/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230301.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, March 1, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 44

                            Headlines

5830 RESTAURANT CORP: Settlement Deal Gets Initial OK
A. MASKELL D.D.S.: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
A.J. BOGGS: Initial Scheduling Order Entered in Class Suit
ACCELLION INC: Bid to Intervene in Consolidated Brown Suit Denied
ACCELLION INC: Interim Co-Lead Counsel Named in Brown Class Suit

ADAM M. ARON: Munoz Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
ADAMAS ONE: Continues to Defend Scio Class Suit
ALLIED INSULATION: Ramirez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
AMAZON.COM INC: McArdle Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
AMAZON.COM INC: Stelman Suit Remanded to King County Superior Court

APPLE INC: Moton Sues Over Unlawful Collection of User Data
ARCONIC CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Howard Class Suit
ARDIAN CORP: Avila's FLSA Claims Certified as Collective Action
ARTSANA USA: Class Action Settlement in Jimenez Gets Initial OK
ATLANTIC BUILDING: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Whitehill Suit

AUDI OF AMERICA: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
AVAYA HOLDINGS: Jiang Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
BANK OF AMERICA: Zaerpour Given 30 Days to File Amended Complaint
BELLE TOFFEE: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BEYOND GLOBAL: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

BLOOM ENERGY: Bloom Class Settlement for Court Approval
BLOOM ENERGY: Continues to Defend Lincolnshire Police Class Suit
BLUE DIAMOND: Zapadinsky Files Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
BLUE FOREST FARMS: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Howell B3 Suit

BPS DIRECT: Hernandez Sues Over Wiretapping of Communications
C GEYER CONSTRUCTION: Parrillo Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
CAPE COD HEALTHCARE: Appeals Remand Order in Doe Suit to 1st Cir.
CBE CUSTOMER: Cellco Wins in Part Bid to Dismiss Counterclaims
CCS-SOUTH FLORIDA: D.T. FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania

CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Raguseo Files Suit in D. New Jersey
CHICAGO, IL: McKinney Sues Over Laborers' Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
CHRISTIAN DIOR: Warmack-Stillwell BIPA Suit Partially Dismissed
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Court Turns Loomis Dismissal Bid to Judgment Bid
COINMARKETCAP OPCO: Bids to Dismiss Cox Suit Granted With Prejudice

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Dorsey Sues Over Contaminated Products
CORECIVIC INC: Court Adopts Modifications in Scheduling Order
COUNTRY FLOORS: Vachnine Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COUNTRY LIVING: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CREATIVE VENTURES: Colon Sues Over Failure to Secure PII

CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Lundholm Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
CVI SGP: Settlement Classes Get Certification in Cotte Suit
CVS PHARMACY: Hasemann's Bid to Disclose Customer Info Partly OK'd
DAMERON HOSPITAL: Jones Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DIZA TACOS: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration; Holmes Suit Stayed

DMP COLOR: Scott Sues Over High Levels of Benzene in Products
DRYBAR HOLDINGS: Hanyzkiewicz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
DYNAMIC COMMERCIAL: Mercado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
E.I. DUPONT: Class Action Settlement in Moon Suit Gets Final Nod
EASYWORKFORCE: Scottsdale Insurance Files Suit in N.D. Illinois

EF EDUCATION FIRST: Littre Sues Over Automated Sales Calls
EISENHOWER MEDICAL: Barber Sues Over Disclosure of PHI and PII
EMPACT VISION: Rice Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
EMPIRE ONE FEDERAL: Kuzub Sues Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees
ENDLESSPENS LLC: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ENTRUST CORPORATION: Morrison Files Suit in D. Minnesota
EOG RESOURCES: Court Removes Steinhart as Counsel in May Suit
EROS MEDIA: Kandel Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII
ETERNAL SUNSHINE: Collective Cert Bid Dismissed as Moot in Cardenas
EVOLUTION WELL: Copley's $2.55M Class Settlement Wins Prelim. Nod

EYE CARE: Court Denies all Pending Bids to Dismiss
F.C. INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sanders Suit Says
FCTI INC: Polvay Seeks to Certify Checking Account Holder Class
FINE'S GAS APPLIANCES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FLORIDA POWER: Faces Toll Suit in Florida for Nuisance

GEICO CASUALTY: Loses Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Thomas Suit
GENERAL ELECTRIC: S.D. New York Dismisses Trivedi Employment Suit
GENUENT GLOBAL: Cooper Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
GLOBAL INT'L: Ohio App. Nixes Appeal & Cross-Appeal in Lambert Suit
GOLFTEC INTELLECTUAL: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

GOODRX HOLDINGS: Sued Over Unlawful Sharing of PII/PHI
GOOGLE NORTH AMERICA: Klang Files Suit in E.D. New York
GRAND CANYON: University Students Seek to Certify Class
HARTWIG TRANSIT: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
HEALTHY PAWS: Benanav Seeks to Certify Classes

HERITAGE LANDSCAPE: Guazon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
JIM BUDDY LLC: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JOHN DERIAN COMPANY: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
JOHN PAUL MITCHELL: Heagney Sues Over Misleading Advertisement
JP WHITE PLAINS: Hong Not Allowed to File Late Opt-In Consent Forms

KRAPE LOGISTICS: Elliott Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid OT
LONG & FOSTER: Court Allows Gaddy to File 2nd Amended Complaint
LOWES COMPANIES: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
LUMINESS DIRECT: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LUMISQUE INC: Garcia Sues Over Unsolicited Text Advertisements

M.C. DEAN INC: Domitrovich Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
MADERA COLLECTION: Manzanarez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
MAGIC CLEANING: Initial OK of Settlement Deal Sought
MDL 2047: Court Refuses to Add Expert Disclosures in Drywall Suit
MDL 2836: Bids for Summary Judgment in Zetia Antitrust Suit Denied

MDL 3010: Inform v. Google Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
MDL 3058: Centralization of 9 Actions in Trans Union Suit Denied
MDL 3060: Nine Hair Relaxer Suits Consolidated in N.D. Illinois
MDL 3062: 10 Suits Consolidated in Crop Products Antitrust Row
MDL 3064: Eight Harley-Davidson Antitrust Cases Consolidated

MDL 3065: Transfer of 11 Suits to CROA Contract Litigation Denied
MEAD JOHNSON: Martinez Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Pierni Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
MISSION LINEN: Macias Suit Moved to San Bernardino Super. Court
NEXTGEN LEADS: Danner TCPA Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal.

NOGIN INC: Teperson Sues Over Deceptive Advertising of Discounts
NOHBLE ONES: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NOOM INC: Mikulsky Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping of Communications
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY: Davis Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Battaglia Sues Over Toxic Chemical Contamination

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Ibel Sues Over Failure to Contain Derailment
NORTH MEMORIAL: Faces Redmon Suit Over Disclosure of Personal Info
OAK STREET: Bid to Dismiss All of Allison's Claims Granted in Part
OFFICE FURNITURE: Chunn Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
PARTYTOYZ INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PEABODY GATEWAY: Kizeart Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PELLE DESIGNS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PENNSYLVANIA: Class Members' Opt-In Forms in Jennings Due March 6
PORTLAND, OR: Court Denies Bid for Summary Judgment in Lake Suit
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Bid to Dismiss Amended Reese Complaint Granted

QUALITY PACKAGING: S.D. Illinois Refuses to Remand Callender Suit
RANDSTAD INHOUSE: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Ortiz Suit
RANGE RESOURCES: Briefing Sched & Case Management Order Entered
RDO EQUIPMENT: Mendoza Suit Removed to C.D. California
REGAL MEDICAL: Alldis Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach

REGAL MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Rodriguez Claims
REGAL MEDICAL: Hiatt Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PHI & PII
REGAL MEDICAL: Kelechian Sues Over Failure to Secure PHI and PII
REGAL MEDICAL: Perez Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII and PHI
RITE AID: Modified Scheduling Order Entered in Lemus Class Suit

RMLS HOP ILLINOIS: Isham Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Golubowski Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
ROCHESTER INSTITUTE: Wins Summary Judgment v. Bergeron
ROZLIN FINANCIAL: Rodriguez FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
RUSTIC DECO: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

RUSTIC RED DOOR: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Kelechian Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
SCRATCH FINANCIAL: Faces Sowders Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
SELECT MEDICAL: Arends, et al., File Renewed Circulation Notice Bid
SIG SAUER: Bid for Class Certification in Ortiz Suit Denied

SLEEPY'S LLC: Gundell Seeks Reconsideration of Dec. 6, 2022 Order
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Discovery and Briefing Dates Entered in Bombin
STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Court Amends Case Management Order in Nguyen
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Giambalvo Appeals Denied Show Cause Order Bid
SUPERIOR STONE: Faces Sesam Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Retail Wholesale Union Wins Class Status Bid
TARGET CORPORATION: Kelly Sues Over Fair Workweek Law Violation
TERRAN ORBITAL: Mullen Sues Over Misleading Proxy Prospectus
TOLEDO BLADE: Discloses Subscribers' Personal Info, Collins Says
TOYOTA MOTOR: Scheduling Order Entered in Murphy Class Suit

