/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230222.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, February 22, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 39

                            Headlines

230FA LLC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
2390 C LLC: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
A-PLUS CARE HHC: Reid Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Reyes Sues Over Contaminated Infant Formula
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Rouland Sues Over Contaminated Infant Formula

ADAPTHEALTH LLC: Tessu Files TCPA Suit in D. Maryland
AGOURA HEALTH PRODUCTS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALAMEDA HEALTH: Order Sustaining Demurrer in Stone Suit Affirmed
ALLIANCE INDUSTRIES: Euclide Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
ALLY ENTERPRISES: Anglin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

APPLE INC: Barrott Files Suit in N.D. California
APPLE INC: Teixeira Files Suit in N.D. California
ARS NATIONAL: Bartels Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
ASSESSOR OF ROCKVILLE CENTRE: Sandie Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
AVEM HEALTH PARTNERS: Bingaman Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma

AVEM HEALTH PARTNERS: Dupus Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
BARCLAY WATER: Fails to Pay Prevailing Wages Under NYLL & FLSA
BRASKEM SA: May 3 Class Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
CD PROJEKT: $1.85MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 1
CIGNA HEALTHCARE: Saloojas Suit Dismissed Without Leave to Amend

CLEAR CONSCIENCE: Underpays Administrative Assistants, Aiello Says
CLEARSTAR INC: Byam-Hunte FCRA Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
CM LIFE: Katz Files Affidavit and Verification Under Chancery Rules
COINBASE GLOBAL: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Pearl Suit Granted
DIGITAL MEDIA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Bank TCPA Class Suit

EDFINANCIAL SERVICES: Quinn Consolidated with Data Security Cases
EI DU PONT: $7MM Class Deal in Moon ERISA Suit Wins Court Approval
ESCAMBIA OPERATING: Court Narrows Claims in Resource Class Suit
EXCELL COMM: Fails to Pay Technicians' OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Medina Sues Over Inconsistent Credit Report

F&H FOOD: Abrams Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Overtime
FIDELITY BROKERAGE: Balanzar Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
GOGO INC: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled for April 11
GREENIDGE GENERATION: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Hutley Suit Transferred to E.D. Wis.

HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Perry Suit Transferred to E.D. Wis.
HONDA MOTOR: Robbins Geller Discloses Securities Class Action
ICAGEN INC: Warner Files Stockholders' Class Suit in Delaware
JPMORGAN: $13MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 2
JPMORGAN: Court Sets Hearing on $13MM Settlement for June 2

KAG WEST: Young Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
LANSING TRADE: $18MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 9
LENOVO INC: Laptops Have Defective Hinge Mechanism, Volinsky Says
LOFT HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Stufflebeam Claims
MCKESSON CORP: $141MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 2

MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Roth v. Blackbaud
MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Simkins v. Blackbaud
MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Sloane v. Blackbaud
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Consumer Fraud
MERCIFUL HEALTHCARE: Turray Seeks OT Pay for Direct Care Employees

NELNET SERVICING: Cordaro Consolidated with Data Security Cases
NESTLE SA: Agrees to Settle Coffee-Mate Class Action for $10-M
NEW YORK, NY: Second Cir. Flips Dismissal of Z.Q.'s Claims v. DOE
NOAH'S NEW YORK: Jones Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Suit Would Expand Area Impacted by Toxins

OSMOSE UTILITIES: Weaver Labor Suit Transferred to N.D. Ga.
QUADRTECH CORP: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, De Gomez Alleges
ROCHESTER INSTITUTE: Bid to Dismiss Amended Bergeron Suit Granted
ROSHAL IMAGING: Crews Seeks Ultrasound Technologists' Unpaid OT
SAZERAC COMPANY: Del Rosario Sues Over Mislabeled Whiskey

SIGNATURE BANK: Statistica Sues Over Transfer of FTX Customer Funds
STELLANTIS NV: Faces Class Action Over Fuel and Oil Refresh Mode
SYNGENTA CROP: Danny Day Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C.
TOTALMED INC: Underpays Licensed Practical Nurses, Davis Says
TPI HOSPITALITY: Forces Employees to Sell Company Stock, Suit Says

UNITED STATES: Hispanic, Women Farmers Sue Over Discrimination
VI-JON LLC: Macormic Bid for Class Certification Tossed
VITALS CONSUMER: Sweeton Privacy Suit Removed to W.D. Mo.
WATERDROP INC: S.D. New York Dismisses Sandoz Securities Class Suit

                            *********

230FA LLC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 230FA, LLC. The case
is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. 230FA, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01041-FB-CLP
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2023).

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

230FA, LLC operates a restaurant/lounge known as "230 FIFTH"
located on the 20th floor and rooftop of 230 Fifth Avenue, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


2390 C LLC: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ernesto Garcia, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 2390 C LLC and DENALI MANAGEMENT INC., Case No.
7:23-cv-01129 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2023), is brought to recover
minimum wage and overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), as
recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"), and
related provisions from the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations
("NYCRR").

The Plaintiff regularly work for the Defendants in excess of 40
hours per week, without receiving appropriate minimum wage and
overtime compensation for any of the hours that he worked. The
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping as required by
the FLSA and the NYLL. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond
Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees. The Plaintiff
now bring this Class and Collective Action on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated individuals, for federal and state claims
relating to unpaid minimum and overtime wages, unlawful deductions,
failure to maintain records, and the taking of unlawful deductions
pursuant to the FLSA, NYLL, WTPA and the NYCRR, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants who was
employed as a general laborer.

The Defendant have owned, operated and controlled 2390 C LLC and
DENALI MANAGEMENT INC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
          42 Broadway, 12t Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 203-2417


A-PLUS CARE HHC: Reid Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A-Plus Care HHC Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Louise Reid, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. A-Plus Care HHC
Inc., Sofia Bakalinsky, Frederick Bakalinsky, Spiros Botos, John
Does #1-10, Case No. 1:23-cv-01163-JPC (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2023).

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

A-Plus Care HHC Inc. -- http://apluscareny.com/-- is a licensed
home care services agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Coudert Rand, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
          501 5th Ave., Floor 15
          New York, NY 10017-7860
          Phone: (212) 286-1425
          Fax: (646) 688-3078
          Email: wcrand@wcrand.com


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Reyes Sues Over Contaminated Infant Formula
----------------------------------------------------------------
MONIQUE REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES D/B/A ABBOTT NUTRITION, Case No.
1:23-cv-00534 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 27, 2023) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and similarly situated
consumers who purchased alleged contaminated Abbott powdered infant
formula products, including Similac [TM], Similac PM 60/40 [TM],
Alimentum [TM] and EleCare [TM] products, which were manufactured
at the Abbott Nutrition facility in Sturgis, Michigan.

On January 31, 2022, the Food and Drug Administration found
"several positive Cronobacter results" from environmental samples
during an inspection of the Sturgis facility, and an FDA review of
Abbott's internal documents indicated that Abbott Laboratories
previously destroyed infant formulas in connection with the
contamination issue.

On February 17, 2022, the FDA, in conjunction with the Center for
Disease Control (CDC), announced that it was investigating
Defendant's products following several consumers' complaints of
Cronobacter sakazakii and Salmonella Newport contamination.

On May 16, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced its
filing of a Complaint and proposed consent decree applicable to
Abbott's Sturgis plant.

As a result of Abbott's unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent
business practices, consumers of these products, Plaintiff and
those similarly situated who she seeks to represent have suffered
ascertainable losses, injury-in-fact, and otherwise have been
harmed by Abbott's conduct, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including
restitution, damages, penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs to the full extent permitted by applicable law.

Abbott is an American multinational medical devices and health care
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stacy Hauer, Esq.
          Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
          Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
          Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: shauer@johnsonbecker.com
                  tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
                  jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
                  zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com

                - and -

          Peter J. Flowers, Esq.
          Michael W. Lenert, Esq.
          MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
          3 North Second Street, Suite 300
          St. Charles, IL 60174
          Telephone: (630) 232-6333
          E-mail: pjf@meyers-flowers.com
                  mwl@meyers-flowers.com

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Rouland Sues Over Contaminated Infant Formula
------------------------------------------------------------------
ZAIEMA ROULAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES D/B/A ABBOTT NUTRITION, Case No.
1:23-cv-00535 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 27, 2023) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and similarly situated
Pennsylvania consumers who purchased alleged contaminated Abbott
powdered infant formula products, including Similac [TM], Similac
PM 60/40 [TM], Alimentum [TM] and EleCare [TM] products, which were
manufactured at the Abbott Nutrition facility in Sturgis,
Michigan.

On January 31, 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found
"several positive Cronobacter results" from environmental samples
during an inspection of the Sturgis facility, and an FDA review of
Abbott's internal documents indicated that Abbott Laboratories
previously destroyed infant formulas in connection with the
contamination issue.

On February 17, 2022, the FDA, in conjunction with the Center for
Disease Control (CDC), announced that it was investigating
Defendant's products following several consumers' complaints of
Cronobacter sakazakii and Salmonella Newport contamination.

On May 16, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced its
filing of a Complaint and proposed consent decree applicable to
Abbott's Sturgis plant.

As a result of Abbott's unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent
business practices, consumers of these products, Plaintiff and
those similarly situated who she seeks to represent have suffered
ascertainable losses, injury-in-fact, and otherwise have been
harmed by Abbott's conduct, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including
restitution, damages, penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs to the full extent permitted by applicable law.

The Plaintiff has purchased Abbott's powdered infant formulas since
June 2021, including the Contaminated Products.

Abbott is an American multinational medical devices and health care
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stacy Hauer, Esq.
          Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
          Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
          Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: shauer@johnsonbecker.com
                  tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
                  jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
                  zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com

                - and -

          Peter J. Flowers, Esq.
          Michael W. Lenert, Esq.
          MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
          3 North Second Street, Suite 300
          St. Charles, IL 60174
          Telephone: (630) 232-6333
          E-mail: pjf@meyers-flowers.com
                  mwl@meyers-flowers.com

ADAPTHEALTH LLC: Tessu Files TCPA Suit in D. Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AdaptHealth, LLC. The
case is styled as Rita Tessu, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AdaptHealth, LLC doing business as:
America's Healthcare at Home, Case No. 1:23-cv-00364-JMC (D. Md.,
Feb. 9, 2023).

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

AdaptHealth, LLC -- https://adapthealth.com/ -- operates as a
full-service home medical equipment company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chelsea Ortega, Esq.
          SANTONI, VOCCI & ORTEGA, LLC
          201 W. Padonia Road, Suite 101a
          Lutherville-Timonium, MD 21093
          Phone: (443) 921-8161
          Fax: (410) 525-5704
          Email: cortega@svolaw.com


AGOURA HEALTH PRODUCTS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Agoura Health
Products, LLC. case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Agoura Health
Products, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01136 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2023).

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

Agoura Health Products, LLC doing business as Gundry MD --
https://gundrymd.com/ -- is the authoritative source of health
articles, Gundry MD wellness products, and more from heart surgeon,
researcher, and best-selling author Dr.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALAMEDA HEALTH: Order Sustaining Demurrer in Stone Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAMELIN STONE, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v.
ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. A164021
(Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the First
District, Division Five, affirms in part and reverses in part the
trial court's order sustaining the Respondent's demurrer as to all
seven class action Labor Code claims.

In response to the challenges facing the Alameda County Medical
Center arising from changes in the public and private health
industries, the Legislature in 1997 enacted Health and Safety Code
section 101850, authorizing the Alameda County Board of Supervisors
to create a hospital authority. In turn, the Board of Supervisors
created the Respondent, Alameda Health System, hospital authority
to govern the various hospital facilities formerly known as the
Alameda County Medical Center. In so doing, the board deemed the
Respondent a public agency for purposes of eligibility with respect
to grants and other funding and loan guarantee programs pursuant to
the enabling statute.

Appellants Tamelin Stone and Amanda Kunwar worked for the
Respondent as a medical assistant and a licensed vocational nurse,
respectively. Their first amended complaint alleged that the
Respondent automatically deducted ½ hour from each workday as if
to account for a meal period, when in fact, employees were not
allowed or discouraged from clocking out for meal periods.

The alleged conduct formed the basis of seven class action claims:
(1) failure to provide off-duty meal periods (Sections 226.7, 512;
IWC Wage Order 5 (Wage Order)); (2) failure to provide off-duty
rest breaks (Section 226.7, Wage Order); (3) failure to keep
accurate payroll records (Sections 1174, 1174.5, 1175; Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 8, Section 11050); (4) failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements (Sections 226, 226.3); (5) unlawful
failure to pay wages (Sections 204, 222, 223, 225.5, 218.6, 218.5,
510, 1194, 1194.2, and 1198); (6) failure to timely pay wages
(Sections 204, 210, 222, 223, 225.5, 218.6, 218.5); and (7) PAGA
(Section 2698 et seq.).

The Respondent demurred, arguing that the first six claims were not
authorized against public entities under any of the cited Labor
Code sections. As to the seventh claim, it contended that it was
not a "person" capable of being sued under PAGA, that the PAGA
claim was derivative of the first six unauthorized claims, and that
Government Code section 818 exempted respondent from liability.
Crediting the Respondent's arguments, the trial court ultimately
sustained the demurrer as to all seven class action Labor Code
claims, leaving intact only a few of the complaint's individual
race and sex discrimination claims.

The appeal followed.

In this appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to
amend, the Court of Appeals is called upon to decide whether seven
claims for violations of the Labor Code lie against the Respondent.
In answering that call, it addresses the following issues: (1)
whether the "sovereign powers" doctrine renders respondent liable
for certain Labor Code violations, notwithstanding the general rule
of statutory construction exempting government agencies from such
liability; (2) whether respondent is an exempt "municipal
corporation" under section 220, subdivision (b); (3) whether
respondent is an exempt "governmental entity" under section 226,
subdivision (i); and (4) whether respondent can be sued under the
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA, Section 2698 et seq.).

Observing that the Respondent conspicuously lacks many of the
hallmarks of sovereignty, the Court of Appeals holds that the
sovereign powers doctrine applies. For similar reasons, it is
guided by precedent to conclude that respondent is not a "municipal
corporation." However, in the absence of such precedent, the Court
of Appeals does not exclude the Respondent from the category of
"governmental entities." Finally, it holds that there are at least
some Labor Code violations for which a PAGA suit against respondent
may proceed.

In their first amended complaint against the Respondent, the
Appellants alleged seven class action claims related to wages and
hours, and six individual claims for race and sex discrimination.
When the Respondent demurred, the trial court sustained the
demurrer as to all seven class action claims. With respect to the
first six, the trial court reasoned that the Respondent was a
"statutorily created public agency" beyond the reach of the Labor
Code sections and Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order
invoked in the complaint. As to the seventh, a PAGA claim (PAGA,
Section 2698 et seq.), the trial court held that such an action
would not lie because respondent is not a "person" within the
meaning of section 18, there was no underlying statutory violation
from which the PAGA claim could derive, and respondent's "public
agency" status exempted it from paying punitive damages.

The Court of Appeals disagrees with that reasoning and therefore
reverses the order as to the first, second, third, fifth, sixth,
and seventh causes of action. It finds that subjecting the
Respondent to liability for the first, second, and third causes of
action would not infringe upon any sovereign governmental powers.
Thus, the trial court erred by finding that the Respondent was not
included within the statutes underlying those causes of action and
in sustaining the demurrer as to those claims.

In addition, the Court of Appeals finds no reason to ascribe to the
Respondent the status of a "municipal corporation" within the
meaning of section 220, subdivision (b). Therefore, the trial court
erred in sustaining the demurrer as to the fifth and sixth causes
of action.

However, the Court of Appeals finds that the demurrer was properly
sustained as to the fourth cause of action. The Appellants urge the
Court of Appeals to read the term "other governmental entity" to
"include only sovereign governing entities," but cites no authority
that would justify this departure from applying the broader plain
meaning. Accordingly, it affirms the order sustaining the demurrer
as to the Appellant's fourth claim.

Finally, because PAGA penalties are not punitive damages, section
818 presents no obstacle to the Appellants' seventh class action
claim. It finds that section 18 provides no ground for sustaining
the demurrer as to the seventh cause of action and presents no
obstacle to their seventh class action claim.

In light of the foregoing, the Court of Appeals affirms the order
as to the fourth cause of action and reverses it as to the first,
second, third, fifth, sixth, and seventh. On remand, the trial
court will enter a new order overruling the demurrer as to the
first, second, third, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action in
the first amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5f37rv33 from Leagle.com.

Law Offices of David Y. Imai and David Y. Imai, for the Plaintiffs
and Appellants.

Renne Public Law Group, Ryan P. McGinley-Stempel --
rmcginleystempel@publiclawgroup.com -- Geoffrey Spellberg --
gspellberg@publiclawgroup.com -- and Anastasia Bondarchuk --
abondarchuk@publiclawgroup.com -- for the Defendant and
Respondent.


ALLIANCE INDUSTRIES: Euclide Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Euclide, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ALLIANCE INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00191 (E.D.
Wis., Feb. 10, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws, ("WWPCL") for purposes of obtaining relief under
the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid
straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem
appropriate.

The Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that
deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current
and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked
and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of
pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by:
shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from Plaintiff's
and all other hourly paid, non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets
for pre-shift and post shift hours worked and/or work performed, to
the detriment of said employees and to the benefit of Defendant, in
violation of the FLSA and WWPCL; and failing to include all forms
of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses,
incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in said
employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes,
in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee in the position of Production working at
Defendant's Appleton, Wisconsin location in August 2021.

The Defendant is a manufacturer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLY ENTERPRISES: Anglin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ally Enterprises.
case is styled as Anthony Anglin, an individual on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Ally Enterprises, Case
No. BCV-23-100411 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Feb. 8, 2023).

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

Ally Enterprises -- https://allyenterprisesca.com/ -- are Industry
Leaders in Civil Construction in their craft and perform a wide
variety of concrete construction services.[BN]

APPLE INC: Barrott Files Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple Inc. The case
is styled as Francis Barrott, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-00618
(N.D. Cal., Feb. 10, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd David Carpenter, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 762-1910
          Fax: (412) 231-0246
          Email: todd@lcllp.com


APPLE INC: Teixeira Files Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple Inc. The case
is styled as Dorothy Teixeira, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-00617-VKD
(N.D. Cal., Feb. 10, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd David Carpenter, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 762-1910
          Fax: (412) 231-0246
          Email: todd@lcllp.com


ARS NATIONAL: Bartels Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDITH BARTELS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARS NATIONAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 702886/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., February 8, 2023) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of a class of New
York consumers, seeking damages and declaratory relief under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff allegedly incurred an obligation to non-party
Citibank, N.A. some time prior to February 25, 2022. The obligation
arose from transactions incurred primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes, specifically personal credit.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the law by
harassing the Plaintiff by sending a collection letter containing
material details of the debt to the Plaintiff's employer despite
knowing or having reason to know that the Plaintiff did not reside
there. The Defendant's failure to correctly address the letter
deprived the Plaintiff of timely notice of her right to settle the
debt at a discount, as offered in the letter, says the suit.

ARS National Services is a debt collector based in Albany, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ASSESSOR OF ROCKVILLE CENTRE: Sandie Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Village of Rockville Centre, et al. The case is styled as Frank
Sandie, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed
SCHEDULE A, Petitioner v. The Assessor of the Village of Rockville
Centre, The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Rockville
Centre, Respondents, Case No. 602448/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau
Cty., Feb. 9, 2023).

The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."

