job and you move on
and you recreate yourself somewhere new."

Ottawa Police Chief Eric Stubbs calls the situation a "very
unfortunate set of circumstances". On Thurs, Stubbs confirmed
complaints had been received and that the fraud section was
actively investigating.

Thomas says many of his nights are now spent researching to find
individuals and products required to complete his renovation
project. He is considering a class-action lawsuit against the
owners of Highbridge Construction.

"There is obviously many, maybe hundreds of people in my
situation," Thomas said. "I would really appreciate getting
together with everyone and I don't know if there is anything left
to go at Highbridge but there's people, owners."

CTV News Ottawa has made multiple attempts to contact Highbridge
Construction and has not yet received a response. [GN]

HONDA MOTOR: Faces Baylor Securities Suit Over 3.23% Share Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
RHONDA BAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD., AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY,
INC., TOSHIHIRO MIBE, TAKAHIRO HACHIGO, and KOHEI TAKEUCHI,, Case
No. 2:23-cv-00794 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 2, 2023) is a federal securities
class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
Honda American Depository Shares (ADSs) between June 20, 2018 and
September 28, 2022, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

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

The Defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that:

    (i) Honda had overstated the safety and effectiveness of the
        Idle Stop engine feature;

   (ii) Honda maintained deficient disclosure controls and
        procedures with respect to product quality and safety;

  (iii) Honda failed to prevent American Honda from marketing and
        selling thousands of vehicles that contained a defective
        Idle Stop feature; and

   (iv) the foregoing conduct subjected the Company and/or its
        subsidiaries to a heightened risk of litigation, as well
as
        financial and/or reputational harm.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff acquired Honda ADSs at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the
alleged corrective disclosures.

Honda is a multinational conglomerate manufacturer of automobiles,
motorcycles and power equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

IHEARTMEDIA INC: Faces Digital Privacy Class Action in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marian Johns, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that iHeartmedia
is facing a digital privacy class action over its sharing of user
information with Facebook.

Gloria Talley, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, filed a complaint Jan. 31 in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida against iHeartmedia,
alleging violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act and other
claims.

According to her complaint, Talley is a digital subscriber to
iHeart.com and also a Facebook user. She claims that when using her
iHeart digital subscription to view video media through the iHeart
website or app while logged into Facebook, her personal viewing
information is disclosed to Facebook without her consent.

Talley alleges iHeartmedia knowingly disclosed her Facebook ID and
the computer file containing video including her personal viewing
information by using cookies, software development kits and pixels.
She claims the defendant uses the practices even though digital
subscribers have not shared or consented to share the information.


She further claims the defendant uses subscribers' personal
information to build targeted advertising and by doing so,
disregards their protected privacy rights.

Talley and the class seek monetary relief, interest, trial by jury
and all other just relief. They are represented by Andrew Shamis
and Edwin Elliott Shamiks & Gentle PA in Miami, Florida and Scott
Edelsberg of Edelsberg Law PA in Aventura, Florida.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida case number
8:23-CV-00215-DSM-MRM [GN]

IMPERIAL COUNTY: Miscalculated Pension Contributions, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
hcamag.com reports that six individuals employed by Imperial County
filed a class action lawsuit against the county, the Imperial
County Employees' Retirement System (ICERS), and the system's
board.

They alleged that the defendants systematically miscalculated
employee pension contributions.

Three unions - the Imperial County Sheriff's Association, the
Imperial County Firefighter's Association, and the Imperial County
Probation and Corrections Peace Officers' Association - represented
the six plaintiffs in the case of Imperial County Sheriff's
Association et al. v. County of Imperial et al.

The Public Employee Pension Reform Act (PEPRA), which took effect
in January 2013, was relevant to this case. Starting in 2019,
through written memorandums of understanding that the county
ratified, the county agreed to pay the unfunded actuarial accrued
liability (UAAL) cost for PEPRA members.

On the other hand, safety members eligible for the "3% at 50"
benefit - who were called legacy members - had to keep paying the
UAAL cost associated with the benefit.

After attempts at mediation failed, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for class certification. They wanted to certify a class consisting
of county employees who were members of ICERS within a specified
period. They did not specifically request subclasses of legacy and
PEPRA members in their motion.

The trial court denied the class certification motion. It made the
following findings:

-- The plaintiffs failed to meet the requirement to show community
of interest among the proposed class members

-- The employees hired before the PEPRA took effect were entitled
to an enhanced pension benefit, which those hired after the
effective date did not have

-- The conflicting interests of two groups of employees - those
hired before and after the PEPRA's effectivity - prevented
certification of the class

-- The proposed class representatives failed to show that they
could adequately represent the class

The plaintiffs appealed.

The California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District, First
Division reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court
returned the matter to the trial court and directed it to allow the
plaintiffs to submit the proposed class representatives'
supplemental declarations to argue that they were adequate
representatives.

If the trial court approved the class representatives, it should
certify the class and should create subclasses for legacy and PEPRA
safety members of ICERS and legacy and PEPRA retirees, the
appellate court said.

Community of interest
The trial court should not have denied class certification based on
a lack of community of interest since the evidence did not support
this, the Court of Appeal ruled. The trial court, which had to
assess whether any individual questions impaired the benefits of
proceeding with a group action, failed to conduct this analysis,
the appellate court added.

Adequacy of representation

The plaintiffs failed to give declarations from the proposed class
representatives to support their ability to fulfill their
obligations to the class or subclasses, the Court of Appeal said.
The plaintiffs should have an opportunity to submit supplemental
declarations where the proposed class representatives could assert
that they would be adequate representatives, the appellate court
concluded. [GN]

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due March 14
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of International Business Machines
Corporation IBM between January 18, 2018 and October 16, 2018, both
dates inclusive (the 'Class Period') of the important March 14,
2023 lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you invested in IBM securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the IBM class action, go to or call
Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email or for
information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already
been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than March 14, 2023 . A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class
action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was
Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Strategic Imperatives Revenue
growth, CAMSS (the distinct components of 'Cloud,' 'Analytics,'
'Mobile,' 'Security,' and 'Social') and CAMSS components' revenue
growth, and the Company's Segments' revenue growth were
artificially inflated as a result of the wrongful
reclassification/misclassification of revenues from non-strategic
to strategic to make those revenues eligible for treatment as
Strategic Imperatives Revenue; and (2) IBM was materially less
successful in growing its Strategic Imperative business, reporting
materially higher growth than it actually achieved only by
wrongfully reclassifying and misclassifying revenue from
non-strategic to strategic thereby reporting publicly materially
false Strategic Imperative Revenue.When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the IBM class action, go to or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at or for information on the
class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

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

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827 [GN]

J. RIVELLO: Edwards Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS EDWARDS, et al.,
v. J. RIVELLO, et. al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00156-CCC-CA (M.D. Pa.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying case as
class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 23 (a)(b).

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jEF1px at no extra
charge.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]


KIA MOTORS: Sanchez Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yandery Sanchez, Louise
Knudson, Andrea Reiher-Odom, Amber Witt, and Mark Treston, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Kia
Motors America, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-01604-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs file an application for leave to file under seal the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

By filing this application, the Plaintiffs do not agree or concede
that the documents lodged under seal should be kept under seal.
Instead, the Plaintiffs make this Application to comply with the
Protective Order and to provide the Court with an opportunity to
hear Kia and the third parties' explanation regarding why, in their
view, good cause exists to seal the designated materials and the
portions of the Motion discussing these documents.

Kia Motors offers passenger cars, minivans, sports utility
vehicles, crossovers, sedans, and vans.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RJifsU at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Trinette G. Kent, Esq.
          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          Stephen Taylor, Esq.
          Joshua Markovits, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          1100 West Town & Country Road, Suite 1250
          Orange, CA 92868
          Telephone: (480) 247-9644
          Facsimile: (480) 717-4781
          E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com
                  slemberg@lemberglaw.com
                  staylor@lemberglaw.com
                  jmarkovits@lemberglaw.com

KIA MOTORS: Sanchez, et al., Seek to Certify Classes, Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yandery Sanchez, Louise
Knudson, Andrea Reiher-Odom, Amber Witt, and Mark Treston, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Kia
Motors America, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-01604-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the case
as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and certifying
classes comprised of:

  -- California Class

     "All persons who purchased or leased any 2020-2022 Kia
     Telluride vehicle in the State of California;"

  -- California Breach of Express Warranty Subclass

     "All persons who

     (1) purchased or leased any 2020-2022 Kia Telluride
         vehicle in the State of California;

     (2) requested a replacement windshield from a Kia
         dealership during the 60 months/60,000 miles "Basic
         Warranty Coverage" period set forth in Kia's New
         Vehicle Limited Warranty; but

     (3) were not provided a non-defective replacement
         windshield during the warranty period and at no
         charge."

  -- Iowa Class

     "All persons who purchased or leased any 2020-2022 Kia
     Telluride vehicle in the State of Iowa;"

  -- Iowa Breach of Express Warranty Subclass

     "All persons who (1) purchased or leased any 2020-2022 Kia
     Telluride vehicle in the State of Iowa; (2) requested a
     replacement windshield from a Kia dealership during the 60
     months/60,000 miles "Basic Warranty Coverage" period set
     forth in Kia's New Vehicle Limited Warranty; but (3) were
     not provided a nondefective replacement windshield during
     the warranty period and at no charge;"

  -- New York Class

     "All persons who purchased or leased any 2020-2022 Kia
     Telluride vehicle in the State of New York • New York
     Breach of Express Warranty Subclass: All persons who (1)
     purchased or leased any 2020-2022 Kia Telluride vehicle in
     the State of New York; (2) requested a replacement
     windshield from a Kia dealership during the 60
     months/60,000 miles "Basic Warranty Coverage" period set
     forth in Kia's New Vehicle Limited Warranty; but (3) were
     not provided a non-defective replacement windshield during
     the warranty period and at no charge;"

  -- North Carolina Class

     "All persons who purchased or leased any 2020-2022 Kia
     Telluride vehicle in the State of North Carolina;" and

  -- North Carolina Breach of Express Warranty Subclass

     "All persons who (1) purchased or leased any 2020-2022 Kia
     Telluride vehicle in the State of North Carolina; (2)
     requested a replacement windshield from a Kia dealership
     during the 60 months/60,000 miles "Basic Warranty Coverage"
     period set forth in Kia's New Vehicle Limited Warranty; but
     (3) were not provided a non-defective replacement
     windshield during the warranty period and at no charge."

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant knowingly sold and
warranted 2020-2022 Kia Telluride vehicles (the "Class Vehicles")
that suffer from a common defect that predispose the windshields to
crack under normal and expected driving conditions in which a
normal windshield would not fail, necessitating the replacement of
the entire windshield (the "Defect" or "Windshield Defect"). The
Defect makes the vehicles unsafe, illegal to operate in many states
and is not what was bargained for.

Kia Motors operates as an automobile dealer. The Company offers
passenger cars, minivans, sports utility vehicles, crossovers,
sedans, and vans.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40EPC4h at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Trinette G. Kent, Esq.
          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          Stephen Taylor, Esq.
          Joshua Markovits, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          1100 West Town & Country Road
          Suite 1250
          Orange, CA 92868
          Telephone: (480) 247-9644
          Facsimile: (480) 717-4781
          E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com
                  slemberg@lemberglaw.com
                  staylor@lemberglaw.com
                  jmarkovits@lemberglaw.com

LETTERMAN CORP: Velasquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
HERMES VELASQUEZ and JULIO VELASQUEZ on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated v. LETTERMAN CORP. d/b/a JERRY
AND THE MERMAID, JEROME DICECCO, JR., and JEROME DICECCO, SR., Case
No. 2:23-cv-00813 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, spread of hours pay, and statutory damages under the New York
Labor Law and pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to recover unpaid overtime wages, spread of hours pay,
and statutory damages under the NYLL.

Plaintiff Hermes Velasquez was employed by Defendants from 2014 to
October 2022. He performed non-exempt duties for the Defendants
including preparing food, cooking, washing dishes and cleaning the
premises. He regularly worked from 11:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m., 7
days per week.

Plaintiff Julio Velasquez, was employed by Defendants from 2016 to
September 2021. He performed non-exempt duties for the Defendants
including preparing food, cooking, washing dishes and cleaning the
premises. Plaintiff regularly worked from 11:00 a.m. until 10:00
p.m., Monday through Saturday.

The Defendants allegedly paid the Plaintiffs for hours worked after
40 hours per week straight-time at their regular rate of pay in
cash. The Defendants also allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiffs
spread-of-hours pay for each day in which their spread of hours
exceeded 10 hours. The Defendants also failed to provide the
Plaintiffs upon hire written notice in their native language of
their rate of pay and other information required by Section 195(1)
of the NYLL. The Defendants failed to furnish Plaintiffs with
accurate statements with every payment of wages listing the
overtime rate or rates of pay, the number of regular hours worked,
and the number of overtime hours worked in violation of New York
Labor Law section 195(3), the suit claims.

Furthermore, the Defendants willfully disregarded and purposefully
evaded record keeping requirements of the FLSA by failing to
maintain accurate records of the hours worked by and wages paid to
Plaintiff and the Collective Action Plaintiffs, the suit adds.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com

LIVE VENTURES: Continue to Defend Sieggreen Class Suit in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Live Ventures 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 9, 2023, that the Company
intends to defend itself from Sieggreen class action suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

On August 13, 2021, Daniel E. Sieggreen, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
for violation of federal securities laws in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada, naming as defendants the
Company and the two executive officers named in the SEC Complaint.
The allegations asserted are similar to those in the SEC Complaint.


Among other relief, the complaint seeks damages in connection with
the purchases and sales of the Company's securities between
December 28, 2016 and August 3, 3021.

As of December 17, 2021, the judge granted a stipulation to stay
proceedings pending the resolutions of the motions to dismiss in
the SEC Complaint.

On February 1, 2023, the final motion to dismiss relating to the
SEC Complaint was denied, which was subsequently noticed in the
Sieggreen action on February 2, 2023.

As a result, the plaintiff in this action has until on or about
April 3, 2023 to file an amended complaint.

The Company and its executives anticipate moving to dismiss the
amended complaint as they strongly dispute and deny the allegations
at issue in this case and intend to continue to defend themselves
vigorously against these claims.

Live Ventures Incorporated is a holding company with focus on
value-oriented acquisitions of domestic middle-market companies
based in Neveda.

LIVE VENTURES: Continues to Defend Sanchez Labor Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Live Ventures 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 9, 2023, that the Company
intends to defend itself from Sanchez labor class suit in the
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda.

On July 27, 2022, Irma Sanchez, a former employee Elite Builder
Services, Inc. ("Elite Builders"), filed a class action complaint
against Elite Builders in the Superior Court of California, County
of Alameda. The complaint alleges that Elite Builders failed to pay
all minimum and overtime wages, failed to provide lawful meal
periods and rest breaks, failed to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and failed to pay all wages due upon separation as
required by California law.

The complaint was later amended as a matter of right on October 4,
2022. Further, Ms. Sanchez has put the Labor & Workforce
Development Agency on notice to exhaust administrative remedies and
enable her to bring an additional claim under the California Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act, which permits an employee to
assert a claim for violations of certain California Labor Code
provisions on behalf of all aggrieved employees to recover
statutory penalties.

A Motion for Change of Venue to Stanislaus County was filed by
Elite Builders on December 7, 2022.

The hearing on the motion was heard on February 8, 2023. The
Company believes that Ms. Sanchez's claims lack merit and intends
to vigorously defend this action.

Live Ventures Incorporated is a holding company with focus on
value-oriented acquisitions of domestic middle-market companies
based in Neveda.

LOS ANGELES, CA: Plan to Cut Trees for Sidewalk Repairs Halted
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Sacramento Bee reports that a plan to chop down as many as
13,000 trees while repairing Los Angeles sidewalks has been halted
by a judge, who sided with advocates who say the city can make the
fixes while preserving the shade and greenery. Superior Court judge
Mitchell Beckloff declared the environmental impact report for the
city's proposed sidewalk repair program "fundamentally flawed," the
Southern California News Group reported on Feb. 11. The judge's
ruling last month came in a lawsuit filed by advocacy groups who
accused the city of failing to consider alternative repair methods
that would preserve mature trees.

"Other cities manage their sidewalk tree conflict easily and for
whatever reason LA does not," Jeanne McConnell of the group
Angelenos for Trees told the news group. The city argued that its
sidewalk repair program and associated tree removals was a
justified effort to comply with a 2016 class action settlement that
requires LA to spend $1.4 billion to improve its walkways for those
with disabilities.

The judge ruled that the impact report failed to thoroughly examine
the effects on wildlife and the environmental consequences of
trading mature trees for young replacement trees. The city may now
appeal the court's decision, create a new environmental impact
report to address the problems identified, or return to the drawing
board with a new sidewalk repair plan. [GN]



MADAVOR MEDIA: Case Management Order Entered in Kasul Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY KASUL, v. MADAVOR
MEDIA, LLC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00914-HYJ-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Hon.
Judge Hala Y. Jarbou entered a case management order as follows:

  -- Trial                            December 16, 2024

  -- Motions to Join Parties          April 14, 2023
     or Amend Pleadings:

  -- Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures
     (including lay witnesses)

                 Plaintiff:           March 31, 2023

                 Defendant:           March 31, 2023

  -- Motion for Class                 November 6, 2023
     Certification:

  -- Completion of Discovery:         March 25, 2024

  -- Dispositive Motions:             April 25, 2024

Madavor Media provides multi media solutions. The Company develops,
publishes, and markets content through magazines and other
marketplaces.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x1GxoJ at no extra charge.[CC]

MAKITA USA: Court Narrows Claims in May Suit
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS MAY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. MAKITA U.S.A., INC.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00079-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen N.
Limbaugh, Jr. entered an order that:

  -- the Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint is
     granted in part and denied in part;

  -- the plaintiff's Counts I, III, IV, V, VI, and VII are
     dismissed without prejudice;

  -- the plaintiff be given 30 days from the date of this order
     to file an amended complaint and to replead any counts that
     were dismissed without prejudice;  

  -- The Defendant will be given 21 days from the date of
     plaintiff's filing to file responsive pleadings; and

  -- The parties submit additional briefing on the propriety of
     class certification for plaintiff's Count II within 30 days
     of this order.

The Plaintiff alleges that he gave defendant notice by filing this
lawsuit. But as this Court has said, Missouri law requires that
plaintiff give defendant pre-suit notice before filing breach of
warranty claims.

The Plaintiff is suing defendant for economic damages, alleging
that defendant intentionally omitted an expiration date label on
its product, a type of bonded abrasive wheel that is used to cut
metal and concrete.