TRASIMENE CAPITAL: Farzad Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
TW LATH-N-STUCCO: Class Settlement Agreement Gets Final Nod
U.S. BANCORP: Robbins Geller Named as Lead Counsel in Buhrke Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Trial in Australia Class Suits Set for Feb. 2024
UMR INC: W.D. Wisconsin Decertifies Berceanu Suit as Class Action

UNION PACIFIC: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in DeFries Suit
UNITED COLLECTION: Moskovits Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection
UNITED SERVICES: Maryland Court Grants Bid to Remand Schupp Suit
UNITED STATES: Bradley Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid
UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Brooks v. Army Without Prejudice

UNITED STATES: Court Terminates Bid to Certify Class in Duarte
UNITY SOFTWARE: Lead Plaintiff and Counsel Appointed in Das Suit
UNTUCKIT LLC: Fliegelman Suit Removed to S.D. California
UPGRADE LOANS: Nunez Sues Over Unlawful Collections of Debt
USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE: Petery Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania

VERSAILLES REHABILITATION: Faces Taylor Suit Over Unpaid Wages
WANZEK CONSTRUCTION: Padilla Furs Files Suit in D. Colorado
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Beltran Sues Over FCRA Violation
WESTERN ENGINEERING: Martin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WEXFORD HEALTH: Underpays Licensed Practical Nurses, Collopy Says

WHITE KNIGHT: Charles Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
WHOA DOUGH LLC: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WHOLE FOODS: Court Dismisses Foster Class Suit
WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN: Schilly Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
XPO LOGISTICS: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Ortiz Suit

XTO ENERGY: Hystad Ceynar Suit Removed to D. North Dakota
YOUNG ADULT INSTITUTE: Lagunas Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
ZEGARY ALLEN: Wiley Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky
[24]7.AI: Jarrett Sues Over Failure to Pay All Hours Worked

                            *********

5830 RESTAURANT CORP: Settlement Deal Gets Initial OK
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL CARRILLO RODRIGUEZ,
on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. 5830 RESTAURANT CORP., SMOKIN DAVE'S BBQ, CORP., SMOKIN DAVE'S,
LLC, 7522 RESTAURANT CORP., 5374 RESTAURANT CORP., HOUSE OF Q
CORP., and DAVID OEHLMAN, Case No. 1:21-cv-01166-KLM (D. Colo.),
the Hon. Judge Kristen L. Mix entered an order preliminarily
approving the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

The parties' Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved, the
parties' Settlement Notice is approved for issuance, and
Plaintiff's fee request is preliminarily approved.

The Settlement Class is defined as:

    "All hourly employees who worked for Defendants between
     April 28, 2015 and April 28, 2021."

The Settlement Administrator shall distribute copies of the
completed Settlement to all potential Settlement Class Members.
Potential Settlement Class Members shall have 60 days from the date
of the Settlement Notice's mailing to opt-out or object to the
Settlement Agreement.

The Plaintiff filed this action for unpaid wages on April 28, 2021.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay him and his
co-workers overtime wages and failed to provide them with rest
periods during their shifts.

The Plaintiff pled collective violations of the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class violations of
Colorado wage statutes. The parties engaged in early but ultimately
unsuccessful settlement discussions.

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

A. MASKELL D.D.S.: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A. Maskell D.D.S and
S. Maskell D.D.S., P.C., et al. The case is styled as Nana Queenie
Lawrence, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J A.
Maskell D.D.S and S. Maskell D.D.S., P.C., 722 Broadway, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-01261 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2023).

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

Dr. Alan Maskell has been delivering high-quality, kid-friendly
dentistry to his local community for over 45 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


A.J. BOGGS: Initial Scheduling Order Entered in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE, et al., v. A.J.
BOGGS & COMPANY, Case No. 1:18-cv-01464-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe entered a preliminary scheduling
order and order setting status conference:

  1. Non-Expert (written) Discovery       September 20, 2023
     Cutoff:

  2. Class Certification Motion Filing    January 19, 2024
   Deadline:

  3. Class Certification Opposition:      April 19, 2024

  4. Class Certification Reply:           July 19, 2024

  5. Class Certification Motion Hearing   August 21, 2024

The Court conducted a preliminary scheduling conference on February
2, 2023, by video conference. Counsel Patrick Keegan appeared by
video on behalf of Plaintiff John Doe. Counsel
Mona Amini appeared by video on behalf of Plaintiffs John Doe 1,
John Doe 2, and John Doe 3.

Counsel Michael Abraham appeared on behalf of Defendant A.J. Boggs
& Company. At the scheduling conference, the Court set dates for
class certification and the parties discussed Plaintiffs' written
authorizations pursuant to the Court's initial protective order.

AJ Boggs is an IT company specializing in software development
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Iivcpu at no extra charge.[CC]

ACCELLION INC: Bid to Intervene in Consolidated Brown Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, denies the Proposed
Intervenors' motion to intervene in the case, MADALYN BROWN, et
al., Plaintiffs v. ACCELLION, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
5:21-cv-01155-EJD (N.D. Cal.).

The counsel for a class of Washington plaintiffs, who were injured
by a data breach involving Accellion, and the Washington State
Auditor's Office ("Proposed Intervenors") seek to intervene in the
consolidated action to oppose the preliminary approval of the
Parties' proposed settlement. Certain Plaintiffs and the Defendants
oppose Proposed Intervenors' motion.

Accellion is a cloud-based software company that offered products
and services for secure file transfers between third parties. One
such product was the File Transfer Appliance ("FTA"). In December
2020, several threat actors exploited vulnerabilities in the FTA
product, allowing them to access and steal sensitive data from FTA
clients.

The Washington State Auditor's Office ("SAO") was one such
institution who had used FTA to transfer files relating to an audit
of the State's unemployment benefits program. As a result, the data
breach compromised the personal identifying information of 1.6
million Washington unemployment claimants, including names, Social
Security numbers, dates of birth, street and email addresses, and
bank and routing numbers.

On Feb. 2, 2021, the Proposed Intervenors initiated proceedings in
Washington State Superior Court titled, Stone v. Accellion USA LLC,
Case No. 21-2-01439-5 SEA. Proposed Intervenors assert claims
against both Accellion and the SAO, and no other class action has
pursued claims against the SAO. The proceedings in Stone have
progressed to dispositive motions, where the SAO's motion to
dismiss was denied and Accellion's motion to dismiss has been heard
but remains pending.

On Jan. 6, 2022, plaintiffs in a case before the Court -- Fehlen,
et al. v. Accellion, Case No. 5:21-cv-01353-EJD -- filed a
stipulation to amend their complaint to include a plaintiff injured
in the breach of SAO's data and information. Shortly thereafter, on
Jan. 12, 2022, the Fehlen plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a class-wide settlement against Accellion that
purported to release the Proposed Intervenors' claims against
Accellion. The Washington state court subsequently stayed the Stone
proceedings pending the settlement proceedings in Fehlen.

On March 14, 2022, the Court consolidated all cases arising from
the Accellion data breach except for Cochran v. Kroger Co., Case
No. 5:21-cv-01887-EJD. This consolidation included the Fehlen
action in which the proposed Accellion class settlement was pending
preliminary approval.

On May 5, 2022, the Proposed Intervenors filed their motion with
the Court, seeking intervention to stay SAO-related claims against
Accellion and to challenge the motion for preliminary approval.
Accellion and the Fehlen plaintiffs opposed intervention.

After the motion to intervene was fully briefed but before it was
heard, Judge Davila terminated all pending motions for preliminary
approval of class settlement, including the settlement with
Accellion.

The Proposed Intervenors argue that they satisfy the requirements
for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) and, in the
alternative, that they should be allowed to permissively intervene
under Rule 24(b)(1)(B).

Given the overall weight of cases that have rejected the type of
argument the Proposed Intervenors raise and the absence of
in-circuit authority supporting their interpretation of Rules 23
and 24, Judge Davila finds that the Proposed Intervenors' interests
would not be impaired or impeded if they were unable to intervene.
Accordingly, they have not demonstrated that they are entitled to
intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2).

Judge Davila also recognizes that the impairment of an interest is
not a required showing for the Court to permit the Proposed
Intervenors to intervene. However, he says the Proposed
Intervenors' "sole reason" for intervening in the action was to
protect their interests from any prejudice that may arise from
preliminary approval of the settlement against Accellion. They had
also represented that their interests would not be adequately
represented by the counsel who had reached settlement with
Accellion and other defendants prior to the appointment of interim
class counsel.

Presently, all motions for preliminary approval of settlements have
been terminated, and the Court has appointed interim co-lead
counsel to review the proposed settlements on the table who were
not involved in the settlement negotiations with Accellion. Having
mitigated the Proposed Intervenors' "sole reason" for intervention,
as well as their concerns of "procedural irregularities" with the
proposed settlements, Judge Davila declines to exercise discretion
to permit intervention.