Rockville Centre -- https://www.rvcny.gov/ -- commonly abbreviated
as RVC, is an incorporated village located in the Town of Hempstead
in Nassau County, on the South Shore of Long Island, in New
York.[BN]

The Petitioners are represented by:

          MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP
          132 Spruce St
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915


AVEM HEALTH PARTNERS: Bingaman Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Samuel Bingaman, on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons v. Avem Health Partners Inc., Case No.
CJ-22-00239 was removed from the District Court for Grady County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on
Feb. 9, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00130-SLP to the
proceeding.

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

Avem Health Partners -- https://avemhealth.com/ -- offers a
patient-centered management approach and new directives in its
critical access hospitals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Blake T. Burns, Esq.
          Brad L. Roberson, Esq.
          ROBERSON, KOLKER, COOPER, P.C.
          16408 Muirfield Place
          Edmond, OK 73013
          Phone: (405) 320-0793
          Fax: (405) 606-3334
          Email: blake@rkclaw.com
                 brad@rkclaw.com


AVEM HEALTH PARTNERS: Dupus Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rosalie Dupus, on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons v. Avem Health Partners Inc., Case No. CJ-23-00002
was removed from the Grady County District Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on Feb. 9,
2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00134-JD to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Avem Health Partners -- https://avemhealth.com/ -- offers a
patient-centered management approach and new directives in its
critical access hospitals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Blake T. Burns, Esq.
          Brad L. Roberson, Esq.
          ROBERSON, KOLKER, COOPER, P.C.
          16408 Muirfield Place
          Edmond, OK 73013
          Phone: (405) 320-0793
          Fax: (405) 606-3334
          Email: blake@rkclaw.com
                 brad@rkclaw.com


BARCLAY WATER: Fails to Pay Prevailing Wages Under NYLL & FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER TRIMMER, JAMES P. FELL, ZACHARY MORROW and ROBERT
HOWARTH,on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. BARCLAY WATER MANAGEMENT INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00978
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2023) alleges that the Plaintiffs were not paid
the total amount of prevailing wages and supplemental benefits for
the occupation "Steam Fitter" for work performed for the City of
New York and its departments and subdivisions according to the New
York City Prevailing Wage Schedules, as required by the New York
Labor Law as well as seeks remedy for violations of the wage and
hour provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are workers currently or formerly employed by
Barclay who performed steamfitter maintenance and service work on
private and public job sites throughout the City and State of New
York. They serviced and maintained water towers, coolant towers and
ice machines in and on publicly-financed construction projects such
as New York City Police Department, NYC Department of Citywide
Administrative Services and the State University of New York.

The Plaintiffs assert that they frequently worked more than 40
hours per week and were not paid time-and-one-half their regular
rate of pay for the hours they worked over 40 in a week.

Barclay is a chemical company providing water treatment
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bruce E. Menken, Esq.
          MENKEN SIMPSON & ROZGER LLP
          80 Pine Street, 33nd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Office: (212) 509-1616
          Cellular: (973) 432-1122
          E-mail: bmenken@nyemployeelaw.com

BRASKEM SA: May 3 Class Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MATSUKAWA CO., LLC (n/k/a MATSUKAWA CO., LTD), individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

v.

BRASKEM S.A., ROBERTO LOPES PONTES SIMÕES, FERNANDO MUSA,
and PEDRO VAN LANGENDONCK TEIXEIRA DE FREITAS,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:20-cv-11366-CCC-ESK
Hon. Edward S. Kiel, U.S.M.J.

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
BRASKEM S.A. ("BRASKEM") AMERICAN DEPOSITARY RECEIPTS (ADRs) DURING
THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 21, 2019 AND JULY 8, 2020, BOTH DATES
INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, that a hearing will be held on May
3, 2023, at 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable Edward S. Kiel at the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Frank
Lautenberg Post Office & U.S. Courthouse, 2 Federal Square – Room
347, Newark, NJ 07102 in Courtroom 8, for the following purposes:
(a) to determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and
conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the Class, and should be finally approved by the Court;
(b) to determine whether, for purposes of the proposed Settlement
only, the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of
the Class, Lead Plaintiff should be certified as class
representative for the Class, and Co-lead Counsel should be
appointed as class counsel for the Class; (c) to determine whether
a Judgment substantially in the form attached as Exhibit B to the
Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice
against Defendants; (d) to determine whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation for the proceeds of the Settlement is fair and
reasonable and should be approved; (e) to determine whether the
motion by Co-lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved; and (f) to
consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the
Court in connection with the Settlement.
If you purchased or acquired Braskem ADRs between March 21, 2019
and July 8, 2020, both dates inclusive, your rights may be affected
by the Settlement of this Action. If you have not received a Notice
of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II)
Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses
("Notice"), you may obtain copies by contacting the Claims
Administrator at: Braskem S.A. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic
Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Suite 205, P.O. Box 230,
Media, PA 19063; Toll-Free: (866) 274-4004; Fax: (610) 565-7985;
info@strategicclaims.net.

You may also obtain copies via the Claims Administrator's website,
www.strategicclaims.net/Braskem. If you are a member of the Class
and wish to share in the Settlement money, you must submit a Proof
of Claim and Release Form ("Proof of Claim") to the Claims
Administrator no later than April 19, 2023 establishing that you
are entitled to recovery. As further described in the Notice, you
will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action, regardless of
whether you submit a Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself
from the Class, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the
Notice, by no later than April 3, 2023. Any objections to the
Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or attorney's fees and expenses
must be filed and served, in accordance with the procedures set
forth in the Notice, no later than April 19, 2023.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Co-lead Counsel: Matthew M. Guiney, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016,
guiney@whafh.com.

INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT,
THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL.

DATED: JANUARY 18, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE COURT

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey


CD PROJEKT: $1.85MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 1
----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW TRAMPE, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

v.

CD PROJEKT S.A., ADAM MICHAL
KICINSKI, MARCIN IWINSKI, PIOTR
MARCIN NIELUBOWICZ, and MICHAŁ
NOWAKOWSKI,
Defendants.

Case No. CV 20-11627 FMO (RAOx)

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

If you acquired CD Projekt, S.A. ("CD Projekt" or "Company")
publicly-traded equity securities in domestic transactions during
the period from January 16, 2020 through December 17, 2020, both
dates inclusive ("Settlement Class Period"), you could get a
payment from a proposed class action settlement ("Settlement").
Under law, a federal court has authorized this Notice. This is not
attorney advertising.

If approved by the Court, the Settlement will provide $1,850,000
("Settlement Amount"), plus interest as it accrues, minus
attorneys' fees, costs, administrative expenses, and net of any
taxes on interest, to pay claims of investors who purchased CD
Projekt securities during the Settlement Class Period.

The approximate recovery, before deduction of attorneys' fees and
expenses approved by the Court, is an average of $.74 per damaged
share of CD Projekt securities. This estimate is based on the
assumptions set forth in the following two paragraphs. Your actual
recovery, if any, will depend on the aggregate losses of all
Settlement Class Members, the date(s) you purchased and sold CD
Projekt securities, the purchase and sale prices, and the total
number and amount of claims filed.

Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff ("Lead Counsel") intend to ask the
Court to award them fees of up to 30% of the Settlement Amount, or
$555,000, reimbursement of litigation expenses of no more than
$40,000, and Award to Plaintiffs not to exceed $5,000 per person.
Collectively, the attorneys' fees and expenses and award to
Plaintiffs are estimated to average $.25 per damaged share of CD
Projekt securities. If approved by the Court, these amounts will be
paid from the Settlement Fund.

The Settlement represents an estimated average recovery, after
deduction of attorneys' fees and expenses approved by the Court, of
$.49 per damaged share of CD Projekt securities for the
approximately 2.51 million damaged shares during the Settlement
Class Period. Shares may have been traded more than once during the
Settlement Class Period. This estimate solely reflects the
average recovery per damaged share of CD Projekt securities. The
indicated average recovery per share will be the total average
recovery for all purchasers of that share. This is not an estimate
of the actual recovery per share you should expect. Your actual
recovery will depend on the aggregate losses of all Settlement
Class Members, the date(s) you purchased and sold CD Projekt
securities, and the total number of claims filed.

The Settlement resolves the Action concerning whether CD Projekt
and individual defendants Adam Michal Kiciński, Marcin Iwiński,
Piotr Marcin Nielubowicz, and Michał Nowakowski ("Defendants")
violated the federal securities laws by making misrepresentations
and/or omissions of material fact in various filings with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission or in other public statements to
the investing public. Defendants deny each and every claim and
contention alleged in the Action and deny any misconduct or
wrongdoing whatsoever, including by any of
CD Projekt's officers, directors, or employees.

Your legal rights will be affected whether you act or do not act.
If you do not act, you may permanently forfeit your right to
recover on this claim.  

Therefore, you should read this Notice carefully.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT
SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM
NO LATER THAN
MAY 2, 2023
The only way to get a payment.

EXCLUDE YOURSELF
NO LATER THAN
APRIL 7, 2023
Get no payment. This is the only option that allows
you to ever be part of any other lawsuit against
Defendants about the legal claims in this case.

OBJECT NO LATER THAN
APRIL 7, 2023
Write to the Court and explain why you object to the
Settlement.

GO TO A HEARING ON
JUNE 1, 2023
Ask to speak no later than April 28, 2023 in Court
about the fairness of the Settlement at the hearing on
June 1, 2023.

DO NOTHING Get no payment. Give up rights.

INQUIRIES

Please do not contact the Court regarding this Notice. All
inquiries concerning this Notice, the Proof of Claim and Release
Form, or any other questions by Settlement Class Members should be
directed to:

CD Projekt, S.A. Securities Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205
Media, PA 19063
Tel.: 866-274-4004
Fax: 610-565-7985
Email: info@strategicclaims.net

OR

Jonathan Stern
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: 212-686-1060
Fax: 212-202-3827
Email: jstern@rosenlegal.com


CIGNA HEALTHCARE: Saloojas Suit Dismissed Without Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SALOOJAS, INC., Plaintiff v. CIGNA HEALTHCARE OF
CALIFORNIA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-03270-CRB (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants Cigna's motion to dismiss Saloojas
amended complaint without leave to amend.

Saloojas is a provider of COVID-19 diagnostic testing services. It
brings the class action suit against Cigna, claiming that Cigna has
failed to properly reimburse Saloojas for testing services it has
provided to its patients. Saloojas has filed multiple complaints
against other insurers in this district, including Aetna and Blue
Shield, and motions to dismiss have been granted by Judge Corley
and Judge Chesney.

In its amended and initial complaints, Saloojas claims that the
CARES Act and California SB 510 entitle it to full reimbursement of
the COVID-19 testing services it billed to Cigna, without the
imposition of cost-sharing, prior authorization, or other medical
management requirements, and that Cigna intentionally disregarded
its obligations to comply with those requirements. It further
alleges that Cigna's "complex processes and procedures force it
into a paperwork war of attrition, turning Cigna's internal
administrative procedures into a kangaroo court. While it appears
that Cigna has in the past paid a portion of the full posted Covid
testing prices set by the Plaintiff, at some point in time Cigna
ceased paying such prices.

In its prior order, the Court dismissed without leave to amend
Saloojas' claims for violation of the CARES Act and injunctive
relief, and dismissed with leave to amend its claims for violations
of ERISA, RICO, promissory estoppel, and California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL").

On Oct. 26, 2022, Saloojas filed the amended class action
complaint. It renews most claims in its amended complaint, alleging
that Cigna violated Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA (Claim I),
California UCL (Claim III), and RICO (Claim IV), in addition to a
new claim for engaging in Insurance Bad Faith and Fraud (Claim
II).

Cigna moved to dismiss the amended complaint on Nov. 28, 2022.
Saloojas filed an opposition on Dec. 9, 2022 and Cigna filed a
reply on Dec. 19, 2022.

In its original complaint, Saloojas pleaded that many of the
members of plans either insured or administered by Cigna who
received Covid Testing services from it executed assignment of
benefits documents. In its original order on Cigna's first motion
to dismiss, the Court held that Saloojas could not claim a
violation of Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA because it has not
alleged a valid assignment.

Judge Breyer finds that in the amended complaint, Saloojas repeated
this pleading without stating what benefits it was specifically
assigned, or any language indicating that their patients intended
to transfer their ERISA benefits claims to it. Saloojas did not
make any material changes to this ERISA claim or plead any other
assignment language beyond the language Judge Chesney has already
held to be insufficient. Thus, this claim is dismissed without
leave to amend.

In Claim II -- the only claim Saloojas pleads in its amended
complaint that it did not plead in the original complaint --
Saloojas alleges that Cigna breached the covenant of good faith and
faith dealing and also committed insurance fraud against each
insured when it violated both the federal CARES ACT and
California's SB 510 by not properly paying out of network providers
for their rendered COVID testing services.

At the outset, Judge Breyer holds that this new claim exceeds the
scope of leave to amend granted by the Court in its prior order.
Because the Court did not give Saloojas leave to amend this claim,
it should be stricken, as Judge Chesney did when Saloojas raised a
similar claim upon amendment in its action against Blue Shield.
Thus, this claim is stricken on this basis alone.

However, even if the claim did not exceed the scope of leave to
amend previously granted, Saloojas nonetheless fails to state a
claim for insurance bad faith and fraud. Saloojas attempts to plead
insurance fraud, the Court previously found that Saloojas fails to
explain the specific fraudulent conduct Cigna engaged in, as
required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Judge Breyer
finds that Saloojas continues to fail to do so in its amended
complaint.

In its prior order, the Court held that Saloojas had failed to
plead a UCL claim because it did not explain why the Defendant's
conduct was fraudulent, thus failing to satisfy Rule 9(b). Saloojas
did not materially alter its UCL allegations in the amended
complaint to allege the who, what, when, where, and how of the
misconduct alleged, as instructed by the Court in its prior order.
Because Saloojas continues to fail to plead this claim with 9(b)
particularity, Judge Breyer dismisses Saloojas's UCL claim without
leave to amend.

In its prior order, the Court similarly held that Saloojas had
failed to plead a RICO claim because the complaint clearly failed
to plead predicate acts with 9(b) particularity. Saloojas fails to
make any material alterations to support a finding that Cigna has
engaged in mail and wire fraud, or in a pattern of racketeering
activity. It further fails to demonstrate how Cigna administered
and conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in
self-funded health plans that give rise to an embezzlement,
racketeering, wire fraud, or mail fraud claim. This claim is thus
also dismissed without leave to amend.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Breyer grants Cigna's motion to
dismiss without leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3pr4x8mp from Leagle.com.


CLEAR CONSCIENCE: Underpays Administrative Assistants, Aiello Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SIERRA AIELLO, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLEAR CONSCIENCE COUNSELING, LLC, and all
other affiliated entities and/or joint employers and JOHN A. GORE,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00733 (D.N.J., Feb. 8,
2023) arises from the Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law by
engaging in a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and
members of the putative collective to regularly work in excess of
40 hours per week without providing required overtime
compensation.

Plaintiff Aiello was employed by Defendants as an administrative
assistant performing reception, scheduling, telephone call duties
and other assistant functions in furtherance of Defendants' mental
health counseling business from July 2022 until the end of November
2022.

Clear Conscience Counseling, LLC is a substance abuse and mental
health facility located in South Plainfield, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jodi Jaffe, Esq.
          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA
          300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com
                  aglenn@jaffeglenn.com

CLEARSTAR INC: Byam-Hunte FCRA Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHARU JOELLA BYAM-HUNTE, on behalf of herself and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEARSTAR,
INC., and SILVERSHORE PARTNERS, LLC, d/b/a PROFILEGORILLA,
Defendants, Case No. 23-000198-CI, was removed from the Florida
Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas
County to the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida on February 8, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 8:23-cv-00274-CEH-AAS to the proceeding.

This Fair Credit Reporting Act class action complaint arises from
the Plaintiff's application for employment with nonparty Stellar
Partners. Stellar hired Defendants to perform a pre-employment
background check on Plaintiff, the reporting of which information
is subject to the FCRA's strictures.

ClearStar, Inc. is a technology and service provider that supports
background screening for companies.[BN]

Defendant ClearStar Inc. is represented by:

          Cory J. Person, Esq.,
          Christopher T. Lawson, Esq.
          FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP
          2502 N. Rocky Point Drive, Suite 860
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 774-6363
          Facsimile: (833) 330-0369
          E-mail: cory.person@fmglaw.com
                  chris.lawson@fmglaw.com
                  kjones@fmglaw.com

CM LIFE: Katz Files Affidavit and Verification Under Chancery Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Todd Katz files an Affidavit and Verification pursuant to Court
of Chancery Rules 23(aa) and 3(aa) in connection with the filing of
the Complaint captioned as:

   "TODD KATZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
   Situated v. CM LIFE SCIENCES HOLDINGS, LLC, ELI D. CASDIN,
   KEITH A. MEISTER, EMILY LEPROUST, NAT TURNER, SEAN GEORGE, and
   MUNIB ISLAM, Case No. 2023-0140 Del. Ch., Feb. 6, 2023)."

Mr. Katz says that he is a continuous holder of common stock of CM
Life Sciences, Inc., now known as GeneDx Holdings Corp. f/k/a as
Sema4 Holdings Corp., at all relevant times alleged in the
foregoing Verified Class Action Complaint.

He verifies that the facts and allegations set forth in the
Complaint as to my own acts and deeds, and all other facts and
allegations set forth in the Complaint, are true and correct to the
best of his knowledge, information, and belief.

In accordance with Delaware Court of Chancery Rule 23(aa), he
affirm that he have not received, been promised or offered, and
will not accept any form of compensation, directly or indirectly,
for prosecuting or serving as a representative party in this class
action except for:

    (i) such damages or other relief as the Court may award as a
        member of the class;

   (ii) such fees, costs or other payments as the Court expressly
        approves to be paid; or

  (iii) reimbursement, paid by my attorneys, of actual and
        reasonable out-of-pocket expenditures incurred directly in
        connection with the prosecution of this action.

CM Life Sciences, Inc. is a blank check company formed as a
Delaware corporation.[BN]

COINBASE GLOBAL: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Pearl Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LARRY PEARL, et al., Plaintiffs v. COINBASE GLOBAL,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-03561-MMC (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants Coinbase Global, Inc., and Coinbase,
Inc.'s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, filed
Sept. 12, 2022.

Coinbase operates a website from which customers can buy and sell
digital assets, and, in connection therewith, publicly posts
information regarding the asset, including a description of the
asset, historical data regarding the asset, and links to the
asset's white paper and website, where applicable. Before a
prospective user can access Coinbase's platform or services, they
must first create a Coinbase account and affirmatively agree to the
Coinbase User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

The Plaintiffs are Coinbase customers who invested in a digital
currency called TerraUSD. They allege Coinbase misled consumers
about TerraUSD's qualities, characteristics, and volatility by
improperly promoting and categorizing TerraUSD as a 'stablecoin'
that Coinbase claims is 'pegged' to the United States Dollar
('USD') at a rate of one-to-one, whereas, in reality, TerraUSD is
not backed by actual US dollars or any other tangible assets held
in reserve. According to the Plaintiffs, Coinbase's
misrepresentations about the nature and stability of TerraUSD and
material omissions regarding TerraUSD's stability and lack of
collateralization caused them to incur damages when the currency
collapsed.

Based on the above allegations, the Plaintiffs assert, individually
and on behalf of a putative class, six state law claims for relief,
titled, (1) Negligence; (2) Negligence Per Se; (3) Negligent
Misrepresentation; (4) California's Unfair Competition Law/Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq.; (5) California's False
Advertising Law/Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17500, et seq.; and
(6) California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act/Cal. Civ. Code Section
1750, et seq.

By the instant motion, Coinbase seeks an order (1) compelling
arbitration of the Plaintiffs' claims on an individual basis, and
(2) staying the above-titled action pending completion of said
arbitration.