Makita is a Japanese manufacturer of power tools. Founded on March
21, 1915, it is based in Anjō, Japan and operates factories in
Brazil, China, Japan, Mexico, Romania, the United Kingdom, Germany,
United Arab Emirates, Thailand, and Canada.

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


MARIETTA AREA: Court Narrows Claims in McCumbers Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON MCCUMBERS, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated, v. MARIETTA AREA
HEALTH CARE, INC., d/b/a Memorial Health System (MHS), Case No.
2:22-cv-385 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered
an order that:

  -- MHS's Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Counts I, II, III,
     and VI and denied as to Counts V, VI, and VII.

  -- Additionally, MHS's Motion to Strike is denied.

The Plaintiffs present several arguments about the nature of MHS's
duty, including whether it was created by statute or by voluntary
undertaking.

These arguments miss the point. The economic loss doctrine does not
hinge on how the defendant's duty arose, rather, the focus is on
the type of injury that the plaintiff suffered. "Indirect economic
damages that do not arise from tangible physical injury to persons
or from tangible property may only be recovered in contract."

Thus, the economic-loss rule applies in a tort action where, as
here, economic loss is unaccompanied by personal injury or property
damage.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have not identified any express
contractual provision in which MHS agreed to provide them with data
security services in exchange for consideration.

Marietta Area is a regional medical services business that provides
a wide range of medical services with locations
throughout Ohio and West Virginia.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I8xDMz at no extra charge.[CC]

MARIETTA AREA: Court Narrows Claims in Tallman Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANESSA TALLMAN, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated, v. MARIETTA AREA
HEALTH CARE, INC., d/b/a Memorial Health System (MHS), Case No.
2:22-cv-221 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered
an order that:

  -- MHS's Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Counts I, II, III,
     and VI and denied as to Counts V, VI, and VII.

  -- Additionally, MHS's Motion to Strike is denied.

The Plaintiffs present several arguments about the nature of MHS's
duty, including whether it was created by statute or by voluntary
undertaking.

These arguments miss the point. The economic loss doctrine does not
hinge on how the defendant's duty arose, rather, the focus is on
the type of injury that the plaintiff suffered. "Indirect economic
damages that do not arise from tangible physical injury to persons
or from tangible property may only be recovered in contract."

Thus, the economic-loss rule applies in a tort action where, as
here, economic loss is unaccompanied by personal injury or property
damage.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have not identified any express
contractual provision in which MHS agreed to provide them with data
security services in exchange for consideration.

Marietta Area is a regional medical services business that provides
a wide range of medical services with locations
throughout Ohio and West Virginia.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HIM9ZR at no extra charge.[CC]

MARIETTA AREA: Court Narrows Claims in Tucker Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN TUCKER, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated,, v. MARIETTA AREA
HEALTH CARE, INC., d/b/a Memorial Health System (MHS), Case No.
2:22-cv-184 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered
an order that:

  -- MHS's Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Counts I, II, III,
     and VI and denied as to Counts V, VI, and VII.

  -- Additionally, MHS's Motion to Strike is denied.

The Plaintiffs present several arguments about the nature of MHS's
duty, including whether it was created by statute or by voluntary
undertaking.

These arguments miss the point. The economic loss doctrine does not
hinge on how the defendant's duty arose, rather, the focus is on
the type of injury that the plaintiff suffered. "Indirect economic
damages that do not arise from tangible physical injury to persons
or from tangible property may only be recovered in
contract."

Thus, the economic-loss rule applies in a tort action where, as
here, economic loss is unaccompanied by personal injury or property
damage.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have not identified any express
contractual provision in which MHS agreed to provide them with data
security services in exchange for consideration.

Marietta Area is a regional medical services business that provides
a wide range of medical services with locations
throughout Ohio and West Virginia.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I3WDmX at no extra charge.[CC]

MASSACHUSETTS: Class Action Over SNAP Benefits Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Elaine S. Povich, writing for Pew, reports that last September,
when Baltimore resident Tzu Yang went grocery shopping for his
intellectually disabled daughter with a food benefits card that he
thought was worth about $300, he discovered at the checkout that
the card had no value left. The same thing happened in October,
November and December.

The benefits meant for Hawlie Yang, age 37 but with the mental
capacity of a 5-year-old, were being systematically stolen.

Tzu Yang contacted local authorities but never got the money back.
The stolen electronic benefits were used locally and as far away as
New York, he discovered. But neither he nor police could find out
who filched them, and the state agencies involved provided no help
or reimbursement.

They told him there's no returning of benefits stolen from
electronic benefit transfer, or EBT, cards, Yang, a retired
businessman, said in a phone interview.

Yang is not alone. All over the country, state agencies and people
who receive aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program, commonly known as food stamps, are reporting the theft of
millions of dollars in benefits. And unlike regular credit or debit
cards where refunds are often available when thieves poach funds,
EBT cards don't have those protections. That leaves many victims
with no recourse.

Some help may be coming, thanks to a new federal mandate that
allows states to use federal money to reimburse SNAP recipients
whose benefits were stolen through electronic card fraud. The
federal law also calls on states to increase the cards' security.
But advocates for those with low incomes and some lawmakers say the
payments are only a half-step toward fixing the problem.

The mandate, included in the $1.7 trillion federal omnibus spending
bill signed by President Joe Biden in late December, requires
states to replace EBT card benefits that were stolen after Oct. 1,
2022, through September 2024.

States have until the end of February to draw up plans to use
federal money they get for the SNAP program to reimburse recipients
who were ripped off.

Although federal and state governments jointly fund SNAP, prior to
passage of the gigantic bill, states could only use their own funds
for reimbursement. As a result, only a handful, including
California, the District of Columbia, Michigan, Rhode Island and
Wisconsin, reimbursed stolen benefits, according to the American
Public Human Services Association. The nonprofit membership
organization for state and local human service agencies surveyed
states on this issue last fall.

State legislatures are grappling with how to comply, said the
association's senior director Matthew Lyons. "More states are
confronting how they are approaching this issue and planning for
the omnibus provisions," he said in a phone interview.

The fraud problem with food benefit cards skyrocketed in the spring
and summer last year. News reports and law enforcement agencies
said the benefits most likely were stolen with "skimming" devices
attached by crooked employees or thieves posing as customers to
card processing machines at store checkouts. The skimmers take
seconds to install, and law enforcement officials say they are
often placed late at night when store employees are distracted.
Those devices clone the data encoded on the cards and can also
steal PINs.

The new federal law requires states to submit plans by Feb. 27 to
make EBT cards more secure. So far, according to an email to
Stateline from a U.S. Department of Agriculture spokesperson, no
state has yet forwarded a plan to the department. And critics say
since the law did not spell out parameters on how to make the cards
more tamper-proof, there may still be room for misuse.

"It's important to address the underlying issue," said U.S.
Democratic Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, who was contacted
for help by Yang and others in Maryland.

"We need to make these debit cards more secure in the first place.
That's what we didn't do [in the omnibus bill]," he said in a phone
interview.

Rip-offs skyrocketed to more than $1 million last year in Maryland
alone, rising from $92,000 in reported losses in the state in 2021,
his office said.

Ruppersberger, who had introduced an earlier bill to address the
issue, much of which was incorporated into the omnibus, has
introduced legislation to address the security gaps of EBT cards
and make the reimbursements retroactive before the October 2022
date. "We need to protect them and make them whole," he said.

At least two bills are pending in the Maryland legislature that
would require closer monitoring of EBT transactions, installation
of more tamper-proof chips on cards and restoration of stolen
funds.

Ed Bolen, director of SNAP state strategies at the left-leaning
research institute Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said
that while the omnibus law may improve some of the problems, the
law is "pretty vague" and leaves those who lost their benefits
before October 2022 in the lurch.

"It's definitely unfair" because many victims lost benefits during
the summer of 2021 when the fraud took off, he said. "It was those
folks' hardship that drew attention to this, and some of them may
be out of luck."

Massachusetts, he noted, was another state hit hard by the fraud.

In November, just weeks before the federal omnibus bill passed, the
Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, a liberal public interest
group, filed a class action lawsuit against the state agency that
handles the benefits on behalf of SNAP beneficiaries who had their
money stolen from their EBT cards.

Betsy Gwin, the attorney for the institute that filed suit, said
the federal omnibus bill was a "really, really positive step" that
she hopes will help many of the plaintiffs. She also noted that
Massachusetts Democratic Gov. Maura Healey included $2 million to
address the SNAP thefts in her supplemental budget proposal. The
suit is still pending.

While hopeful that the budget item will pass and help her clients,
Gwin said, her organization "has a duty to the clients to fight for
justice for them." [GN]

MDL 2924: Zantac Products Liability Litigation Pending
------------------------------------------------------
The Maderal Byrne PLLC Zantac lawyers are representing people who
have developed cancer after using Zantac.

At this time, Maderal Byrne is not accepting additional Zantac
clients.

Lawyers Representing Zantac Victims
Maderal Byrne is an accomplished mass tort law firm handling
complex, multi-million dollar litigation on a national level. Our
law firm is serving as leaders in Zantac dangerous drug litigation,
representing dozens of victims and serving on the Plaintiff's
steering committee In Re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2924.

We operate with the mission that individuals and families harmed by
the products around them deserve legal representation that is of
the skill level of the attorneys for the big corporations,
including the pharmaceutical companies. We have led billion-dollar
litigations and achieved groundbreaking results.

To see how we can help you with your case, contact our legal team
for a consultation.

Legal Representation for Zantac Claims
WHO QUALIFIES FOR ZANTAC COMPENSATION?
If you took Zantac and developed cancer, you may qualify for Zantac
compensation. Types of cancers may include:

Stomach
Bladder
Breast
Esophageal
Prostate
Thyroid
Liver
Colon
Other cancers

People who took Zantac (ranitidine) for a significant period of
time, whether prescription or over-the-counter, and who later were
diagnosed with a form of cancer may have a claim for compensation.

WHAT ZANTAC PRODUCTS ARE INVOLVED IN THE LAWSUITS?
There are several formulas of Zantac involved in litigation,
including:

Zantac
Zantac 150
150 Cool Mint
Zantac 75

EXPERIENCED LAWYERS PURSUING SETTLEMENTS AND JUDGMENTS FOR ZANTAC
USERS
The Maderal Byrne Zantac lawyers are a team of former federal
prosecutors. Their experience in complex, billion-dollar
litigations has brought them to conduct dozens of jury trials and
make arguments before federal courts of appeals. They willingly
serve as leaders in Plaintiff's steering committees for complex
multi-district litigation involving many plaintiffs in high-profile
cases.

Their experienced team of lawyers handle cases throughout the
United States from their base offices in Florida. They are heavily
involved in Zantac litigation and want to help anyone who has been
harmed.

Zantac Lawsuits
When it first came on the market, Zantac was thought to be a
miracle drug. It generated billions of dollars in sales.
Unfortunately, later scientific research indicated that there may
be a problem and that batches of the drug may contain unacceptably
high levels of carcinogens.

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH ZANTAC?
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) testing revealed that
specific batches of Zantac may contain unhealthy levels of
N-nitrodimethylamine (NDMA), a human carcinogen. Researchers found
that when stored at a higher temperature, the drug is more likely
to contain harmful substances. Carcinogens may be present at up to
3,000 times acceptable levels.

WHAT PROOF IS NEEDED FOR A ZANTAC LAWSUIT?
You may have a strong Zantac lawsuit if you:

Took Zantac (ranitidine) for a significant period of time
Developed cancer after taking the drug
Can show a link between Zantac use and cancer
Having a prescription may be the easiest way to show long-term
Zantac use, but there may also be proof of over-the-counter use,
including pharmacy purchase records, receipts, and personal
testimony. The link between use of the medication and cancer must
be shown with detailed scientific evidence, including the use of
expert witnesses. Our experienced lawyers understand the proof
needed for each element of a claim.

WHAT TYPE OF LEGAL CLAIM IS A ZANTAC CLAIM?
A Zantac claim is a product liability claim for a dangerous drug.
The victim who has suffered harm, or their surviving family, starts
the case. The purpose of the case is to hold the drug manufacturer
accountable and provide compensation for the victim.

Compensation for Zantac Victims
Compensation for a victim in a Zantac claim may cover a range of
economic and non-economic losses, including:

Medical bills, including cancer treatment
Future medical bills
Nursing care
The value of diminished quality of life
Physical pain and discomfort
Emotional anguish, mental health injuries
Unearned income potential and harm to lifelong career
A person who develops cancer endures physical pain, emotional
anguish, and possibly a shortened life expectancy. The fair value
of a legal claim addresses all these losses. Compensation is unique
to the person bringing the claim and is based on their physical and
emotional suffering.

About Zantac (Ranitidine)
WHAT IS ZANTAC?
Zantac, or its generic – ranitidine – is a heartburn
medication. It treated medical conditions like:

GERD (gastroesophageal reflux)
Peptic ulcer disease
Zollinger-Ellison syndrome
Other stomach problems
Zantac was available both as a prescription medication and over the
counter.

HOW DOES ZANTAC WORK?
Zantac decreases the production of stomach acid. It blocks
histamine, an organic nitrogenous compound that regulates gut
function. Less stomach acid is produced, decreasing the feeling of
heartburn.

HAS ZANTAC BEEN RECALLED?
Recalls for Zantac started in 2019 in the United States, with the
product being fully withdrawn from the market in April 2020.

WHAT IS THE HISTORY OF ZANTAC?
Zantac first received provisional FDA approval in the United States
in 1983. From that time, the market for Zantac exploded, with
industrial pharmaceutical company Sanofi manufacturing the
name-brand version of the drug. Dozens of companies would go on to
make generic versions of the drug ranitidine.

With hundreds of millions of dollars poured into marketing efforts,
these companies would generate $13.5 billion in sales. The drugs
were sold in 31 countries. As many as 15 million people may have
used them.

As potential risks became clear, government agencies began
investigating. Health Canada first announced ranitidine recalls
while the U.S. FDA called for additional testing. When this testing
exposed a possible high exposure to known carcinogen
N-nitrodimethylamine (NDMA), the products were recalled and
eventually pulled from shelves.

Talk to a Lawyer
While we are not accepting new Zantac clients at this time, we
invite you to reach out to us online or in-person about our other
mass tort litigation experience. [GN]

MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Allen v. Blackbaud
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Allen, et al., v.
Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-02930 (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 Allen 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.

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/40G0Qpd at no extra charge.[CC]


MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Clayton v. Blackbaud
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clayton, et al., v.
Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-01058 (D.S.C., Filed April 9,
2021), 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 alternativesMDL
2972: Class Cert. Bid Sealed in Mamie Estes v. Blackbaud

The Clayton 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/3x2CdW6 at no extra charge.[CC]


MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Eisen v. Blackbaud
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Philip Eisen v. Blackbaud,
Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04358 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 15, 2020), 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 alternativesMDL
2972: Class Cert. Bid Sealed in Mamie Estes v. Blackbaud

In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mamie Estes, et al., v.
Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04357 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 15,
2020), 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 R would not provide adequate
protection.

The Eisen 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/3jJzVrV at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Graifman v. Blackbaud
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Graifman v. Blackbaud,
Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04512 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 30, 2020), 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 alternativesMDL
2972: Class Cert. Bid Sealed in Mamie Estes v. Blackbaud

The Graifman 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/3jGiWqy at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Imhof v. Blackbaud
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Imhof v. Blackbaud, Inc.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00003 (D.S.C., Jan. 4, 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 Imhof 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/3jCZcnO at no extra charge.[CC]


MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces Automotive Defect Class Action in Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Corpus
Law Patel LLC announce the filing of a federal automotive defect
class action lawsuit in federal district court in Georgia against
Mercedes-Benz USA LLC and Daimler AG alleging breach of warranty
and violation of state and federal consumer fraud laws, relating to
rust or corrosion of the subframe 2010-2022 models across the
Mercedes-Benz vehicle line, including Classes C, E, GLK, G, CLS
SLK/SLC, and SL.

As the complaint notes, plaintiffs brought the lawsuit to force
Mercedes to warn consumers about a dangerous defect in the rear
subframes of their vehicles, and compensate them for their damages
arising from the defect. Plaintiffs allege that the vehicle
subframes prematurely rust and corrode, costing consumers thousands
of dollars in repairs that Mercedes has refused to cover. The rust
and corrosion can adversely affect driveability, lead to corrosion
of other components on the underside of the vehicles, or cause the
rear subframes to fail while the vehicles are in motion. As a
result, thousands of owners have paid out of pocket for repairs and
related costs, while many more are still unknowingly driving unsafe
vehicles.

The complaint further alleges that Mercedes has known of the defect
for many years, including through consumer complaints made directly
to Mercedes, complaints made to the National Highway Transportation
Safety Administration's Office of Defect Investigation, and
complaints posted on public online vehicle owner forums, as well as
other internal sources unavailable to plaintiffs and their counsel
without discovery. In addition, the complaint details that despite
Mercedes' refusal to acknowledge the defect or pay for the repairs
it requires, Mercedes' authorized dealers have told owners who
complain that premature subframe corrosion is a common problem with
Mercedes vehicles.

The complaint explains that, because corrosion occurs "from the
inside out," the defect is not apparent even to a trained mechanic
until the rear subframe is dangerously corroded, near total
failure, and has rendered the vehicle unsafe to operate. Replacing
the rear subframe typically costs from $3,500 to more than $7,000.

Corpus Law Patel partner Ketan A. Patel, who represents the owners
who are suing, emphasized: "This is a serious safety concern.
Corrosion on the rear subframe makes the component and its attached
suspension parts structurally unstable and prone to failure. And
when the subframe fails while the vehicle is in motion, it can
cause the rear of the vehicle to fishtail, the vehicle to suddenly
veer to one side, or complete loss of control for the driver. It is
important that all vehicle owners have the opportunity and the
notice to have their vehicles inspected promptly and free of
charge."

Before filing the complaint, counsel for the owners informed
Mercedes that a lawsuit was imminent and demanded relief. Two
months after that letter was sent, and years after Mercedes
allegedly knew of the defect, Mercedes finally to announced an
extended warranty program to cover perforation and corrosion in
certain of its vehicles.

Lieff Cabraser partner Jonathan D. Selbin, who also represents the
plaintiffs in the lawsuit, responded to that development: "While we
are glad Mercedes has finally acknowledged this common defect in
its vehicles, we are disappointed that it waited years to do so and
only took action after we informed them of our impending lawsuit.
The relief it is saying it will provide is not adequate because it
does not warn owners that they are at risk of significant and
dangerous corrosion and need to get their vehicles professionally
inspected. It also does not appear to reimburse owners for all of
the expenses they incurred due the defect."