Based on the foregoing, Proposed Intervenors' motion to intervene
is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2w97dekm from Leagle.com.


ACCELLION INC: Interim Co-Lead Counsel Named in Brown Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MADALYN BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs v. ACCELLION, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-01155-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, appoints Girard Sharp
LLP and Susman Godfrey LLP as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.

On Sept. 8, 2022, the Court invited counsels for the various
plaintiffs in the consolidated action to file motions to appoint
interim class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(g). On Sept. 29, 2022, the Court received four separate motions
and, on Oct. 6, 2022, also received responses supporting the
respective applications. The Defendants did not file any opposition
to these motions.

Defendant Accellion is a cloud-based software company that offered
products and services for secure file transfers between third
parties. One such product was the File Transfer Appliance ("FTA").
In December 2020, several threat actors exploited vulnerabilities
in the FTA product, allowing them to access and steal sensitive
data from FTA clients.

Beginning in February 2021, several plaintiffs filed suit -- in
this District and others -- against Accellion and the client
institutions from where the plaintiffs' information were stolen.
The claims asserted in these actions varied depending on what data
was lost; e.g., some involved personal health information, others
involved banking and government information, such as Social
Security Numbers.

On March 31, 2021, one of the plaintiffs' firms, Ahdoot Wolfson,
moved to consolidate and transfer these cases to the Northern
District of California. However, the Joint Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ("JPML") denied the motion, noting that there were many
factual issues unique to each of Accellion's clients.

Presently before the Court are 14 consolidated Accellion data
breach cases. Nine of these cases name Accellion as the only
defendant; the other five cases name Accellion and at least one
other defendant ("Client Defendants"). The Client Defendants
include Health Net (and their affiliates) and Flagstar Bank.
Although there are other Accellion breach cases in other federal
and state jurisdictions, several have been stayed pending the
settlement proceedings currently before the Court.

In June 2021, Ahdoot Wolfson initiated settlement discussions with
Accellion, as well as the other Client Defendants. On July 19,
2021, Ahdoot Wolfson and Accellion participated in a mediation
before Judge Gandhi (ret.), formerly of the Central District of
California. On Sept. 7, 2021, they participated in a second
mediation. Neither mediation resulted in an agreement. Several
other plaintiffs' attorneys were invited to participate in these
sessions, but many declined to attend.

On Jan. 3, 2022, after Accellion had produced financial records
which were reviewed by an independent financial expert, Accellion
and Ahdoot Wolfson reached an $8.1 million class settlement. The
settlement provided class members with their choice of (1) credit
monitoring and insurance services, (2) a documented loss payout up
to $10 thousand, or (3) a pro rata cash fund payment between $50
and $15, depending on members' claims. Additionally, the settlement
required Accellion to fully retire the FTA software and maintain
FedRAMP certification for its current file-transfer product.
Accellion has already deposited $4.6 million into escrow to reserve
the funds for the class. On Jan. 12, 2022, a motion for preliminary
approval of this settlement was filed on the docket for Stobbe v.
Accellion, Case No. 5:21-cv-01353-EJD.

On March 14, 2022, before the Court could rule on the preliminary
approval motion, the Court consolidated the Accellion-only cases
and all Accellion Client Defendant cases, except for the Cochran
case against Kroger. In doing so, it terminated several dockets,
including the Stobbe docket.

In August and September 2022, two motions for preliminary approval
were also filed for settlements reached with Health Net and
Flagstar Bank. On Sept. 8, 2022, the Court terminated all
preliminary approval motions and set a briefing schedule to appoint
interim class counsel.

The Court has received four applications in total to be lead
counsel, each proposing different leadership structures and team
compositions. These motions propose, as follows:

     1) Girard Sharp -- the plaintiff's counsel in the Rodriguez
action -- as one co-lead in a two-firm co-lead counsel team;

     2) Tina Wolfson as interim lead counsel with a steering
committee comprised of Ben Barnow, Timothy G. Blood, and Matthew B.
George, who represent the plaintiffs in the Fehlen, Cochran, Beyer,
Harbour, Doe, and Vunisa actions;

     3) Susman Godfrey and HammondLaw -- plaintiff's counsel in the
present Brown action -- as interim co-lead counsel; and

     4) John A. Yanchunis and Joseph P. Guglielmo as interim
co-lead class counsel with a steering committee comprised of Gary
F. Lynch, Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Jonathan M. Rotter, and Sabita J.
Soneji, representing plaintiffs in the Zebelman, Bolton, Whittaker,
Sharp, Pollard, and Desjardins actions.

Having considered the factors set forth in Rule 23(g) and the
Manual on Complex Litigation, Judge Davila finds that a two-firm
interim lead counsel team consisting of Girard Sharp and Susman
Godfrey would best represent the interests of the class. Because
the parties have indicated that early settlement and class-wide
resolution are real possibilities, he finds that the class would be
best served by a lean and efficient lead counsel arrangement, as
opposed to a towering leadership structure with committees. As
these actions stand today, he agrees with the strategy advanced by
Susman Godfrey, that a lean and nimble counsel team would best
serve the class.

Judge Davila also finds that the class would benefit from the
appointment of an independent class counsel to conduct a preemptive
evaluation and sanitize the settlements instead of potentially
having to undertake similar procedures at the final settlement
approval stage. Finally, he is satisfied and impressed with the
appointed co-lead firms' commitment to diversity and the
development of young attorneys within their firms. Both Girard
Sharp and Susman Godfrey have presented slates of attorneys that
reflect this commitment, and they provided further evidence and
anecdotes of their continued efforts towards these goals at the
hearing.

Having appointed Girard Sharp and Susman Godfrey as the interim
co-lead counsels, Judge Davila expects the highest standards of
courtesy and professionalism from these firms. He strongly
encourages the co-lead counsels to ensure that all plaintiffs' and
class interests are represented in decisions, particularly with
respect to severance and settlement.

With respect to timekeeping and billing, Judge Davila expects the
co-lead counsel to maintain accurate and contemporaneous
timekeeping records, billed in tenth-of-an-hour increments with
descriptions of the activity billed, and consistent with the
policies and practices submitted in their motions. The co-lead
counsels will exchange and review all billing records with each
other on a monthly basis. Finally, they will compile and provide
timekeeping and billing records to the Court in camera on a
quarterly basis or promptly upon request from the Court.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Davila appoints Girard Sharp LLP
and Susman Godfrey LLP as Interim Co-Lead Counsel pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3). He further sets a status
conference for April 13, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. The parties will
submit a joint status conference statement no less than 10 days
before the conference, which will include a proposed case schedule
and an update on the tasks the Court outlined in the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2phbjyfr from Leagle.com.


ADAM M. ARON: Munoz Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adam M. Aron, et al.
The case is styled as Usbaldo Munoz, Anthony Franchi, and all
others similarly situated v. Adam M. Aron, Adam J. Sussman, Anthony
J. Saich, Denise Clark, Gary F. Locke, Howard W. Koch Jr., Kathleen
M. Pawlus, Keri Putnam, Lee Wittlinger, Philip Lader, Case No.
2023-0216-MTZ (Del. Chancery Ct., Feb. 20, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."

Adam M. Aron is an American businessman and the chairman and CEO of
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Meyer, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP-WILMINGTON
          500 Delaware Ave Ste 901
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (212) 554-1424
          Email: daniel.meyer@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
          Phone: (212) 554-1408
          Fax: (212) 554-1444


ADAMAS ONE: Continues to Defend Scio Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Adamas One Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 21, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Scio class suit.

During December 2022, the Company became a party to a class action
filing previously between Scio and a class action investor. It has
retained outside counsel specifically for this matter and are
working with other defendants named in this matter to increase its
chance of prevailing.

On February 17, 2022 the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
class action in concert with Scio which filed a separate motion to
dismiss this class action.

The Company's approach will continue to seek a dismissal on all
items related to this legal action. The Company believed the case
is without merit and will defend our position vigorously.

Adamas One Corp. is a lab-grown diamond manufacturer that produces
single-crystal diamonds for gemstone and industrial applications.




ALLIED INSULATION: Ramirez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Ramirez, individually and for others similarly situated v.
ALLIED INSULATION & SUPPLY, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00366-G (N.D.
Tex., Feb. 16, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members regularly worked more
than 40 hours a week. But the Defendant did not pay them overtime.
Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendant
paid the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members on a piece rate
basis, paying them a set amount for each piece of insulation they
installed with no overtime compensation. the Plaintiff brings this
collective action seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and
other damages owed to him and the Putative Class Members, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked Allied as an Installer from March 2022 until
December 2022.