Judge Chesney finds that the subject arbitration agreement is
contained in an appendix to Coinbase's User Agreement ("2022 User
Agreement"), specifically, Appendix 5, and contains a section
titled Applicability of Arbitration Agreement. Additionally, the
Arbitration Agreement contains a section titled "Authority of the
Arbitrator."

The Plaintiffs urge the Court to deny Coinbase's motion, on the
asserted grounds that (1) the Arbitration Agreement is procedurally
and substantively unconscionable, and thus unenforceable, and (2)
the Delegation Clause is unenforceable and, in any event,
inapplicable by its terms to the unconscionability challenges
raised in the Plaintiffs' brief. Coinbase argues that under the
express terms of the Arbitration Agreement, namely, the Delegation
Clause, such gateway questions regarding the scope or
enforceability of the arbitration clause are for the arbitrator,
not this Court, to decide.

Because there is no dispute that the Plaintiffs agreed to the 2022
User Agreement, or that the 2022 User Agreement contains the
Delegation Clause, Judge Chesney first considers whether the
Delegation Clause clearly and unmistakably requires the arbitrator
to decide gateway arbitrability questions, and, if it does, whether
the Delegation Clause is unenforceable because it is
unconscionable.

She holds that the parties clearly and unmistakably delegated the
question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Among other things,
she finds that the Delegation Clause constitutes clear and
unmistakable evidence that the threshold issue of arbitrability is
delegated to an arbitrator. And, although the AAA Rules contain a
rule delegating all arbitrability issues to the arbitrator, they
also contain a rule allowing the parties to alter any AAA Rule,
thereby making clear the Arbitration Agreement governs.

Consequently, the next question is whether the agreement to
delegate arbitrability, i.e., the Delegation Clause, is
unconscionable. Judge Chesney finds, at most, a minimal degree of
procedural unconscionability arising from the Delegation Clause. As
to substantive unconscionability, she finds that there is nothing
unconscionably one-sided about either of the above exceptions'
affording both parties equal access to a court as opposed to an
arbitrator, even if one party is more likely to avail itself of
that access. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have failed to show the
Delegation Clause in the Arbitration Agreement is unenforceable as
unconscionable.

Judge Chesney thus turns to the Plaintiffs' final challenge to the
Delegation Clause, namely, that it is inapplicable to the
unconscionability challenges raised in their opposition to the
instant motion. She finds that under the plain language of the
Delegation Clause, the question of whether the above-referenced
unconscionability issues are, in fact, carved out of the Delegation
Clause is itself, a question for the arbitrator. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs have failed to show their unconscionability challenges
are, at this stage in the litigation, proper for resolution by the
Court.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Chesney grants Coinbase's motion
to compel arbitration, and stays the action pending the completion
of arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ynb6wkwk from Leagle.com.


DIGITAL MEDIA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Bank TCPA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TODD C. BANK, Plaintiff v. DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 22-CV-293 (EK) (LB) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge
Eric Komitee of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss Bank's claim
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Mr. Bank, a New York-licensed attorney proceeding pro se, brings
the suit -- a putative class action -- against Digital Media
Solutions ("DMS"), alleging a violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227. He claims that DMS
violated the TCPA by sending five unsolicited text messages to his
cell phone in November 2021 using an automatic telephone dialing
system ("ATDS").

Between Nov. 26 and Nov. 27, 2021, Mr. Bank received five text
messages on his cell phone from a multimedia messaging service
("MMS") code: 46758. He alleges that at all relevant times, DMS
owned and operated MMS Code 46758. Further, he alleges that four of
the five text messages contained links to a website that DMS owned
and operated, while the fifth message instructed him to call a
phone number that DMS also owned and operated.

Bank alleges that DMS sent these text messages using equipment that
had the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to
store and/or produce telephone numbers to be called.

DMS now moves to dismiss Bank's claim pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Judge Komitee holds that Mr. Bank has plausibly alleged that DMS
violated the TCPA by sending him unsolicited texts via an ATDS. The
five text messages that Bank challenges likewise give rise to a
reasonable inference that DMS used an ATDS to contact him.

For one, the five text messages were all sent from the same "short
code" phone number owned by DMS. Further, four of the text messages
included links to websites owned by DMS, while the fifth message
instructed Mr. Bank to dial a phone number owned by DMS. Finally,
the content of the messages is generic, impersonal, and
sales-oriented. Together, these facts afford Bank's claim adequate
support to survive a motion to dismiss.

DMS' arguments to the contrary are unavailing. First, DMS contends
that Bank's complaint fails to abide by the Supreme Court's Duguid
holding because it does not sufficiently allege that the technology
DMS used had the capacity to use a random or sequential number
generator to either store or produce phone numbers to be called.
But Mr. Bank alleges precisely that. DMS thus overstates the
support that Duguid offers for its motion.

Second, DMS argues that the existence of a plausible alternative
theory shows that Mr. Bank's claim is inadequately pleaded.
Notwithstanding the merits of this alternative theory, it fails to
defeat Mr. Bank's claim at the pleading stage. Mr. Bank needs only
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.

Because Judge Komitee finds that Mr. Bank's complaint states a
plausible claim under the TCPA, it must survive the instant motion
to dismiss.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Komitee denies DMS' motion to
dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdma38u9 from Leagle.com.


EDFINANCIAL SERVICES: Quinn Consolidated with Data Security Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Quinn v. Edfinancial
Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-00413, the Hon. Judge
Cheryl R. Zwart entered an order that:

   1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are
      sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and
      appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the
      hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is
      cancelled.

   2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following
      cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case
      No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186;
      Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case
      No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193;
      Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case
      No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203;
      Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case
      No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227;
      Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case
      No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413.

   3) As to the motions to appoint counsel:

      a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted.
         (Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated
         as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the
         designated as a "Member Case."

      b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick
         (Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184),
         and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied.

      c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons
         (Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied.

   4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a
      consolidated amended complaint:

      a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March
         3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall
         so state.

      b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is
         filed:

             i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its
                response to Plaintiffs' motion; and

            ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named
                in the proposed consolidated amended complaint,
                it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs'
                motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims
                against it until the claims against Nelnet
                Servicing, LLC are resolved.

      c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after
         Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion.

   5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading"
      text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed,
      the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be
      filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are
      instructed to file all further documents (except as
      described below in subsections a) and b) of this
      paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al
      v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in
      response to the System's question whether to spread the
      text.

      a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file
         complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay
         filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items
         related to service of process; or to file notices of
         appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error,
         and therefore these documents must be separately filed
         in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing
         such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and
         defense counsel may either file the document (e.g.,
         Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's
         answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman
         and ask the court to then file it in all member cases.

      b) If a party believes that a document in addition to
         those described in subparagraph a) above should not be
         filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party
         must move for permission to file the document in a
         limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed
         in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text
         feature.

The Quinn suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases Against
NELNET SERVICING, LLC.

Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising
from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in
other districts have now been transferred to this district and each
of the above-captioned cases have been designated by the court as
"related."

Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to
District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to
the undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate
and motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the related cases
are currently pending.

The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant
the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of
the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions
will be canceled.

On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub &
Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman
requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet
Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim
co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class.

EdFinancial Services is a financial company which provides student
loan servicing for 15 of the top 100 lenders in the USA, including
regional and national banks, secondary markets, state agencies and
other student loan providers. It is headquartered in Knoxville,
Tennessee.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xfUwr5 at no extra charge.[CC]

EI DU PONT: $7MM Class Deal in Moon ERISA Suit Wins Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, M.P. MOON, individually and as representative of a
class of participants and beneficiaries in and on behalf of the
DuPont Pension and Retirement Plan, Plaintiff v. E.I. du Pont de
Nemours and Co., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-1856-SB (D. Del.), Judge
Stephanos Bibas of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware approves the Class Settlement Agreement.

Moon alleges that he missed out on retirement benefits because
DuPont, his former employer, failed to tell him that he was
eligible. And he says this problem was widespread. In failing to
provide this notice, he claims that DuPont breached its fiduciary
obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA). DuPont denies these allegations.

Previously in the case, Judge Bibas dismissed Moon's first
complaint and then denied a motion to dismiss his amended
complaint. The parties then proceeded to discovery. With that
discovery in hand, the parties briefed and argued a motion for
class certification. They also participated in mediation with the
Honorable Diane Welsh. The mediation was not immediately
successful, but it prompted further negotiations that culminated in
this settlement.

The settlement requires DuPont to pay $7 million. The Class Counsel
have requested one-third of that amount for fees, plus about
$40,000 in expenses and $15,000 to administer the settlement. It
has also requested $25,000 for Moon as the Class Representative.
The remaining amount will be automatically distributed pro rata to
the 359 class members.

The settlement also involves nonmonetary relief. DuPont will now
provide additional notice to retirees. This extra notice reaches
beyond the settlement class, benefiting thousands of DuPont
employees.

The proposed Settlement Class is defined as follows: All Plan
participants who (a) as of the last day of the Class Period have
not been reported to the Plan administrator as deceased; (b)
commenced receiving payment on or after October 1, 1999 or have
terminated employment and are entitled to a future payment; (c) at
the time of termination of employment had an EUBCD that fell
between the date of the termination of their employment and their
Normal Retirement Date; and (d) did not commence receiving their
retirement benefit as of their EUBCD.

Moon filed an unopposed motion for the settlement's preliminary
approval in September 2022. Judge Bibas granted it. The parties
then sent notices to the class. Only one notice was deemed
undeliverable. And the Class Counsel has gone so far as to hire a
private investigator to track down the outlier. Zero class members
have opted out or objected.

After holding a hearing, Judge Bibas has decided that the class is
certifiable for purposes of the settlement and that the settlement
is fair, reasonable, and adequate. First, the class is adequately
represented. Second, the settlement was negotiated at arm's length.
Third, the relief to the class is adequate. Fourth, the requests
for attorneys' fees, expenses, and the Class Representative
compensation are reasonable. Finally, the litigation expenses and
the award for the Class Representative are also sensible.

Though class-action settlements sometimes present thorny questions,
Judge Bibas concludes that this one is straight down the middle.
Both sides were ably represented and reached a practical
compromise. Both the monetary and nonmonetary relief are
substantial, and Class Counsel's fee request is ordinary. So he
certifies the class for settlement purposes only and approves the
settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n939n7h from Leagle.com.


ESCAMBIA OPERATING: Court Narrows Claims in Resource Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RESOURCE STRATEGIES, LLC, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. ESCAMBIA OPERATING
CO., LLC, et al., Defendants, Civ. Act. No. 1:22-cv-126-TFM-N (S.D.
Ala.), Judge Terry F. Moorer of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division, grants in part and
denies in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss.

On March 24, 2022, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs Resource Strategies, LLC, ATIC Limited
Partnership ("ATIC"), and Briguna, LLC filed their original
Complaint. On April 29, 2022, pursuant to the Court's order, the
Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint asserts various claims on behalf
of the various classes and subclasses, including: breach of
contract (Counts 1 and 2), declaratory judgment (Count 3),
accounting (Count 4), unjust enrichment (Count 5), conversion
(Count 6), violation of Ala. Code Sections 9-17-2 and 9-17-11
(Count 7), violation of Ala. Code Section 9-17-33 (Count 8),
injunction (Count 9), and removal of operator (Count 10).

On June 17, 2022, Blue Diamond Energy Inc., Thomas Swarek, Escambia
Operating Co., LLC, and Escambia Asset Co., LLC (collectively,
"Defendants") filed the instant motions to dismiss. The Plaintiffs
timely filed their consolidated response, and the Defendants timely
filed a consolidated reply. The motions to dismiss are fully
briefed and ripe for review, and Judge Moorer finds oral argument
unnecessary.

First, all the Defendants argue in their respective motions to
dismiss that all counts asserted against them, respectively, should
be dismissed because the action cannot be certified as a class
action for a number of reasons, and therefore the Court does not
have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d).

Taking the allegations in the Complaint as true, Judge Moorer
opines that the Plaintiff plausibly alleges that class
certification may be appropriate. Further, there is a demonstrated
need for limited discovery on class certification because it is
evident from the pleadings that the parties have different accounts
over the basic facts. Accordingly, he denies the Defendants motion
to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Second, all the Defendants argue in their motions to dismiss that
several counts asserted against them, respectively, should be
dismissed because the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.

Judge Moorer holds that (i) the Counts 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10
should be dismissed because the Plaintiffs were required to first
exhaust administrative remedies before the Alabama Oil and Gas
Board ("OGB") and they failed to do so; (ii) Counts 1, 2, and 3
should be dismissed because the Plaintiffs have not adequately
alleged that they are parties to the Well JOAs and C&O Agreement;
and (iii) Count 4 should be dismissed because no general agreement,
contract, or law grants Working Interest Owners, Royalty Interest
Owners, and/or Overriding Interest Owners to Demand a full
accounting from the Defendant.

In addition, Judge Moorer opines that (i) Counts 4, 5, and 6 should
be dismissed because the complaint contains only a formulaic
recitation of the elements; and (ii) Counts 7 and 8 should be
dismissed because violations of Ala. Code Sections 9-17-2, 9-17-11,
and 9-17-33 do not provide a private right of action via citizen
suit.

Accordingly, for the reasons he set forth, Judge Moorer grants the
Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted with respect to Count 6 and denies with
respect to the remaining counts. However, while the motion to
dismiss is granted, he provides the Plaintiffs the opportunity to
amend with respect to Count 6.

Third, the Defendants argue that all of Plaintiffs' claims are due
to be dismissed for failure to join alleged necessary parties OGB
and Charles Callaway dba DAMSCO.

Judge Moorer finds that (i) only minimal diversity is necessary and
joinder of OGB would not destroy diversity for purposes of CAFA
jurisdiction, so joinder of OGB is feasible; and (ii) taking the
allegations in the complaint as true, Callaway is not a necessary
party. Accordingly, he denies the Defendants' motions to dismiss
for failure to join a party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19.

Finally, the Defendants Blue Diamond and Swarek argue that all
claims against them are due to be dismissed due to lack of personal
jurisdiction over them as a result of insufficient process and
improper service of process. The Plaintiffs counter that, while the
summons served on Swarek was addressed to him personally and he
only received one copy, they also served a summons and copy of the
Complaint upon Blue Diamond's registered agent, Michael Booth.

Judge Moorer because both Swarek and Blue Diamond's registered
agent were served a summons and copy of the complaint, process was
sufficient as to both Defendants. And because service was proper
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2) and 4(h)(1)(B), whether service was
proper under Alabama law is irrelevant. Accordingly, he denies
Swarek and Blue Diamond's motions to dismiss for insufficient
process and improper service of process.

Accordingly, Judge Moorer grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss
with respect to Count 6 and denies with respect to all remaining
counts. However, the Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend their
complaint with respect to Count 612 on Feb. 22, 2023.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/563p79k8 from
Leagle.com.


EXCELL COMM: Fails to Pay Technicians' OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDY ROLLE, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
the Class v. EXCELL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and ABEL BARBOSA,, Case
No. 2:23-cv-00631 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid
wages, including overtime, due to time-shaving, due to
time-shaving, unpaid wages due to frequency of pay violations,
statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff brings claims for relief pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23, on behalf of all non-exempt
employees (including fiber optic installers, fiber optic line
technicians, fiber optic insulator, fiber optic quality control
technicians, fiber optic splicers/testers, fiber optic safety
coordinators, telecommunications linemen, warehouse workers, fleet
shifters, and dispatchers) employed by the Defendants on or after
the date that is six years before the filing of the Complaint in
this case.

The Plaintiff further alleges that he was deprived of his statutory
rights as a result of the Defendants' unlawful discrimination
practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He
alleges that pursuant to the New York State Human Rights Law, New
York Executive Law section 296, and the New York City Human Rights
Law, Administrative Code of the City of New York section 8-107,
that Plaintiff was deprived of his statutory rights as a result of
Defendants' discriminatory employment practices based on
Plaintiff's race.

Plaintiff Rolle was employed by Defendants as a Fiber Optic
Technician and Insulator from February 14, 2022, until June 1,
2022.

Excell provides communications services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Medina Sues Over Inconsistent Credit Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA OLGA PLASCENCIA MEDINA, on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated individuals v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00180-RDA-JFA (E.D. Va., Feb. 8, 2023)
alleges that instead of preventing the errors caused by facially
false and inconsistent data, Experian contributes to the pervasive
inaccuracy problem by "failing to maintain reasonable procedures,
such as business rules, to prevent the inclusion of facially false
data, including logical inconsistencies relating to consumer
data."

According to the complaint, Ms. Medina's Experian credit report
listed several credit accounts that did not belong to her. Instead,
they belong to her sister, Maria Plascencia Weese. Each of Ms.
Weese's accounts was associated with her Social Security Number
("SSN"). Experian added Ms. Weese's accounts to Ms. Medina's file
even though Ms. Medina does not have a SSN -- instead, she uses an
Individual Taxpayer Identification Number ("ITIN").

Ms. Medina brings this claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23 for herself and on behalf of the following class:

   "All natural persons residing in the United States (a) whose
   Experian file indicates that they use an ITIN; (b) whose
   Experian file also lists at least one account that is associated

   with a Social Security Number; and (c) whose Experian file
   reflects an inquiry dated within the five years predating the
   filing of this Complaint and continuing through the date which
   the class list is prepared; (d) so long as the account
   associated with the Social Security Number was not deleted
   before any qualifying inquiries."

   Excluded from the class definition are any employees, officers,
   directors of Defendant Experian, any attorney appearing in this

   case, and any judge assigned to hear this action.

Experian could easily avoid these facial inconsistencies by
preventing accounts associated with a SSN from appearing on the
file of a consumer who uses an ITIN. Individuals may have an ITIN
at one point in their lives and a SSN at another, but never
simultaneously. Experian's willingness to mismatch individuals with
ITINs with individuals with SSNs is an unreasonable procedure that
disproportionately affects immigrants. Because the putative class
members were subject to the same procedure and suffered the same
overarching harm, this case is capable and appropriate for class
resolution, says the suit.

Ms. Medina also alleges an individual claim because when she
disputed the inaccurate reporting, Experian refused to process her
dispute unless she provided a Social Security Number -- even after
Ms. Medina clarified that she used an ITIN and provided Experian
with a copy of her ITIN paperwork from the IRS.

Experian operates as an information services company. The Company
offers credit information, analytical tools, and marketing
services. Experian Information Solutions serves clients
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
          Casey S. Nash, Esq.
          J. Patrick McNichol, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
                  aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
                  casey@kellyguzzo.com
                  pat@kellyguzzo.com

F&H FOOD: Abrams Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA ABRAMS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. F&H FOOD TRADING GROUP, INC. d/b/a Little
Alley Steakhouse and HICHAM AZHARI, jointly and severally,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00607-JPB (N.D. Ga., Feb. 9, 2023) is
a collective action arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act to
address Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and all similarly
situated employees an FLSA overtime premium for work in excess of
40 hours a week.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a server at their
Little Alley restaurant in Atlanta, Georgia from May 2018 through
September 12, 2021.

F&H Food Trading Group, Inc. is a restaurant in Atlanta, Georgia
with the trade name of "Little Alley Steakhouse."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin D. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Esq.
          Charles R. Bridgers, Esq.
          DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS FITZPATRICK
           & BENJAMIN, LLC
          101 Marietta Street, NW Suite 2650
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 979-3150
          Facsimile: (404) 979-3170
          E-mail: kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com
                  charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com

FIDELITY BROKERAGE: Balanzar Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EMIR BALANZAR and CECELIA LAHR, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FIDELITY
BROKERAGE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.: 22-cv-1372-GPC (S.D.
Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California grants the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss with leave to amend.