The lawsuit seeks an order that Mercedes-Benz fully acknowledge the
rear subframe defect in its vehicles, warn all owners affected by
the defect, void any would-be limitations expressed in its vehicle
warranties that would let it avoid responsibility for the defect,
as well as injunctive relief requiring Mercedes to reassess all
prior warranty claims related to the rear subframe defect, to
refrain from further deceptive sales practices with respect to the
affected vehicles, and to pay for inspection and all repair and
related costs owners incurred as a result of the defect. [GN]

MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces Subframe Corrosion Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Mercedes subframe corrosion class action lawsuit alleges possibly
hundreds of thousands of vehicles are at risk of severe and
dangerous rear subframe rust.

Mercedes-Benz is allegedly extending the rear subframe corrosion
warranty, but the class action lawsuit says it's too little too
late.

The lawsuit alleges the Mercedes rear subframe corrosion extended
warranty isn't good enough because it doesn't warn owners of the
true dangers of the subframe rust.

And although the subframe extended warranty does offer
reimbursements, the class action says the warranty, "does not
appear to reimburse owners for all of the expenses they incurred
due the defect."

The Mercedes rear subframe corrosion lawsuit includes these
vehicles.

2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz C-Class
2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class
2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz E-Class
2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz G-Class
2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz GLK-Class
2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz SL-Class
2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class
2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz SLC-Class

According to the Mercedes subframe rust lawsuit, the corrosion
makes driving too dangerous for occupants and others on the roads.
The rust allegedly affects how the vehicles function and drive,
even allegedly causing the rear subframes to fail while driving.

The class action alleges thousands of Mercedes owners have paid
thousands of dollars each to repair the rusted subframes. Those who
do not have the money for expensive repairs are stuck driving
allegedly defective vehicles.

Mercedes has allegedly known for years about the subframe corrosion
and owners claim dealerships admit premature subframe corrosion is
a common issue with Mercedes vehicles.

Customers contend the Mercedes-Benz subframe rust occurs from the
inside out, a problem that can make it difficult for a trained
mechanic to spot until the corrosion damage is advanced.

The class action alleges the corroded Mercedes rear subframes may
not be obvious until the subframes are close to failure, and to the
point that makes the vehicles unsafe to drive.

According to the lawsuit, an owner will typically pay between
$3,500 to $7,000 to replace a rusted Mercedes rear subframe.

The subframe corrosion class action lawsuit wants Mercedes-Benz to
admit the rear subframes are defective and warn all owners about
the rust problems.

According to the lawsuit, Mercedes should also:

"[V]oid any would-be limitations expressed in its vehicle
warranties that would let it avoid responsibility for the defect,
as well as injunctive relief requiring Mercedes to reassess all
prior warranty claims related to the rear subframe defect, to
refrain from further deceptive sales practices with respect to the
affected vehicles, and to pay for inspection and all repair and
related costs owners incurred as a result of the defect."

The Mercedes-Benz subframe rust class action lawsuit was filed by
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Corpus Law Patel,
LLC.

CarComplaints.com will update our website when more details are
available. [GN]

NATIONAL BANK: Faces Suit Over Financial Discrimination in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Groupe SGF (Cannabis Legal Advisors and Consultants) announces the
launch of a class action lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Gabriel Bélanger
(Founder of Origami Extraction Inc.) against the Desjardins
Federation, National Bank, Royal Bank, Bank of Montreal, TD Bank,
and CIBC. The lawsuit alleges that the named banks have engaged in
financial discrimination against actors in the legal cannabis
industry in Canada.

The legal cannabis industry in Canada faces financial
discrimination

The plaintiff, Gabriel Bélanger, is determined to expose to the
Superior Court all he has suffered as an actor of the legal
cannabis industry in relation with the defendants. The main
allegations involve denials of opening bank accounts, sudden
closures of current bank accounts, and denials of access to various
financial tools such as mortgage loans and credit lines for legal
cannabis industry businesses.

The class action includes all individuals or corporations that,
directly or indirectly, do business with the major defendant banks
and who are involved in the legal cannabis industry since October
17th, 2018.

For more information on the class action, please visit Groupe SGF's
website at https://groupesgf.ca/action-collectives-banques.

"For far too long, Canadian banks have treated the cannabis
industry like pariahs, as if it was still completely illegal. By
doing so, they are depriving the Canadian, but especially the local
economy of developing a promising market."

Me Maxime Guerin, Lawyer, Groupe SGF - Cannabis Legal Advisors and
Consultants

About Groupe SGF - Cannabis Legal Advisors and Consultants and the
Plaintiff

Groupe SGF is a Quebec law firm specializing in the cannabis
industry. The company represents the interests of industry actors
facing legal and financial challenges.

The plaintiff, Gabriel Belanger, engineer, is the founder and main
shareholder of Origami Extraction Inc., a cannabis micro-processing
company located in Beauce. [GN]

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Former Head Coach Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Keith Reed, writing for yahoo!life, reports that about a month ago,
the NFL convened a call with reporters who have consistently
followed the league 's travails with race. With the playoffs coming
up, the league wanted to get ahead of coaching controversies
surrounding race, which were a huge deal in the previous offseason
and kept festering through the season.

One former head coach filed a class action lawsuit arguing that the
league systemically prevents Black coaches from ascending to top
sideline jobs, and two other former coaches joined him. Another
coach, this one white, is suing to find out who leaked a trove of
racist emails he sent on a group thread that included other NFL
execs, wanting to know why his were the only ones that went
public.

The NFL has a race problem
By the time of January's media call, Brian Flores and Steve Wilks,
two of the three coaches in the class action lawsuit, still hadn't
found HC jobs, despite several openings (As of this writing, Flores
and Wliks had accepted defensive coordinator gigs, Flores in
Minnesota and Wilks with the 49ers). The Houston Texans had fired
Lovie Smith after one year, making him their second consecutive
Black head coach to get the ax; they've since hired DeMeco Ryans,
their third Black head coach in a row. And the NFL wanted fans and
reporters to know it was doing more: It had distributed an
"Equitable Hiring Guide" to teams that included best practices they
could use as they considered both coaching and general manager
hires. It was also keeping a "ready list" of 5,000 coaches and
front office talent from both the college and pro ranks that teams
could use, a step toward eliminating the excuse that a pipeline of
diverse candidates didn't exist. It had gone beyond the
much-maligned "Rooney Rule" which requires all team personnel
involved in hiring to be inclusive, expanding it to include
requiring interviews with nonwhite and women candidates for
quarterback coaching roles, whereas previously the rule had only
applied to head coaching and coordinator jobs.

Is the NFL's diversity effort real?
In a vacuum, the NFL's diversity efforts look a lot like what any
entity from Corporate America might do when under fire about racism
in its hiring or business practices. Wells Fargo's fines over
predatory mortgages, for example, didn't carry the emotional fervor
of millions of rabid fans, nor was executive-suite support for
kneeling a litmus test for which side of America's culture wars you
stood on. The Super Bowl, on the other hand, is the climax of the
past year of millions of fans' irrational fever dreams, and this
season in particular, the NFL had hoped that its marquee event
might prove that it has, indeed, made racial progress.

Two Black Quarterbacks for the First Time
This Super Bowl features, for the first time, two Black
quarterbacks. One of those players, Philly's Jalen Hurts, has built
a brand with the help of a team of women running his business
affairs. The league also now has a team (though not one playing in
the championship game) with an ownership group that includes Black
elites like finance exec Mellody Hobson, former Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice and Formula One driver Lewis Hamilton. It even
blackened up the halftime show, bringing in Rihanna, who once
shunned the NFL over its treatment of the still-blackballed Colin
Kaepernick, as the headliner. There's an easy argument that this
Super Bowl will easily be the NFL's culturally Blackest moment in
recent memory.

But whether that's enough to make fans, players or the coaches
still looking for a good opportunity forget what's happening in the
background? Well, that's another story. [GN]

NESTLE USA: Settles Coffee-Mate Class Action for $10 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
OpenClassActions.com reports that a $10M Open Class Action has been
settled with Nestle over its Coffee-Mate line of products which
include powder creamers for coffee. The original Nestle class
action lawsuit alleges that the servings sizes were falsely
advertised. The class action lawsuit stated that Nestle
misrepresented the amount of servings that could be yielded by
their Coffee-Mate product when following the instructions on the
labeling provided. While Nestle did not accept any wrongdoing, or
that the Coffee-Mate creamers were inaccurately labeled, they
agreed to settle for $10 Million in order to avoid court fees,
expenses, and disruption to the business.

How Do I Qualify?
You may qualify to get the $5 to $40 compensation as part of the
Nestle Coffee-Mate Class Action if you:

-- Live in the United States and,
-- Purchased a qualifying Coffee-Mate powder or creamer product for
personal use and,
-- Made a purchase of Coffee-Mate anytime between January 1, 2017
and December 8, 2022.

How Much Will I Get Paid?
There are two categories of payment for the Nestle Class Action
Lawsuit, including claim with no proof of purchase, which are part
of this class action settlement and can qualify under penalty of
perjury:

-- Category 1 No Proof of Purchase - Those with no proof of
purchasing qualifying Nestle Coffee-Mate creamers or powder can get
up to $0.50 per product capped at $5.00 for 10 total Coffee-Mate
products total.

-- Category 2 With Proof of Purchase - Those that have a valid
proof of purchase, such as credit card statements, or receipts, can
get up to 30% of the price paid per unit of Nestle Coffee-Mate,
capped at a total claim reimbursement amount of $40.00.

Every household can only qualify for one claim per household.
Additionally, if you wish to file a claim, you can either file a
"no proof" or "with proof" tier of claims. Do not file a claim for
both categories. The deadline to file a claim is March 14, 2023.

Do I Need Proof of Purchase?
No, the Nestle Coffee-Mate class action settlement specifically
allocated $10 Million to include no proof required claims. If you
file a valid claim, and do not have proof of purchase, the class
action will pay for up to 10 products that are covered (see list
above for covered products). The amount of payment will be capped
at $5.00 for up to 10 products claimed without proof. Each product
claimed will pay out an estimated $0.50 (pro-rated if the total
amount of claims is more or less than what is estimated now by the
class action administrators).

How Do I File a Claim?
To be eligible to receive a payment from the $10M Nestle
Coffee-Mate Class Action Settlement, you must complete and submit a
timely Claim Form by March 14, 2023 electronically. You may be
asked for a registration ID, while you can acquire it without
having previously received it. [GN]

NEW YORK, NY: Forest, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA FOREST, LARYSA
NAZARENKO, SVITLANA ANTOSHCHENKO, and GLENNICE SIMON, individually
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW
YORK, GARY JENKINS, in his official capacity as Commissioner, New
York City Department of Social Services, and LISA FITZPATRICK, in
her official capacity as Administrator, New York City Human
Resources Administration, Case No. 1:23-cv-00743-JHR (S.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the cae
as a class action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs request certification of a class consisting of the
following individuals:

   "All New York City residents who, since March 19, 2020,
   applied or recertified, attempted to apply or recertify, are
   applying or recertifying, or will apply or recertify for SNAP
   and/or cash assistance benefits; and for whom HRA has not or
   will not timely process such applications or
   recertifications, or who have been or will be unable to
   complete their applications or recertifications due to HRA's
   systems, policies, practices, and procedures."

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RI5GOF at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin E. Rosenberg, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          Three Bryant Park, 1095 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 698-3500
          Facsimile: (212) 698-3599
          E-mail: benjamin.rosenberg@dechert.com

                - and -

          Abby Biberman, Esq.
          Kate Fetrow, Esq.
          Julia Russell, Esq.
          NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
          100 Pearl St., 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 613-5000
          E-mail: abiberman@nylag.org
                  kfetrow@nylag.org
                  jrussell@nylag.org

                - and -

          Kathleen Kelleher, Esq.
          Judith Goldiner, Esq.
          Edward Josephson, Esq.
          Anne Callagy, Esq.
          Rachel Clapp, Esq.
          Evan Henley, Esq.
          Susan Welber, Esq.
          Camille Zentner, Esq.
          THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY
          199 Water Street, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 577-3307
          E-mail: kkelleher@legal-aid.org
                  jgoldiner@legal-aid.org
                  ejosephson@legal-aid.org
                  acallagy@legal-aid.org
                  rclapp@legal-aid.org
                  ewhenley@legal-aid.org
                  sewelber@legal-aid.org
                  czentner@legal-aid.org

NGL ENERGY: Underwood Class Settlement for Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
NGL Energy Partners LP disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2023, that the Underwood
class suit settlement is subject to the approval of the Northern
District of Oklahoma federal court.

NGL Energy Partners LP is a party defendant to a purported class
action complaint filed in the federal court in the Northern
District of Oklahoma styled Gary R. Underwood, Successor Trustee
for the James L. Price Revocable Living Trust, on behalf of the
Trust and all others similarly situated v. NGL Energy Partners LP,
Case No. 4:21-cv-00135-CVE-SH. This case seeks class certification
on behalf of owners who allege the Partnership’s Crude Oil
Logistics group violated Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards
Act when it failed to include statutory interest on proceeds
payments it made to certain mineral owners and to state unclaimed
property divisions for oil purchased from certain Oklahoma wells.

A substantial portion of the statutory interest claimed to be owed
in the lawsuit related to suspended proceeds we inherited from our
predecessors and remitted to various state unclaimed property
divisions in 2016.

With no admission of liability or wrongdoing, but only to avoid the
expense and uncertainty of future litigation, the Partnership
entered into a settlement agreement in this case to resolve all
claims made against it by the plaintiff and the proposed class.

The Company agreed to pay the sum of approximately $8.4 million to
the plaintiff and the proposed class, and it accrued the amount as
of December 31, 2022.

The settlement agreement is subject to court approval and a full
fairness hearing will be held in the coming months.

NGL Energy is a diversified midstream MLP that provides multiple
services to producers and end-users, including transportation,
storage, blending and marketing of crude oil, NGLs, refined
products / renewables, and water solutions.

NIO INC: Asks Court Permission to Submit Enclosed Sur-Reply
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tan v. NIO Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01424-NGG-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the
Court permission to submit the enclosed sur-reply in further
opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

The proposed sur-reply responds only to new arguments and evidence
on the issue of price impact that Plaintiffs raised for the first
time in their reply.

Nio Inc. is a Chinese multinational automobile manufacturer
headquartered in Shanghai, specializing in designing and developing
electric vehicles.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan 26, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JL4mIW at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert A. Fumerton, Esq.
          SKADDEN , ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          One Manhattan West
          New York, Ny 10001
          Telephone: (212) 735-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 735-2000
          E-mail: Robert.fumerton@skadden.com


NOVARTIS INC: Settlement in Principle Reached in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Novartis Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 1, 2023, that since 2018, Novartis Group of
Companies as well as other pharmaceutical companies have been sued
by various direct and indirect purchasers of
"amlodipine/valsartan," sold under the brand name "Exforge," in
multiple US individual and putative class action complaints.

They claim that Novartis made a reverse payment in the form of an
agreement not to launch an authorized generic, alleging violations
of federal antitrust law and state antitrust, consumer protection
and common laws, and seeking damages as well as injunctive relief.
The cases have been consolidated in the S.D.N.Y.

In 2022, Novartis agreed to a settlement in principle to pay USD
245 million to resolve these cases. These settlements are subject
to mutually agreeable terms, finalization of documentation and, in
some cases, court approval.

Novartis specializes in the research, development, manufacturing
and marketing of pharmaceuticals based in Switzerland.


NOVARTIS INC: Sued Over Carcinogens in Hypertension Meds
--------------------------------------------------------
Novartis Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 1, 2023, that since 2018, claims have been
brought against its subsidiary, Sandoz, and other pharmaceutical
companies alleging injury from carcinogenic impurities found in
valsartan and valsartan/HCT film-coated tablets and/or losartan
marketed or manufactured by Sandoz.

These claims include several putative class actions in Canada.
Claims have also been brought alleging injury from carcinogenic
impurities in ranitidine-containing medicines. These claims also
include several putative class actions in Canada and a
multidistrict litigation in Florida.

Novartis specializes in the research, development, manufacturing
and marketing of pharmaceuticals based in Switzerland.


NUVASIVE INC: Halper Sadeh Investigates Securities Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Halper Sadeh LLC, an investor rights law firm, is investigating the
following companies for potential violations of the federal
securities laws and/or breaches of fiduciary duties to shareholders
relating to:

NuVasive, Inc. (NASDAQ: NUVA)'s sale to Globus Medical, Inc. for
0.75 of a share of Globus Medical Class A common stock for each
share of NuVasive common stock. If you are a NuVasive shareholder,
click here to learn more about your rights and options.

Sumo Logic, Inc. (NASDAQ: SUMO)'s sale to affiliates of Francisco
Partners for $12.05 per share in cash. If you are a Sumo
shareholder, click here to learn more about your rights and
options.

Shareholders are encouraged to contact the firm free of charge to
discuss their legal rights and options. Please call Daniel Sadeh or
Zachary Halper at (212) 763-0060 or email sadeh@halpersadeh.com or
zhalper@halpersadeh.com.

Halper Sadeh LLC represents investors all over the world who have
fallen victim to securities fraud and corporate misconduct. Our
attorneys have been instrumental in implementing corporate reforms
and recovering millions of dollars on behalf of defrauded
investors.

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

Contact Information:
Halper Sadeh LLC
Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
Zachary Halper, Esq.
(212) 763-0060
sadeh@halpersadeh.com
zhalper@halpersadeh.com  
https://www.halpersadeh.com [GN]

OASIS LEGAL: Hit With Class Suit Over Consumer Fraud Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marian Johns at Legal Newsline reports that a New Jersey man
alleges a consumer lender is providing open-end loans without a
license and charging interest and fees that exceed legal limits.

Shana Gafner, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
filed a complaint Jan. 4 in the New Jersey Superior Court against
Oasis Legal Finance LLC and others alleging violation of the
Consumer Fraud Act and other claims.

Gafner alleges in his class action that Oasis uses "unlawful and
usurious lending practices" without a license. Specifically, Gafner
claims that Oasis solicits New Jersey clients who have pending
litigation claims and offers a "nonrecourse purchase agreement"
disguised as a loan transaction.

He further claims Oasis is not registered to do business in New
Jersey, which makes their loans void and unenforceable. Gafner
alleges that Oasis failed to gain the proper licensing for the
open-end loan transactions and charges interest and fees that
exceed the lawful maximums. He claims the loans were also made
without the adequate disclosures.

Gafner and the class seek monetary relief, interest, trial by jury
and all other just relief. They are represented by. Yongmoon Kim of
The Kim Law Firm LLC in Hackensack, New Jersey.

Oasis has removed the case to federal court. [GN]

ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: May 19 Fairness Hearing on SEPTA Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 SEPTA's
Unopposed Motion for Entry of Order Preliminarily Approving
Settlement.