Allied bills itself as "DFW's leading residential and commercial
insultation contractor."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713.352.1100
          Facsimile: 713.352.3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


AMAZON.COM INC: McArdle Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McArdle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No.
2:23-cv-00121 (D. Utah, Feb. 16, 2023), is brought against the
Defendants seeking all available remedies under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendants' failure to
comply with applicable wage laws and to pay its non-exempt Delivery
Associates for all time worked--including overtime--as required to
meet Amazon's delivery needs and deliver hundreds of Amazon
packages each day.

AZ Transport Group, LLC ("AZTG") supplied last-mile delivery
services to Amazon via its participation in Amazon's Delivery
Service Provider ("DSP") program. AZTG employed Delivery
Associates--such as Plaintiff and the proposed Collective--to
deliver packages to Amazon's customers. The Plaintiff and other
Delivery Associates were regularly scheduled to work 4 or more days
per week, with shifts that were scheduled for 10 hours. Although
shifts were scheduled for 10 hours per day, all of the work-related
activities that Plaintiff and Delivery Associates were required to
perform often took 10 or more hours per day to complete.

Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. Plaintiff
observed that other Delivery Associates routinely worked similar
hours. Plaintiff observed other Delivery Associates routinely work
similar schedules. Defendants did not accurately record all time
that Delivery Associates spent working for Defendants. Plaintiff
performed many of the aforementioned required work duties when he
was not "on the clock." As a result, Plaintiff and the Proposed
Collective were not paid for all time worked, including overtime to
which they are entitled under the FLSA.

The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff and other Delivery
Associates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek
and did not pay proper overtime premiums. The Defendants paid
Delivery Associates a fixed amount per day and regularly did not
pay overtime premiums for hours worked more than 40 in a work week.
The Defendants failed to properly calculate the applicable overtime
rate, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff McArdle worked for Defendants as a Delivery Associate
in Utah from January 2018 to November 2018.

Amazon.com, Inc. is a company with principal offices in Seattle,
Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          April Hollingsworth, Esq.
          Katie Panzer, Esq.
          HOLLINGSWORTH LAW OFFICE
          1881 South 110 East
          Salt Lake City, Utah 84105
          Phone: (801) 415-9909
          Facsimile: (801) 303-7324
          Email: april@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com
                 katie@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com

               - and -

          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Krysten Connon, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Phone: (617) 994-5800
          Fax: (617) 994-5801
          Email: ssb@llrlaw.com
                 kconnon@llrlaw.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Stelman Suit Remanded to King County Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, REBECCA STELMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. C22-01632 RSM (W.D. Wash.),
Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Remand and remands the case to King County Superior
Court.

The lawsuit is a putative class action in which the Plaintiffs
allege that Amazon violated several sections of the Washington
Revised Code and Seattle Municipal Code by failing to provide rest
and meal breaks, and failure to pay compensation owed, including
overtime and wages for missed rest and meal breaks. The case was
originally filed in King County Superior Court in September of
2022.

The Nov. 14, 2022, Notice of Removal states: (1) this Notice of
Removal is timely, (2) the proposed class has at least 10,000
members, in satisfaction of the requisite 100 or more members; (3)
at least one class member is diverse from Amazon, satisfying
minimal diversity; (4) the amount in controversy exceeds the $5
million threshold; and (5) no CAFA exception applies.

In their Motion to Remand, the Plaintiffs argue Amazon is the only
primary defendant in the litigation for three primary reasons.
First, Amazon is directly responsible for the harm to the proposed
Class because it engineered the scheme by which the Plaintiffs and
members of the proposed Class have suffered wage and hour
violations and retains control over nearly every aspect of
Plaintiffs' and proposed Class members' work. Second, the
Plaintiffs' allegations and Amazon's notice of removal demonstrate
that Amazon's potential exposure to the Class is exponentially
greater relative to the exposure of all other Defendants. Third,
Amazon is the only Defendant in the case that has potential
liability to every member of the Class, making it the principal,
fundamental, and direct defendant in this litigation.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs argue that the Court can reasonably
infer from the record that two-thirds or more of the proposed Class
members are citizens of Washington state.

In response, Amazon argues that it is not the only primary
Defendant in this case and that the Plaintiffs' pleadings show
there are other primary defendants, one of whom is a citizen of
another state, and therefore the home-state exception is
inapplicable.

On Reply, the Plaintiffs argue that Amazon attempts to construe
this exception too narrowly and the out-of-circuit cases it cites
to are inapplicable. They argue that courts in the Ninth Circuit
use discretion, common sense, and reasonable inference to determine
whether the home-state controversy exception applies. The
Plaintiffs allege that Amazon is the only the Defendant directly
responsible for the harm to the proposed class.

Judge Martinez explains that in Singh v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp., 925
F.3d 1053, 1068 (9th Cir. 2019), the Ninth Circuit set forth a test
for determining whether a defendant is a "primary defendant" for
the purposes of the home-state exception, noting that these
considerations are not exhaustive and the main inquiry is whether a
defendant is a "principal," "fundamental," or "direct" defendant.
First, a court assumes that all defendants will be found liable.
Next, it should consider whether the defendant is sued directly or
alleged to be directly responsible for the harm to the proposed
class or classes, as opposed to being vicariously or secondarily
liable. A court should also consider the defendant's potential
exposure to the class relative to the exposure of other
defendants.

Therefore, Judge Martinez begins his analysis by assuming all the
Defendants will be found liable. He finds that the factual
allegations made by the Plaintiffs support a finding that the
Amazon Defendants are alleged to be directly responsible for the
harm to the proposed class(es). He further finds that the Amazon
Defendants' potential exposure to the proposed Class is much
greater relative to the exposure of other Defendants.

Judge Martinez also finds that the record demonstrates, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the Plaintiffs have satisfied
the Ninth Circuit's requirements in Singh. The Amazon Defendants
and at least two-thirds of the members of the putative class are
citizens of Washington. The Plaintiffs have shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that Amazon is a principal,
fundamental, or direct defendant. The home state exception to CAFA
applies and the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction on that
basis. This case involves the application of Washington state law.
There is clearly a distinct nexus with Washington State.

Having reviewed the relevant pleadings, the declarations and
exhibits attached thereto, and the remainder of the record, Judge
Martinez grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and remands the
case to King County Superior Court.

The matter is now closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2fbenztz from Leagle.com.


APPLE INC: Moton Sues Over Unlawful Collection of User Data
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tenija Moton, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00709-SVK (N.D. Cal.,
Feb. 16, 2023), is brought against the Defendant, on behalf of a
class of all citizens nationwide, and all citizens of the State of
California (collectively "the class"), whose user data was tracked
and collected by Apple without their consent, and seeks all civil
remedies provided under the causes of action, including but not
limited to compensatory, statutory and/or punitive damages, and
attorney's fees and costs.

Apple knows that users want to keep their data private and want to
control who has access to it. Thus, Apple promises its mobile
device users that they can control the amount of personal data they
share with Apple and that they can disable Apple's tracking and
recoding of user analytics (browsing history, app usage,
geolocation, and other data).

All of these promises and proclamations by Apple are false. Apple
breaches its implicit and explicit privacy promises by tracking and
collecting large amounts of personal information from its mobile
device users, even when they expressly set the devices to prevent
such tracking and data sharing. Apple does this because it also
knows user analytics and other data is extremely valuable on the
open market and advertisers and other companies will pay handsomely
to get it.

Apple goads its mobile device and app users into believing they can
protect themselves by disabling the sharing of their user data by
turning off "Share iPad Analytics" on an iPad, "Share iPhone, and
Computer Analytics," or similar settings on other Apple mobile
devices like the iPhone, or by turning off "Allow Apps to Request
to Track." Apple promises in its mobile devices' settings that it
will "disable the sharing of Device Analytics altogether" if a
consumer toggles or turns off "Share iPad Analytics" on an iPad, or
similar settings on other Apple mobile devices, like the iPhone.

This is untrue. The Plaintiff's mobile device and app usage was
tracked by Apple even after she had turned off the "Allow Apps to
Request to Track" and/or "Share Device Analytics" options. The
Plaintiff disabled both "Allow Apps to Request to Track" and "Share
iPhone Analytics" on her iPhone 11 Pro. Nevertheless, the
sPlaintiff later received advertisements reflecting Plaintiff's
habits in using Defendant's hardware device and app software,
indicating Defendant's access to, tracking of, and sharing with
third persons, user data. Apple's tracking and hoarding of the user
data of the Plaintiff and all other Class Members, and collecting
and monetizing their information without their consent, is a
violation of Apple's promises and a violation of the law, for which
Apple is liable, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff owns an Apple iPhone 11 Pro.

Apple is the world's largest technology company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
          P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
          CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 238-1811
          Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
          Email: dcasey@cglaw.com
                 gmb@cglaw.com
                 camille@cglaw.com


ARCONIC CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Howard Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Arconic Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 21, 2023, that discovery is ongoing
in the Howard class suit.