On Sept. 11, 2022, Lahr filed a putative class action against
Fidelity, alleging violations of the California Invasion of Privacy
Act ("CIPA"), Cal. Pen. Code Section 637.3.

Fidelity is a broker-dealer offering customers various investment
products and services. It is registered in Delaware with its
principal place of business in Massachusetts. The Defendant
operates 34 locations in California. Lahr has been a customer of
the Defendant since 2017 and is a resident of California.

The action arises out of Fidelity's "MyVoice" system and its
alleged violation of CIPA, specifically Section 637.3. The
Plaintiff alleges that MyVoice examines the voice of anyone that
calls the Defendant to determine the truth or falsity of the
callers' statements and operates without the express, written
consent of customers.

Fidelity's MyVoice system creates a "biometric voice print" of a
caller, which is saved and used to verify the caller's identity.
According to Fidelity's website, the voiceprint is an encrypted
digital representation (not a recording) that is a combination of
your physical and behavioral voice patterns. Like a fingerprint,
it's unique to you. MyVoice is intended to obfuscate the need for
PINs or passwords because through natural conversation, MyVoice
will detect and verify the voiceprint in the first few moments of
the call.

The Plaintiff alleges the technology works by (1) making a
recording of the initial call with the customer (2) examining that
recording to identify specific stress patterns and other
characteristics to create a voice print which is entered into a
database then (3) examining all subsequent calls from that consumer
and comparing the voice prints to those already on file for that
consumer.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant performs voice analysis on any
individual that calls, regardless of whether they provide express,
written consent, and that MyVoice was in use years prior to
publishing its existence and seeking enrollment. She states it
began recording voiceprints no later than 2017. She alleges
Fidelity's website first advertised the use of the MyVoice system
around May 2018, and Fidelity did not add a disclaimer to its terms
and conditions about the use of MyVoice until January 2021.
The Plaintiff claims that she and class members were unaware of the
new terms and never expressly agreed to them in writing as required
by CIPA. The Complaint further alleges that any express consent
from customers is provided over the phone, which does not satisfy
CIPA's requirement of written consent.

The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of a putative class
defined as "all residents of the State of California that had their
voice prints or other voice stress patterns examined or recorded by
Defendant to determine the truth or falsity of their statements."
She seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages in the amount
of $1,000 for each CIPA violation.

The Defendant raises a number of arguments in its Motion to
Dismiss. As a threshold matter, it argues that (1) Fidelity's
customer account agreement includes a Massachusetts choice-of-law
provision that precludes this claim under CIPA; and (2) the
Plaintiff provided express, written consent for MyVoice when she
accepted the customer agreement. It also argues that CIPA's
one-year statute of limitations bars this action because the action
was filed more than a year after the Plaintiff provided consent
when she opened a new Fidelity account on November 25, 2020 and
accepted the terms of service.

Next, the Defendant argues that Section 637.3 does not regulate the
use of biometric voiceprints for purposes of customer
identification. It argues the Plaintiff fails to state a claim
under Section 637.3 because the provision requires the challenged
conduct to have occurred in the state. Because the Plaintiff did
not allege Fidelity operated the MyVoice system in California,
there is no claim under Section 637.3.

In support of its Motion to Dismiss, Fidelity requests the Court
takes judicial notice of the existence and contents of the
legislative history of Cal. Penal Code Section 637.3, attached as
"Exhibit B" to ECF No. 11-3. The Plaintiff does not oppose this
request. Accordingly, Judge Curiel takes judicial notice of these
documents.

Turning to the motion to dismiss, Judge Curiel first finds the
Massachusetts law does not apply. The Plaintiff's CIPA claim is not
brought pursuant to contract law and is not sufficiently related to
the customer account agreement.

Next, Judge Curiel finds that whether the Plaintiff provided
sufficient written consent in 2020, and whether Fidelity was
recording voiceprints as early as 2017 absent any consent, is a
factual matter that should be resolved following discovery. A this
stage of the proceedings, the Court is required to take the facts
alleged in the Complaint as true and to view the facts in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party. The Plaintiff's Complaint
states that she "did not give consent to the Defendant to collect
voiceprints" and that she was enrolled in the MyVoice program as
early as 2017. Judge Curiel must accept this as true.

In addition, because the Plaintiff is able to prove a set of facts
that her voice was examined in violation of CIPA prior to the
running of the one-year statute of limitations, Judge Curiel does
not dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint on this ground. Although
discovery might reveal the Plaintiff's claim is time-barred and/or
unmeritorious because she consented to MyVoice via the 2020
customer account agreement, her Complaint survives the present
Motion.

Finally, Judge Curiel must determine if Section 637.3 only
regulates the use of voiceprints to the extent they are used for
lie detection, and, if so, whether the Plaintiff has plausibly
alleged MyVoice is used for lie detection purposes. He finds that
(i) Section 637.3 only prohibits the use of voice stress analysis
or voiceprints for lie detection; (ii) other than the conclusory
claims that MyVoice operates as a lie detector, the Plaintiff has
failed to plausibly allege that MyVoice is designed to determine
the truth or falsity of statement; and (iii) it is a reasonable
inference for the Court to make that any phone call the Plaintiff
makes to any one of these locations in California would involve the
use of the MyVoice system in the state of California. Therefore,
the motion to dismiss based on the scope of Section 637.3 is
denied.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Curiel grants the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend. Should the Plaintiff choose
to file a First Amended Complaint, she must file it by March 1,
2023.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/39k3tm4c from Leagle.com.


GOGO INC: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled for April 11
------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

S.S.K. NANDURI, derivatively on behalf of
GOGO INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. SMALL, et al.,
Defendants,
and
GOGO INC.,
Nominal Defendant

No. 18 C 06524
Judge Martha M. Pacold
Magistrate Judge Sheila M. Finnegan

MICHAEL HUTSENPILLER, derivatively on
behalf of GOGO INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. SMALL, et al.,
Defendants,
and
GOGO INC.,
Nominal Defendant

No. 18 C 06547
(Consolidated with the above)

NOTICE OF PROPOSED DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT AND OF SETTLEMENT HEARING


TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF
GOGO INC. ("GOGO" OR THE "COMPANY") AS OF JANUARY 5, 2023.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS NOTICE
RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF SHAREHOLDER
DERIVATIVE LITIGATION (THE "DERIVATIVE ACTION") AND CONTAINS
IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THESE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE
SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE APPROVAL
OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FROM PURSUING THE RELEASED CLAIMS.

IF YOU HOLD GOGO COMMON STOCK FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER, PLEASE
PROMPTLY TRANSMIT THIS DOCUMENT TO SUCH BENEFICIAL OWNER.

THE COURT HAS MADE NO FINDINGS OR DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING THE
MERITS OF THE DERIVATIVE ACTION. THE RECITATION OF THE BACKGROUND
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SETTLEMENT CONTAINED HEREIN DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT. IT IS BASED ON
REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE COURT BY COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

THIS ACTION IS NOT A "CLASS ACTION." THUS, THERE IS NO COMMON FUND
UPON WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A CLAIM FOR A MONETARY PAYMENT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Court"),
that a proposed Settlement has been reached among the parties to
the above-captioned shareholder derivative action (the "Parties")
brought by plaintiffs S.S.K. Nanduri and Michael Hutsenpiller (the
"Plaintiffs") on behalf of Gogo (the "Derivative Action"), which
would resolve the Derivative Action against defendants Oakleigh
Thorne, Robert L. Crandall, Hugh Jones, Ronald T. LeMay, Michele
Coleman Mayes, Robert H. Mundheim, Christopher Payne, Charles C.
Townsend, Harris N. Williams, Barry Rowan, Norman Smagley, Michael
J. Small, and John Wade, and nominal defendant Gogo (collectively,
the "Defendants"). The Settlement also resolves related claims
arising from the same or similar facts but based on (i) a Delaware
law inspection demand (the "Books and Records Demand") by
stockholder Sujit Bakre ("Bakre"), as well as (ii) a litigation
demand (the "Litigation Demand") sent to Gogo's board of directors
(the "Board") by stockholder Thomas G. Conboy ("Conboy"). The
"Litigation Demand," the Books and Records Demand and the
Derivative Action are collectively referred to as the "Derivative
Matters." The Plaintiffs, Bakre and Conboy are collectively
referred to as the "Stockholders," and, together with the
Defendants, as the "Settling Parties."

As explained below, on April 11, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. CT, the Court
will hold a hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine: (i)
whether the terms of the Settlement are fair,
reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; (ii) whether a
final order and judgment should be entered, dismissing the
Derivative Action with prejudice and extinguishing and fully and
finally releasing all of the Released Claims (as defined in the
Stipulation) against the Released Persons (as defined in the
Stipulation); (iii) whether the Court should award the requested
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses for Stockholders'
Counsel and service awards to the four Stockholders; and (iv) such
other actions as may be necessary or proper under the
circumstances. The terms of the Settlement are set forth in a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated January 5, 2023 (the
"Stipulation" or "Settlement").1

The Settlement provides for corporate governance reforms that are
designed to strengthen Gogo's internal controls and protect the
Company in the future. If approved by the Court, the Settlement
will fully resolve the Derivative Matters on the terms set forth in
the Stipulation and summarized in this notice, including the
dismissal of the Derivative Action with prejudice. For a more
detailed statement regarding the Derivative Matters, the
Settlement, and the terms discussed in this notice, the Stipulation
and the exhibits thereto may be inspected at the Clerk of Court's
office at the Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse,
219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604. The Stipulation and
the exhibits thereto, as well as this Notice, are also available
for viewing on the Investors portion of Gogo's website at
https://ir.gogoair.com/.

This notice is not intended to be an expression of any opinion by
the Court with respect to the merits of the claims made in the
Derivative Matters, but is merely to advise you of the pendency and
Settlement of the Derivative Matters.

There is No Claims Procedure. This case was brought to protect the
interests of Gogo on behalf of its stockholders. The Settlement
will result in changes to the Company's corporate
governance, not in payments to individuals, thus eliminating the
need for a claims procedure.

I. THE DERIVATIVE MATTERS
The Derivative Matters generally allege, among other things, that
the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, wasted
corporate assets, and were unjustly enriched by allegedly
publishing misleading public statements concerning the Company's
2Ku global satellitebased in-flight connectivity system. Claims
have also been asserted in the Derivative Action for
alleged violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

A. The Derivative Action
On September 25, 2018, plaintiff Nanduri filed a Verified
Shareholder Derivative Complaint on behalf of Gogo against the
Individual Defendants in the Court, asserting claims for
breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate
assets, and violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Nanduri Action").

On September 26, 2018, plaintiff Hutsenpiller filed a similar
Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint on behalf of Gogo against
the Individual Defendants in the Court, asserting
the same claims as in plaintiff Nanduri's complaint (the
"Hutsenpiller Action").

On November 16, 2018, the Court consolidated the Nanduri Action and
the Hutsenpiller Action as the Derivative Action. On December 5,
2018, the Parties jointly moved to stay the proceedings in the
Derivative Action until the sooner of: (i) the denial of any part
of any forthcoming motion to dismiss in a related securities class
action, captioned Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-04473 (N.D. Ill.) (the "Securities Class Action"), which
was also pending before the Court; or (ii) the dismissal of the
Securities Class Action with prejudice. The joint motion to stay
required the Defendants to produce to the Plaintiffs all documents
and written discovery produced in the Securities Class Action,
produced in any related derivative action, or produced to any
stockholder who made a threatened derivative action. The Court
granted the Parties' joint motion on December 12, 2018.

Pursuant to the order that granted the stay motion, Defendants
produced documents to the Plaintiffs on July 24, 2019 and on
September 3, 2021.

On October 16, 2019, the Court in the Securities Class Action
granted defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice. The
Derivative Action remained stayed. The Securities Class Action
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on December 20, 2019,
and a third amended complaint on July 22, 2020. On April 26, 2021,
the Court in the Securities Class Action denied the motion
to dismiss the third amended complaint.

On July 15, 2021, the parties in the Derivative Action submitted a
joint status report to the Court proposing to suspend all activity
in the Derivative Action pending the outcome of a
mediation of both the Derivative Matters and Securities Class
Action. On July 22, 2021, the Court directed the parties in the
Derivative Action to provide a joint status report on the status of
the mediation by October 22, 2021.

On August 13, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to seal a
Verified Shareholder Derivative Consolidated Complaint, which
included, inter alia, allegations based on confidential documents
produced by the Defendants. The Court granted the motion to seal on
August 16, 2021.

B. The Books and Records Demand
On January 11, 2019, Bakre made a demand on Gogo's Board for
inspection pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 220 of certain of Gogo's
internal books and records regarding the alleged wrongdoing.
Bakre then agreed to a limited stay pending the outcome of the
motions to dismiss the Securities Class Action, which was lifted
when the Court denied the motion to dismiss the Securities Class
Action on April 26, 2021. On May 13, 2021, the Company produced
books and records in response to the Books and Records Demand. On
September 3, 2021, after further negotiations between counsel for
Bakre and Gogo, the Company produced additional information and
documents in response to the Books and Records Demand. Bakre also
coordinated settlement-related efforts with the other
Stockholders.

C. The Litigation Demand
On June 21, 2021, Conboy made a litigation demand on Gogo's Board,
demanding that the Board remedy alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties and violations of the law committed by certain Gogo officers
for misrepresenting known issues with the 2Ku global
satellite-based in-flight connectivity system, the Company's
flagship product. Shortly thereafter, Conboy entered into a
confidentiality agreement in order to review certain non-public
documents produced by the Company pursuant to the Books and Records
Demand, which counsel for Conboy received and reviewed prior to the
mediation. Conboy also coordinated settlement-related efforts with
the other Stockholders.

D. Settlement Negotiations
In the summer of 2021, the Settling Parties agreed to participate
in a mediation regarding a potential resolution of the Derivative
Matters before David M. Murphy, Esq., of Phillips ADR
(the "Mediator"), a nationally recognized mediator with extensive
experience mediating complex shareholder actions.

In advance of the mediation, the Settling Parties submitted
detailed mediation statements to the Mediator, and the Stockholders
also presented a joint confidential, comprehensive settlement
demand to the Defendants outlining, inter alia, detailed proposed
corporate governance reforms.

On September 30, 2021, the Settling Parties attended a virtual
full-day mediation before the Mediator. The plaintiffs in the
parallel Securities Class Action separately participated in the
mediation. The September 30, 2021 mediation session ended without a
resolution of the Derivative Matters. With the continued
involvement and oversight of the Mediator, however, the
Settling Parties thereafter continued substantive settlement
discussions and exchanged information and settlement proposals and
counterproposals. On May 31, 2022, the Settling Parties reached an
agreement in principle on the material substantive terms of a
global resolution of the Derivative Matters, subject to Board
review and approval. Thereafter, the Settling Parties and the
Defendants' insurers, each represented by counsel, commenced
negotiations regarding an appropriate award of attorneys' fees and
expenses to Stockholders' Counsel. The fee negotiations were
facilitated and supervised by the Mediator, and culminated in the
Settling Parties' acceptance of the Mediator's double-blind
recommendation of $875,000 as an agreed Fee and Expense Amount,
subject to Court approval.

The Settling Parties then negotiated and finalized the formal
operative terms of the Settlement, the terms of which are set forth
in the Stipulation, which was signed by the Settling
Parties on January 5, 2023.

II. TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
The principal terms, conditions, and other matters that are part of
the Settlement, which is subject to approval by the Court, are
summarized below. This summary should be read in conjunction with,
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, the text of the
Stipulation. Pursuant to the Settlement, and in consideration for
the Settlement and release of all the Released Claims, Gogo has
agreed to implement certain corporate governance reforms detailed
in Exhibits A–D to the Stipulation (the "Reforms"). Gogo's Board
approved a resolution that: (i) will obligate Gogo to implement the
Reforms within thirty (30) days of final settlement approval; (ii)
requires the measures set forth in Exhibits A–D to the
Stipulation to be maintained without material change for no less
than five (5) years from the date of implementation; and (iii)
provides appropriate funding for all such measures. Funding shall
be overseen by the Office of the General Counsel, or its
appropriate designee, who shall prepare quarterly reports for
review by the Audit Committee to ensure the proper and effective
use of funding for the Reforms. The Settling Parties acknowledge
and agree that the Reforms confer material corporate benefits upon
Gogo and its stockholders.

Furthermore, the members of Gogo's Board, including its independent
members, unanimously approved a resolution reflecting their
determination, in a good faith exercise of their business judgment,
that: (a) the Stockholders' litigation and settlement efforts in
connection with the Derivative Matters are the cause of the Board's
decision to adopt, implement, and maintain the Reforms, and that
the Reforms would not have been adopted, implemented, or maintained
but for the Stockholders' efforts; (b) the Reforms confer material
corporate benefits on the Company and its stockholders; and (c) the
Settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the
Company and its stockholders.

For a complete description of all of the Reforms, please see the
Stipulation and Exhibits A–D thereto.

III. DISMISSAL AND RELEASES
The Settlement is conditioned, among other things, upon: entry of
an order by the Court approving the Settlement and dismissing the
Derivative Action with prejudice. The Settlement will not become
effective until such an order has been entered and become final and
nonappealable (the "Effective Date").

Upon the Effective Date (as defined in the Stipulation), the
Stockholders (for themselves and derivatively on behalf of Gogo),
Current Gogo Stockholders, and all other Releasing Persons
(as defined in the Stipulation) shall be deemed to have, and by
operation of law and of the Final Order and Judgment shall have
fully, finally, and forever compromised, settled, released,
relinquished, extinguished, discharged and dismissed with
prejudice, and shall be permanently barred and enjoined from
initiating, instituting, commencing, maintaining, or prosecuting
any of the Released Claims (including Unknown Claims) against Gogo,
the Individual Defendants, and all other Released Persons (as
defined in the Stipulation), and shall be deemed to have waived and
relinquished, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the
provisions, rights, and benefits of any state, federal, or foreign
law, or principle of common law, which may have the effect of
limiting the foregoing release. Further, upon the Effective Date,
Gogo, the Individual Defendants, and all other Released Persons
shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment shall
have fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and
discharged Stockholders, Stockholders' Counsel, Current Gogo
Stockholders (derivatively on behalf of Gogo), and each of their
Related Persons from all claims (including Unknown Claims), arising
out of, relating to, or in connection with the institution,
prosecution, assertion, settlement, or resolution of the Derivative
Matters and the Released Claims. These releases, however, shall not
in any way impair or restrict the rights of any Settling Party to
enforce the terms of the Stipulation, the Settlement, or the Final
Order and Judgment or bar any action by any Settling Party to
enforce the terms of the Stipulation, the Settlement, or the Final
Order and Judgment. In addition, nothing in the Stipulation is
intended to release any rights to indemnification, insurance
coverage, or advancement of expenses that any Released Person has
or may have under any insurance policy, contract, bylaw, or charter
provision, or under Delaware law, including, but not limited to,
any rights any Released Person has or may have related to any
pending or threatened civil or government proceedings.