The Court preliminarily approves the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement presented by the parties as fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the Class, subject to further consideration at the
Settlement Hearing.

Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and for purposes of the Settlement only, she
preliminarily certifies the following Class: All Persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Orrstown
Financial Services, Inc. during the Class Period, which is defined
as the period from March 15, 2010, through April 26, 2012,
inclusive.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
for the purposes of the Settlement only, the Plaintiff is
preliminarily certified as the Class Representative and Lead
Counsel Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP is
preliminarily certified as the Class Counsel.

The Settlement Hearing will be held before the Court on May 19,
2023, at 10:00 a.m. at the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, Sylvia H. Rambo United States Courthouse,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c), the firm of Kroll Settlement
Administration, LLC (Claims Administrator) is appointed to
supervise and administer the notice procedure as well as the
processing of claims.

Not later than 21 calendar days after the Court signs and enters
the Order (the Notice Date), the Claims Administrator will commence
mailing the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release form to all the
Class Members who can be identified with reasonable effort,
utilizing the Orrstown Notice List and proprietary lists maintained
by the Claims Administrator of banks, brokers and other nominees.

Not later than 21 calendar days after the Court signs and enters
the Order, the Claims Administrator will cause the Notice and Proof
of Claim and Release form to be posted on a website created for
this Settlement located at www.orrstownsecuritiessettlement.com.

Not later than 28 calendar days after the Court signs and enters
the Order, the Claims Administrator will cause the publication of
the Summary Notice to Investor's Business Daily and disseminate the
Summary Notice using PRNewswire, a national newswire service.

At least seven calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing, the
Lead Counsel will serve on the Defendants' Counsel and file with
the Court proof of such mailing and publishing.

Brokers or other nominees who purchased or otherwise acquired
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. common stock for the beneficial
ownership of the Class Members during the Class Period will be
requested to send the Notice and the Proof of Claim and Release
form to all such beneficial owners within 10 calendar days after
receipt thereof, or send a list of the names and addresses of such
beneficial owners to the Claims Administrator within 10 calendar
days of receipt thereof, in which event the Claims Administrator
will promptly mail the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release form
to such beneficial owners. Additional copies of the Notice and
Proof of Claim and Release form will be made available to any
nominee requesting same for the purpose of distribution to
beneficial owners.

The Claims Administrator shall, if requested, reimburse out of the
Settlement Fund nominees' administrative costs actually incurred in
connection with forwarding the Notice and which costs would not
have been incurred but for the obligation to forward the Notice, in
an amount up to $0.20 per record plus postage (if applicable), and
only upon submission of appropriate documentation to the Claims
Administrator, and subject to further Order of the Court with
respect to any dispute concerning such reimbursement.

All Class Members will be bound by all determinations and judgments
in the Litigation concerning the Settlement.

Class Members who wish to participate in the Settlement will
complete and submit a Proof of Claim and Release form in accordance
with the instructions contained therein. Unless the Court orders
otherwise, all Proofs of Claim must be postmarked or submitted
electronically no later than 120 calendar days from the Notice
Date.

If any claimant whose claims have been rejected in whole or in part
wishes to contest such rejection, the claimant must, within 20
calendar days after the date of mailing of the notice of rejection,
serve upon the Claims Administrator a notice and statement of
reasons indicating the claimant's ground for contesting the
rejection along with any supporting documentation. If an issue
concerning a claim cannot be otherwise resolved, the claimant may
thereafter present the request for review to the Court.

Any Person falling within the definition of the Class may, upon
request, be excluded or opt out from the Class. Any such Person
must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion
(Request for Exclusion) such that it is postmarked no later than 21
calendar days before the Settlement Hearing.

Any Person who is excluded from the Class by virtue of having
submitted a valid and timely Request for Exclusion may, at any
point up to five calendar days before the Settlement Hearing,
submit a written revocation of Request for Exclusion.

All funds held by the Escrow Agent in the Escrow Account will be
deemed and considered to be in custodia legis of the Court, and
will remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, until such
time as such funds will be distributed pursuant to the Stipulation
and/or further order(s) of the Court.

All opening briefs and supporting documents in support of the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and the Plaintiff's Fee and
Expense Application, will be filed and served by a date 35 calendar
days before the Settlement Hearing. Replies to any objections will
be filed and served a date seven calendar days before the
Settlement Hearing.

Neither the Defendants and their Related Parties nor the
Defendants' Counsel will have any responsibility for the Plan of
Allocation, or any request for attorneys' fees or expenses by the
Plaintiff's Counsel, and such matters will be considered separately
from the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement.
At or after the Settlement Hearing, the Court will determine
whether to approve the Plan of Allocation proposed by the Lead
Counsel and the Plaintiff's Fee and Expense Application.

All reasonable expenses incurred in identifying and notifying the
Class Members, as well as administering the Settlement Fund, will
be paid as set forth in the Stipulation. If the Settlement is not
approved by the Court or otherwise fails to become effective,
neither the Plaintiff nor its Counsel will have any obligation to
repay any amount incurred and properly disbursed.

Until otherwise ordered by the Court, the Court will stay all
proceedings in the Litigation other than proceedings necessary to
carry out or enforce the terms and conditions of the Stipulation.

The Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the litigation to
consider all further matters arising out of or connected with the
Settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5n8yjdyn from Leagle.com.


PEPSICO INC: Court Narrows Claims in Boone Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBIN BOONE, v. PEPSICO,
INC., et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00108-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Audrey G. Fleissig entered an order granting in part and denying in
part the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

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

The Court agrees that a parent company is not liable for the
alleged mislabeling of its subsidiary by the mere fact it is the
parent company.

The Defendants rely on a case from the Northern District of
California which dismissed claims against PepsiCo, as the parent
company, because the plaintiffs "never explained exactly how
PepsiCo, as Frito-Lay's parent company, is liable for Frito-Lay's
activity."

The Court disagrees that such a showing is required at the pleading
stage. Additionally, the Plaintiff has not alleged that PepsiCo is
liable for Quakers mislabeling on the mere fact that it is Quaker's
parent company.

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

The Products are marketed as containing "No Artificial
Preservatives" and their labels and packaging contain the language
"No Artificial Preservatives."

Further, Quaker's website contains numerous statements claiming
that the Products contain "no artificial preservatives." The
Plaintiff alleges that these representations are false,
specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the Products contain
artificial preservatives known as "tocopherols."

Tocopherols are a listed ingredient on the Products; specifically,
they are listed as "tocopherols (to preserve freshness)."

PepsiCo is an American multinational food, snack, and beverage
corporation.

A copy of the Court's orderdated Jan 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JT2pKk at no extra charge.[CC]


PERFECT BAR: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 28
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEHVA ROFFMAN, et al., v.
PERFECT BAR, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-02479-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order: vacating the
initial case management conference scheduled for February 2, 2023
and imposes the below deadlines.

  -- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class     September 28, 2023
     Certification:

  -- The Defendant's Opposition:          November 30, 2023

  -- The Plaintiffs' Reply:               February 1, 2024

  -- Hearing:                             February 22, 2024

  -- The Court will hold a case           June 29, 2023
     management conference on:

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

PHILLIP HART BAUGNIET: Faces Sexual Abuse Class Action in Quebec
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Lofaro, writing for CTVNewsMontreal.ca, reports that a former
Montreal school principal is accused of sexually assaulting
multiple young students, some as young as seven, during
extracurricular activities at his farm in Ontario and his home in
the 1970s and 1980s.

A new class-action lawsuit alleges Phillip Hart Baugniet, now a
resident of British Columbia, used his position of authority to
gain the trust of young male students in order to abuse them while
he was the principal at the former Victoria School at 1822 de
Maisonneuve Boul., and then later at the FACE school -- which he
founded in 1975 -- on University Street.

An application to authorize the class-action lawsuit was filed last
week in Quebec Superior Court in Montreal, however, a judge has not
yet ruled on whether or not it can proceed.

None of the allegations in the application have been tested in
court.

The 25-page document filed by the Montreal law firm Kugler
Kandestin lists the sole plaintiff as a man in his early 40s, only
identified as "C," who went to FACE from 1986 to 1989.

He alleges that during the 1988-1989 school year, when he was
seven, he was among several students invited to Baugniet's personal
farm in Cornwall, Ont. -- a "tradition" of the school. During the
stay, students would sleep in small huts on the farm grounds. One
night, the principal entered the hut C was sleeping in and molested
him, "telling him that this would 'keep him warm,'" according to
the lawsuit.

C allegedly saw Baugniet sexually abuse another student.

The lawsuit alleged that in the winter of 1990-1991, the man's
former principal also sexually abused him when he followed him into
the bathroom at Baugniet's home.

The alleged sexual abuse deeply affected C in the years that
followed, which led to him turning to drugs and alcohol to cope
with the psychological trauma. He also suffers from depression,
anxiety, and struggles to develop relationships with others.

"He got married in 2013, but his marriage ended a few years later.
C attributes the failure of this marriage to his substance abuse
problems, which stem from the sexual assaults perpetrated by
Baugniet," the application alleges.

The lawsuit describes the alleged accounts of three other men who
attended the two schools where Baugniet served as principal, as
well as an English and math teacher, and were sexually abused by
him during visits to his farm and other locations. The men were
between the ages of 10 and 13 and allege the abuse happened during
the 1973-1974 school year.

One of the men, described in the application document as "Member
3," alleges that during a three-week stay at the farm in the summer
of 1974, a drunken Baugniet entered the converted barn where he was
sleeping, removed his pants and sodomized him. He was 13 at the
time, but the sexual abuse allegedly did not end there.

"During the nights of the third week of the stay, Baugniet
sodomized Member #3 several times. On one occasion, Baugniet also
performed oral sex on Member #3," the lawsuit alleged.

"Baugniet mentioned to Member #3 that what happened was a secret
and that if he revealed the sexual assaults to anyone, he would
kill him."

Like the plaintiff, the other member's allegations describe years
of shame, guilt, confusion, fear of telling their parents what
happened, and in some cases, drug abuse.

The lawsuit is seeking $450,000 in damages, as well as $750,000 in
losses and $10 million in damages for the "intentional attack on
the dignity and physical and psychological integrity" of the
alleged victims.

The lawsuit alleges that the former school board, the Protestant
School Board of Greater Montreal (PSBGM), which was responsible for
the Victoria School until July 1, 1998, was informed of the sexual
assaults on the young boys.

"By keeping Baugniet in a position of authority, the PSBGM
exacerbated the situation and allowed Baugniet to continue to
sexually assault group members with impunity," according to the
lawsuit, which added, "the PSBGM failed to act and to put in place
the necessary measures that would have prevented the sexual
assaults committed by Baugniet on the members of the group."

The English Montreal School Board (EMSB), which took over
responsibility for the the Victoria School in 1999, is named as a
defendant in the lawsuit.

The Centre de services scolaire de Montréal (CSSDM), which
oversees the FACE school, is also named as a defendant.

Both the EMSB and the CSSDM declined to comment on the lawsuit to
CTV News on Feb. 7. [GN]

PL PHASE: Wilson Class Certification Bid Due March 13
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilson et al. v. PL Phase
One Operations L.P., Case No. 1:18-cv-03285 (M.D.), the Hon. Judge
Deborah K. Chasanow entered an order on motion for extension of
time to complete discovery.

  -- Discovery closes and a status         March 13, 2023
     report is due by:

  -- The Plaintiffs' class                 March 13, 2023
     certification motion is due
     by:

  -- The Defendants' opposition is         April 17, 2023
     due by:

  -- The Plaintiffs' reply is              May 1, 2023
     due by:

  -- The dispositive motions               May 18, 2023
     deadline is:

The nature of suit states other statutes -- consumer credit.[CC]

PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Drummond Bid for Time Extension Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEON DRUMMOND, LEE
WILLIAMS, and YESHONDA DRIGGINS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY and PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
5:21-cv-04479-EGS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Edward G. Smith
entered an order:

   1. The plaintiff's motion for an extension is granted in part
      and denied in part as follows:

       a. The motion is granted insofar as the plaintiffs asked
          for an extension of time to file responses to the
          defendants' Daubert motions plaintiffs shall have
          until February 8, 2023 to file any responses. The
          defendants shall have until February 13, 2023 to file
          any replies to the plaintiffs' responses; and

       b. The motion is denied insofar as the court will not
          extend the response deadline by two weeks as requested
          in the motion; and

   2. Oral argument on the plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification is rescheduled from Tuesday, February 14,
      2023, at 2:00 p.m. to Tuesday, February 14, 2023, at 10:00
      a.m. at the U.S. Courthouse, the Holmes Building, 4th
      Floor, 101 Larry Holmes Drive, Easton, Pennsylvania.

Progressive Specialty operates as an insurance firm. The Company
offers property, casualty, life, and health insurance services.

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


R. KEITH: Fails to Pay Respiratory Therapists' OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND TYLER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. R. KEITH ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, d/b/a
The Respiratory Agency, and KEITH HOPPER, an individual, jointly
and severally, Case No. 8:23-cv-00228 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 2, 2023)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation owed to the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated to him who were formerly or are
currently employed as respiratory therapists by the Defendants,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff also requests the Court to authorize concurrent
notice to all persons who were formerly or are currently employed
by the Defendants, and who were paid in a similar manner as the
Plaintiff, or who were so employed during the Liability Period,
informing them of the pendency of this action and their right to
opt into this lawsuit pursuant to the FLSA.

From February 2020 until January 1, 2023, the Plaintiff worked more
than 40 hours per week during many weeks of his employment. The
Plaintiff was paid only straight time for all hours worked, even
those hours in excess of forty per work week.

The Plaintiff is a non-exempt former employee of the Defendants who
worked as an hourly waged respiratory therapist for Defendants'
respiratory therapy agency located in Hillsborough County,
Florida.

R. Keith Enterprises was established in 1986 as a medical staffing
firm, specializing in the Cardio Pulmonary personnel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Norell, Esq.
          ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
          300 N.W. 70 th Avenue, Suite 305
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Telephone: (954) 617-6017
          Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
          E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com

RANGE RESOURCES: Approval of Settlement in Frederick Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DONALD C. FREDERICK; LOUISE M. FREDERICK,
h/w; MICHAEL A. MAHLE; PAULA M. MAHLE, h/w; DONALD PORTA, and all
others similarly situated v. RANGE RESOURCES-APPALACHIA, LLC,
RAYMOND W. SEDDON, JR., Appellant, Case Nos. 22-1827 & 22-1828 (3d
Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirms the approval of the parties' class action settlement.

Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, writing for the Panel, notes that
when judges evaluate class-action settlements, they must focus on
what is best for the whole class, not the demands of a few. Raymond
Seddon, Jr., objected to a proposed class-action settlement. But
the District Court properly found that his objections did not
warrant scuttling the settlement. Because it did not abuse its
discretion, the Panel will affirm.

In 2008, the Plaintiffs filed a class action against Range
Resources. Range operates oil and gas wells in Ohio and
Pennsylvania. The Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of persons
entitled to royalty payments from Range. They said they had leased
their land to Range so it could drill wells. In return, Range had
promised periodic royalties for the oil and gas it produced and
sold. They alleged that Range had not paid full royalties for
years.

Eventually, the parties settled. Range agreed to make retroactive
payments and to amend its leases with class members to ensure that,
going forward, they would be paid the proper amounts. In 2011, the
District Court approved the settlement, ordered the leases amended,
and closed the case.

But in 2018, the Plaintiffs returned to court. Range's lease
amendments did not match those that the court had approved. So once
again, Range had been underpaying. The Plaintiffs asked the court
to enforce the original settlement agreement.

After discovery and mediation, the parties reached a new
settlement. Once again, Range agreed to make retroactive payments.
And it agreed to amend the leases to conform them to the original
settlement.

Mr. Seddon and three other class members objected to the new
settlement. They said the District Court lacked jurisdiction to
approve it and that it was unfair. Disagreeing, the court approved
it.

Mr. Seddon, but not his fellow objectors, appeals.

First, Mr. Seddon argues that the District Court lacked
jurisdiction to approve the new settlement agreement. But it did
not, Judge Bibas holds.

If the district court embodies the settlement contract in its
dismissal order, then it has ancillary jurisdiction to enforce it,
Judge Bibas notes. He says that is what the District Court did.
When it approved the original settlement agreement and closed the
case, it incorporated the order amending the leases. And that order
explicitly incorporated the settlement agreement. So the court
rightly held that it had ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the
original agreement and approve the new one.

Judge Bibas opines that Seddon's arguments to the contrary fall
flat. He notes that class membership has changed since the original
settlement. True, but he cites no case that says a change in class
membership strips the court of jurisdiction.

Mr. Seddon also worries that a court with ancillary jurisdiction
over the settlement could keep jurisdiction over all the class's
disputes with Range. Not so, Judge Bibas says. The District Court
refused to entertain any claims unrelated to the original
settlement because they were outside the scope of its ancillary
jurisdiction.

Rather, the District Court exercised jurisdiction to enforce only
the agreement that it had incorporated into its first dismissal.
Then it approved the new settlement and closed the case. And though
this jurisdiction is "indefinite," as Seddon notes, it rests on a
court's inherent power to enforce its orders, including orders that
incorporate the terms of a settlement agreement, Judge Bibas
explains.

Plus, because the court did not exercise jurisdiction over claims
unrelated to the original settlement agreement, Seddon need not
fear that any "Minimum Royalty Claim" has been extinguished by the
new agreement, Judge Bibas adds.

As a last-ditch effort, Seddon suggests that he might not belong to
the class. So even if the court had jurisdiction to approve the new
settlement, he says, it does not apply to him. But he told the
District Court he was a class member, and the court relied on his
statement. So he is estopped from denying it now, Judge Bibas
points out.

Mr. Seddon also argues that the District Court abused its
discretion by approving the new settlement. It did not, Judge Bibas
holds.

Approving a class-action settlement "is left to the sound
discretion of the district court," Judge Bibas notes, citing Girsh
v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153, 156 (3d Cir. 1975). A district court may
approve a settlement only if it is "fair, reasonable, and
adequate," Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). In gauging fairness, district
courts must weigh at least nine factors under Girsh. Here, the
District Court reviewed those factors carefully, Judge Bibas says.

Mr. Seddon addresses none of these factors. Instead, he objects
that the settlement did not force Range to give anything up. But it
did, Judge Bibas holds. Range gave up the chance to deny wrongdoing
or raise defenses. And it agreed to pay millions in underpayments,
even if some claims would have been time-barred.

Judge Bibas holds the District Court did not abuse its discretion
in finding that an immediate, guaranteed payout was in the class's
best interests.