A purported class action complaint related to the Grenfell Tower
fire was filed on August 11, 2017 in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against ParentCo and
Klaus Kleinfeld. A related purported class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania on September 15, 2017, under the caption Sullivan
v. Arconic Inc. et al., against ParentCo, three former ParentCo
executives, several current and former ParentCo directors, and
banks that acted as underwriters for ParentCo's September 18, 2014
preferred stock offering (the "Preferred Offering"). The plaintiff
in Sullivan had previously filed a purported class action against
the same defendants on July 18, 2017 in the Southern District of
New York and, on August 25, 2017, voluntarily dismissed that action
without prejudice.

On February 7, 2018, on motion from certain putative class members,
the court consolidated Howard and Sullivan, closed Sullivan, and
appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case.

On April 9, 2018, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated purported
class action filed a consolidated amended complaint. The
consolidated amended complaint alleged that the registration
statement for the Preferred Offering contained false and misleading
statements and omitted to state material information, including by
allegedly failing to disclose material uncertainties and trends
resulting from sales of Reynobond PE for unsafe uses and by
allegedly expressing a belief that appropriate risk management and
compliance programs had been adopted while concealing the risks
posed by Reynobond PE sales.

The consolidated amended complaint also alleged that between
November 4, 2013 and June 23, 2017 ParentCo and Kleinfeld made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information about ParentCo's commitment to safety, business and
financial prospects, and the risks of the Reynobond PE product,
including in ParentCo’s Form 10-Ks for the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, its Form 10-Qs and
quarterly financial press releases from the fourth quarter of 2013
through the first quarter of 2017, its 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016
Annual Reports, its 2016 Annual Highlights Report, and on its
official website.

The consolidated amended complaint sought, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and
expert fees and expenses.

On June 8, 2018, all defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

On June 21, 2019, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to
dismiss in full, dismissing the consolidated amended complaint in
its entirety without prejudice.

On July 23, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint alleges generally the same
claims as the consolidated amended complaint with certain
additional allegations, as well as claims that the risk factors set
forth in the registration statement for the Preferred Offering were
inadequate and that certain additional statements in the sources
identified above were misleading.

The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and
expenses.

On September 11, 2019, all defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. Plaintiffs' opposition to that motion was filed
on November 1, 2019 and all defendants filed a reply brief on
November 26, 2019.

On June 22, 2020, counsel for Arconic Corporation and the
individual defendants filed a letter apprising the Court of a
recent decision by the Third Circuit and discussing its relevance
to the pending motion to dismiss.

Pursuant to an Order by the Court directing the plaintiffs to
respond to this letter, the plaintiffs filed a letter response on
July 9, 2020.

On June 23, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

The Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' claim against
ParentCo, certain officers and directors and the underwriters based
on the registration statement for the Preferred Offering, with the
exception of one statement and only as to purchases made before
October 23, 2015.

In addition, plaintiffs' claim based on ParentCo's statements in
other SEC filings, in product brochures, and on websites was
dismissed in its entirety as to Kleinfeld and dismissed in part and
allowed in part as to ParentCo. The

Court also dismissed the control-person liability claims in their
entirety.

On August 11, 2021, ParentCo filed a motion with the district court
for certification of an interlocutory appeal and a stay pending
appeal.

The motion seeks to appeal the aspect of the court's June 23, 2021
opinion concerning the complaint’s pleading of ParentCo’s
alleged scienter.

Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion on August 17, 2021,
and ParentCo filed a reply brief on August 24, 2021.

On August 12, 2021, defendants filed an answer to the second
amended complaint.

A status conference was held before the Court on January 11, 2022
during which the Court heard argument from both parties on the
pending motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal.

On July 29, 2022, the Court denied the motion for certification of
an interlocutory appeal and ordered the parties to submit a
proposed scheduling order, which the parties jointly filed on
August 29, 2022.

The Court held a status conference on September 14, 2022, and on
December 2, 2022, the Court issued an Initial Case Management Order
(“CMO”) setting forth dates for class certification briefing
and discovery.

Discovery began and is ongoing.

Arconic Corporation (ARNC) is a provider of rolled aluminum
products, extrusions, and building products. The company's end
markets consist of building and construction, industrial,
packaging, automotive, and aerospace & defense.


ARDIAN CORP: Avila's FLSA Claims Certified as Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Frederic Block of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York grants the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally
certify his FLSA claims as a collective action in the lawsuit
captioned GREGORIO VELASCO AVILA, on behalf of himself, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff v. ARDIAN CORP.
d/b/a TAVERNA KYCLADES, MACCG LLC d/b/a TAVERNA KYCLADES, TK BELL
LLC d/b/a TAVERNA KYCLADES, ARDIAN SKENDERI, and CATERINA SKENDERI,
Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-4795-FB-TAM (E.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiff Gregorio Velasco Avila alleges that his former employer
failed to pay him in accordance with the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law. The Court
previously denied his motion to certify his state-law claims as a
class action, finding that some of those claims raised common
issues of law and fact, but that individual issues regarding hours
worked and wages owed predominated over those issues. Avila now
moves to conditionally certify his FLSA claims as a collective
action.

The Defendants dispute that Avila has satisfied his burden. In
particular, they object that he seeks to include employees of two
other locations where he did not work. Those locations, they argue,
were under different ownership and management and had distinct pay
practices.

As the Court previously noted in connection with class
certification, there is evidence that, despite different ownership
and management, a single individual set the wage policies at all
three locations. Moreover, the Defendants' own records show that
employees were uniformly paid in whole-hour increments until a
time-clock was introduced in June 2016, that no employee ever
received a spread-of-hours premium, and that the Defendants never
recorded a tip credit for tipped employees.

That evidence satisfied Rule 23's commonality requirement because
it supported Avila's claim that his experience arose out of
generally applicable pay policies, Judge Block points out. It is, a
fortiori, sufficient to make the "modest factual showing" of a
common policy for a collective action.

Accordingly, Judge Block grants Avila's motion for conditional
certification. The Court approves the proposed notice attached as
Exhibit A to his motion.

The Defendants will make available to Avila's counsel all
information necessary to send the notice to potential opt-in
plaintiffs. Any further disputes concerning the notice will be
addressed, in the first instance, to the assigned magistrate
judge.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Feb. 6,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc6rtkfd from
Leagle.com.

C.K. LEE, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, in New York City, for the
Plaintiff.

VINCENT AVERY, FordHarrison, LLP, in New York City, for the
Defendants.


ARTSANA USA: Class Action Settlement in Jimenez Gets Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JIMENEZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ARTSANA USA, INC.,
Case No. 7:21-cv-07933-VB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vincent L.
Briccetti entered an order granting preliminary approval of class
action settlement:

   1. The Settlement Class is preliminary certified:

      "All persons and enitities in the United States, its
      territories, and/or its possessions who purchased one or
      more of the Eligible Products (i.e. Artsana booster scats
      marketed under the "Kidfit" branding which includes the
      KidFit, KidFit Zip,  KidFit Zip Air, KidFit Plus, and  
      KidFit Air Plus) during the class Period (i.e. April 22,
      2015 to December 31, 2021)."

      Excluded from the Settlement Class are (a) all persons who
      are employees, directors, officers, and agents of Artsana
      or its subsidiaries and affiliated companies; (b) persons
      or entities that purchased the Eligible Products primarily
      for the purpose of resale; (c) governmental entities; (d)
      persons and entities that timely and properly exclude
      themselves from the Class as provided in this settlement;
      (e) persons and entities that purchased the Eligible
      Products via the Internet or other remote means while not
      residing in the United States; and (f) the Court, the
      Court's immediate family, the Court staff.

   2. The Court approves the Claim Form, Long Form Notice, and
      Summary Notice.

   3. The Court appoints Angeion Group to serve the Settlement
      Administrator.

Artsana provides baby related products. The Company offers
everything from baby gear to nursing, toys, apparel, shoes, and
baby care products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IfrDA9 at no extra charge.[CC]



ATLANTIC BUILDING: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Whitehill Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER WHITEHILL, KIM HERB, ERIC HERB, LAURIE
JACOBS, DAVID JACOBS, JARED MARTINEZ, SHELLY RICHARDSON, LOUIS
RICHARDSON, MICHAEL GILLIS, LILY FAIRCHILD, DEBORAH HARRY, JOEL
HARRY, ROBERT BALDAUFF, SHELLEY BALDAUFF, MICHAEL J. KEY, LIZ
TORRES, ADAM MACKE, SCHUYLER JOSEPH VREEMAN, BRANDON ANDERSON,
JESSICA ANDERSON, CHARLES GIBSON, GARY VINOVICH, DAN MERCER, ROGER
S. APPLEWHITE, HEDIEH POURNIK, KURT WITHERS, LINETE
APARICIO-CHAGOLLA, and ADAM CHENY, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ATLANTIC
BUILDING SYSTEMS, LLC, d/b/a ARMSTRONG STEEL CORPORATION,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 22-cv-1118-WJM-KLM (D. Colo.), Judge
William J. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado grants the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and
Stay Proceedings.