IV. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
After the Settling Parties reached an agreement in principle
regarding the substantive terms of the Settlement, including the
Reforms, the Settling Parties commenced negotiations through the

Mediator regarding the attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid to
the Stockholders' Counsel. Thereafter, the Mediator issued and the
Settling Parties accepted a double-blind mediator's
proposal that Gogo shall cause its insurer(s) to pay Stockholders'
Counsel $875,000 for their attorneys' fees and expenses (the "Fee
and Expense Amount"). The Court will consider the Fee and Expense
Amount at the Settlement Hearing. The four Stockholders may also
request Court approval of service awards in the amount of up to
$2,000 for each of the Stockholders (the "Service Awards"). The
Service Awards, to the extent that they are approved by the Court
in whole or in part, shall be funded solely from the Fee and
Expense Amount paid by Gogo's insurer(s) to Stockholders' Counsel,
and any application for the Service Awards shall not increase the
amount of the Fee and Expense Amount.

To date, Stockholders' Counsel have neither received any payment
for their services in pursuing the Derivative Matters, nor have
they been reimbursed for their out-of-pocket litigation
expenses incurred.

V. REASONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT
Counsel for the Settling Parties believe that the Settlement is in
the best interests of Gogo.

A. Why Did Stockholders Agree to Settle?
The Stockholders and Stockholders' Counsel believe that the claims
asserted in the Derivative Matters have merit and that their
investigation supports the claims asserted, and their
entry into the Stipulation and Settlement shall not be construed as
an admission or concession regarding the merit of any of the
Defendants' defenses or the lack of merit of any of the
Stockholders' allegations. However, the Stockholders and
Stockholders' Counsel recognize the significant risk, expense, and
length of continued proceedings necessary to prosecute the
Derivative Matters against the Individual Defendants through trials
and possible appeals. The Stockholders and Stockholders' Counsel
also have taken into account the uncertain outcome and
the risk of any litigation, especially in light of the complexity
of these matters, as well as the difficulties and delays likely to
be encountered in pursuing them. Based on Stockholders' Counsel's
thorough review and analysis of the relevant facts and the
circumstances, allegations, defenses, and controlling legal
principles, Stockholders' Counsel have determined that the
Settlement set forth in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and confers substantial corporate benefits to Gogo and
its stockholders in the form of the Reforms.

Based on their evaluation, the Stockholders and their counsel
believe that the Settlement is in the best interests of Gogo and
Current Gogo Stockholders and have agreed to settle the Derivative
Matters upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in
the Stipulation.

B. Why Did the Defendants Agree to Settle?
The Individual Defendants have denied, and continue to deny, each
and every claim and contention made by the Stockholders in the
Derivative Matters, which the Individual Defendants
believe are entirely without merit. The Individual Defendants
affirm that they have acted properly, lawfully, and in full accord
with their fiduciary duties at all times. Further, the Individual
Defendants have emphatically denied, and continue to deny, all
allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability, or damage against them
or any of them arising out of, based upon, or related to any of the
conduct, statements, acts, or omissions alleged, or that could have
been alleged, in the Derivative Matters. The Individual Defendants
emphatically deny that they have ever committed or attempted to
commit any violations of law or breached any fiduciary duty owed to
Gogo or its stockholders, and that the Stockholders, the Company or
its stockholders suffered any damage or were harmed as a result of
any conduct alleged in the Derivative Matters or otherwise. The
Individual Defendants maintain that they had and have meritorious
defenses to all claims alleged in the Derivative Matters. Without
admitting the validity of any of the claims that the Stockholders
have asserted in the Derivative Matters, or any liability with
respect thereto, the Defendants have concluded that it is desirable
that the claims be settled on the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in the Stipulation. The Defendants are
entering into the Settlement because it will eliminate the
uncertainty, distraction, disruption, burden, and expense of
further litigation. The Defendants have, therefore, determined that
it is in the best interests of Gogo for the Derivative Matters to
be settled in the manner and upon the terms and conditions set
forth in the Stipulation.

VI. THE SETTLEMENT HEARING
On April 11, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. CT, the Court will hold the
Settlement Hearing telephonically at the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Chicago, Eastern Division,
located at the Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse,
219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604. To join the telephone
hearing, dial the toll-free call-in number: (888)
684−8852; followed by the conference access code: 9482028#.
Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the
general prohibition against recording and rebroadcasting of Court
proceedings. Violations of these prohibitions may result in
sanctions deemed necessary by the Court.

At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will consider: (i) whether the
terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate and
should be approved; (ii) whether a final order and judgment
should be entered, dismissing the Derivative Action with prejudice
and extinguishing and fully and finally releasing all of the
Released Claims against the Released Persons; (iii) whether the
Court should award the requested attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses for the Stockholders' Counsel and the Service Awards to
the four Stockholders; and (iv) such other actions as may be
necessary or proper under the circumstances.

VII. RIGHT TO ATTEND THE SETTLEMENT HEARING
You have the right, but are not required, to appear in person or
through counsel at the Settlement Hearing to object to the terms of
the proposed Settlement or otherwise present evidence
or argument that may be proper and relevant. If you want to be
heard at the Settlement Hearing, then you must first comply with
the procedures for objecting, which are set forth below. The Court
has the right to change the hearing date, time, or platform (in
person, by video or telephone conference) without further notice.
Thus, if you are planning to participate in the Settlement Hearing,
you should confirm the date, time and platform before going to the
Court, and you may consult the Court's calendar for any change in
date or time of, or platform used for the Settlement Hearing.

VIII. RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND PROCEDURE
FOR DOING SO

Any Gogo stockholder as of January 5, 2023, and through the date of
the Settlement Hearing may request to be heard and shall be
entitled to contest the approval of the proposed Settlement, or, if
approved, the Final Order and Judgment to be entered hereon.
However, if you choose to object and request to be heard, you must
follow these procedures.

A. You Must Make Detailed Objections in Writing
Any objection must be presented in writing and must contain the
following information:
1. Your name, legal address, and telephone number;
2. The case name and number (Nanduri v. Small, et al., No.
18-cv-06524);
3. Proof of being a Gogo stockholder as of January 5, 2023, through
the date of the
objection;
4. The date(s) you acquired your Gogo shares;
5. A statement of each objection being made and the grounds for
each such objection;
6. Notice of whether you intend to appear at the Settlement Hearing
and the reasons
you desire to appear and be heard, and whether you are represented
by counsel and if so, contact
information for your counsel. You are not required to appear; and
7. Copies of any documents or writings you intend to submit for the
Court's
consideration, along with the identities of any witness(es) you
intend to call to testify at the
Settlement Hearing and a summary description of their expected
testimony.

B. You Must Timely Deliver Written Objections to the Court
All written objections and supporting papers must be submitted to
the Court either by mailing them to:

Clerk of the Court
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604

YOU ALSO MUST SERVE COPIES OF THE SAME MATERIALS TO COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFFS AND COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS BY HAND DELIVERY, OVERNIGHT
MAIL, OR THE COURT'S ELECTRONIC FILING AND SERVICE SYSTEM SO THEY
ARE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN MARCH 28, 2023. Counsel's addresses
are:

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Timothy W. Brown
THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C.
767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501
New York, NY 10017
Counsel for Defendants
Jerome S. Fortinsky
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022

Unless the Court orders otherwise, your objection will not be
considered unless it is timely filed with the Court and served on
counsel for the Plaintiffs and counsel for the Defendant. Any
Person who or entity that fails to object or otherwise request to
be heard in the manner prescribed above will be deemed to have
waived the right to object to any aspect of the Settlement or
otherwise request to be heard (including the right to appeal) and
will be forever barred from raising such objection or request to be
heard in this or any other action or proceeding, but shall
otherwise be bound by the Final Order and Judgment to be entered
and the releases to be given.

IX. HOW TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
This notice summarizes the Stipulation. It is not a complete
statement of the events of the Derivative Matters or the
Stipulation.

There is additional information concerning the Settlement available
in the Stipulation and exhibits thereto, which may be viewed on the
Investors portion of the Company's website at
https://ir.gogoair.com/. You may also inspect the Stipulation and
exhibits thereto during business hours, in person, at the office of
the Clerk of the Court office at the Everett McKinley Dirksen
United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL
60604. The Clerk's office will not mail copies to you.

For more information concerning the Settlement, you may also call
or write to: Timothy W. Brown, The Brown Law Firm, P.C., 767 Third
Avenue, Suite 2501, New York, NY 10017, Telephone: (516) 922-5427,
E-mail: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net.

PLEASE DO NOT CALL, WRITE, OR OTHERWISE DIRECT QUESTIONS TO EITHER
THE COURT OR DEFENDANTS.

Dated: February 10, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois


GREENIDGE GENERATION: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Greenidge Generation Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: GREE;
GREEL) resulting from allegations that Greenidge may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Greenidge 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=11894 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 February 24, 2022, Greenidge announced
selected preliminary operating results for the fourth quarter and
full year of 2020. Among other results, the Company reported that
it "[e]xpects GAAP Net Loss of $(51) to $(41) million, including a
noncash goodwill impairment charge related to the Support.com
business of $42 to $47 million[.]"

On this news, Greenidge's share price fell $1.51, or over 11%, to
close at $11.15 per share on February 2, 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. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. 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. [GN]

HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Hutley Suit Transferred to E.D. Wis.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SCOTT HUTLEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR
COMPANY GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00902, was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Western
District of New York to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin on February 9, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-00181-WCG to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought as an antitrust action directed at
Harley-Davidson's anticompetitive conduct whereby Harley-Davidson
used its warranty to try to force Harley owners to use its own
parts, rather than the many quality aftermarket parts available for
its motorcycles.

Harley-Davidson is one of the oldest and most recognizable vehicle
brands in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
          Jessica N. Servais, Esq.
          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          Email: hmsilton@locklaw.com
                 jnservais@locklaw.com
                 jcbourne@locklaw.com
                 wjbruckner@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Marco Cercone, Esq.
          RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC
          1600 Liberty Building
          424 Main Street
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Phone: (716) 854-3400
          Email: cercone@ruppbaase.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Howard B. Iwrey, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          39577 Woodward Ave-Ste 300
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 203-0700
          Facsimile: (248) 203-0763
          E-mail: hiwrey@dykema.com

HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Perry Suit Transferred to E.D. Wis.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CURTIS PERRY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR
COMPANY GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-02920, was
transferred from the United States District Court for the District
of Minnesota to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin on February 9, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-00179-WCG to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought as an antitrust action directed at
Harley-Davidson's anticompetitive conduct wherein Harley-Davidson
used its warranty to try to force Harley owners to use its own
parts, rather than the many quality aftermarket parts available for
its motorcycles.

Harley-Davidson is one of the oldest and most recognizable vehicle
brands in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brant D. Penney, Esq.
          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          W1050 First National Bank Bldg.
          332 Minnesota St.
          St Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          E-mail: b.penney@rwblawfirm.com
                  g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael R. Carey, Esq.
          Mickey L. Stevens, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          4000 Wells Fargo Center
          90 S. 7th St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 486-1900

               - and -

          Howard B. Iwrey, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          39577 Woodward Ave-Ste 300
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 203-0700
          Facsimile: (248) 203-0763
          E-mail: hiwrey@dykema.com

HONDA MOTOR: Robbins Geller Discloses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or
acquirers of Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (NYSE: HMC) American Depositary
Shares ("ADSs") between June 20, 2018 and September 28, 2022, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period") have until April 3, 2023 to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Honda class action
lawsuit. Captioned Baylor v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., No. 23-cv-00794
(C.D. Cal.), the Honda class action lawsuit charges Honda, Honda's
North American-based subsidiary American Honda Motor Company, Inc.
("American Honda"), and certain of its top executives with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Honda class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-honda-motor-co-ltd-class-action-lawsuit-hmc.html

You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Honda is a multinational conglomerate
manufacturer of automobiles, motorcycles, and power equipment.
Certain of Honda's vehicles include a so-called "Idle Stop" engine
feature, purportedly designed to enhance fuel efficiency.

The Honda class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) Honda had overstated the safety and
effectiveness of the Idle Stop engine feature; (ii) Honda
maintained deficient disclosure controls and procedures with
respect to product quality and safety; (iii) as a result of the
foregoing deficiencies, Honda failed to prevent American Honda from
marketing and selling thousands of vehicles that contained a
defective Idle Stop feature; and (iv) the foregoing conduct
subjected Honda 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 lawsuit was filed
against American Honda alleging that it sold thousands of vehicles
equipped with a flawed Idle Stop feature. The lawsuit alleges that
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
and that American Honda was fully aware of the defect before
marketing the vehicles. On this news, Honda's ADS price fell more
than 3%, damaging investors.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
Honda ADSs during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Honda class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is
generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Honda class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Honda class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff of the Honda class action lawsuit. [GN]

ICAGEN INC: Warner Files Stockholders' Class Suit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ICAGEN, INC. et al.
The case is captioned as BENJAMIN WARNER, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TIMOTHY C.
TYSON, RICHARD CUNNINGHAM, CLIVE KABATZNIK, VINCENT PALMIERI,
EDWARD ROFFMAN, and MICHAEL TAGLICH, Defendants, and ICAGEN, INC.
nka IXC Discovery, Inc. Nominal Defendants, Case No. 2023-0159-PAF
(Del. Ch., Feb. 9, 2023).

The lawsuit is a verified stockholder derivative and stockholder
class action complaint.

Icagen, Inc. provides a platform for drug discovery and development
services to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR  
          1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 652-3641
          Facsimile: (302) 652-5379
          E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

               - and -

          Andrew Ralli, Esq.
          COOCH & TAYLOR
          1000 W St 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 984-3821
          E-mail: aralli@coochtaylor.com

JPMORGAN: $13MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 2
------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS

If you entered into a European Government Bond Transaction from
January 1, 2007 through and including December 31, 2012 ("Class
Period"), your rights may be affected by pending class action
settlements and you may be entitled to a portion of the settlement
fund.

This notice is to alert you to proposed settlements reached with
JPMorgan and State Street (collectively, the "Settling Defendants")
in In re European Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, No.
1:19-cv-2601 (VM) (S.D.N.Y.) and the creation of a settlement fund
totaling $13,000,000. JPMorgan and State Street also agreed to
provide cooperation in connection with Plaintiffs' continued
prosecution of claims against the non-settling defendants. The
settlements with JPMorgan and State Street will resolve the claim
against them in the action. JPMorgan and State Street deny any
liability, fault, or wrongdoing in connection with the allegations
in the action. Litigation remains ongoing against the non-settling
defendants.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the "Court") authorized this notice. The Court appointed the
law firms listed below to represent the Settlement Class:

Vincent Briganti
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 S. Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601

Kristen M. Anderson
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
230 Park Ave., 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169

Gregory S. Asciolla
DICELLO LEVITT LLC
485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10017

Todd A. Seaver
BERMAN TABACCO
425 California Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94104

Who Is a Member of the Settlement Class?

Subject to certain exceptions, the Settlement Class consists of all
persons that purchased or sold one or more European Government
Bond(s) in the United States directly from a defendant (or a direct
or indirect parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or division of a
defendant, or any of their alleged co-conspirators) from January 1,
2007 through December 31, 2012.

"European Government Bonds" means euro-denominated sovereign debt
or bonds issued by European governments (e.g., Austria, Belgium,
Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia,
and Spain).

If you are not sure if you are included in the Settlement Class,
you can get more information, by visiting
www.EuropeanGovernmentBondsSettlement.com or by calling toll-free
1-877-883-7336 (for callers outside the United States and Canada:
414-961-7813).

What Is This Lawsuit About?

Plaintiffs allege that defendants, including JPMorgan and State
Street, agreed to fix prices and depress yields for European
Government Bonds. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that defendants
collusively bid above the market price for European Government
Bonds at auctions in the primary market through a process known as
"overbidding." Plaintiffs further allege that defendants profited
from this misconduct by selling bonds purchased at auction at
artificially inflated prices to investors in the secondary market.
Plaintiffs also allege that defendants agreed to widen bid-ask
spreads in the secondary market for European Government Bonds,
thereby charging investors increased prices for purchases and
paying investors decreased prices for sales of bonds. Plaintiffs
assert claims under federal antitrust law.

What Do the Settlements Provide?

To settle the claims in this lawsuit, JPMorgan agreed to pay a
total of $13,000,000. JPMorgan and State Street also agreed to
provide cooperation in connection with Plaintiffs' continued
prosecution of claims against the non-settling defendants. If the
settlements are approved, the settlement amount, plus interest
earned and less any taxes, notice and administration costs,
Court-awarded attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, any service
awards for Plaintiffs, and any other expenses approved by the Court
will be divided among all Settlement Class Members who submit valid
claim forms.

Will I Get a Payment?

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out, you
will be eligible for a payment under the Settlements if you file a
valid claim form. Claim forms must be submitted online at
www.EuropeanGovernmentBondsSettlement.com on or before 11:59 p.m.
Eastern time on April 26, 2023 OR mailed so that they are received
by April 26, 2023.

What Are My Rights?

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out, you
will release certain legal rights against Settling Defendants and
the other Released Parties, as explained in the Court's detailed
notice and the settlement agreements, which are available at
www.EuropeanGovernmentBondsSettlement.com. If you do not want to be
a member of the Settlement Class with respect to these settlements,
you must opt out by April 10, 2023. You may object to these
settlements, the plan of distribution, application for an award of
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, and/or service awards for
Plaintiffs by April 10, 2023. Information on how to opt out or
object is contained in the Court's detailed notice, which is
available at www.EuropeanGovernmentBondsSettlement.com.

When Is the Settlement Hearing?

The Court will hold a settlement hearing at the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel
Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., Courtroom
15B, New York, NY 10007, on June 2, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. to consider
whether to finally approve the settlements, plan of distribution,
application for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation
expenses, and any service awards for Plaintiffs. You or your lawyer
may ask to appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense, but
you do not have to.

For more information, call toll-free 1-877-883-7336 (for callers
outside the United States and Canada: 414-961-7813) or visit
www.EuropeanGovernmentBondsSettlement.com.

**** Please do not call the Court or the Clerk of the Court for
information about the settlements. ****


JPMORGAN: Court Sets Hearing on $13MM Settlement for June 2
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS

If you entered into a European Government Bond Transaction from
January 1, 2007 through and including December 31, 2012 ("Class
Period"), your rights may be affected by pending class action
settlements and you may be entitled to a portion of the settlement
fund.

This notice is to alert you to proposed settlements reached with
JPMorgan and State Street (collectively, the "Settling Defendants")
in In re European Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, No.
1:19-cv-2601 (VM) (S.D.N.Y.) and the creation of a settlement fund
totaling $13,000,000. JPMorgan and State Street also agreed to
provide cooperation in connection with Plaintiffs' continued
prosecution of claims against the non-settling defendants. The
settlements with JPMorgan and State Street will resolve the claim
against them in the action. JPMorgan and State Street deny any
liability, fault, or wrongdoing in connection with the allegations
in the action. Litigation remains ongoing against the non-settling
defendants.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the "Court") authorized this notice. The Court appointed the
law firms listed below to represent the Settlement Class:

Vincent Briganti
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 S. Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601

Gregory S. Asciolla
DICELLO LEVITT LLC
485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10017

Kristen M. Anderson
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
230 Park Ave., 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169

Todd A. Seaver
BERMAN TABACCO
425 California Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94104

Who Is a Member of the Settlement Class?

Subject to certain exceptions, the Settlement Class consists of all
persons that purchased or sold one or more European Government
Bond(s) in the United States directly from a defendant (or a direct
or indirect parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or division of a
defendant, or any of their alleged co-conspirators) from January 1,
2007 through December 31, 2012.

"European Government Bonds" means euro-denominated sovereign debt
or bonds issued by European governments (e.g., Austria, Belgium,
Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia,
and Spain).

If you are not sure if you are included in the Settlement Class,
you can get more information, by visiting
www.EuropeanGovernmentBondsSettlement.com or by calling toll-free
1-877-883-7336 (for callers outside the United States and Canada:
414-961-7813).

What Is This Lawsuit About?