Judge Bibas adds that thousands of class members benefit from the
new settlement. They get retroactive payments and amended leases.
Though one class member has objected, his objections do not warrant
throwing out the whole settlement. So the Court of Appeals will
affirm the District Court's approval of it.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 26, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2mkdt6rw from Leagle.com.


RAZVAN POP: Sapphire Trucking Wins Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIRELA USELMANN, D/B/A
SAPPHIRE TRUCKING, INC., ET AL., v. RAZVAN POP, ET AL., Case No.
2:19-cv-13652-GAD-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Gershwin A.
Drain entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify
class of:

   "All owner-operators who contracted with the Defendants from
   January 1, 2010, to January 1, 2020," pursuant to Fed. R.
   Civ. P. 23(a)-(b) ("Rule 23")."

The Court finds that the proposed class satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3).

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

The individualized issues do not predominate over the common issues
and a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. It is a waste
of the Court's resources to separately litigate claims that all
pertain the same scheme and uniform course of conduct, the Court
adds.

The Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Certify Class on November 18,
2021. The Defendants responded on January 13, 2022, and Plaintiffs
filed a reply on January 27, 2022.

The Court heard oral argument on September 22, 2022. On November
14, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file supplemental
briefing and address the issue: whether the class is certifiable
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).

The Plaintiffs filed the supplemen tal brief on November 21, 2022.
The Defendants responded on November 29, 2022, and Plaintiffs filed
a reply on December 5, 2022.

The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges that the Defendants
engaged in two counts ("count I" and "count II") of civil
violations under the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization
Act ("RICO").

The Plaintiffs say Defendants cheated them out of millions of
dollars of contract proceeds through systematic fraud.

The Plaintiffs also allege state law claims for breach of contract
("count III"), unjust enrichment ("count IV"), promissory estoppel
("count V"), and conversion ("count VI").

The Court previously granted Defendants' motion for summary
judgment on count II. [see ECF No. 75]. Only count I and counts
III-VI remain. The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages as their sole
remedy.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jK4bTC at no extra charge.[CC]

REALPAGE INC: Facing Class Actions Over Rental Pricing Software
---------------------------------------------------------------
Propmodo reports that since its founding in 1998, RealPage has
grown into a formidable real estate data analytics and software
company. It was acquired in 2020 by private equity firm Thomas
Bravo and was valued at approximately $10.2 billion. RealPage then
acquired its largest competitor in 2017, Lease Rent Options, for
$300 million. The company made other acquisitions that year,
including the apartment market data provider Axiometrics and
On-Site Manager, Inc., a leasing and marketing platform firm.
Overall, RealPage has acquired 10 companies since 2016, enabling it
to super-power its software with increasing streams of data and
create a larger market share for the platform.

RealPage's story is one of PropTech's successes. Company executives
often bragged about the firm's influence in the multifamily
industry during the high times of its rapid growth. The company has
led several summits where some of the country's largest corporate
landlords mingled. One such summit is their annual RealWorld
conference, where executives from companies like Cushman &
Wakefield, Greystar, and Lincoln Property Co. served on
subcommittees.

One of RealPage's most popular software offerings has been
YieldStar, a revenue management service that provides rental
pricing data and suggests prices to landlords based on varying
factors. During a 2017 earnings call, then-CEO Steve Winn boasted
that a property company managing more than 40,000 apartment units
once discovered it could make more money by operating at a lower
occupancy level. Winn said this "would have made management
uncomfortable before" if not for the insights gleaned from
YieldStar.

This software is now part of the assorted allegations in the legal
quagmire RealPage finds itself in. RealPage has drawn the attention
of antitrust regulators, and several class-action lawsuits have
been filed against it since a ProPublica expose was published in
October. RealPage has been vocally proud of YieldStar's
effectiveness in driving rent increases in the past. One of the
lawsuits alleges there is a marketing video where a RealPage
executive takes credit for the spike in rental prices in recent
years. It's also alleged that Jeffrey Roper, the architect of
YieldStar, stated the software was designed to sidestep agents who
had "way too much empathy" and were hesitant to push rents higher.
Now that the legal dogfight has begun, the company will be much
more careful about what it says.

With lawsuits filed against it from all corners of the country and
more probably on the way, RealPage is facing serious legal trouble.
By most accounts, its YieldStar software has been wildly
successful, but maybe it was too successful. Depending on how the
various courts rule, the ruthless effectiveness of YieldStar in
maximizing multifamily revenues may have actually been illegal.

What's inside the black box?
RealPage has denied the allegations, and few people in the
multifamily industry seem willing to talk to me about them. The
company faces at least seven class-action lawsuits that have been
filed since October 18th, along with separate scrutiny from the
Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission. Some of the
biggest names in multifamily real estate have also been implicated
in the lawsuits, including Greystar, Lincoln Property Co., and
Trammell Crow. One case filed in New York demands $5 million in
damages and claims RealPage's clients control 19 million of
America's overall 48.5 million rental units.

The crux of the suits is simple enough to understand: all the
defendants are accused of colluding to artificially raise rents
with the help of YieldStar. One complaint states YieldStar enabled
landlords to set and keep rents artificially high and defy the
fundamental dynamics of supply and demand. The lawsuits allege
anti-competitiveness and violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act. One case also alleges violations of the Cartwright
Act, which is essentially the California state version of the
Sherman Act. The complaints say YieldStar shared otherwise private
data between landlord clients and encouraged them to fix prices
that eliminated competition in some rental markets. One lawsuit
alleges sharing private, real-time rental pricing and supply data
was a condition of using YieldStar.

The ProPublica report examined five of the nation's top 10 property
managers as of 2020, and all of them used YieldStar in at least
some buildings. Collectively, they controlled thousands of
apartments in metro areas like Nashville, Seattle, Atlanta, and
Denver. Rents in those markets for a standard two-bedroom apartment
increased by 30 percent or more between 2014 and 2019. ProPublica
revealed that in one neighborhood in Seattle, 10 property managers
oversaw 70 percent of all apartments, and they all used YieldStar.
Multifamily managers can reject the pricing suggestions that
YieldStar offers, but former RealPage employees allege that as many
as 90 percent of suggestions are adopted.

These allegations are damning but must, of course, be proven in
court. The price-fixing was the biggest draw of YieldStar,
according to many of the class-action complaints. A confidential
witness in one of the complaints said he'd call the competition in
the area, usually with a list of 10 people to contact. He'd ask
what they were charging for rent, then change his prices on
YieldStar. "It was price-fixing," the witness said. "What else can
you call it when you're literally calling your competition and
changing your rate based on what they say?"

According to the lawsuits, RealPage's conferences were also places
where landlords allegedly agreed on prices, often set by RealPage
itself. An online User Group Forum had thousands of members that
exchanged rental data and collaborated on setting prices. Exchanges
of information between competitors, especially pricing information,
are inherently suspect according to antitrust laws. When
competitors set prices jointly instead of individually, they commit
what's known in legal terms as a "supreme evil of antitrust."
Whether price-fixing is done through online software or in a smoky
room makes no difference.

Jonathan L. Rubin, a partner at MorginRubin LLP, said that many
antitrust cases like this are lost because most business people
know better than to leave a documented trail of collusion, so it
can often be hard to prove. The Sherman Act has been around since
1890, and companies are wise to it. But RealPage executives'
enthusiasm for YieldStar in public statements in the past could be
used against them. The fact that there are documented instances of
landlords sharing price data on RealPage's online User Forum may
also not look good in court.

Another subtle issue in the cases against RealPage is the theory
that third-party software could orchestrate collusion. "When a
platform like this makes the rules, is that tantamount to an
agreement of joint profit maximization?" Rubin asked. Complaints
are still being filed against RealPage, and there will undoubtedly
be appeals. These cases will take a while to litigate. Rubin told
me not everything has been revealed about how YieldStar works and
how collusion could've been achieved. As the cases are litigated,
more details will come to light about what's inside the black box
that powers YieldStar.

See also

August 14, 2022
Will Climate Change Concerns Impact Real Estate Investment
Strategies?
If RealPage loses, the legal remedies would be monetary damages and
injunctive relief. Damages can be hard to calculate in antitrust
cases because courts need to estimate how much money was made or
lost. In other words, how much money did the affected renters lose,
and how much did landlords make because of YieldStar? However, the
more important aspect in the case would be if there was injunctive
relief, which would require RealPage to stop the business model of
the YieldStar software or, at the very least, the types of data
that are shared. The anti-trust lawsuits against RealPage could
have chilling effects and make some landlords stop using YieldStar
in fear of retaliation (many of them were named in the lawsuits as
well). But most users of the software are probably thrilled at how
it has helped them. "They'll probably continue using it because it
works so well," Rubin told me.

It's all about that algorithm
One of the most interesting aspects of the lawsuits is that they
center not on a group of people willingly colluding on a price but
on an algorithm. Problems with algorithmic pricing are well-known,
and the first case involving price-setting software goes back to
the 1980s. Most major U.S. airlines began sharing non-public
pricing information back then, and between 1988 and 1992, the
arrangements are reported to have cost consumers more than $1
billion. Eight airlines reached settlements or consent decrees with
the feds by 1994, and they agreed to change what data was shared.

In 2017, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission
released a white paper about algorithms and collusion. It cited the
airlines' case, but it wasn't specific to any industry, and it
rings eerily similar to the allegations against RealPage. The
authors state that algorithmic pricing may sometimes help
consumers, but it often leads to competitors unlawfully colluding
through an intermediary to restrict output and fix prices.

What's troubling for consumers is that humans are replaced with
algorithms in pricing goods and services, removing empathy from
transactions. RealPage's YieldStar offers "suggestions" for rental
prices, but if landlords can maximize revenue based on those
suggestions, why would they not? Landlords using YieldStar have the
final say, but there's strong encouragement from software that
collects an untold sum of data. The public debate about algorithmic
price-setting has mainly involved airlines and now apartments,
though hotels are reported to use it, too. But what if it was
extended to even more necessities, such as food, medicine, tuition,
and clothes? The fear is a market where machines control the price
of everything, pushing the operators responsible for setting the
prices for increased profit maximization without negotiation.

These questions are why the cases against RealPage will be watched
so closely. It is a story about the multifamily industry and the
explosive increase in rents, but it also transcends the concerns of
one sector. RealPage built a successful, powerful company on data,
but the fundamental core of one of its most popular products is on
trial. The class action lawsuits they face are tough enough, but
they have also drawn the scrutiny of separate federal
investigations, which could prove even more damaging. The price of
rent is an emotional issue at a time when housing advocates have
become more vocal than ever. Rent control ordinances are cropping
up nationwide, and the White House has even chimed in recently with
its own proposals for protecting renters' rights. More Americans
are renters than at any point in the past 50 years, and the average
household is rent-burdened, according to a recent Moody's Analytics
report.

As the economy has slowed, rent prices are finally moderating.
Seventy-four percent of the 100 most expensive cities for rent
posted one-bedroom median rents in January that were either down or
flat compared to the previous month. But decelerating rent growth
now doesn't take away the huge increases in recent years, and
ProPublica's report was like dumping gasoline on the flames for
angry housing advocates. The outcome of these lawsuits against
RealPage will have outsized implications for the multifamily
industry, and they could determine the future of algorithm
price-setting beyond real estate. RealPage may be a PropTech
success story, but depending on how these cases go, it could end up
more as a cautionary tale. [GN]

RESTORATION HOLDINGS: Krausslach Files Bid for Conditional Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jeremy Krausslach On
behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated, v. Restoration
Holdings, Inc., Todd Frank, Case No. (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting her conditional
certification, thereby authorizing her to send notice to:

      "all persons who worked as hourly employees for
      Restoration Holdings during the three years in advance of
      the date that the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for
      conditional certification."

      The only claim for which Krausslach seeks collective
      treatment is the claim that employees are entitled to be
      paid starting at their punch-in times rather than their
      later handwritten start times; and ending at their punch-
      out times rather than their earlier handwritten end times.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DSqnlc at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
          310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: (414) 271-4500
          Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
          E-mail: yh@previant.com

RING LLC: Class Cert Bid Extended by 90 Days in White Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALISON WHITE, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
v. RING LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; THE HOME DEPOT,
INC. dba HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware Corporation;
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC dba AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:22-cv-06909-JFW-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John F. Walter
entered an order that:

  -- Plaintiff's deadline to file her Motion for Class
     Certification is continued from January 27, 2020 to 90 days
     after the Court's ruling on Defendant's Motion to Compel
     Arbitration, or in the Alternative, to Dismiss.

Ring LLC is a home security and smart home company owned by Amazon.
Ring manufactures home security products that incorporate outdoor
surveillance cameras.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carney R. Shegerian, Esq.
          Anthony Nguyen, Esq.
          Cheryl A. Kenner, Esq.
          SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          11520 San Vicente Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 860-0770
          Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
          E-mail: CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com
                  ANguyen@Shegerianlaw.com
                  CKenner@Shegerianlaw.com

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Court Sets Case Schedule in Moore Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COOPER MOORE and ANDREW
GILLETTE, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 2:21-cv-01571-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge
Barbara J. Rothstein entered an order setting case schedule as
follows:

                Event                             Date

  Deadline for class certification             April 28, 2023
  fact discovery

  Plaintiffs' expert report(s)                 May 19, 2023
  served on defendant

  Defendant's expert report(s)                 June 23, 2023
  served on plaintiffs

  Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert report(s)        August 7, 2023
  served on Defendant

  Deadline to complete class                   August 21, 2023
  certification expert discovery

  Deadline for Plaintiffs to file              September 4, 2023
  motion for class certification

  Deadline for Defendant's class              October 2, 2023
  certification response

  Deadline for Plaintiffs' class              October 16, 2023
  certification reply

  Fact discovery cut off                      July 22, 2024

  Disclosure of expert testimony              August 26, 2024
  under FRCP 26(a)(2)

  Expert discovery cutoff                     September 23, 2024

Robinhood Financial is a stock brokerage firm, which provides
brokerage clearing services.

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

ROIVANT SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Immunovant Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roivant Sciences Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Immunovant-related putative
securities class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

In February 2021, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed against Immunovant and certain of its current and former
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired
Immunovant’s securities from October 2, 2019 and February 1,
2021. The complaint alleged that Immunovant and certain of its
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making false and misleading
statements regarding the safety of batoclimab and sought
unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an
award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees.


On December 29, 2021, the U.S. District Court appointed a lead
plaintiff.

On February 1, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding both (i) the Company and (ii) Immunovant's directors and
underwriters as defendants, and asserting additional claims under
Section 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, on behalf of a putative class consisting of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Immunovant's securities pursuant
and/or traceable to Immunovant's follow-on public offering on or
about September 2, 2020.

On March 15, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a further amended
complaint.

On May 27, 2022, the defendants, including the Company, filed
motions to dismiss that amended complaint.

The fully briefed motion to dismiss, including defendants' opening
briefs, lead plaintiff's opposition and defendants' replies were
filed with the court on September 9, 2022. No hearing date has been
set.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the case and
has not recorded a liability related to this lawsuit because, at
this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate possible
losses or determine whether an unfavorable outcome is either
probable or remote.

Roivant Sciences Ltd. builds biotech and healthcare technology
companies (“Vants”) and deploys technology to drive greater
efficiency in research and development and commercialization. It
also builds technology Vants focused on improving the process of
developing and commercializing medicines.


SESEN BIO INC: Settles Consolidated Shareholder Suit in NY Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sesen Bio, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K report dated January 31,
2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February
1, 2023, that on February 1, 2023, Sesen Bio, Inc. announced that
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued an order on January 31, 2023, granting final approval of the
settlement of the consolidated shareholder class action captioned
"In re Sesen Bio, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No.
1:21-cv-07025-AKH," in accordance with the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement that the Company disclosed in a Current
Report on Form 8-K dated August 17, 2022.

As previously disclosed in the company's Current Report on Form 8-K
dated September 29, 2022, the court issued an order on September
28, 2022, granting preliminary approval of the settlement of the
Securities Litigation.

Sesen Bio is a late-stage biotechnology company based in
Massachusetts.


SHIFTPIXY INC: Faces Splond Labor Suit in NV Court
--------------------------------------------------
Shiftpixy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended November 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 23, 2023, that on April 8, 2019,
claimant, Corey Splond, filed a class action lawsuit, on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated individuals in the Eighth
Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada, Clark County,
naming the Company and its client as defendants, and alleging
violations of certain wage and hour laws.

Discovery is proceeding in the case, and no trial date has been
set.

ShiftPixy, Inc. is a specialized Human Capital service provider
based in Florida.

SNAP INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in Delaware Court
--------------------------------------------------
Snap, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 1, 2023, that on August 2, 2022, the
company, and certain of its directors, were named as defendants in
a class action lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court purportedly
brought on behalf of Class A stockholders, alleging that a
transaction between the company's co-founders and the company, in
which the co-founders agreed to employment agreements, and the
company agreed to amend its certificate of incorporation and issue
a stock dividend if certain conditions were met, was not
advantageous to the stockholders, constituted a breach of fiduciary
duty, and should have been put to a vote of the Class A
stockholders.

Defendants seek monetary damages and other relief.

Snap Inc. is a technology company based in California.


SNAP INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Misleading Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Snap, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 1, 2023, that in November 11, 2021, the
company, and certain of its officers, were named as defendants in a
federal securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court Central District of California.

The lawsuit was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of its
Class A common stock. The lawsuit alleges that the company and
certain of its officers made false or misleading statements and
omissions concerning the impact that Apple's App Tracking
Transparency framework would have on the company's business.
Defendants seek monetary damages and other relief.

Snap Inc. is a technology company based in California.


STAR ENTERTAINMENT: PFM Files Shareholder Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino, writing for Australasian Lawyer, reports that Phi
Finney McDonald (PFM) has filed a class action lawsuit against The
Star Entertainment Group Ltd. in the Victoria Supreme Court on
behalf of shareholders.

The lawsuit aims to recover losses on behalf of investors who
purchased or held shares between 26 March 2016 and 13 June 2022.
The shareholders alleged that breaches of continuous disclosure
obligations and misleading and deceptive conduct inflated the price
during this period.

PFM director Tim Finney said the firm launched the case after an
extensive investigation into the proceeding. "We have conducted
detailed due diligence into the proceeding, including the Bell
Review in NSW, the Gotterson Review in Queensland, the AUSTRAC
proceeding against Star and the ASIC proceeding against current and
former directors of Star."

Star is an Australian integrated resort company that owns and
operates The Sydney Star, The Star Gold Coast, and Treasury
Brisbane. The company has also acquired the Sheraton Grand Mirage
on the Gold Coast in a joint venture and manages the Gold Coast
Convention and Exhibition Centre on behalf of the Queensland
Government.