Twenty-eight Plaintiffs filed the putative class action against the
Defendant, a Delaware limited liability company doing business as
Armstrong Steel Corp. with its principal place of business in
Colorado. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class and
assert claims breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith
and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, advertising of goods not
available, and violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act,
Colo. Rev. Stat. Section 6-1-101 et seq. They assert jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d).

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant engaged in a scheme of
falsely advertising its "Metal Building System" to induce customers
to place orders and submit 25% deposits, despite its inability to
meet demand and deliver the building systems approximately 120 days
from purchase, as advertised. In addition, they allege the
Defendant consistently demanded payments in excess of the contract
price before delivering the building systems and refused to repay
deposits to customers unwilling to pay these additional amounts.

The Plaintiffs each entered into separate contracts with the
Defendant to purchase its "Metal Building System." The Terms and
Conditions incorporated by reference into the Purchase Orders were
periodically amended, and the Plaintiffs' contracts are subject to
three different versions of those Terms and Conditions; however,
the provisions relating to mandatory arbitration, delegating
questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and application of
the FAA are "identical" across all three versions of the Terms and
Conditions.

Before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration
and Stay Proceedings. The Defendant argues that all of the claims
alleged by the Plaintiffs relate to the contractual agreements
subject to the Terms and Conditions and must therefore be submitted
to arbitration. Additionally, because the contractual agreements
between the Plaintiffs and Armstrong contemplate only individual
arbitrations, the Court must compel individual arbitrations to
address the claims raised by each plaintiff in the action.

In response, the Plaintiffs raise three arguments for why the
Arbitration Clause is unenforceable: (1) it completely prevents the
Plaintiffs and putative class members from obtaining any effective
vindication of their rights under the law; (2) the parties'
agreement to arbitrate is not mutual and the Defendant failed to
provide any consideration in exchange for Plaintiffs' agreement to
arbitrate; and (3) the Defendant is not identified as a party to
the contract. The Plaintiffs challenge the enforceability of the
Arbitration Clause rather than the validity of the contracts as a
whole.

Upon consideration of the parties' arguments, Judge Martinez finds
that the attorneys and collections fee-shifting provisions prevent
the Plaintiffs and putative class members from effectively
vindicating their statutory rights and strikes those provisions
from the Arbitration Clause. With respect to the provision
concerning the initiation of arbitration, he finds the Defendant
has the better of the arguments.

Having determined that two of the fee-shifting provisions the
Plaintiffs contest prevent them and putative class members from
effectively vindicating their statutory rights, Judge Martinez must
now consider whether those clauses can be severed without striking
the arbitration provision in its entirety. Despite the Plaintiffs'
argument that there is "no savings clause" -- as the Defendant
points out -- there clearly is. Applying Paragraph 19 of the Terms
and Conditions, Judge Martinez severs the fee shifting provisions
without striking the "initiating arbitration" provision or the
Arbitration Clause as a whole.

Next, Judge Martinez need not decide what the "plain" meaning of
the Arbitration Clause is because, under Colorado law, an
"arbitration provision is not unenforceable simply because it does
not require defendant to arbitrate." So long as both parties have
offered valid consideration, the arbitration provision is
enforceable. Judge Martinez says the consideration is obvious; the
Defendant promised to provide its Metal Building System, and the
Plaintiffs promised to pay the agreed amounts for Defendant's
product. Furthermore, as long as the arbitration clause is valid,
any claim based on the Defendant's failure to perform, which the
Plaintiffs are making, is the proper subject of arbitration.

Judge Martinez then finds that the Plaintiffs' Complaint is
premised entirely on the assertion that they were injured by
Defendant because of its failure to timely deliver the Metal
Building Systems they purchased in contracts with Armstrong Steel.
Central to their claims is the assertion that the Defendant is in
fact a party to the Purchase Orders, and therefore bound by the
promises therein. The Plaintiffs cannot have it both ways -- either
they believe Defendant is a party to the Purchase Orders, which
incorporate the Terms and Conditions, or not. Allegations in a
complaint are binding admissions, and admissions can of course
admit the admitter to the exit from the courthouse. In the case,
that is precisely what the Plaintiffs have done.

Finally, Judge Martinez sees nothing in the arbitration provision
contemplating class arbitration, and the Plaintiffs do not argue
otherwise. And, having found the issues in the action arbitrable
under the Terms and Conditions, incorporated by reference into the
contracts between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, the Court must
stay the action.

Accordingly, for the reasons he stated, Judge Martinez orders as
follows:

     1. The Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay
Proceedings is granted in part and denied in part;

     2. The attorneys and collections fee-shifting provisions of
the Arbitration Clause is severed. The Arbitration Clause, as will
be enforced in conformity with the terms of the Order, will not
include the following language:

          a) In addition to any other liability Buyer may have to
Seller, Buyer agrees to pay to Seller all legal and other expenses
incurred by Seller in collecting any amounts due from Buyer or
incurred in any other dispute, claim or controversy arising out of
or relating to this Agreement; and

          b) Seller will be entitled to recover its attorneys' fees
and costs against Buyer in any arbitration proceeding in which
Seller is the prevailing party on any claim brought by either
party;

     3. The Plaintiffs, to the extent they wish to pursue the
claims alleged, must do so through separate, bilateral arbitrations
under the laws of the State of Colorado in Arapahoe County,
Colorado;

     4. The action is stayed pending the conclusion of the
Plaintiffs' arbitration proceedings in Arapahoe County, should they
choose to commence any; and

     5. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, the Clerk will
administratively close the case, subject to a motion to reopen for
good cause subsequent to the conclusion of the Plaintiffs
arbitration proceedings in Arapahoe County, if any.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3p9w7yj9 from Leagle.com.


AUDI OF AMERICA: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Herrera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AUDI OF AMERICA, Case No. HUD-L-000580-23 (N.J. Sup.
Ct., Hudson Cty., Feb. 15, 2023), is brought against Defendant for
its violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by
failing to make its website fully accessible for the Plaintiff and
for other blind or visually-impaired people.

Upon visiting Defendant's website, AudiUSA.com ("Audi"), Plaintiff
quickly became aware of Defendant's failure to maintain and operate
its website in a way to make it fully accessible for himself and
for other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial
of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of
its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and
a member of member of a protected class of individuals under the
ADA.

The Defendant is a company doing business and marketing to New
Jersey customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          660 Broadway
          Paterson, NJ 07514
          Phone: (862) 227-3106
          Fax: (973) 282-8603
          Email: dz@zemellawllc.com


AVAYA HOLDINGS: Jiang Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Jiang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AVAYA HOLDINGS CORP., JAMES M. CHIRICO, JR., and KIERAN
J. McGRATH, Case No. 1:23-cv-01258 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2023), is
brought a securities fraud class action on behalf of all purchasers
of the securities of Avaya between October 3, 2019 and November 29,
2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act").

The Company, which had initially been spun off from Lucent
Technologies in 2000 and then acquired by private-equity firms
Silver Lake and TPG in 2007 in a leveraged buyout and then
over-leveraged with debt, sought bankruptcy protection in 2017. The
Company has since emerged from bankruptcy and now operates through
two segments, Products & Solutions and Services. The Products &
Solutions segment primarily develops, markets, and sells unified
communications and collaboration and contact center solutions,
offered on premise, in the cloud, or as a hybrid solution. These
integrate multiple forms of communications, including telephony,
email, instant messaging, and video.

Since October 2019, Avaya has been engaged in a strategic
collaboration with RingCentral, Inc., which has accelerated Avaya's
transition to the cloud. The new operating system, Avaya Cloud
Office by RingCentral ("ACO"), was supposed to allow Avaya to
monetize its small to medium business ("SMB") customer base
immediately while concomitantly allowing it to focus on the
development of a next generation cloud contact center. ACO also
accelerated Avaya's shift from a one-time, license fee-based to a
recurring, subscription- based revenue model.

However, misunderstood by investors--because Avaya's statements to
the investment community concealed it--the RingCentral partnership
came with onerous requirements that were crippling its business
metrics and financial prospects during the Class Period. Avaya
granted RingCentral exclusive rights to certain products to its
customers. This meant Avaya had to discontinue certain of its own
product offerings that had only recently begun achieving momentum.
This also exposed the Company to losses as RingCentral paid Avaya
commissions up front, which would need to be returned if Avaya
later missed on sales thresholds. More significantly, ACO
conflicted with other Avaya product offerings, causing Avaya to
have to alter those offerings, resulting in it losing some
important members of its executive team.

On February 9, 2022, before the opening of trading, Avaya reported
its first quarter 2022 ("1Q22") financial results for the interim
period ended December 31, 2021, disclosing revenues and earnings
per share ("EPS") results significantly lower than the market had
been led to expect. Defendants blamed the miss on the ongoing
transition to a subscription-based revenue model, saying that more
revenues had been earned that would be reported later. Attempting
to keep the market price of its securities artificially inflated,
Avaya announced having signed one of the largest deals in the
Company's history, a $400 million transaction with an unnamed
"'large global financial services company.'"