Plaintiffs allege that defendants, including JPMorgan and State
Street, agreed to fix prices and depress yields for European
Government Bonds. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that defendants
collusively bid above the market price for European Government
Bonds at auctions in the primary market through a process known as
"overbidding." Plaintiffs further allege that defendants profited
from this misconduct by selling bonds purchased at auction at
artificially inflated prices to investors in the secondary market.
Plaintiffs also allege that defendants agreed to widen bid-ask
spreads in the secondary market for European Government Bonds,
thereby charging investors increased prices for purchases and
paying investors decreased prices for sales of bonds. Plaintiffs
assert claims under federal antitrust law.

What Do the Settlements Provide?

To settle the claims in this lawsuit, JPMorgan agreed to pay a
total of $13,000,000. JPMorgan and State Street also agreed to
provide cooperation in connection with Plaintiffs' continued
prosecution of claims against the non-settling defendants. If the
settlements are approved, the settlement amount, plus interest
earned and less any taxes, notice and administration costs,
Court-awarded attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, any service
awards for Plaintiffs, and any other expenses approved by the Court
will be divided among all Settlement Class Members who submit valid
claim forms.

Will I Get a Payment?

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out, you
will be eligible for a payment under the Settlements if you file a
valid claim form. Claim forms must be submitted online at
www.EuropeanGovernmentBondsSettlement.com on or before 11:59 p.m.
Eastern time on April 26, 2023 OR mailed so that they are received
by April 26, 2023.

What Are My Rights?

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out, you
will release certain legal rights against Settling Defendants and
the other Released Parties, as explained in the Court's detailed
notice and the settlement agreements, which are available at
www.EuropeanGovernmentBondsSettlement.com. If you do not want to be
a member of the Settlement Class with respect to these settlements,
you must opt out by April 10, 2023. You may object to these
settlements, the plan of distribution, application for an award of
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, and/or service awards for
Plaintiffs by April 10, 2023. Information on how to opt out or
object is contained in the Court's detailed notice, which is
available at www.EuropeanGovernmentBondsSettlement.com.

When Is the Settlement Hearing?

The Court will hold a settlement hearing at the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel
Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., Courtroom
15B, New York, NY 10007, on June 2, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. to consider
whether to finally approve the settlements, plan of distribution,
application for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation
expenses, and any service awards for Plaintiffs. You or your lawyer
may ask to appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense, but
you do not have to.

For more information, call toll-free 1-877-883-7336 (for callers
outside the United States and Canada: 414-961-7813) or visit
www.EuropeanGovernmentBondsSettlement.com.

**** Please do not call the Court or the Clerk of the Court for
information about the settlements. ****


KAG WEST: Young Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERT YOUNG and ALBERT E. FRELIX II, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KAG
WEST, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 to
10, Defendants, Case No. CIV SB 2214087, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on Feb. 8, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:23-cv-00209-SSS-KK to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs alleged claims on behalf of themselves and a
putative class of all others similarly situated that Defendants
failed to pay all minimum wages for all hours worked for their
on-duty time spent watching their trucks during unpaid meal breaks
in violation of California Labor Code.

KAG West, LLC is a transportation/trucking/railroad company based
in California.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian L. Johnsrud, Esq.
          Jennifer A. Lotz, Esq.
          Stephen Yang, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          2475 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1194
          Telephone: (650) 847-4150
          Facsimile: (650) 847-4151
          E-mail: bjohnsrud@duanemorris.com
                  jlotz@duanemorris.com
                  snyang@duanemorris.com

LANSING TRADE: $18MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 9
-----------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Budicak, Inc., et al. v. Lansing Trade Group, LLC, et al.

Case No. 2:19-cv-02449 (D. Kan.)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS

If you transacted in CBOT Wheat Futures or Options from at least
February 1, 2015 through May 15, 2015, your rights may be affected
by pending class action settlements and you may be entitled to a
portion of the settlement fund.

This Summary Notice is to alert you to two proposed Settlements,
one with Lansing Trade Group, LLC ("Lansing") totaling
$18,000,000.00 and the second with Cascade Commodity Consulting LLC
("Cascade" and collectively with Lansing and unidentified
co-conspirators named as John Does 6 through 10, "Defendants"), in
a pending class action (the "Action"). Lansing and Cascade deny
each and every one of Plaintiffs' allegations of unlawful conduct,
and each maintains that it has good and meritorious defenses to the
claims of liability and damages made by Plaintiffs.  

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas (the
"Court") authorized this Summary Notice and has appointed the
lawyers listed below ("Class Counsel") to represent the Settlement
Class in this Action:

Vincent Briganti
Raymond P. Girnys
Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601

Telephone: (914) 733-7221
vbriganti@lowey.com
rgirnys@lowey.com

Jennifer W. Sprengel
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP
135 S. LaSalle St., Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603

Telephone: (312) 782-4880
jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com

Who is a member of the Settlement Class?

Subject to certain exceptions, the proposed Settlement Class
consists of all Persons and entities that transacted in CBOT Wheat
Futures or Options from at least February 1, 2015 through May 15,
2015 (the "Class Period"). Excluded from the Settlement Class are
Defendants and their direct or indirect parents, subsidiaries,
affiliates, divisions, officers, directors, employees, and agents,
whether or not named as a Defendant, the United States Government,
and any judicial officer presiding over this Action and the members
of his or her immediate family and judicial staff.

"CBOT Wheat Futures or Options" means wheat futures and options
contracts that trade on the Chicago Board of Trade ("CBOT").

The other capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice are defined
in the detailed Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlements, June
9, 2023 Settlement Hearing Thereon, and Class Members' Rights
("Notice") and the Stipulations, which are available at
www.2015CBOTWheatFuturesClassActionSettlement.com.

If you are not sure if you are included in the Settlement Class,
you can get more information, including the detailed Notice, at
www.2015CBOTWheatFuturesClassActionSettlement.com or by calling
toll-free 1-877-234-6578 (if calling from outside the United States
or Canada, call 1-414-961-6543).

What is this lawsuit about and what do the Settlements provide?

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired to and successfully
manipulated the prices of CBOT Wheat Futures or Options during the
Class Period by falsely signaling demand for physical wheat, which
caused the prices of CBOT Wheat Futures or Options to be
artificial. Plaintiffs further allege that Lansing engaged in this
behavior with its primary purpose to benefit its trading positions
at the expense of Class Members in violation of the Commodity
Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. Secs. 1, et seq. (the "CEA"), the Sherman
Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 1, et seq., and the common law.
Plaintiffs also allege that Cascade wrongfully published
information relating to Lansing's alleged market activity.

Lansing and Cascade deny Plaintiffs' allegations, and each
maintains that it has good and meritorious defenses to Plaintiffs'
claims and would prevail if the case were to proceed.  Lansing and
Cascade deny conspiring to do anything. Lansing specifically
contends that it did not send any signal to the market, nor was its
demand for the wheat underlying shipping certificates false.
Lansing further denies any and all conduct that allegedly violated
the CEA or the Sherman Antitrust Act. Nevertheless, to settle the
claims in this lawsuit, and thereby avoid the distraction and cost
of further litigation, Lansing has agreed to pay a total of $18
million (the "Settlement Fund") in cash for the benefit of the
proposed Settlement Class.  Cascade has provided substantial
cooperation to Plaintiffs' Counsel to benefit the Class.  If the
Settlements are approved, the Settlement Fund, plus interest earned
from the date it was established, less any Taxes, the reasonable
costs of Class Notice and administration, any Court-awarded
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs, Incentive Awards
for Plaintiffs, and any other costs or fees approved by the Court
(the "Net Settlement Fund") will be divided among all Class Members
who file timely and valid Proof of Claim and Release Forms ("Claim
Forms").   

If the Settlements are approved, the Action will be resolved
against Lansing and Cascade. If the Settlements are not approved,
Lansing and Cascade will remain as defendants in the Action, and
Plaintiffs will continue to pursue their claims against them.

Will I get a payment?

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out, you
may be eligible for a payment from the Net Settlement Fund if you
file a Claim Form.  You also may obtain more information at
www.2015CBOTWheatFuturesClassActionSettlement.com or by calling
toll-free 1-877-234-6578 (if calling from outside the United States
or Canada, call 1-414-961-6543).  Claim Forms must be postmarked by
July 10, 2023, or submitted online at
www.2015CBOTWheatFuturesClassActionSettlement.com on or before
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on July 10, 2023.

What are my rights?

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out, you
will release certain legal rights against Lansing, Cascade, and
Released Parties as explained in the detailed Notice and
Stipulations, which are available at
www.2015CBOTWheatFuturesClassActionSettlement.com.  If you do not
want to take part in the proposed Settlements, you must opt out by
April 10, 2023.  You may object to the proposed Settlements, the
Distribution Plan, and/or Class Counsel's request for attorneys'
fees, payment of litigation costs and expenses, and Plaintiffs'
application for Incentive Awards.  If you want to object, you must
do so by April 10, 2023.  Information on how to opt out or object
is contained in the detailed Notice, which is available at
www.2015CBOTWheatFuturesClassActionSettlement.com.

When is the Settlement Hearing?

The Court will hold a hearing at the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas, 500 State Ave., Kansas City, KS 66101
on June 9, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. Central Time to consider whether to
finally approve the proposed Settlement, Distribution Plan, the
application for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of
litigation costs and expenses, and the application for Incentive
Awards for the Plaintiffs.  The Settlement Hearing may be moved to
a different date or time without notice to you, but Class Counsel
will post updates concerning dates and deadlines on the Settlement
Website.  Given the current COVID-19 situation, the Settlement
Hearing may be conducted remotely.  Although you do not need to
attend, if you plan to do so, you should check the Settlement
Website before making travel plans.  You or your lawyer may ask to
appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense, but you do not
have to. Any changes to the time and place of the Settlement
Hearing, or other deadlines, will be posted to
www.2015CBOTWheatFuturesClassActionSettlement.com as soon as is
practicable.

For more information, call toll-free 1-877-234-6578 (if calling
from outside the United States or Canada, call 1-414-961-6543) or
visit www.2015CBOTWheatFuturesClassActionSettlement.com.

**** Please do not call the Court or the Clerk of the Court for
information about the Settlement. ****


LENOVO INC: Laptops Have Defective Hinge Mechanism, Volinsky Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Volinsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Case No. 8:23-cv-00250
(M.D. Fla., Feb. 6, 2023) alleges that the hinge mechanism of the
Lenovo 14w laptops are defective, in that they are made of
low-quality and/or low-strength materials, which caused the hinges
to break and/or detach.

According to the complaint, despite the marketing of the product as
capable of functioning reliably and remaining in proper working
condition for years to come, it did not function reliably or remain
free of flaws, damage, or structural deficiencies. The Defendant
markets its laptops with the representations that they are built to
last, are technologically advanced, and will remain in proper
working condition for years to come, says the suit.

Lenovo manufactures, markets, and sells laptop computers, such as
the 14w, under the Lenovo brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Wright, Esq.
          THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
          515 N Flagler Dr Ste P-300
          West Palm Beach FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 514-0904
          E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com

               - and -

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

LOFT HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Stufflebeam Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTINE STUFFLEBEAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOFT HEALTHCARE CONSULTANTS, INC.
f/k/a SELECT HEALTHCARE CONSULTANTS INC.; THE LOFT REHABILITATION
AND NURSING OF CANTON LLC; THE LOFT REHABILITATION OF DECATUR LLC;
THE LOFT REHABILITATION AND NURSING, LLC; THE LOFT REHABILITATION
AND NURSING OF NORMAL LLC; AND THE LOFT REHABILITATION OF ROCK
SPRINGS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00775 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 8,
2023) is a collective and class action complaint brought by the
Plaintiff seeking all available remedies under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act for Defendants' failure to pay all
overtime compensation owed.

The Plaintiff was employed by Loft Healthcare as a certified
nurse's assistant from approximately August 2019 to the present.

Loft Healthcare Consultants, Inc. is a healthcare company that
offers nutrition counseling.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll Kyle Shamberg, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
          111 W. Washington Street Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 606062
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          Facsimile: (773) 598-5609
          E-mail: katrina@lcllp.com
                  kyle@lcllp.com

               - and -

          Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
          Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
          Reginald L. Streater, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4620
          E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net
                  apiazza@bm.net
                  rstreater@bm.net

MCKESSON CORP: $141MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 2
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
McKesson Corporation Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EVANSTON POLICE PENSION FUND,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cv-06525-CRB

CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE


IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED MCKESSON CORPORATION ("MCKESSON")
COMMON STOCK BETWEEN OCTOBER 24, 2013 AND OCTOBER 27, 2016,
INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), YOU COULD RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM A
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. CERTAIN PERSONS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE
DEFINITION OF THE CLASS AS SET FORTH IN THE STIPULATION OF
SETTLEMENT.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action for
the purposes of settlement only and that a Settlement has been
proposed for $141,000,000 in cash. A hearing will be held on June
2, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Charles R. Breyer, at
the United States District Court, Northern District of California,
Phillip Burton Federal Building & United States Courthouse,
Courtroom 6 – 17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,
CA 94102, for the purpose of determining whether: (1) the proposed
Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and
adequate; (2) the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of
the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable and adequate and
therefore should be approved; and (3) the application of Lead
Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses from the
Settlement Fund, including interest earned thereon, should be
granted.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY
BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LITIGATION, AND YOU MAY BE
ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. You may obtain a copy of
the Stipulation of Settlement, the Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice"), and the Proof of Claim
Form at www.McKessonSecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting the
Claims Administrator: McKesson Securities Litigation, c/o Gilardi &
Co. LLC, P.O. Box 301134, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1134;
1-877-892-8802.

If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of
Claim Form by mail postmarked no later than May 10, 2023, or submit
it online by that date. If you are a Class Member and do not submit
a valid Proof of Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will still be
bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Action
(including the releases provided for therein).

To exclude yourself from the Class, you must mail a written request
for exclusion so that it is received by May 12, 2023, in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you are a Class
Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be
bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Action
(including the releases provided for therein) whether or not you
submit a Proof of Claim Form. If you submit a written request for
exclusion, you will have no right to recover money pursuant to the
Settlement.

Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation,
or the fee and expense application must be filed with the Court no
later than May 12, 2023.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any
questions about the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the following
address or by calling 1-800-449-4900:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com
    
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DATED: January 20, 2023


MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Roth v. Blackbaud
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roth, et al., v.
Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00053 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 7,
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 Roth 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/3YAImo3 at no extra charge.[CC]


MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Simkins v. Blackbaud
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Simkins, et al., v.
Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00431 (D.S.C., Filed Feb. 10,
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 Simkins 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/3JQ3frd at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Sloane v. Blackbaud
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sloane v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-02461-JFA (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 Sloane 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/40yowfj at no extra charge.[CC]

MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Consumer Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 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]

MERCIFUL HEALTHCARE: Turray Seeks OT Pay for Direct Care Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL TURAY, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
MERCIFUL HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00542-EAS-EPD
(S.D. Ohio, Feb. 6, 2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay
employees overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt
Pay Act.

The Plaintiff contends that due to the elimination of the
"companionship services" exemption that was no longer in effect as
of January 1, 2015, he was not exempt and should have been paid 1.5
x his regular rate of pay during any workweek when he worked over
40 hours. Specifically, he worked for Defendant as an hourly,
non-exempt "employee" of the Defendant as defined in the FLSA and
the Ohio Acts primarily in the position of Home Health Aide from
approximately 2017 until the end of March, 2022, the Plaintiff
adds.

The collective that Mr. Turay seeks to represent and to whom he
seeks the right to send "opt-in" notices for purposes of the
collective action, of which he himself is a member, is composed of
and defined as follows:

   "All current and former hourly direct care employees of the
    Defendant who worked more than 40 hours in any workweek
    beginning three years before the filing of this Complaint and
    continuing through the final disposition of this case."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
           BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
           1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
           Columbus, OH 43220
           Telephone: (614) 704-0546
           Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
           E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com


NELNET SERVICING: Cordaro Consolidated with Data Security Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cordaro v. Nelnet
Servicing, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03207, the Hon. Judge Cheryl R.
Zwart entered an order that:

   1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are
      sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and
      appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the
      hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is
      cancelled.

   2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following
      cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case
      No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186;
      Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case
      No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193;
      Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case
      No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203;
      Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case
      No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227;
      Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case
      No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413.

   3) As to the motions to appoint counsel:

      a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted.
         (Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated
         as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the
         designated as a "Member Case."

      b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick
         (Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184),
         and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied.

      c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons
         (Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied.

   4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a
      consolidated amended complaint:

      a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March
         3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall
         so state.

      b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is
         filed:

             i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its
                response to Plaintiffs' motion; and

            ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named
                in the proposed consolidated amended complaint,
                it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs'
                motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims
                against it until the claims against Nelnet
                Servicing, LLC are resolved.

      c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after
         Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion.

   5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading"
      text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed,
      the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be
      filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are
      instructed to file all further documents (except as
      described below in subsections a) and b) of this
      paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al
      v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in
      response to the System's question whether to spread the
      text.

      a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file
         complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay
         filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items
         related to service of process; or to file notices of
         appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error,
         and therefore these documents must be separately filed
         in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing
         such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and
         defense counsel may either file the document (e.g.,
         Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's
         answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman
         and ask the court to then file it in all member cases.

      b) If a party believes that a document in addition to
         those described in subparagraph a) above should not be
         filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party
         must move for permission to file the document in a
         limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed
         in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text
         feature.

The Cordaro suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases Against
NELNET SERVICING, LLC.

Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising
from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in
other districts have now been transferred to this district and each
of the above-captioned cases have been designated by the court as
"related."

Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to
District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to
the undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate
and motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the  related cases
are currently pending.

The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant
the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of
the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions
will be canceled.

On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub &
Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman
requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet
Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim
co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class.

Nelnet provides education services. The Company offers educational
services in loan servicing, payment processing, education planning,
and asset management. Nelnet Servicing operates in the United
States and Canada.

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



NESTLE SA: Agrees to Settle Coffee-Mate Class Action for $10-M
--------------------------------------------------------------
newsbreak.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: Second Cir. Flips Dismissal of Z.Q.'s Claims v. DOE
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Z.Q., by his parent, G.J., G.J., individually and on
behalf of Z.Q., J.H., by his parent, Y.H., Y.H., individually and
on behalf of J.H., J.A., by his parent, D.S., D.S., individually
and on behalf of J.A., M.S., by his parent, R.H., R.H.,
individually and on behalf of M.S., D.V., by his guardian, V.L.,
V.L., individually and on behalf on D.V., J.W., by his parent,
A.W., A.W., individually and on behalf of J.W., D.M., by his
parent, E.L., E.L., individually and on behalf of D.M., C.B., by
his parent, C.B.2, C.B.2, individually and on behalf of C.B., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. New York City Department of Education, New
York City Board of Education, Richard Carranza, in his official
capacity as Chancellor of the New York City School District, New
York State Education Department, New York State Board of Regents,
Betty A. Rosa, in her official capacity as Interim Commissioner of
Education and President of the University of the State of New York,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-939-cv (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacates the judgment of the
district court dismissing the Plaintiffs-Appellants' claims and
remands for further proceedings consistent with its Order.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal from a judgment of the district
court dismissing their claims under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. Section 1400, et
seq.; 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 ("Section 1983"); Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 794; the Equal
Educational Opportunities Act ("EEOA"), 20 U.S.C. Sections 1703,
1706; and New York State Education Law Section 4002, et seq., and
the regulations promulgated thereunder, against the New York City
Department of Education ("NYC DOE"), New York City Board of
Education, and NYC DOE Chancellor Richard Carranza (collectively,
the "City Defendants"), as well as the New York State Education
Department, New York State Board of Regents, and Interim
Commissioner of Education for the State of New York, Betty A. Rosa
(collectively, the "State Defendants").