The lawsuit claimed that Star failed to inform investors of
systemic non-compliance with anti-money laundering and
counter-terrorism law, conduct disguising gambling money as hotel
expenses, and other contraventions of the law.

Jowene Pty Ltd., as trustee for Biro Citer Souvenirs Pty Limited
Pension Fund, acted as representative plaintiff for the
shareholders. Global ESG engagement and litigation finance business
Woodsford funded the class action lawsuit.

Woodsford and PFM have previously partnered to bring the ongoing
class actions against ANZ, Nuix and Macquarie. They also brought a
class action against Westpac, likewise alleging systemic
infringements of the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism
obligations.

PFM specialises in complex and large-scale litigation, focusing on
shareholder, environmental, and social justice class actions. The
firm has offices in Melbourne, Sydney and London. [GN]

SUN LIFE: Lewis-Abdulhaadi Files Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOINETTE
LEWIS-ABDULHAADI, v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE CO OF CANADA., et al., Case
No. 2:21-cv-03805-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. Certifying Counts I, II, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII pursuant
      to Rule 23(a) and (b)(1) and (b)(2), and alternatively (b)
      (3):

      (a) All participants in an ERISA-covered plan that
          provided or offered child dependent life insurance
          that is or was insured by Sun Life Assurance Company
          of Canada or Union Security Insurance Company on or
          after August 25, 2015 and for which that participant
          had at least one child enrolled in such dependent life
          insurance coverage and either (i) had no enrolled
          children who met the definition of a dependent child
          under the policy while such children were enrolled in
          coverage or (ii) had a claim denied because an child
          did not meet the definition of an eligible child under
          the policy; and

          (b) The beneficiaries of such participants.

          Excluded from the Class are persons who were
          fiduciaries of the Plan(s) with decision-making or
          administrative authority relating to the
          establishment, administration, funding, or
          interpretation of the Plan.

   2. Appointing Plaintiff Antoinette Lewis as the Class
      Representative.

   3. Appointing R. Joseph Barton of Barton & Downes LLP, Adam
      Harrison Garner of The Garner Firm, Ltd., and Jonathan
      Feigenbaum as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class pursuant to
      Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan 27,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DT2rhs
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
          BARTON & DOWNES LLP
          1633 Connecticut NW, Suite 200
          Washington DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 734-7046
          E-mail: jbarton@bartondownes.com

                - and -

          Adam Harrison Garner, Esq.
          Melanie J. Garner, Esq.
          THE GARNER FIRM, LTD.
          One Penn Center
          1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 550
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 645-5955
          Facsimile: (215) 645-5960
          E-mail: adam@garnerltd.com
                  melanie@garnerltd.com

                - and -

          Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq.
          184 High Street, Suite 503
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 357-9700
          E-mail: Jonathan@erisaattorneys.com

SUNVALLEYTEK INT'L: Oh Must File Class Certification Bid by March 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID OH, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUNVALLEYTEK
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00866-SVK (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Susan Van Keulen entered an order granting joint
stipulation requesting an extension of the class certification
briefing and hearing schedule, as follows:

  -- The Plaintiff's Motion for Class      March 31, 2023
     Certification shall be filed by:

  -- The Defendant's Opposition shall      May 12, 2023
      be filed by:

  -- The Plaintiff's Reply shall be        June 9, 2023
     filed by:

  -- The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion     July 11, 2023
     for Class Certification shall be

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DPJQD8 at no extra charge.[CC]


SUPERCELL OY: Mai Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
PETER MAI, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing the lawsuit entitled Peter Mai, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Supercell Oy, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-05573-EJD, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Plaintiffs Peter Mai and Diego Nino allege that Supercell, a
Finnish mobile video game development company, has engaged in
unlawful and unfair conduct via the development, promotion, and
sale of "loot boxes" in two of its games, Clash Royale and Brawl
Stars. A loot box is a randomized chance within a game to win
prizes, such as new or better characters, coins, spells, and
buildings.

Mai's original complaint asserted claims for violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17200, et seq., violation of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq., and
unjust enrichment. The predicate offenses constituting the unlawful
conduct were alleged violations of California Business &
Professions Code Sections 19800, et seq., California Penal Code
Sections 330, et seq., the Illegal Gambling Business Act (18 U.S.C.
Section 1955), and the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act
of 2006 (31 U.S.C. Sections 5361-5367).

On Sept. 20, 2021, the Court granted Supercell's motion to dismiss
the complaint with leave to amend. The First Amended Complaint
(FAC) reasserts the UCL, CLRA, and unjust enrichment claims with
additional predicate offenses for the alleged violation of
California Penal Code Section 337j.

On Nov. 17, 2021, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
FAC, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge
Edward J. Davila. The Court found that (1) Supercell's loot boxes
are neither illegal slot machines nor controlled games and (2) the
Plaintiffs cannot state a claim based on the allegedly unfair
effects of the loot boxes. Judge Davila ruled that amendment would
be futile. Accordingly, he dismissed the FAC without leave to
amend.

The appellate case is captioned Peter Mai, et al. v. Supercell Oy,
Case No. 23-15144, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, filed on February 2, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Peter Mai and Diego Nino Mediation Questionnaire
was due February 9, 2023;

   -- Appellants transcript is due on April 3, 2023;

   -- Appellants Peter Mai and Diego Nino opening brief is due on
May 15, 2023;

   -- Appellee Supercell Oy answering brief is due on June 12,
2023; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants PETER MAI, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
            BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
            501 West Broadway
            San Diego, CA 92101

                   - and -

            Andrew J. Brown, Esq.
            LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW J. BROWN
            501 W Broadway, Suite 1490
            San Diego, CA 92101
            Telephone: (619) 501-6550

Defendant-Appellee SUPERCELL OY is represented by:

            Jennifer Lloyd Kelly, Esq.
            TYZ LAW GROUP, PC
            4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 613-5899

                   - and -

            Sean Apple, Esq.
            TYZ LAW GROUP, PC
            4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 766-3530

                   - and -

            Erin Jones, Esq.
            TYZ LAW GROUP, PC
            4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 993-1735

                   - and -

            Ciara N. McHale, Esq.
            TYZ LAW GROUP, PC
            4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 322-8124

                   - and -

            Ryan Tyz, Esq.
            TYZ LAW GROUP, PC
            4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 849-3578

SWISS RE: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Essential Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ESSENTIAL UTILITIES, INC., et al. v. SWISS RE GROUP,
et al., Civil Action No. 22-1559 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Eduardo C.
Robreno of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania:

   a. denies Swiss Re Corporate Solutions Elite Insurance's
      motion for judgment on pleadings on Count I of the amended
      complaint for breach of contract and Count V of the amended
      complaint for declaratory judgment; and

   b. grants the Plaintiffs' motion for partial judgment on
      pleadings on Count V of the amended complaint.

The action involves alleged breaches of insurance contracts.
Plaintiffs Essential Utilities and Aqua Illinois ("Plaintiffs"),
contend that Defendant Swiss Re Corporate Solutions Elite Insurance
("SRCS Elite"), with whom the Plaintiffs have excess insurance
policies, is obligated to defend them in two underlying lawsuits
involving lead that leached into a public water supply.

The Plaintiffs provide drinking water to the residents of the
Village of University Park, Illinois. In December 2017, they
switched the source of the drinking water and introduced new water
treatment chemicals. In May 2019, testing showed unacceptable
levels of lead in the water. Two lawsuits were filed against the
Plaintiffs.

First, on Sept. 3, 2019, Village residents filed a class action
against the Plaintiffs alleging that they negligently caused lead
to leach from the solder and plumbing into the water supply,
causing "damages to persons and property. Second, on Sept. 9, 2019,
the Attorney General of Illinois brought an action against the
Plaintiffs for injunctive and other relief alleging harm to the
public health and welfare of the residents due to the lead
infiltration.

The Plaintiffs had a $5 million pollution liability insurance
policy from Chubb Insurance which protected against claims of
bodily injury and property damage, including those raised in the
underlying lawsuits. The Chubb policy has been exhausted and Chubb
has paid $5 million in indemnity payments and legal defense
expenses in connection with the two lawsuits.

The Plaintiffs also had two excess general liability insurance
policies through SRCS Elite with $10 million coverage limits in
excess of the Chubb policy. These two policies were effective for
consecutive annual periods from 2017 to 2019. Having exhausted the
Chubb policy, the parties now disagree whether the SRCS Elite
policies provide additional coverage in connection with the two
underlying lawsuits.

Both parties have moved for judgment on the pleadings. SRCS Elite
has moved for judgment on Count I of the amended complaint for
breach of contract and Count V of the amended complaint for
declaratory judgment. The Plaintiffs move for partial judgment on
Count V of the amended complaint regarding SRCS Elite's duty to
defend in the underlying lawsuits.

SRCS Elite seeks judgment on Counts I and V of the amended
complaint which assert a breach of the SRCS Elite policies and seek
declaratory relief. It argues that the policies' pollution
exclusion bars the coverage sought and that there are no applicable
exceptions to the exclusion; thus, there can be no breach of
contract.

Judge Robreno holds that the Chubb policy is "other insurance"
under the SRCS Elite policies because the Chubb policy provides
coverage for damages covered at least in part by the SRCS Elite
policies. He further holds that the pollution exclusion is
ambiguous, and therefore construes it in favor of the Plaintiffs.
And to prevent the policies from being ineffective, he adopts the
Plaintiffs' construction of what terms apply when the "retained
limit" is set solely by "other insurance." Otherwise, the
definition of "retained limit" is plain on its face and the
Plaintiffs have proffered the correct interpretation of that term.

Thus, Judge Robreno denies the Defendant's motion for judgment on
the pleadings on Counts I and V of the amended complaint.

The Plaintiffs seek judgment on the pleadings regarding SRCS
Elite's duty to defend them in the underlying lawsuits. The parties
disagree on the meaning of the duty provision and their arguments
mirror those made in relation to "retained limits."

As a result, Judge Robreno says the Plaintiffs again proffer the
correct interpretation of this language and, thus, are entitled to
judgment on the pleadings regarding SRCS Elite's duty to defend in
the underlying actions. In that the Plaintiffs have proffered the
plain meaning of the duty to defend provision, and have shown that
it has been triggered by the exhaustion of the Chubb policy, they
are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of SRCS
Elite's duty to defend.

Because the exception to the pollution exclusion in the SRCS Elite
policies creates coverage for the underlying lawsuits and because
SRCS Elite owes the Plaintiffs a duty to defend, Judge Robreno
denies SRCS Elite's motion for judgment on the pleadings and grants
the Plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings.

An appropriate order follows.

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


THOMSON REUTERS: Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAT BROOKS and RASHEED
SHABAZZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION, Case No.
3:21-cv-01418-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order permitting the filing of the Designated Materials in
Exhibits 1-7 under seal.

This sealing Motion and its exhibits are supported by the following
Memorandum of 7 Points and Authorities; the concurrently filed
Declaration of Anna Mouw Thompson; the concurrently filed
Declaration of Kevin Appold; the Stipulated Protective Order
entered in this action; this Court's Order regarding Plaintiffs'
Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material
Should be Sealed and all pleadings and papers on file.

Thomson Reuters is the world's leading provider of news and
information-based tools to professionals.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I6JpXs at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Susan D. Fahringer, Esq.
          Nicola C. Menaldo, Esq.
          Erin K. Earl, Esq.
          Anna M. Thompson, Esq.
          Gabriella Gallego, Esq.
          Hayden M. Schottlaender, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101-3099
          Telephone: (206) 359-8000
          Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
          E-mail: SFahringer@perkinscoie.com
                  NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com
                  EEarl@perkinscoie.com
                  AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com
                  GGallego@perkinscoie.com
                  HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com


TIERNO CARE: Castro Files Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUTH MELANIE CASTRO
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
TIERNO CARE HOME HEALTH AGENCY, INC. D/B/A TIERNO CARE AGENCY, ET
AL., Case No. 1:21-cv-00282-FYP (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the proposed Class pursuant to Federal Rule of
      Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(30), which consists of:

      "All Home Health Aides employed by either Tierno Care Home
      Health Agency or J & S Health Care, LLC that worked more
      than 40 hours (regardless of whether those hours were paid
      by Tierno, J&S, or Professional Healthcare Resources) in
      any workweek during the Relevant Period."

   2. appointing Ruth Melanie Castro as the Class Representative
      for the Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
      23;

   3. Appointing her counsel as Class Counsel for the Class
      pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g); and

   4. Approving the three-step trial plan outlined in
      Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion
      for Class Certification; and

   5. Providing for such other and further relief as the Court
      deems just and proper.

Tierno Care is a home health agency.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan 27,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JVGhPO
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael K. Amster, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
          E-mail: mamster@zagfirm.com

TIERNO CARE: Castro Seeks to Certify Home Health Aides Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUTH MELANIE CASTRO
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated  v.
TIERNO CARE HOME HEALTH AGENCY, INC. D/B/A TIERNO CARE AGENCY, ET
AL., Case No. 1:21-cv-00282-FYP (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge entered an
order:

   1. granting her motion for class certification.

   2. certifying her and the Home Health Aides' class claims
      against the Defendants under the D.C. Minimum Wage Act
      (DCMWA) and D.C. Wage Payment and Collection Law (DCWPL)
      be certified pursuant to Rule 23; and

   3. appointing her as Class Representative, and her counsel be
      appointed as Class Counsel.

On January 29, 2021, the Plaintiff, brought this hybrid class and
collective action to recover unpaid overtime wages and associated
damages under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA),
DDCMWA, and DCWPCL against the Defendants Professional Healthcare
Resources, Tierno Care Home Health Agency, J & S Health Care, LLC,
Sonia Colbert, and Jose Dolores Cruz.

On February 16, 2016, after engaging in limited discovery, the
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional Certification of a
Collective Action and requested certification of Home Health Aides
that worked for the Tierno Defendants at any time from December 16,
2017 to January 29, 2021 ("Relevant Period").

On April 5, 2022, this Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification and Ordered the Defendants to produce the
names and contact information of all individuals in the collective.
Professional Health Care and the Tierno Defendants collectively
identified 406 individuals that worked for the Tierno Defendants
during the Relevant Period.

As a Home Health Aide, Ms. Castro worked in patients' houses,
providing them care. This would include, for example, cleaning,
preparing meals, reminding patients to take medicine, helping with
groceries, and taking patients to doctor appointments.

During the Relevant Period, Ms. Castro frequently worked over 75
hours per week. Ms. Castro was paid straight time for all hours
worked, even for hours she worked over 40.

Tierno Care is a home health agency.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xa74Ag at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael K. Amster, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
          E-mail: mamster@zagfirm.com

TJ INSPECTION: Fails to Pay Inspectors' OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM SMOOT, individually and for others similarly situated v. TJ
INSPECTION, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00113-PRW (W.D. Okla., Feb. 2,
2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from
Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Smoot and the day rate inspectors regularly worked more than 40
hours a week. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA,
TJ Inspection pays Mr. Smoot and the day rate inspectors a flat
amount for each day worked regardless of the total hours worked in
a day or week with no overtime compensation. TJ Inspection
allegedly never paid Smoot or the day rate inspectors a guaranteed
salary, the lawsuit claims.

By paying its inspectors a day rate with no overtime compensation,
TJ Inspection violated (and continues to violate) the FLSA's
requirement to pay employees overtime compensation at 1.5 times
their regular rates for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek,
added the lawsuit.

Mr. Smoot worked for TJ Inspection as an Inspector from July 2021
until December 2022.

TJ Inspection is a pipeline inspection company headquartered in
Oklahoma City, that "offers a complete list of inspection services"
to its oil and gas industry clients.[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

TRADER JOE'S: Faces Class Actions Over Dark Chocolate Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vonnai Phair, writing for The Seattle Times, reports that dark
chocolate has a reputation as a relatively healthy treat, but
research showing some popular bars might have potentially unsafe
levels of heavy metals has many questioning how safe these treats
really are.

Consumer Reports tested 28 popular dark chocolate bars from
Seattle's own Theo Chocolate to Trader Joe's, Hershey's to
Ghirardelli, and even smaller brands such as Alter Eco and Mast.

The study found cadmium and lead in every single bar.

With Valentine's Day around the corner, Consumer Reports last month
called on chocolate makers to commit by Feb. 14 to reducing levels
of heavy metals in their bars. The letters were sent alongside a
petition with nearly 55,000 signatures.

With no federal limit set on heavy metals in foods, researchers
used California's limitations on lead and cadmium, the most
protective in the country, to determine which chocolates posed the
most risk.

California's daily maximum allowable dose levels (MADL), set by
Proposition 65, require businesses to provide warnings to
Californians if a product leads to toxic chemical exposures that
can cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. The
limits were set for lead starting in 1988 and cadmium in 1997.

For 23 of the chocolate bars Consumer Reports tested, eating just 1
ounce exceeded California's limits of 0.5 micrograms per day for
lead -- or about 1% of the weight of the average grain of sand --
and 4.1 micrograms per day for cadmium.

One ounce of Theo's Organic Extra Dark Pure Dark Chocolate 85%
Cocoa chocolate bar, which is roughly one serving size, contained
140% of California's maximum daily allowable dose of lead and 189%
of the dose of cadmium, Consumer Reports found.

Consumer Reports also listed Theo's Organic Pure Dark 70% Cocoa as
having high levels of both.

Although Consumer Reports cites MADL guidelines, official food
safety standards are based on different limits. Many of the brands
producing the chocolate bars tested in the study, including Theo
Chocolate, follow thresholds set by a 2018 California consent
judgment. The judgment established concentration limits for lead
and cadmium that the chocolate industry follows.

Under California law, the concentration levels set in the judgment
supersede the standards cited in the study; bars that contain
levels above those set in the judgment require warning labels when
sold in California.

"At Theo, the safety and quality of our products is our top
priority, and we are confident that our products meet the standards
set forth in our industry and are safe to be consumed," said a Theo
Chocolate spokesperson in an emailed statement.

"All products in the study -- including Theo -- are well under
these limits," the spokesperson said, referring to the 2018
standards.

Both the 70% and 85% Theo chocolate bars fall below the judgment's
threshold for lead and cadmium in chocolate bars with 65% to 95%
cacao content.

Consistent, long-term exposure to even small amounts of heavy
metals like lead and cadmium can cause a variety of health
problems, particularly in children and pregnant people.

Lead exposure can slow the growth and development of children,
particularly "their brain development, behavioral development and
can even cause aggressive behaviors," said Dr. Holly Davies, a
toxicologist at the Washington State Department of Health.

Cadmium exposure can cause damage to the kidneys, lungs and bones,
she said.

Lead exposure becomes more dangerous as it accumulates in the body,
and it can also cause hypertension and neurological effects, Davies
said.