Despite these efforts to buttress the market price of Avaya
securities, its common stock closed down 22% that day, falling from
its close of $17.84 per share on February 8, 2022 to close down at
$13.90 per share on February 9, 2022, on unusually high volume of
more than 8.6 million shares traded, or 5-1/2 times the average
daily volume over the preceding 10 trading days.

On December 13, 2022, Avaya filed with the SEC certain financial
disclosures that it said it had provided confidentially to certain
of its lenders between October 2022 and December 2022 in an effort
to negotiate a settlement of its obligations with them. Avaya
indicated that those talks were ongoing but warned that certain of
the lenders had communicated they were not supporting of an
out-of-court settlement. The market price of Avaya common stock
fell further on this news, declining to close down at $0.69 per
share on December 13, 2022, on unusually high trading of more than
25 million shares trading, and then declining to close down at
$0.23 per share on December 16, 2022, on more than 49 million
shares trading.

As of the filing of this complaint, Avaya has not filed its
financial reports with the SEC for its second, third, or fourth
quarter of 2022; it has not restated its FY21 annual financial
report; and it has not announced the final results of the Board's
ongoing investigation. The New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") is
threatening to delist the Company's common stock both for failing
to bring its financial filings current and for failing to maintain
a sufficient stock price. There is still no final word on the
bankruptcy filing. As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, plaintiff and the Class purchased Avaya securities at
artificially inflated prices, suffered significant losses, and were
damaged thereby, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Avaya securities during the Class Period.

Avaya provides software products for business collaboration and
contact center management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631/367-7100
          Fax: 631/367-1173
          Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                 mblasy@rgrdlaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Zaerpour Given 30 Days to File Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled SOHEIL ZAERPOUR; THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED
STATES, Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL.,
Defendants, Case No. 23-CV-0040 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y.), Chief District
Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismisses the Plaintiff's complaint
but grants him leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days.

The Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se, brings this action against more
than 20 banks and financial entities. He alleges that they have
violated "criminal laws (including computer crimes)," the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), unspecified civil
rights and securities laws, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
The Plaintiff moves for the appointment of pro bono counsel.

The Court dismisses the complaint for the reasons set forth here
but grants the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within
30 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff Soheil Zaerpour brings this suit on his own behalf and
also purports to bring claims on behalf of "the people of the
United States of America." He alleges that his claims arose from
2002 until present.

The Plaintiff's allegations of fact, in their entirety, are as
follows: the Defendant co-conspirator banks coordinated to
manipulate foreign exchange prices and benchmark prices against the
People of the United States and the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks
monetary and punitive damages.

In the prior suit that the Plaintiff seeks to incorporate by
reference, Zaerpour v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 21-CV-9680
(JPC) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2022), he had alleged that nine banks (Bank
of America, Citibank, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs,
HSBC, JP Morgan, Royal Bank of Scotland, and UBS) engaged in a
conspiracy to make prices in the global foreign currency exchange
market move in "an exact reverse" of his individual trades "all the
time" for a period of several years.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants engaged in FOREX market
manipulation against him and computer intrusions, surveillance and
other charges motivated by malice and criminal conspiracy against
the American people. He further argued that the Defendants were
motivated by antipathy to his plan for World Peace as communicated
to the World leaders since 1985 and the people of the world by the
Baha'i international community in Haifa.

The Defendants moved to dismiss that action for improper service
and on the grounds that the Plaintiff (1) lacked standing to pursue
antitrust claims because he did not transact directly with the
Defendants; (2) failed to plead facts supporting a plausible
inference of an antitrust conspiracy and because his antitrust
claims were impermissibly extra-territorial; (3) could not state a
constitutional tort claim because the Defendants' conduct was not
state action; (4) lacked standing to assert violations of criminal
laws; (5) could not, as a non-attorney, bring suit on behalf of a
class; (6) asserted claims that were time-barred; and (7) brought
claims that should be dismissed as frivolous.

By order dated Aug. 8, 2022, District Judge Cronan granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss for improper service, declined to
extend the time for service, and dismissed the action without
prejudice, without reaching the merits. The Plaintiff now brings
this action against the same defendants named in the earlier suit,
plus many additional defendants.

The Plaintiff, who does not indicate that he is an attorney
admitted to practice in this Court, names the "people of the United
States of America" as additional Plaintiffs in this action.

As a non-attorney proceeding pro se, Judge Swain holds that the
Plaintiff cannot pursue a class action suit on behalf of others.
The Court, therefore, construes the complaint as asserting claims
solely on behalf of Soheil Zaerpour, who is the only signatory to
the complaint. If the Plaintiff chooses to file an amended
complaint pro se, he can only bring his own claims and cannot
proceed on behalf of others.

Judge Swain holds that the allegations of the Plaintiff's complaint
are insufficient to satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. He cannot simply incorporate by reference the entirety
of his prior complaint. This is particularly true given that some
of the Defendants named in this action are new defendants as to
whom there were no allegations in the prior complaint. The Court,
therefore, dismisses the complaint for failure to state a claim on
which relief can be granted.

The Plaintiff proceeds in this matter without the benefit of an
attorney, Judge Swain notes. District courts generally should grant
a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to
cure its defects, unless amendment would be futile.

The Court, therefore, grants the Plaintiff 30 days' leave to amend
his complaint to detail his claims.

The Court notes that, insofar as there is overlap between the
claims that the Plaintiff seeks to assert in this action and those
that he brought in Case No. 21-CV-9680 (JPC), he should review the
motion to dismiss filed in the earlier action and conduct a good
faith investigation into whether his claims are well founded in
law.

The Plaintiff moves for the appointment of pro bono counsel. The
factors to be considered in ruling on an indigent litigant's
request for counsel include the merits of the case, the Plaintiff's
efforts to obtain a lawyer, and the Plaintiff's ability to gather
the facts and present the case if unassisted by counsel.

Because it is too early in the proceedings for the Court to assess
the merits of the action, the Plaintiff's motion for counsel is
denied without prejudice to renewal at a later date.

Judge Swain says the Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his
complaint to provide more facts about his claims. In the "Statement
of Claim" section of the amended complaint form, the Plaintiff must
provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts
supporting each claim against each Defendant. If the Plaintiff has
an address for any named Defendant, the Plaintiff must provide it.
The Plaintiff should include all of the information in the amended
complaint that he wants the Court to consider in deciding whether
the amended complaint states a claim for relief. That information
should include the names and titles of all relevant people, among
other things.

Essentially, the Plaintiff's amended complaint should tell the
Court: who violated his federally protected rights; how, when, and
where such violations occurred; and why he is entitled to relief.

Because the Plaintiff's amended complaint will completely replace,
not supplement, the original complaint, any facts or claims that he
wants to include from the original complaint must be repeated in
the amended complaint, Judge Swain holds.

The Court dismisses the Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state
a claim on which relief can be granted. The Court denies the
Plaintiff's motion for pro bono counsel.

The Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that
complies with the standards set forth. The Plaintiff must submit
the amended complaint to the Court's Pro Se Intake Unit within 30
days of the date of this order, caption the document as an "Amended
Complaint," and label the document with docket number 23-CV-0040
(LTS). An Amended Complaint form is attached to this order. No
summons will issue at this time.

If the Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he
cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, Judge Swain holds
that the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that any
appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and
therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an
appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 6, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yta28yk8 from Leagle.com.


BELLE TOFFEE: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Belle Toffee, LLC.
The case is styled as Rafael Cordero, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Belle Toffee, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01375 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2023).

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

Belle Toffee -- https://www.belletoffee.com/ -- creates
hand-crafted toffee based on a cherished family recipe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BEYOND GLOBAL: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beyond Global, Corp.
The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Beyond Global, Corp., Case No.
1:23-cv-01275 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2023).

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

Beyond Global Corporation, offers the latest and most trendy
licensed Party supplies, fashion accessories and Disney Toys.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLOOM ENERGY: Bloom Class Settlement for Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corp disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 21, 2023, that the Company reached
an agreement in principle with plaintiffs to settle claims that is
subject to court approval.

In May 2019, Elissa Roberts filed a class action complaint in the
federal district court for the Northern District of California
against the Company, certain members of its senior management team,
and certain of its directors alleging violations under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act for alleged misleading statements or
omissions in its Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the
SEC in connection with the IPO.

On September 3, 2019, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiffs' counsel.

On November 4, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
the underwriters in the IPO and its auditor as defendants for the
Section 11 claim, as well as adding claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act" ) against the Company, and certain members of its
senior management team. The amended complaint alleged a class
period for all claims from the time of its IPO until September 16,
2019.

On April 21, 2020, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which continued to make the same claims and added allegations
pertaining to the restatement and, as to claims under the Exchange
Act, extended the putative class period through February 12, 2020.


On July 1, 2020, the Company and the other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the second amended complaint.