The Plaintiffs -- students with disabilities and their parents --
brought the putative class action alleging that the City Defendants
and State Defendants failed to provide a free and appropriate
public education ("FAPE") to thousands of students with
disabilities in New York City during the period of remote learning
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The district court dismissed the
Plaintiffs' federal claims for failure to exhaust available
administrative remedies because they did not seek compensatory
services through NYC DOE's complaint resolution process before
filing this action. It then declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state claim.

On appeal, the Plaintiffs do not dispute that they failed to
exhaust their administrative remedies but instead argue that it
would have been futile to do so because: (1) the Defendants'
failure to implement students' individualized education programs
("IEP") during the pandemic was systemic; and (2) the
administrative hearing process cannot award the particular relief
that the Plaintiffs seek -- that is, the appointment of a special
master to oversee an alternative streamlined, non-adversarial
process for obtaining compensatory services that is independent of
due process hearings.

When reviewing a dismissal for a plaintiff's failure to exhaust
administrative remedies under the IDEA, the Second Circuit examines
legal conclusions de novo and factual determinations for plain
error. It is well settled that the IDEA requires an aggrieved party
to exhaust all administrative remedies before bringing a civil
action in federal or state court.

As a threshold matter, to the extent the Plaintiffs argue that
exhaustion would be futile merely because the administrative
process cannot order the process-oriented remedy that they seek in
the form of a special master overseeing a non-adversarial process
for compensatory services, the Second Circuit finds that argument
unpersuasive.

It explains that plaintiffs suing under the IDEA cannot bypass the
exhaustion requirement by ignoring remedies available under the
IDEA and insisting on those of their own devising. In the absence
of an alleged systemic violation or a policy or practice that is
contrary to law, the mere unavailability of the requested relief in
the administrative process does not allow a plaintiff to avoid the
exhaustion requirement.

However, the Second Circuit disagrees with the district court's
conclusion that the Plaintiffs do not allege any systemic violation
that could satisfy the futility exception. The complaint, in part,
sets forth precisely the allegation of systemic delay. It concludes
that the allegations are sufficient to fall within the futility
exception to the exhaustion requirement. However, whether this
alleged systemic non-compliance with the 75-day requirement caused
by the pandemic constitutes a short-term problem that does not
render use of the administration process futile should not be
resolved on a motion to dismiss in light of the absence of a
developed record.

The State Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' claims are moot
because the NYC DOE's program offers plaintiffs the relief they
seek.

On the sparse record, the Second Circuit cannot conclude that the
2022-23 Program moots the Plaintiffs' claims or undermines the
sufficiency of their futility allegations. As noted by the
Plaintiffs, it is entirely unclear how effective this new program
has been at eliminating the alleged systemic delays in the
adjudication of due process complaints or in addressing the various
other defects that they allege exist in its implementation. The
Defendants are free to raise these arguments in the district court
with further development of the record, and, if necessary, the
Plaintiffs can seek to amend the complaint to set forth additional
allegations regarding the 2022-23 Program's efficacy at remedying
the need for compensatory services arising from the City's alleged
systemic failures as to students with IEPs during the period of
remote learning.

The Second Circuit has considered the Defendants' remaining
arguments regarding exhaustion and concludes that they are without
merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the Second Circuit vacates the judgment
of the district court and remands the action for further
proceedings consistent with its Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2023 Summary Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8xbykm from Leagle.com.

JOSHUA A. KIPNEES -- jkipnees@pbwt.com -- (George A. LoBiondo --
globiondo@pbwt.com -- & George Carotenuto -- gcarotenuto@pbwt.com
-- on the brief), Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, NY
Rebecca C. Shore (on the brief), Advocates for Children of New
York, New York, NY, for the Plaintiffs-Appellants.

D. ALAN ROSINUS, JR., Assistant Corporation Counsel, (Richard
Dearing & Devin Slack, on the brief), for Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix,
Corporation Counsel of the City of York, New York, NY, FOR
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, NEW
YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, RICHARD CARRANZA, CHANCELLOR OF THE
NEW YORK CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT.

DANIEL S. MAGY, Assistant Solicitor General, (Matthew W. Grieco,
Senior Assistant Solicitor General, Barbara D Underwood, Solicitor
General, on the brief), for Letitia James, Attorney General, State
of New York York, New York, NY, FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES NEW YORK
STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF REGENTS, BETTY
A. ROSA, INTERIM COMMISSIONER OF for EDUCATION AND PRESIDENT OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.


NOAH'S NEW YORK: Jones Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JANETE JONES, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOAH'S NEW YORK BAGELS
COMPANY, a Minnesota Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 22CV409087, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
February 9, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:23-cv-00596-SVK to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges seven claims under the California Labor Code:
(1) failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked; (2) failure
to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4)
failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (5) failure to
indemnify necessary business expenses; (6) failure to pay wages of
discharged employees - waiting time penalties; and (7) failure to
provide and maintain accurate and compliant wage records. The
Plaintiff also asserts Defendant's violation of the California
Business & Professionals Code.

Noah's New York Bagels Company is an American bagel
restaurant.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Donald P. Sullivan, Esq.
          Spencer J. Davidson, Esq.
          Benjamin R. Eversole, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          50 California Street, 9th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
          Telephone: (415) 394-9400
          Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
          E-mail: Donald.Sullivan@jacksonlewis.com
                  Spencer.Davidson@jacksonlewis.com
                  Benjamin.Eversole@jacksonlewis.com

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Suit Would Expand Area Impacted by Toxins
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Gauntner at wfmj.com reports that a lot more people could
claim they were victims of the East Palestine chemical train
derailment if attorneys who filed the latest negligence lawsuit
have their way.

Attorneys for Burg, Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh & Jardine have filed a
class action complaint in federal court alleging that people who
were within 30 miles of the derailment should be allowed to become
plaintiffs in the legal action.

A map filed with the complaint shows a 30 mile radius that includes
communities as far away as Columbiana, Lisbon, Salem, East
Liverpool, Alliance, Boardman Youngstown, Austintown, Niles, and
Hubbard in Ohio, as well as Aliquippa, Cranberry, Ellwood City, New
Castle, New Wilmington, Sharon and Hermitage in Pennsylvania.

The previous four lawsuits filed suggested that an area of one to
two miles from the derailment be permitted to become part of the
class action.

The fifth complaint was filed by two men and a business in New
Galilee, Pennsylvania, which is more than four miles from the scene
of the derailment, which the lawsuit says released 1 million pounds
of vinyl chloride.

The lawsuit claims that the controlled release of burning vinyl
chloride sent hundreds of thousands of pounds of hydrochloric acid
into the air.

According to the complaint, the smoke from the release was trapped
from rising higher into the atmosphere due to an inversion layer at
around 3,000 feet.

"In other words, the toxic plume from the mushroom cloud reached a
level in the atmosphere where it was unable to continue to rise
vertically, so it began to spread out horizontally in a thick
cloud," the suit alleges.

In addition, the complaint claims the smoke plume was blown to the
south and east due to a northwest wind that was blowing over the
fire, traveling at least as far as Bridgewater, Pennsylvania.

Like the other suits, the latest complaint asks for damages and
coverage of the cost of medical monitoring for those impacted.
However, this lawsuit is asking the courts to supervise a medical
monitoring program either directly or through a court-supervised
special master or trustee.

Norfolk Southern has yet to respond to any of the five lawsuits
filed. [GN]

OSMOSE UTILITIES: Weaver Labor Suit Transferred to N.D. Ga.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GREGORY WEAVER, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OSMOSE UTILITIES SERVICES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2022LA37, was transferred from the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
on February 9, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Georgia assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00025-TCB to the proceeding.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, this suit was removed
from the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in Marion
County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois on Dec. 28, 2022, and assigned Case
No. 3:22-cv-03108.

The Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that Crew Members worked up
to 7 days per week and up to 10 hours per day, or up to 70 hours
per week, but were not clocked in and paid for certain tasks, such
as travel time, trash removal, cleaning the truck, and unloading
equipment. The Plaintiff purports to have worked approximately
175.53 unpaid straight time hours and 1,427.1 unpaid overtime
hours. As such, Plaintiff alleges to be owed up to $2,720.72 in
unpaid straight time (calculated by multiplying $15.50 by purported
unpaid straight time hours) and $33,180.08 in overtime (calculated
by multiplying $23.25 by purported unpaid overtime hours).

Osmose Utilities Services, Inc. provides utility and
telecommunications equipment services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jason D. Keck, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP-IL
          10 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3450
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 346-8061
          Facsimile: (312) 346-3179
          E-mail: jkeck@fisherphillips.com  

QUADRTECH CORP: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, De Gomez Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GUADALUPE PORTILLA DE GOMEZ, on behalf of herself and current and
former aggrieved employees v. QUADRTECH CORPORATION; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV01SI2 (Cal. Super., Jan. 27, 2023)
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay wages for all hours work
at minimum wage and all overtime hours worked at the overtime rate
of pay; failed to authorize or permit all legally required and/or
compliant meal periods or pay meal period premium wages; and failed
to authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant rest
periods or pay rest period premium wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay
the Plaintiff and other current and former aggrieved
California-based hourly non-exempt employees all wages for all
hours worked due to Defendants' policies, practices, and/or
procedures including:

  (a) "Rounding down" or "shaving down" the Plaintiff's and
      similarly situated employees' punches to the nearest quarter

      of an hour;

  (b) Automatically deducting 30-minutes from the Plaintiff's and
      similarly situated employees' daily hours worked and
      attributing that time to a meal break, regardless of whether

      they were provided duty-free meal breaks;

  (c) Requiring Plaintiff and other current and former aggrieved
      California-based hourly non-exempt employees to travel to and

      from a designated area away from their workstations while
      off-the-clock during meal periods;

  (d) Requiring the Plaintiff and other current and former
      aggrieved California-based hourly non-exempt employees who
      work in Defendants' gold department, to undergo off-the-clock

      security checks before and after their shift and during their

      off-the-clock meal breaks; and

  (e) From June 2021 through the present, Defendant required the
      Plaintiff and other current  and former aggrieved
California-
      based hourly non-exempt employees to line up to wait to
      undergo off-the-clock COVID-19 temperature checks, prior to
      being permitted to clock in for the start of their shift.

Quadrtech is a manufacturer of hand tools such as ear piercing
equipment and stud applicators for the jewelry and body art
industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Pooja V. Patel, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com
                  vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                  ppatel@lelawfirm.com
                  WHT1@lelawfirm.com

ROCHESTER INSTITUTE: Bid to Dismiss Amended Bergeron Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICHOLAS BERGERON and NICK QUATTROCIOCCHI,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Defendant, Case No.
20-CV-6283 (CJS) (W.D.N.Y.), Judge Charles J. Siragusa of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York:

   a. grants RIT's motion for summary judgment on each of the
      four counts in the Plaintiffs' second consolidated amended
      complaint, and dismisses the complaint; and

   b. denies as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification and RIT's motion to preclude the Plaintiffs'
      expert report.

Plaintiffs Bergeron and Quattrociocchi were students enrolled for
the spring semester 2020 in the undergraduate program at RIT, a
private not-for-profit educational institution located in Monroe
County, New York. In March 2020, consistent with emergency
declarations and orders from the state and local governments
regarding the Covid-19 pandemic, RIT shut down all on-campus,
in-person instruction and shifted to a "remote modality" to
instruct and serve its students for the remainder of the semester.

Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed the putative class action,
alleging that RIT's failure to refund a portion of the tuition and
fees it collected from students enrolled in the on-campus program
for the spring semester 2020 amounted to either a breach of
contract with its students or unjust enrichment.

RIT offers a wide variety of programs to undergraduate and graduate
students. Most relevant to the present case, it offers (a)
"campus-based" programs targeted to generally full-time students
pursuing their first Bachelor's degree, and (b) "RIT Online," which
is designed for and targeted to part-time and non-traditional
students, many of whom are pursuing graduate degrees or continuing
professional education.

RIT Online provides limited student support services as compared to
resources available to students enrolled in campus-based programs,
and RIT Online students are not permitted to receive institutional
financial aid from RIT, such as merit scholarships, grants, or the
course audit rate.

As students enrolled in campus-based undergraduate programs at RIT
during the 2019-2020 academic year, both named Plaintiffs executed
a Student Financial Responsibility Agreement ("SFRA") in the fall
of 2019. Under the SFRA, the Plaintiffs were charged, among other
things, tuition, student activities fees, and student health
services fees.

In the first and third causes of action in their complaint, the
Plaintiffs allege that RIT breached its contract with students of
its campus-based programs when it retained their tuition, student
activities fees, and student health fees for spring semester 2020
without providing the in-person product for which they had
bargained, and without issuing pro-rated refunds. In the
alternative, in their second and fourth causes of action, they
maintain that RIT was unjustly enriched when it failed to issue
pro-rated refunds of their tuition and fees.

The matter survived RIT's motion to dismiss, and by all indications
the parties engaged in meaningful discovery. RIT is now before the
Court seeking summary judgment on all of the Plaintiffs' claims.
Additionally, RIT asks the Court to preclude the Plaintiffs' expert
report from Dr. Charles Cowan. The Plaintiffs, on the other hand,
are seeking class certification.

RIT maintains that the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims
regarding both tuition and fees fail as a matter of law and as a
matter of fact. First, it argues that the claims are meritless
because the subject matter is governed by an express contract --
the SFRA -- which does not contain a promise of in-person
instruction or services, and because there were no implied contract
terms supplementing the SFRA that required RIT to provide in-person
instruction.

Additionally, RIT argues that even if the SFRA was supplanted or
supplemented by an implied contract, the Plaintiffs have not
identified any specific promise that RIT breached in failing to
refund the tuition and fees. With respect to their unjust
enrichment claims, RIT maintains that a claim cannot be sustained
where a valid contract governs, and that in any event RIT was not
unjustly enriched by the transition to remote learning. Lastly, it
argues that the claims should be dismissed because the Plaintiffs
have failed to establish any viable theory of damages.

After reviewing the parties' papers and the record in the case,
Judge Siragusa agrees with RIT.

First, given his finding that the SFRA constitutes an integrated,
valid, and written agreement governing both the payment of tuition
and fees by the student, and the refund or adjustment of tuition
and fees by the university, Judge Siragusa concludes that the
Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate either that there is a
genuine issue of material fact to be resolved at trial, or that RIT
was bound to provide on-campus, in-person instruction or services
in exchange for the students' payment of tuition and student
activities and student health fees. Therefore, RIT is entitled to
summary judgment on both of the Plaintiffs' claims for breach of
contract.

Next, Judge Siragusa holds that the Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated a genuine dispute of material fact by "citing to
particulars parts of materials in the record," and they have failed
to show that RIT made them a "specifically designated, discrete"
promise that in exchange for the payment of tuition and fees they
would be provided with on-campus, in-person instruction and
services. He therefore concludes that RIT is entitled to summary
judgment on the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims.

Moreover, Judge Siragusa holds that the Plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claims can proceed no further. He finds that at this
point that there is no longer a dispute as to the scope of the
contract between the parties, as he has interpreted the contractual
relationship as a matter of law and found that the issues in
dispute are governed by an express contract that does not include a
promise of in-person, on-campus instruction. Further, even if the
existence or the scope of the parties' contract were uncertain, the
Plaintiffs' claims would still fail. Therefore, RIT's motion for
summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment
with respect to both tuition and fees is granted.

Finally, Judge Siragusa also heard argument on RIT's motion to
preclude the Plaintiffs' expert report and the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. Because the Plaintiffs have no remaining
claims before the Court, he need not reach a decision on either of
the remaining pending motions. Therefore, RIT's motion to preclude
the Plaintiffs' expert report and the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification are denied as moot.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Siragusa grants RIT's motion for
summary judgment in all respects. He denies as moot RIT's motion to
preclude the Plaintiffs' expert report and the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. He dismisses the Plaintiffs' Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2023 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/msjp2drr from Leagle.com.


ROSHAL IMAGING: Crews Seeks Ultrasound Technologists' Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTIN CREWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROSHAL IMAGING INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00473 (S.D. Tex.,
Feb. 8, 2023) is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff
against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Crews worked for the Defendant as an ultrasound
technologist from 2017 until November 2022. His duties include
operating ultrasound equipment in hospitals.

Roshal Imaging Inc. is a diagnostic imaging company headquartered
in Katy, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          David I. Moulton, 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
                  dmoulton@brucknerburch.com

SAZERAC COMPANY: Del Rosario Sues Over Mislabeled Whiskey
---------------------------------------------------------
Christina Del Rosario, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Sazerac Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01060
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2023) alleges that the Defendant misrepresented
and/or omitted the attributes and qualities of the the Southern
Comfort brand which was marketed as if it was similar to the
regular Southern Comfort, in that it contained whiskey and/or
distilled spirits and was aged in oak barrels.

The Plaintiff purchased the product at gas stations and/or
convenience stores in Bronx County in or around 2022, and/or among
other times, at or around the identified price. The Plaintiff is
like many consumers of alcoholic beverages who prefers distilled
spirits or products containing distilled spirits to malt-based
beverages. She saw the labeling elements of the mini Southern
Comfort and did not notice the differences from the standard
Southern Comfort product. She expected the mini Southern Comfort
contained whisky and/or other distilled spirits in a non-de minimis
amount. The Plaintiff paid more for the Product than she would have
had she known the representations and omissions were false and
misleading, or would not have purchased it, says the suit.

As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at a premium price, $0.99 for 50 mL. The value of
the Product that Plaintiff purchased was materially less than its
value as represented by Defendant, the suit added.

The Plaintiff seeks certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 of the
following classes:

   -- New York Class

      "All persons in the State of New York who purchased the
      Product during the statutes of limitations for each cause of

      action alleged;" and

   -- Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class

      "All persons in the States of West Virginia, Montana, New
      Mexico, Alabama, North Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Mississippi,
      Alaska, and South Carolina who purchased the Product during
      the statutes of limitations for each cause of action
alleged.

Sazerac Company, Inc is a privately held American alcoholic
beverage company headquartered in Metairie in the metropolitan area
of New Orleans, Louisiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SIGNATURE BANK: Statistica Sues Over Transfer of FTX Customer Funds
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STATISTICA CAPITAL LTD. and STATISTICA LTD., on behalf of
themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public
v. SIGNATURE BANK, Case No. 1:23-cv-00993 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2023)
seeks to recover compensation for the damages suffered by the
Plaintiffs as a result of Signature's malfeasance.

The Plaintiffs bring this action because Signature Bank had actual
knowledge of and substantially facilitated the now-infamous FTX
fraud. In particular, Signature knew of and permitted the
commingling of FTX customer funds within its proprietary,
blockchain-based payments network, Signet.

The Plaintiffs themselves advised Signature on multiple occasions
that their funds were intended for FTX; Signature nevertheless
allowed their funds to be transferred via Signet and by wire into
Alameda-controlled accounts.

Plaintiff Statistica is a British Virgin Islands limited company
and is licensed as an Approved Manager by the Financial Services
Commission of the British Virgin Islands.

Signature Bank is a New York chartered commercial bank with its
principal executive offices at 565 Fifth Avenue, New York, New
York, 10017.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP
          2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 215-1741
          E-mail: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com

               - and -

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

STELLANTIS NV: Faces Class Action Over Fuel and Oil Refresh Mode
----------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a Jeep 4xe fuel and oil refresh mode
class action lawsuit alleges 2021-2023 Jeep Wrangler 4xe and
2022-2023 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe vehicles cannot drive in
electric-only mode in cold weather.