Five of the 28 bars Consumer Reports tested had levels of lead and
cadmium below California's MADL limits. Those safer bars were
Ghirardelli Intense Dark (both 72% and 86% cacao), Taza Chocolate
Deliciously Dark (70%), Mast Dark Chocolate (80%) and Valrhona
Abinao (85%).

In response to the 2018 consent judgment, the National
Confectioners Association and nonprofit advocacy group As You Sow
-- with contributions from more than 30 chocolate companies
(including Theo) -- released a three-year expert research study.
The study concluded in August 2022.

The expert committee unanimously agreed it is feasible for the
chocolate industry to manufacture chocolate products with lower
levels of lead than the thresholds set forth in the judgment,
although they did not agree what those levels are.

The experts did not reach an agreement on whether the chocolate
industry can produce products with lower levels of cadmium than
those in the judgment.

Within their recommendations, only one member, toxicologist Michael
DiBartolomeis, provided recommendations for maximum thresholds of
both lead and cadmium. DiBartolomeis' recommendations are lower
than the judgment and MADL thresholds.

Both Theo chocolate bars included in the Consumer Reports study had
lead and cadmium levels above DiBartolomeis' recommended limits for
chocolate bars with 65% to 95% cacao content.

The expert committee also found cadmium exposure in cacao occurs
naturally before harvest, while lead levels are influenced by where
and how the cocoa beans are handled by humans after harvest.

The committee recommended changes to harvesting and manufacturing
processes such as decreasing soil contact or even changing the pH
of soils to reduce the exposure to lead and cadmium.

The Consumer Reports letters calling for several chocolate makers
to take action by Feb. 14 come after more than a dozen lawsuits
against leading manufacturers since the release of the December
study.

Consumers have sued Trader Joe's at least nine times over its dark
chocolate products, most recently with a pair of class-action
lawsuits out of New York.

Hershey's, which makes another one of the chocolate bars tested in
the Consumer Reports study, is facing its own class-action lawsuit
filed in the same court as one of the suits against Trader Joe's.
[GN]

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Hoffman Loses Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTHER HOFFMAN, et al., v.
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01132-TSZ
(W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Zilly entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part the parties' various
      motions to strike as follows:

      a. The Plaintiffs' motion, to strike certain portions of
         the Declarations of Jens Meyer, Jennifer Wilbert, and
         Bradley Luke, is denied;

      b. Rhe Plaintiffs' motion, to strike P&F's and Cheung's
         argument regarding the good-faith defense, discussion
         of Washington's Collection Agency Act, and Exhibit 3 to
         the Supplemental Declaration of Marc Rosenberg, is
         denied; and

      c. The Plaintiffs' motion to strike certain portions of
         TSI's reply in support of its motion for summary
         judgment, and Exhibit C to the Declaration of Justin
         Homes, is denied;

      d. The Defendants' motions, to strike Plaintiffs' revised
         class and subclass definitions  are granted.

   2. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   3. denying the TSI's motion for summary judgment;

   4. granting in part and denying in part the NCSLTs' motion
      for summary judgment:

      a. The NCSLTs' motion is granted as it relates to the
          Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief; and

      b. All other requested relief is denied; and

   5. denying the deferred portion of P&F's and Cheung's motion
      for summary judgment.

On September 18, 2017, TSI entered into an administrative Consent
Order with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB").

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants submitted fraudulent,
deceptive, and misleading affidavits to obtain default judgments
against them in the underlying debt collection actions.

TSI is a market-leading provider of accounts receivable management
and student loan servicing solutions.

Transworld provides receivables collection and management
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RJ68MC at no extra charge.[CC]

TWITTER INC: Protesters Support Laid-Off Workers Amid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Business Standard reports that a group of protesters gathered
outside the Twitter headquarters here in support of employees who
were laid off by its CEO Elon Musk.

The rally took place outside Twitter headquarters at 1355 Market
Street over the last weekend, according to NBC Bay Area.

Steve Zeltzer, who led the protests with fellow labour activist
Andrew Kong Knight, was quoted as saying that the rally was in
support of both the laid-off workers and those who remain at the
company.

"We think he (Musk) should comply with the labor laws. He has a
history of flagrantly flouting labour laws. He fired 700 Tesla
workers who were trying to organise," Zeltzer said.

Performers at the event included the Angry Tired Teachers Band, a
pro-labour group.

Some of the laid-off employees filed a class-action lawsuit against
Twitter and Musk, alleging the sacking violated state and federal
labour laws.

Last month, the group of sacked Twitter employees was told by a US
judge to drop their class-action lawsuit against Musk.

In a ruling, US District Judge James Donato said that the workers
must make their case in private arbitration instead, "citing the
employment contract they signed with Twitter."

The lawsuit accused Twitter of not keeping its promise on severance
pay package.

Musk initially promised three months of severance pay but several
employees, who were sacked, claimed they only received one-month
pay in addition to the two months of non-working pay they also
received in compliance with the US WARN Act. [GN]

ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Waivers Added to Contracts Amid Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amir Khosru, writing for SportsZion, reports that The UFC is the
biggest fighting organization in the world and with that level of
success, a lot of legal trouble follows closely. One of the biggest
recent controversies came to light when Francis 'The Predator'
Ngannou left the organization citing contract negotiation failure
issues. UFC may have had enough and is introducing potentially
repressive changes to their contracts.

Two journalists from Sportskeeda first reported on the potential
changes to the language inside the contracts. Now more and more
investigation from outsiders has revealed that indeed UFC is trying
to tamper with the language in their offerings so that fighters
have to give up more rights.

"Waiver of Class, Collective, and Representative Actions. To the
maximum extent permitted by applicable law, the parties agree that
no claims made be initiated or maintained on a class action,
collective action, or representative action basis either in court
or arbitration. This means that neither party may serve or
participate as a class, collective, or representative action
representative or member in any proceeding as to Covered Claims
either in court or in arbitration."

"Claims Not Covered. The claims which are not covered by this
agreement to arbitrate are, to the extent applicable: claims that
are not subject to mandatory binding pre-dispute arbitration
pursuant to applicable federal or state law, including claims
brought pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act,
and claims currently pending in the lawsuit entitled Le v Zuffa,
LLC, Caso No. 15-cv-01045 in the District of Nevada."

What will these laws mean for future UFC fighters?
These new laws will mean even less rights for the fighters that
will compete for glory in the future. Previously fighters were
allowed to wear different sponsor logos to their combat wear. Such
rights were later taken away. Many fighters have filed lawsuits
against the UFC regarding a number of issues and UFC aims to
contractually prevent such acts.

WIll these new terms help the anti-UFC people like Jake Paul? It's
still to early to tell.

Separately, Lowkickmama's Ross Markey reports that the UFC have
reportedly made more wholesale changes to their fighter agreements
and contracts with combatants under their banners going forward,
which include a waiver to prevent class action lawsuits, as well as
numrous further terms which appear to restrict fighters.

As per an initial report from Bloody Elbow reporters, Anton
Tabuena, and John S. Nash, the UFC, as per official contracts
reportedly obtained by the outlet, have made a number of changes to
their promotional agreements and contracts, which appear to add
several more restrictive changes for fighters under their banner.

ANotbaly, the new addtiions come in the form of an arbitration
agreement and a waiver which would impact class action lawsuits.
And may potentially impact the current antitrust lawsuit which has
been brought against the UFC.

As noted by the initial report, the UFC made several previous
changes to their contracts and promotional agreements around 2017,
which included the introduction of a 'sunset clause' which would
see contracts end after a period of five years, the removal of a
period of exclusive negotiating, as well as the promotion's
retention of exclusive image rights for just two years, which had
been shortened.

Facing the aforenoted antitrust lawsuit brought against them, as
noted, the changes introduced by the UFC back in 2017 would
subsequently divide the two current lawsuits brought against them;
Le vs. Zuffa LLC which was brought from December 16, 2010 through
to June 30, 2017 -- and a further lawsuit which was filed back in
2021, which covers every fighter that competed under the UFC's
scrutiny between July 1, 2017, and today.

The current antitrust lawsuits against the UFC may be impacted as a
result
As per Bloody Elbow, as a result of changes in promotional
agreements, changes could potentially forced the two class action
lawsuits to be split separately, which may see damages against the
UFC mitigated, with their Defense claiming how combatants in both
groups would then be fighting under different contracts and
therefore, different conditions.

"Waiver of Class, Collective, and Representative Actions. To the
maximum extent permitted by applicable law, the parties agree that
no claims made be initiated or maintained on a class action,
collective action, or representative action basis either in court
or arbitration. This means that neither party may serve or
participate as a class, collective, or representative action
representative or member in any proceeding as to Covered Claims
either in court or in arbitration."

"Claims Not Covered. The claims which are not covered by this
agreement to arbitrate are, to the extent applicable: claims that
are not subject to mandatory binding pre-dispute arbitration
pursuant to applicable federal or state law, including claims
brought pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act,
and claims currently pending in the lawsuit entitled Le v Zuffa,
LLC, Caso No. 15-cv-01045 in the District of Nevada." [GN]

UMG RECORDINGS: Waite, et al., Bid for Class Certification Junked
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN WAITE, an individual,
et al v. UMG RECORDINGS, INC. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01091-LAK
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan entered an order denying
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in all respects.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs claims raise issues of fairness in
copyright law that undoubtedly extend beyond their own grievances.
However, the individualized evidence and case-by-case evaluations
necessary to resolve those claims make this case unsuitable for
adjudications on an aggregate basis."

UMG Recordings provides musical services. The Company offers
records, tapes, and other musical services. S

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IcrE9y at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roy W. Arnold, Esq.
          Ryan E. Cronin, Esq.
          Gregory M. Bordo, Esq.
          David M. Perry, Esq.
          Heidi G. Crikelair, Esq.
          Jillian M. Taylor, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP

                - and -

          Evan S. Cohen, Esq.
          Maryann R. Marzano, Esq.
          COHEN MUSIC LAW

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ariel Atlas, Esq.
          Rollin A. Ranson, Esq.
          Lisa M. Gilford, Esq.
          Lauren M. De Lilly
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Esq.

                - and -

          Richard S. Madel, Esq.
          Thomas Kjellbeg, Esq.
COWAN, LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN, P.C.

UNITED HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss Certain Tamburrino Claims Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss certain
claims in the lawsuit entitled JOSEPH F. TAMBURRINO, M.D., as an
assignee and authorized representative of his patient L.K., and
BARBARA WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED HEALTHCARE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 21-12766 (SDW)(ESK)
(D.N.J.).

Before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss certain of
the claims in the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint
("SAC") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Plaintiff Dr. Tamburrino is a board-certified plastic surgeon based
in Pennsylvania. On June 26, 2018, Dr. Tamburrino and a co-surgeon,
Dr. Keith M. Blechman, performed a post-mastectomy breast
reconstruction surgery on L.K., a patient enrolled in a health
insurance plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq., and
allegedly administered by the Defendant. Specifically, Drs.
Tamburrino and Blechman performed a delayed bilateral breast
reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric perforator ("DIEP").

L.K. executed an assignment of benefits and a designation of
authorized representative form in favor of Dr. Tamburrino for any
claims, appeals, and litigation associated with the surgery. After
the surgery, Dr. Tamburrino billed the Defendant for the services
he rendered, but the Defendant denied reimbursement for fees
related to Dr. Blechman because co-surgeon fees were not eligible
for reimbursement under the plan. Dr. Tamburrino twice appealed the
Defendant's decision, but the Defendant refused to consider them.

Plaintiff Barbara Williams is also a patient enrolled in a health
insurance plan governed by ERISA and allegedly administered by the
Defendant. On Sept. 24, 2018, Drs. Taylor Theunissen and Alireza
Sadeghi performed, as co-surgeons, a post-mastectomy DIEP surgery
on Barbara Williams. After the surgery, Dr. Theunissen billed the
Defendant for the services he rendered. The Defendant denied
reimbursement for services performed by Drs. Theunissen and Sadeghi
because they had operated as co-surgeons. Dr. Theunissen appealed
the Defendant's decision, but the Defendant upheld the denial.

On June 21, 2021, then-named Plaintiffs, Dr. Tamburrino and Dr.
Theunissen, instituted this putative class action challenging
then-named Defendants' alleged "uniform claim processing and
reimbursement policy that denies coverage to United members whose
plastic surgeons perform post-mastectomy DIEP flap microsurgery as
either assistant surgeons or as co-surgeons."

The Defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint. In
response, the Plaintiffs opposed the Defendants' motion and
cross-moved for leave to file an amended complaint, which the Court
granted, On Oct. 11, 2021, the same Plaintiffs filed a three-count
First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC") alleging wrongful
denial of benefits under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B) (Count I),
a claim for equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3)(A)
(Count II), and a claim for equitable relief under 29 U.S.C.
Section 1132(a)(3)(B) (Count III).

On Nov. 10, 2021, the same then-named Defendants again moved to
dismiss all of Dr. Theunissen's claims, all claims against
UnitedHealth Group Inc., United Healthcare Services, Inc., United
Healthcare Service LLC, Oxford Health Plans, LLC, and Oxford Health
Insurance, Inc., and Counts II and III. The parties timely briefed
the motion. On April 25, 2022, the Court granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss and specifically provided the Plaintiffs with
"one final opportunity to amend the complaint" to cure the
deficiencies therein.

On May 25, 2022, Plaintiffs Dr. Tamburrino and Barbara Williams
filed the SAC, in which they allege the same three counts as in the
FAC against only Defendant United Healthcare Insurance Company. On
June 22, 2022, the Defendant moved to partially dismiss the SAC
because the Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a breach of
fiduciary duty by Defendant or any other theory of liability that
would warrant additional equitable relief under Section 502(a)(3)
(Counts II and III). The parties timely completed briefing.

Upon dismissing the Plaintiffs' FAC, the Court allowed Plaintiffs
one final opportunity to amend their complaint to cure the
deficiencies therein. The Plaintiffs now assert that they are
entitled to additional equitable relief under Section 502(a)(3)
because the Defendant allegedly breached its duty of loyalty and
violated the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act (WHCRA).

The Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead either, and
accordingly, Counts II and III must be dismissed, Judge Wigenton
holds.

The Plaintiffs next contend that their "invocations" of WHCRA
permit them to pursue additional equitable relief under Section
502(a)(3).

Judge Wigenton notes that the Plaintiffs do not allege that the
Defendant discriminately refused to reimburse co-surgeon fees for
breast reconstruction surgery. Instead, the Plaintiffs merely
restate the requirements of WHCRA and generally aver that the
Defendant wrongfully denied claims for co-surgeon fees.

Such conclusory allegations, without more, are insufficient to
plead a violation of WHCRA, Judge Wigenton opines. Therefore, the
Plaintiffs have failed to allege a violation of WHCRA warranting
additional equitable relief under Section 502(a)(3).

Because the Plaintiffs have failed to allege a fiduciary duty or
any other theory of liability for which they are entitled to
equitable relief under Section 502(a)(3), Judge Wigenton holds that
Counts II and III must be dismissed in their entirety.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Wigenton grants with prejudice the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts II and III in the Plaintiffs'
SAC.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 26, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2c69shft from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Asylum Seekers Allowed to Proceed Under Pseudonyms
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia grants the Plaintiffs' motion to proceed
under pseudonym in the lawsuit entitled ASYLUM SEEKERS TRYING TO
ASSURE THEIR SAFETY, Plaintiffs v. TAE D. JOHNSON, Acting Director
of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 23-cv-163 (D.D.C.).

The Plaintiffs, who are 21 noncitizens that came to the United
States to seek asylum, have moved to proceed under pseudonym in
this instant action, a putative class action against the director
of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") and other
governmental defendants for violating various federal statutes and
their constitutional rights by posting their "personal data on
ICE.gov for anyone to view, copy, download, share, or otherwise
preserve, for approximately five hours before it was removed from
the website." For the reasons set forth here, the Court grants the
Plaintiffs' motion, subject to any further consideration by the
United States District Judge to whom this case is randomly
assigned.

The Plaintiffs are natives of nine foreign countries. Some are
currently detained by ICE at various ICE detention centers, while
others have been released from custody for now. The Plaintiffs, and
other similarly situated noncitizens (6,252 total), came to the
United States to seek asylum and were detained in ICE custody. Some
Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, have already had their
asylum claims adjudicated, some have submitted their asylum
applications, and their claims are pending adjudications, and
others have not yet submitted their asylum applications.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants unlawfully published the
private data of the Plaintiffs and other noncitizens in, or
formerly in, ICE custody to their public-facing website, which data
included their names, countries of origin, dates of birth,
A-numbers, and locations of detention in the United States, and
identified all individuals as asylum seekers, who had initially
been in expedited removal proceedings. They assert that the
Defendants' actions put them in danger because many of them came to
the United States to flee gang violence, government retaliation,
and persecution on the basis of protected grounds.

According to the Plaintiffs, this unlawful disclosure of asylum
seekers' confidential information has the concerning impact of
deterring individuals from seeking protection in the United States
in the future and undermines the country's capacity to provide
protection for asylum seekers, despite being a signer of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Plaintiffs have filed a putative class action complaint on
behalf of themselves and the thousands of other asylum seekers
whose data was unlawfully released. They allege violations of the
Privacy Act of 1974, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Accardi
doctrine, and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. They seek
various forms of injunctive and monetary relief.

The Plaintiffs seek to proceed under pseudonym not because of fear
of retaliation from the government, but rather because they fear
retribution from their persecutors and other bad actors around the
world, who now have all the information they need to hunt them down
since many of the thousands of victims of this breach, including
them, are fleeing persecution and torture in their countries of
origin.

At this early stage of the litigation, the Court is persuaded that
the Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing that their privacy
interests outweigh the public's presumptive and substantial
interest in knowing the details of their identities as plaintiffs
in this litigation.

Judge Howell opines that the public's interest in the litigant's
identity is de minimis compared to the significant privacy
interests of the Plaintiffs, who reasonably fear that proceeding
under their real names will expose them and their families to the
risk of retaliatory harm, including retribution persecutors from
whom they fled to the United States. Given the pendency of their
asylum petitions and the possibility of being returned home, this
concern is particularly significant, Judge Howell points out.

Judge Howell finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
that disclosure of their identities poses a risk of retaliatory
physical or mental harm to the requesting party or, even more
critically, to innocent non-parties.

In sum, Judge Howell opines, weighed against the minimal apparent
interest in disclosure, the Plaintiffs' significant and "legitimate
interest in anonymity" at this early stage in the litigation is
more than sufficient to overcome "countervailing interests in full
disclosure." Any general presumption in favor of open proceedings
or public interest in disclosing the Plaintiffs' identities is
significantly outweighed by the deadly threat that such disclosure
would entail.

For these reasons, Judge Howell grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Proceed Under Pseudonym, subject to any further consideration by
the United States District Judge to whom this case is randomly
assigned, and the Plaintiffs may proceed with the case using the
pseudonyms Roe #1-21.

The Defendants are prohibited from publicly disclosing the
Plaintiffs' identities or any personal identifying information that
could lead to the identification of the Plaintiffs by nonparties,
except for the purposes of investigating the allegations contained
in the Complaint and for preparing an answer or other dispositive
motion in response.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Jan. 26,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/wt2j8fch from
Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Still Left Behind Despite Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ximena Bustillo, writing for NPR, reports that nearly two decades
ago a class action lawsuit led by Black farmers against the U.S.
Department of Agriculture was settled.

Then there was a class action from Native Americans.

And one from Hispanic farmers.

And then women farmers filed their own.

They all alleged, through various years of examples, that the USDA
discriminated against them by denying them access to low-interest
rate loans and loan servicing, grant programs and assistance,
causing them hundreds of millions of dollars in economic loss and
record-breaking land loss through foreclosures.

But two decades later despite being at the forefront of a landmark
case against the USDA, Black farmers argue they are still left far
behind.

"We're still struggling," said Eddie Lewis, a sugarcane farmer in
Louisiana. "We're struggling to the point where we're going to be
extinct."

Then, President Joe Biden came into office with a little-known
goal: bring equity to farming.

"For more than 100 years the USDA did little to alleviate the
burdens of systemic inequality for Black, Brown and Native farmers
and was often the site of injustice," the then-candidate stated in
his plan for rural America. Referencing class action and large
lawsuits brought by farmers, Biden vowed to bring equity to the
Agriculture Department's methods of supporting farmers.

As a part of the plan, the Agriculture Department created an Equity
Commission. And Congress, led by Democratic Sens. Cory Booker of
New Jersey and Rafael Warnock of Georgia, approved a large debt
relief program.

But advocates representing farmers of color say more has to be
done.

"It is a behemoth of an operation," said NAACP President Derrick
Johnson, who sits on the Equity Commission, about the USDA. "Many
communities, particularly African-American communities, have been
left out of understanding how to navigate the many offerings of the
Department of [Agriculture] and really leverage opportunities to
come out of that to improve their quality of life."

Mending a damaged history
Black farmers who should have gotten relief from lawsuits say not
all the settlements made it into their hands, resulting in rapid
land loss, steep debt and a history of distrust in the department
that left farmers behind on accessing capital and programs needed
to make their businesses thrive.

Over the course of 100 years, the amount of Black-owned farmland
dropped by 90%, according to Data for Progress, due to higher rates
of loan and credit denials, lack of legal and industry support and
"outright acts of violence and intimidation."

There are only 48,697 producers who identified as Black, making up
about 1.4% of the nation's 3.4 million producers, according to the
2017 Census of Agriculture, the latest federal dataset on American
farmland demographics. A majority live in the southeastern and
mid-Atlantic states.

Following the Civil War, Black Americans were promised "40 acres
and a mule" by the federal government, a promise that never came to
pass.

Advocates say the inability for Black farmers to get a start, and
later the sharp drop in population totals, is in part due to what
they call USDA's discriminatory lending practices, and often
specific loan officers' biases.

"They never gave us any type of assistance," Lewis said.

This systemic discrimination was at the center of the 1999
class-action lawsuit Pigford v. Glickman, which resulted in a $1.25
billion settlement to Black farmers in 2010 -- though some farmers
say they never received their settlements.

"Several years ago, we formed the farmer of color network to work
against some of those issues, not only the policy, but to assist
them with grants to support their operations and make them more
viable," said B. Ray Jeffers, director of the Farmers of Color
Network at Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA. "The
years and decades-long history of discrimination against BIPOC, and
especially Black farmers, is well documented."

Congress has held multiple hearings on the topic. The most recent
was in 2020 hosted by the House Agriculture Committee.

Jeffers said he has heard from farmers who to this day face
difficulties reaching their local loan officers, and USDA loans and
programs.

"The Farm Service Agency was there for the farmers that could not
get a traditional loan at a traditional bank. They would be the
next option or the last option," Jeffers said. "They actually have
leeway built into the rules to work with these farmers and, we're
hearing, those rules are only being applied to more white
farmers."

Barriers to access to programs range from incorrect denials, to
cumbersome paperwork, to a failure to know what applicants could
qualify for to begin with.

Lawsuits block Biden's plan
As a part of the American Rescue Plan, the early 2020 pandemic
relief bill, lawmakers approved $5 billion toward debt relief and
cancellation for farmers of color. The legislation was specifically
targeting what was labeled "socially disadvantaged" farmers, or
African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans and Native Americans,
but it excluded white women.

But the program was swiftly blocked by about 12 lawsuits, including
one out of Texas led by former President Donald Trump's adviser
Stephen Miller and current state Agriculture Commissioner Sid
Miller. They argued the program was discriminating against them for
being white.

In an unusual move, the Justice Department let the deadline to
appeal the injunctions that froze the program slide, opting to
continue the court battle at the local level.

"The government vigorously defended this program in the courts but
because of these injunctions, the $5 billion provided in ARPA
remained frozen," said Marissa Perry, press secretary at USDA.
"This litigation would likely have not been resolved for years."

That left any timely remedy in the hands of Congress, who has the
authority to repeal or amend any program it authorizes.

As a part of the Inflation Reduction Act, members slipped in a
provision that repealed and replaced the original program with $3.1
billion in debt relief for "economically distressed borrowers,"
which includes white borrowers. They also added $2.2 billion for
farmers who have faced discrimination.

Payments under this program began rolling out in the fall.

For some farmers, that means complete cancellation. For others, it
means partial assistance, even after they were promised full
cancellation one year ago.

"They just basically came up with new programs that benefit white
people, but they used Black farmers basically to get the white
farmers assistance as well, and we help them get it," Lewis said.
"And we are still stuck without the help." [GN]

UNITED STATES: Calapristi Peititions for Writ of Certiorari
------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK CALAPRISTI filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the
lawsuit entitled Frank Calapristi, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Petitioner, v. United States of
America, Respondent, Case No. 2022-1080, in the U.S. District Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Mr. Calapristi filed a lawsuit against the United States for breach
of an implied-in-fact contract that he claims existed between the
United States and government contractor employees who worked on a
United States Department of Energy nuclear site.

The United States moved to dismiss the case pursuant to Rules
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims
because the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to establish
the government's intent to contract.

On Nov. 3, 2022, the Court granted the motion and dismissed the
case due to Mr. Calapristi's failure to meet his burden of proving
an implied-in-fact contract.

The appellate case is captioned Frank Calapristi, Petitioner vs.
United States, Case No. 22-0722, in the Supreme Court of United
States, filed on February 2, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner FRANK CALAPRISTI, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Douglas Edouard McKinley, Esq.
            LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS E. MCKINLEY
            8350 W. Grandridge Blvd. Ste. 200
            Kennewick, WA 99336
            E-mail: doug@mckinleylaw.com

Defendant-Respondent UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is represented by:

            Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Esq.
            UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
            950 Pennsylvania Avenue
            NW Washington, DC 20530

W.L. GORE: Residents Invited to Class Suit Over PFAS Chemicals
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Hubbard at  cecildaily.com reports that residents in the
Cherry Hill area surrounding the W.L. Gore plant may have the
opportunity to join a class action lawsuit after alarming levels of
PFAS/PFOA chemicals were found in the surface, ground and well
water in the area.

PFAS/PFOA chemicals, according to the Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE), are a group of more than 4,000 human-made
chemicals that have been used since the 1940s. PFAS chemicals have
been classified "forever chemicals" - meaning that they break down
very slowly in nature and are potentially dangerous to human
health.

The law offices of Baird Mandalas Brockstedt Federico & Cardea
(BMBFC) and Motley Rice LLC (MR) notified residents of the area
that "those affected by this groundwater contamination may be
entitled to financial compensation" and invited residents to a town
hall meeting to learn more.

The town hall was held Feb. 7 at the Cherry Hill Middle School. Due
to attorney/client privilege, the event was closed to the press.

"I've lived in this area my whole life, so that means I've drank
this water my whole life," said a resident in the area. "I haven't
had my water tested yet but it is concerning that the water I have
lived off of could be bad."

The advertisement notes the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
change to its health advisory limit (HAL) for PFAS/PFOA chemicals
in drinking water - citing that prior to June 2022, the HAL was 70
parts per trillion (ppt) and has since been reduced to 0.004 ppt.

"Certain wells in Elkton have tested above the current health
advisory limit of 0.004 ppt for PFOA and numerous wells tested in
the area have reached levels above 100 ppt," read the
advertisement.

According to Chase Brockstedt, a Partner at BMBFC, recent tests in
the area surrounding W.L. Gore's Cherry Hill plant show a presence
of over 600 ppt of PFAS/PFOA chemicals. Brockstedt says that the
exact wells tested will remain confidential at this time.

"We believe they were discharging these chemicals both into the
waste water and into the air without measuring the amount of
chemicals present," said Brockstedt. "We are confident that the
discovery in this case will prove that."

W.L. Gore says they deny allegations made in the lawsuit.

"Gore takes our commitment to environmental stewardship very
seriously," said W.L. Gore in a statement. "We have a strong track
record of proactively engaging in efforts to continuously enhance
environmental controls at our Cherry Hill facility, and we have
communicated with state and local authorities about these
initiatives. Gore denies the allegations made in the lawsuit and
will respond more specifically at the appropriate time."

Brockstedt says that the goal of the lawsuit is multifaceted as it
aims to:

-- Ensure there are no further emissions of PFAS/PFOA chemicals.
-- Achieves appropriate clean up of the chemicals to restore the
impacted environment.
-- Compensates residents for any loss in property value.
-- Compensates residents with identifiable health related issues
caused by PFAS/PFOA chemicals.
-- Provides proper medical monitoring to residents who have been
exposed to the chemicals.

"We believe Gore has been acting unlawfully and we hope to restore
them as a good corporate citizen while holding them accountable,"
said Brockstedt. [GN]



WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL YSLAS and MICHAEL
SPRAGUE, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., d/b/a SAM'S CLUB, and SAM'S
CLUB, a division of WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-01880-WJM-NRN  (D. Colo.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order extending the deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification up to and including April 14,
2023.

The Plaintiffs bring various claims against Sam's Club, including a
claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

On November 16, 2022, the Court held an Initial Scheduling
Conference. At the conference, the parties and the Court agreed not
to set all case deadlines; instead, the Court set deadlines only
related to the Motion for Conditional Certification of the FLSA
claim.

The Court set a schedule that required Plaintiff (at the time, only
Plaintiff Yslas had filed a Complaint) file her Motion for
Conditional Certification no later than March 31, 2023.

The Court also allowed limited, pre-conditional certification
written and deposition discovery, limited to five requests for
production, five interrogatories and two depositions by each side.


The written discovery must be served no later than February 28,
2023, and all conditional certification discovery must be completed
no later than March 31, 2023.

The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Conditional Certification
early on Saturday, January 7, 2023.

The requested deadline of April 14, 2023, is reasonable, and good
cause exists for this request, because discovery is necessary to
explore facts related to conditional certification, and the Court
has already expressly held that the parties may engage in such
discovery, the Defedants' contend.

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores in the United States.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xaPrA4 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Naomi Beer, Esq.
          Camille Papini-Chapla, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1144 15th St., Suite 3300
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 572-6549
          E-mail: beern@gtlaw.com
                  papinichaplac@gtlaw.com

WHITESTONE HOME: Faces Robertson Class Suit Over Higher Tax Rates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GINGER ROBERTSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WHITESTONE HOME FURNISHINGS, LLC d/b/a
Saatva, Case No. 1:23-cv-00764 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2023) alleges
that the Defendant illegally and erroneously overcharges tax monies
at a higher tax rate than the correct applicable use tax rate on
products purchased through remote sales channels, including from
Saatva's internet website, that are shipped to Missouri customers
from an out-of-state facility,in violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and a
proposed class of Missouri residents who purchased products for
personal, family, or household use from Saatva through remote sales
channels, including its internet website.

On September 9, 2022, the Plaintiff purchased one Saatva Classic
Mattress, King 14.5" Plush Soft from Saatva's website,
www.saatva.com. According to the Missouri Department of Revenue,
the applicable use tax rate for sales of products through remote
sales channels that are shipped by Defendant from an out-of-state
facility for delivery to 3850 E. Farm Road 156, Springfield,
Missouri 65809 is 4.225%.

When the Plaintiff purchased the mattress on September 9, 2022,
Saatva allegedly required the Plaintiff to pay an 8.10% tax rate,
resulting in the over collection of monies.

The Plaintiff and the Class have suffered ascertainable loss due to
the Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices, the suit contends.

The Plaintiff was and is a Missouri citizen residing in
Springfield, Missouri.

Saatva is an American privately held e-commerce company that
specializes in luxury mattresses and is based in New York City with
a second major office in Austin, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

XPLORE INC: Faces Suit Over Misleading Sales Tactics in Manitoba
----------------------------------------------------------------
cbc.ca reports that a Manitoba woman is the lead plaintiff in a
lawsuit seeking class-action status over allegations of spotty
connectivity and misleading sales tactics from a rural internet
service provider.

The woman, who CBC is identifying only as Darcie due to safety
concerns, seeks damages from Xplore Inc. for "annoyance and
inconvenience" associated with her experience as a customer.

By the time she was able cancel her contract last year, Darcie was
out of pocket more than $4,500 for services and products that she
never received or that didn't work as advertised, according to a
statement of claim filed in the Court of King's Bench on Jan. 27.

Headquartered in Woodstock, N.B., Xplornet changed its name to
Xplore in September 2022. In one ad referenced in the statement of
claim, the company describes itself as "Canada's leading rural high
speed internet provider" and suggests customers can chat, stream,
browse and work on multiple devices at the same time.

Xplore serves about 400,000 clients across the country, according
to the woman's lawyers, Norman Rosenbaum and Jason J. Zushman.

They claim the company knew or should've known some of their ads
and packages promised internet speeds Xplore "could not provide"
because of where some customers reside relative to company signal
infrastructure.

Rosenbaum and Zushman are seeking an array of damages for former
and current customers who they suggest were given
"misrepresentations" of available internet speeds and services.

"Xplore manufactured, marketed, and distributed internet service
packages and associated products and services in an unlawful,
unfair and deceptive manner," they wrote in the statement of
claim.

The Manitoba lawsuit, which has not yet been certified as a class
action, also seeks refunds for purchases of some satellite and
traditional wireless packages, associated fees and interest for any
person or company who paid for services that didn't live up to
expectations, going back to January 2003.

Since 2015, numerous customers have complained of speeds that were
"far below" what they paid for, the statement of claim says.

'Lack of reliability'
Darcie bought a 25 LTE unlimited package from the company in June
2019 that cost her $130 monthly, but it didn't work as expected.

She said she called and wrote in numerous complaints about service
disruptions, lower-than-advertised internet speeds and "lack of
reliability" of the internet services, which "were not usable in
the way in which they were represented."

Many of Darcie's complaints were acknowledged by Xplore, which then
offered discounts and incentives "in order to induce" her to
continue paying for services, the statement of claim says.

She made several unsuccessful attempts to cancel, spending hours on
the phone. Xplore agents suggested alternative providers in her
area were unreliable and that she should retain the Xplore services
"as a backup," according to the lawsuit.

Darcie also claims an Xplore agent told her she couldn't cancel her
internet package by contacting the company directly by email or in
writing. The only way she could do that was by phone, and she was
told previous written cancellation requests she made wouldn't be
accepted, the statement of claim says.

Her lawyers characterize that as a "hard sell" tactic that runs
counter to many other service providers' "button click"-style
cancellation options on their websites.

She was able to cancel in early September 2022 and switched
providers, but she experienced difficulty doing so due to Xplore's
"onerous" cancellation policies "that had the effect of stymying
the ability of consumers" to easily get out of contracts, the
lawsuit says.

The Better Business Bureau has issued an alert against Xplore due
to a "pattern of complaints" stemming from failures to provide
promised internet speeds, give refunds, install adequate service
towers in rural locations and make adjustments on bills when
services didn't meet contract requirements, among other reasons
posted on the BBB website.

The company acknowledged the complaints in a response to the bureau
in 2018 and committed to "eliminate possible future complaints of
similar nature."

"Despite these complaints, Xplore has failed to remedy its
practices and consumers have been harmed, and continue to be
harmed, nationwide," the lawsuit says.

Maggie Burzawa, Xplore's senior manager of public affairs and media
relations, said the company received the statement of claim Tues
and is reviewing it.

"We intend to vigorously defend against these allegations, which
have yet to be substantiated in front of a court," she wrote in an
email to CBC News. [GN]

XPO INC: 2nd Circuit Affirms Labul Class Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------
XPO Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period
ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 13, 2023, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Labul putative
class suit by the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

On December 14, 2018, a putative class action captioned Labul v.
XPO Logistics, Inc. et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut against the Company and some of its
current and former executives, alleging violations of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On March 19, 2021, the Court dismissed the complaint with
prejudice, and on June 30, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

The case is now concluded.

XPO Inc. is a leading provider of freight transportation services
with company-specific avenues for value creation. It uses
proprietary technology to move goods efficiently through
customers’ supply chains in North America and Europe.

XTO ENERGY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Response
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER BRUSAMONTI and LISA
BRUSAMONTI, Husband and Wife, on Behalf of Themselves and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, v. XTO ENERGY INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-00652-CB (W.D. Pa.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter
an order extending its deadline to file a response to Plaintiff's
motion to certify class from Monday, February 13, 2023 to Monday,
February 20, 2023.

The  Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on January
13, 2023. XTO's deadline to file a response to the motion to
certify class is currently Monday, February 13, 2023.

Undersigned defense counsel for XTO will be out of the country on a
pre-planned family trip from February 4, 2023 until February 12,
2023.

Other defense counsel for XTO, Ms. Tiblets, will also be traveling
out-of-town the week of February 6, 2023, to attend a
previously-scheduled multi-day class certification hearing and
argument in a different pending matter.

XTO Energy is an American energy company and subsidiary of
ExxonMobil principally operating in North America.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lpuyOY at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Justin H. Werner, Esq.
          Nicole R. Snyder Bagnell, Esq.
          Thomas J. Galligan, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 288-3131
          Facsimile: (412) 288-3063
          E-mail: jwerner@reedsmith.com
                  nbagnell@reedsmith.com
                  tgalligan@reedsmith.com

                - and -

          Elizabeth L. Tiblets, Esq.
          K&L Gates, LLP
          301 Commerce Street, Suite 3000
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 347-5037
          Facsimile: (817) 347-5299


                            *********

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 ***