The Jeep 4xe vehicles are hybrid SUVs that are supposed to run on
gasoline engines, or for shorter trips the electric-only mode will
allegedly save on fuel.

According to the lawsuit, fuel and oil refresh mode (FORM) is
designed to "prevent engine and/or fuel system damage due to stale
fuel, as well as maintain[] internal engine lubrication."

But the eight customers who filed the class action assert
Stellantis (Chrysler) failed to disclose the "uniform and
widespread design defect in the 4xe Vehicles."

That alleged defect is when the Jeep 4xe loses the ability to drive
in electric-only mode when the vehicle enters fuel and oil refresh
mode.

"FORM is triggered frequently and for long periods, rendering it
impossible for consumers to use the advertised electric-only
driving mode. In colder weather, the problem is even worse and can
render electric-only driving mode completely unavailable for the
majority or entirety of the winter." -- Jeep 4xe lawsuit

Drivers allegedly have no way to control the fuel and oil refresh
mode cycle, something that can be initiated without any analysis of
fuel contamination of the engine oil.

The FORM cycle that is triggered by stale fuel can be stopped by
adding more fuel to the Jeep 4xe vehicle, but a driver allegedly
cannot stop the cycle triggered to maintain engine lubrication.

Jeep 4xe Fuel and Oil Refresh Mode Cycle
The class action alleges if the Jeep 4xe enters fuel and oil
refresh mode to maintain lubrication, the engine may run for a
period of up to 20 minutes when fully warm.

But drivers claim FORM cycles take longer than 20 minutes,
especially in cold weather which leaves drivers without the ability
to use electric-only mode at all.

According to the lawsuit, Chrysler realized the issue but didn't
repair the problem. Instead, the owner's manuals were revised to
inform owners fuel and oil refresh mode would last longer.

"If the vehicle enters Fuel and Oil Refresh mode to maintain engine
lubrication properties, the engine may run for a period of up to
2.5 hours when fully warm whenever the vehicle is operational (no
electric only operation). If the vehicle is shut down before
conditions to exit the refresh mode have been satisfied, the engine
may run for additional time on subsequent trips. Oil refresh may
take significantly longer in freezing temperatures. -- 2023 Jeep
Wrangler owner's manual

The plaintiffs also reference the new Jeep 4xe hybrid supplement to
the owner's manuals which says, "[f]requent short trips at low
ambient temperature conditions where the engine does not reach
normal operating temperatures are more likely to trigger the
lubrication based mode."

A technical service bulletin (TSB 18-162-22) was also issued to
Jeep dealerships due to the alleged fuel and oil refresh mode
problem. The TSB says FORM cycles may be extended due to an issue
with the PCM software and says the module should be reprogrammed.

However, the lawsuit alleges other documents suggest the vehicles
are performing normally.

But even with the information in the bulletin, the Jeep 4xe lawsuit
alleges customers contend their vehicles still won't work in
electric-only mode due to fuel and oil refresh mode problems.

Consumers should have been warned the Jeep 4xe electric batteries
are allegedly useless in cold weather.

The plaintiffs argue Chrysler should buy back the 2021-2023 Jeep
Wrangler 4xe and 2022-2023 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe vehicles. Or,
the automaker should, "permanently and completely repair the Class
Vehicles pursuant to its obligations under the terms of the
Warranty."

The Jeep 4xe class action lawsuit was filed by these customers:

Anshuman Singh / California / 2021 Wrangler 4xe
Theresa Clark / Colorado / 2021 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited 4xe (Jeep
was sold back to the dealership about two weeks after she purchased
it in December 2021)
Jeremy Erskine / New York / 2021 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Sahara 4xe
(Traded in the Jeep about 4 months after he purchased it in March
2022)
Michael Lindgren / Oregon / Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Sahara 4xe
Jeffrey Monheit / New Hampshire / 2022 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe
Mackenzie Pirie / Michigan / 2021 Jeep Wrangler Sahara 4xe
Amy Schachow / Michigan / 2022 Jeep Wrangler 4xe
Joshua Taylor / Missouri / 2022 Jeep Grand Cherokee Trailhawk 4xe
The Jeep 4xe fuel and oil refresh mode class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Jose Division): Singh, et al., v. Stellantis N.V.,
et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Keller Rohrback L.L.P., and The
Miller Law Firm, P.C. [GN]

SYNGENTA CROP: Danny Day Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DANNY DAY, Jr. FARMS, and DANNY DAY, Jr. & SON FARM
PARTNERSHIP, on behalf of themselves and as a class, Plaintiffs v.
SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG; SYNGENTA CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CROP
PROTECTION, LLC; CORTEVA, INC.; BASF SE; BASF CORPORATION; BASF
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS GROUP; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC., HELENA
AGRI-ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02225, was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana to the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina on February 8, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00122-TDS-JEP to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that farmers in the United
States have paid and continue to pay inflated prices for crop
protection products due to the unlawful conduct of the Defendants.
For many years, the Manufacturer Defendants unfairly impeded
competitors and artificially inflated the prices that United States
farmers pay for certain crop protection products. The Manufacturer
Defendants developed what they called "loyalty" or "rebate"
programs with cooperating Co-conspirator Distributors and Retailers
in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, asserts the
complaint.

Syngenta Crop Protection AG was founded in 1758. The company's line
of business includes providing commercial physical and biological
research and development.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Larry Stephen McDevitt, Esq.
          VAN WINKLE BUCK WALL STARNES & DAVIS, P.A.
          POB 7376
          Asheville, NC 28802
          Telephone: (828) 258-2991
          Facsimile: (828) 257-2767
          E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          E-mail: sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com

TOTALMED INC: Underpays Licensed Practical Nurses, Davis Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
LORI DAVIS, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. TOTALMED, INC. and MEDICAL STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00162-WCG (E.D. Wis., Feb. 8, 2023)
arises from the Defendants' failure to pay its hourly healthcare
providers for all hours worked at the appropriate rate of pay as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Davis was employed by the Defendants as a licensed
practical nurse from approximately January 2020 until January
2022.

TotalMed, Inc. and Medical Staffing Solutions, LLC provide
healthcare services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          Connor J. Clegg, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          5150 North Port Washington Road, Suite 243
          Milwaukee, WI 53217
          Telephone: (414) 271-8650
          Facsimile: (414) 207-6079
          E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
                  cclegg@hq-law.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Lindsay Itkin Reimer, 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
                  litkin@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065

TPI HOSPITALITY: Forces Employees to Sell Company Stock, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Fernandez at Fort Myers News-Press reports that the
Minnesota-based builder of Fort Myers Beach's Margaritaville forced
their employees to sell their company stock, which means workers
are going to miss out on profits from the resort they should have
had, according to a new federal lawsuit.

The proposed class action raises questions about dealings tied to
TPI Hospitality Co-CEO Tom Torgerson, who has been the force behind
the complex due to debut by the end of the year that was delayed by
Hurricane Ian.

Since 1991, Torgerson, a Fort Myers Beach resident, has been at the
head of the firm that operates dozens of hotels and restaurants in
Minnesota and Florida.

In 2015, TPI became 100% employee-owned after the TPI Hospitality
Employee Stock Ownership Plan it formed, known as an ESOP, acquired
100% of its stock for $10 million.

After announcing plans for the Jimmy Buffett-themed compound, TPI
terminated the ESOP plan, and the stock was sold for $500,000 to
"Torgerson's long-time friend," John Dammermann, who is now co-CEO,
according to the suit filed by former employee, Jessica Kloss. "The
2020 transaction allowed Thomas Torgerson and Dammermann to reap
the expected windfall from the Margaritaville Resort and excluded
the plan and its participants from sharing in the anticipated
profits."

The legal action in Minnesota's U.S. District Court against TPI,
Torgerson and others seeks to "recover losses (and) obtain monetary
and appropriate or remedial relief."

We're waiting to hear back from TPI representatives. If we do,
we'll plan an update.

In a separate deal, across the street from about where
Margaritaville's lobby is slated, the house of Torgerson's daughter
just closed and sold for $4.2 million. As we first reported last
month, it became pending four days after being listed, January's
fifth biggest Lee County home sale. Before the 2020 construction of
the digs, land records show the property sold for $800,000 in 2018.
[GN]

UNITED STATES: Hispanic, Women Farmers Sue Over Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
npr.org 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 Raphael 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, but many say even that
promise 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, which 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]

VI-JON LLC: Macormic Bid for Class Certification Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW MACORMIC, ERIC
HOWARD and JOYCE FRYER-KAUFFMAN, individually, and on Behalf of
others similarly situated, v. VI-JON, LLC a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 4:20-cv-01267-HEA (E.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge Henry Edward Autrey entered an order denying the motion for
class certification.

The Court said, "The named plaintiffs have failed to establish the
requisite requirements for class certification. The named
plaintiffs cannot adequately represent the putative class members
since the named plaintiffs' testimony establishes they have not
been damaged by the alleged misrepresentations."

The Court further ordered that:

  -- The Plaintiff's Consent Motion for Leave to File Under Seal
     is granted.

  -- Te Defendant's Motion for Leave to File under Seal is
     granted.

  -- The Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply is
     granted.

The Plaintiffs argue that as discussed above with respect to
commonality, the named Plaintiffs, as well as the members of the
putative class, were damaged because of the claim that the hand
sanitizers kill "all germs." However, the named Plaintiffs'
testimony establishes that they did not believe "all germs" were
killed by the hand sanitizer. Their claims, therefore, are not
typical of the alleged claims in the First Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs allege they purchased the hand sanitizers and were
misled and deceived by the representations on the front label.
Plaintiffs allege they would not have purchased the hand sanitizers
or would have purchased them on different terms if they had known
the truth. They claim the hand sanitizers were worth less than they
represented by Defendant.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify two nationwide classes under
Missouri law based on

   (i) nationwide application of the [Missouri Merchandising
       Practices Act] MMPA due to Defendant's substantial
       conduct emanating from the State of Missouri; and

  (ii) application of Missouri's unjust enrichment law under a
       choice of law analysis pursuant to section 221 of the
       Restatement.

The Plaintiffs Matthew Macormic, Eric Howard, and Joyce
Fryer-Kaufman seek appointment to certify and serve as Class
Representatives of the following Nationwide MMPA Class and Unjust
Enrichment Class:

    The Nationwide Class:

    "All residents of the United States who, from September 15,
    2015 through January 21, 2020, purchased Defendant's
    alcohol-based hand sanitizer Products for personal, family,
    or household purposes that bear a "kills 99.99% of germs" or
    "kills more than 99.99% of germs" representation on the
    front label.

    Alternatively, Missouri Plaintiffs and representatives from
    each of the States of Florida, Illinois, and New York
    (collectively "Class Representatives") seek appointment to
    certify and serve as Class Representatives pursuant to the
    consumer protection laws and unjust enrichment laws of each
    of their respective states (the "Alternative Classes").

The Plaintiffs and Class Representatives seek certification of
each of the following respective single-state Classes or of any one
or more of the following Classes:

    The Missouri Classes:

    Class Representatives Matthew Macormic, Eric Howard, and
    Joyce Fryer-Kaufman seek appointment to serve as Class
    Representatives of the Missouri Consumer Class and Missouri
    Unjust Enrichment Class, defined as follows:

    "All Missouri purchasers who, from September 15, 2015
    through January 21, 2020, purchased Defendant's alcohol-
    based hand sanitizer Products for personal, family, or
    household purposes that bear a "kills 99.99% of germs" or
    "kills more than 99.99% of germs" representation on the
    front label.

    The Florida Classes:

    Class Representative Theresa Kimbrell seeks appointment to
    serve as the Class Representative for the Florida Consumer
    Class and Florida Unjust Enrichment Class, defined as
    follows:

    "All Florida purchasers who, from September 15, 2016 through
    January 21, 2020, purchased Defendant's alcohol-based hand
    sanitizer Products for personal, family, or household
    purposes that bear a "kills 99.99% of germs" or "kills more
    than 99.99% of germs" representation on the front label."

    The Illinois Classes:

    Class Representative Stephanie Foster seeks appointment to
    serve as the Class Representative for the Illinois Consumer
    Class and Illinois Unjust Enrichment Class, defined as
    follows:

    Illinois Consumer Class:

    "All Illinois purchasers who, within the applicable statute
    of limitations and through January 21, 20209, purchased
    Defendant's alcohol-based hand sanitizer Products for
    personal, family, or household purposes that bear a "kills
    99.99% of germs" or "kills more than 99.99% of germs"
    representation on the front label."

    The New York Classes:

    Class Representative Karen Blachowicz seeks appointment to
    serve as the Class Representative for the New York Consumer
    Class and New York Unjust Enrichment Class, defined as
    follows:

    New York Consumer Class:

    "All New York purchasers who, within the applicable statute
    of limitations and through January 21, 202010, purchased
    Defendant's alcohol-based hand sanitizer Products for
    personal, family, or household purposes that bear a "kills
    99.99% of germs" or "kills more than 99.99% of germs"
    representation on the front label."

Vi-Jon manufactures personal care products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E4oL86 at no extra charge.[CC]

VITALS CONSUMER: Sweeton Privacy Suit Removed to W.D. Mo.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Tamera Sweeton, Plaintiff v. Vitals Consumer
Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2316-CV00215, was removed from
the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri on February 8,
2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:23-cv-88 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff filed this class action against Vitals alleging that
by listing her name and address on the website
http://www.vitals.com/Vitals has both invaded her privacy and
violated her right of publicity. She seeks to represent a class of
all healthcare providers listed on the website from December 21,
2017 to the present and seeks "actual compensatory, and punitive
damages," attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and "such other and further relief as may be just and
proper."

Vitals Consumer Services, LLC provides healthcare medical
information solutions.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Darren K. Sharp, Esq.
          Nicholas D. Slovikoski, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
          2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 1500
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 221-3420
          E-mail: dsharp@atllp.com
                  nslovikoski@atllp.com

               - and -

          Zoe K. Wilhelm, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          1800 Century Park East, Ste. 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 203-4000
          E-mail: zwilhelm@faegredrinker.com

WATERDROP INC: S.D. New York Dismisses Sandoz Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SIDNEY SANDOZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WATERDROP INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 21cv7683 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Denise Cote
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.

In the putative securities class action, investors in Waterdrop, a
Chinese insurance company, allege that there were material
omissions in Waterdrop's registration statement and prospectus
associated with its initial public offering in May 2021 ("IPO").
The crux of the Plaintiff's claims are that Waterdrop failed to
warn investors of the risks associated with the regulatory
environment in China, disclose the extent of the costs and expenses
Waterdrop was incurring at the time of its IPO, and disclose
certain information about its decision to close a segment of its
business.

Prior to the events giving rise to the action, Waterdrop consisted
of three different segments: a mutual aid platform, a medical
crowdfunding platform, and an insurance marketplace.

China has regulated online insurance companies such as Waterdrop
more heavily in recent years. They are regulated by the China
Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission ("CBIRC"). On Sept. 3,
2020, the CBRIC published a study that raised concerns about online
mutual aid platforms and concluded that the CBIRC had to "crack
down on illegal insurance activities." The study specifically cited
Waterdrop as an example. On December 7, the CBIRC issued Regulatory
Measures for the Supervision of Internet Insurance Business. The
Regulatory Measures included a license requirement for insurance
businesses.

On December 18, the CBIRC published a circular on Cases of
Infringement of Consumer Rights and Interests. The December
Circular announced a CBIRC investigation of online insurance
companies that advertised discounted first month premiums when that
premium's cost was actually distributed over later premiums. It
identified Waterdrop as a company that employed this practice.

On Jan. 11, 2021, the CBIRC published the Draft Circular on Further
Regulating Online Life Insurance Business. If enacted, the January
Draft Circular would have imposed more requirements on online
insurance companies. Violations of those requirements were to be
investigated and pursued through enforcement actions by the CBIRC.

Following these regulatory changes, in March 2021, Waterdrop
discontinued the Mutual Aid platform. Almost all other mutual aid
platforms in China also ceased operations.

Around the same time, Waterdrop was preparing its IPO. It was
reported in the media that the CBIRC opposed Waterdrop going public
and that this had delayed Waterdrop's IPO. Waterdrop denied those
claims.

The action was filed on Sept. 14, 2021, as a putative class action.
It brought securities fraud claims against Waterdrop and certain of
its officers and directors; Cogency Global Inc., Waterdrop's
authorized U.S. representative at the time of the IPO; Colleen
DeVries, a senior vice president at Cogency; and six underwriters
of Waterdrop's IPO: Goldman Sachs (Asia) LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co
LLC, BofA Securities, Inc., China Merchants Securities (HK) Co.
Limited, CLSA Limited, and Haitong International Securities Company
Limited (the "Underwriter Defendants"). The putative class is
composed of investors who purchased Waterdrop ADSs pursuant to the
Registration Statement.

On December 8, Qi Mi was appointed the Lead Plaintiff pursuant to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLSRA"), 15
U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3). The Lead Plaintiff filed the first
amended complaint ("FAC") on Feb. 21, 2022. The FAC alleges that
(1) the defendants violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933 ("Securities Act") and (2) all defendants except the
Underwriter Defendants and DeVries violated Section 15 of the
Securities Act. The Defendants who have been served moved to
dismiss the FAC on April 22. The motion became fully submitted on
July 21. The case was reassigned to the Court on August 17.

On November 3, the CBIRC announced that Waterdrop was being fined
RMB1 million for the advertising activities detailed in the
December Circular. Later that month, Waterdrop announced its
financial results from the third quarter of 2021. Thereafter,
analysts lowered the price targets for Waterdrop ADSs and noted the
impact that increased regulatory scrutiny and higher marketing
expenses were having on Waterdrop.

The Defendants contend that the statements to which the Lead
Plaintiff points are accurate and that the Registration Statement
accurately discloses the risks of investing in Waterdrop and the
company's financial condition.

Read in context, Judge Cote opines that the Registration Statement
adequately warned investors of the risks associated with Waterdrop
and its IPO, including the increase in operating costs, the
regulatory regime, and the closure of Mutual Aid. The FAC has
failed to plead that any of the statements in the Registration
Statement were materially misleading or that there were material
omissions from the Registration Statement.

Hence, the FAC has failed to plead that the Defendants violated
Section 11 of the Securities Act. Because there was no Section 11
violation, the FAC's Section 15 claims also fail.

The Lead Plaintiff requests that, if the Defendants' motion to
dismiss is granted, he be given leave to amend the FAC.

Judge Cote denies the Lead Plaintiff's request for leave to amend.
She finds that the Lead Plaintiff has not identified how further
amendment would address the deficiencies in the FAC. The statements
included in the FAC fail to state a claim under the Securities Act,
and as such, amendment would be futile.

For these reasons, Judge Cote grants the Defendants' April 22
motion to dismiss. She also dismisses the claims against the
remaining Defendants. There is no basis to find that the claims
against the remaining Defendants, who have yet to be served, are
distinguishable and would survive. The Clerk of Court will close
the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3ynamyzt from Leagle.com.

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, Kim Elaine Miller --
kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com -- New York, NY, For the Lead Plaintiff.

Quinn Emanuel, Michael Barry Carlinsky --
michaelcarlinsky@quinnemanuel.com -- New York, NY, For the
defendants Waterdrop Inc., Cogency Global Inc., and Colleen A.
DeVries.

O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jonathan Rosenberg -- jrosenberg@omm.com --
Abby F. Rudzin -- arudzin@omm.com -- New York, NY, For defendants
Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C., Morgan Stanley & Co LLC, and BofA
Securities, Inc.



                            *********

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 ***