On September 29, 2021, the court entered an order dismissing with
leave to amend (1) five of seven statements or groups of statements
alleged to violate Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and (2)
all allegations under the Exchange Act. All allegations against its
auditors were also dismissed.

Plaintiffs elected not to amend the complaint and instead on
October 22, 2021 filed a motion for entry of final judgment in
favor of our auditors so that plaintiffs could appeal the dismissal
of those claims.

The court denied that motion on December 1, 2021 and in response
plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to certify an
interlocutory appeal as to the accounting claims.

The court denied plaintiffs' motion on April 14, 2022. The claims
for violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act that were
not dismissed by the court entered the discovery phase.

On January 6, 2023, Bloom and the plaintiffs' entered into an
agreement in principle to settle the claims against Bloom, its
executives and directors, and the IPO underwriters for a payment of
$3 million, which will be funded entirely by the Company's
insurers. If the settlement becomes effective, it will result in a
dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the Company, its
executives and directors, and the underwriters. The settlement does
not constitute an acknowledgement of liability or wrongdoing. This
settlement is conditioned on the execution of a definitive
settlement agreement containing the foregoing terms and customary
terms for class action settlements, and approval of the settlement
by the court.

If the court does not approve the settlement and all of its
material terms, or the settlement does not otherwise become final
or effective, proceedings in the action will continue.

Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells
solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The
company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its
name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy
Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


BLOOM ENERGY: Continues to Defend Lincolnshire Police Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corp disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 21, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Lincolnshire Police Pension
Fund class suit in the Superior Court of the State of California.

In March 2019, the Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara, against the Company, certain members of its
senior management, certain of its directors and the underwriters in
its July 25, 2018 IPO alleging violations under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"),
for alleged misleading statements or omissions in our Registration
Statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in connection with the
IPO. Two related class action cases were subsequently filed in the
Santa Clara County Superior Court against the same defendants
containing the same allegations; Rodriquez vs Bloom Energy et al.
was filed on April 22, 2019 and Evans vs Bloom Energy et al. was
filed on May 7, 2019.

These cases have been consolidated. Plaintiffs' consolidated
amended complaint was filed with the court on September 12, 2019.

On October 4, 2019, defendants moved to stay the lawsuit pending
the federal district court action discussed below.

On December 7, 2019, the Superior Court issued an order staying the
action through resolution of the parallel federal litigation
mentioned below.

The Company believed the complaint to be without merit and in
contravention of its forum selection clause in our Restated
Certificate of Incorporation and intend to defend this action
vigorously.

Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells
solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The
company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its
name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy
Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.

BLUE DIAMOND: Zapadinsky Files Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Diamond Growers.
The case is styled as Igor Zapadinsky, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Blue Diamond Growers, Case No.
2:23-cv-00231-JPS (E.D. Wis., Feb. 19, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Blue Diamond Growers -- https://bluediamondgrowers.com/ -- is a
California agricultural cooperative and marketing organization that
specializes in almonds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd-Ste 412
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 268-7080
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com


BLUE FOREST FARMS: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Forest Farms,
LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blue Forest Farms, LLC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01352 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2023).

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

Blue Forest Farms -- https://blueforestfarms.com/ -- carries CBD
products like oil tinctures, gummies, topicals, smokable flower,
and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: (718) 740-5060
          Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com

BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Howell B3 Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned PATRICIA HOWELL v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION "R" (2), Case No. 17-3287 (E.D.
La.), Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana grants the unopposed motion for
summary judgment filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production,
Inc., BP America Production Company, and BP p.l.c.

The remaining Defendants, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.,
Transocean Deepwater, Inc., Transocean Holdings, LLC, and
Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., join the BP parties'
motion.

The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic
chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico. The Plaintiff alleges that she performed cleanup work after
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010. She asserts that, as part
of this work, she was exposed to crude oil and dispersants. She
also represents that this exposure has resulted in the following
conditions: chronic sinusitis, acute and chronic rhinitis,
bronchitis, "chest burning," chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
"stomach problems," chronic headaches, depression, anxiety, rash,
skin irritation, and "burning."

The Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. Her case
was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs,
who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater
Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (In re
Oil Spill by Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mex., on
Apr. 20, 2010, No. MDL 2179, 2021 WL 6053613, at *2, 12 & n.12
(E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2021)).

Ms. Howell is a plaintiff, who opted out of the settlement. After
her case was severed, it was reallocated to this Court. She asserts
claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and
gross negligence against the Defendants as a result of the oil
spill and its cleanup.

On Nov. 5, 2021, the Court issued a scheduling order that
established, among other deadlines, that the Plaintiff's expert
disclosures had to be "obtained and delivered" to defense counsel
by no later than Dec. 16, 2022.

The Defendants now move for summary judgment, arguing that, because
the Plaintiff has not identified any expert testimony, she is
unable to carry her burden on causation. She does not oppose the
Defendants' motion.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime negligence,
negligence per se, and gross negligence against the Defendants, as
a result of the oil spill and its cleanup. The Defendants contend
that, without admissible expert testimony, the Plaintiff cannot
prove that exposure to oil or dispersants was the legal cause of
her alleged injuries, and thus, that she cannot prove a necessary
element of her claims against them.

Judge Vance notes that under the general maritime law, a party's
negligence is actionable only if it is a legal cause of the the
Plaintiff's injuries. Expert testimony is required to establish
general causation in toxic-tort cases like this one. Courts have
also required expert testimony as to specific causation when the
symptoms are not within the common knowledge of laypersons and not
classified as transient or temporary.

Without an expert opinion on specific causation, Judge Vance holds
that the Plaintiff cannot meet her burden of proof on her claims of
sinusitis, upper respiratory infection, abdominal cramps and pain,
mood disorder, and insomnia. Because the Plaintiff has not pointed
to any admissible expert opinions on either general or specific
causation, she is unable to sustain her burden on causation, and
the Court, therefore, grants summary judgment.

For these reasons, Judge Vance grants the BP parties' motion for
summary judgment. The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated Feb. 6,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc3jyz23 from
Leagle.com.


BPS DIRECT: Hernandez Sues Over Wiretapping of Communications
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BPS DIRECT, L.L.C. d/b/a BASS PRO SHOPS, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00413-LKG (D. Md., Feb. 15, 2023), is brought against
BPS for wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors to
its website, www.basspro.com. BPS procures third-party vendors,
such as Microsoft Corporation, to embed snippets of JavaScript
computer code ("Session Replay Code") on BPS's website, which then
deploys on each website visitor's internet browser for the purpose
of intercepting and recording the website visitor's electronic
communications with the BPS website, including their mouse
movements, clicks, keystrokes (such as text being entered into an
information field or text box), URLs of web pages visited, and/or
other electronic communications in real-time ("Website
Communications"), in violation of the Maryland Wiretapping and
Electronic Surveillance Act and constitutes an invasion of the
privacy rights of website visitors.

These third-party vendors (collectively, "Session Replay
Providers") create and deploy the Session Replay Code at BPS's
request. After intercepting and capturing the Website
Communications, BPS and the Session Replay Providers use those
Website Communications to recreate website visitors' entire visit
to www.basspro.com. The Session Replay Providers create a video
replay of the user's behavior on the website and provide it to BPS
for analysis. BPS's procurement of the Session Replay Providers to
secretly deploy the Session Replay Code results is the electronic
equivalent of "looking over the shoulder" of each visitor to the
BPS website for the entire duration of their website interaction.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a class of all
Maryland citizens whose Website Communications were intercepted
through BPS's procurement and use of Session Replay Code embedded
on the webpages of www.basspro.com and seeks all civil remedies
provided under the causes of action, including but not limited to
compensatory, statutory, and/or punitive damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has visited www.basspro.com on her computer while in
Maryland.

BPS is an online and brick-and-mortar retailer for outdoor
products, such as hunting gear and apparel, and camping
equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Phone: 202.540.7200
          Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          33 Whitehall Street
          Fourteenth Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 646.357.1100
          Email: snathan@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          111 W. Washington St., Suite 1240
          Chicago IL 60602
          Phone: 312.750.1265
          Email: katrina@lcllp.com

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Phone: 610.234.6486
          Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com

C GEYER CONSTRUCTION: Parrillo Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------------
LUCA PARRILLO, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. C GEYER CONSTRUCTION LLC; C. GEYER
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC.; and CRAIG GEYER, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-00636 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 20, 2023) seeks all available relief
for unpaid overtime, unpaid prevailing wages, retaliation, and
false and fraudulent information returns against Defendants under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act,
the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and the
Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a heavy
equipment operator from approximately March 2022 through January
2023.

C Geyer Construction LLC is a Pennsylvania limited liability
company engaged in the business of construction services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Goodley, Esq.
          Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq.
          GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC
          1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 394-0541
          E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com
                  ryan@gmlaborlaw.com

CAPE COD HEALTHCARE: Appeals Remand Order in Doe Suit to 1st Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CAPE COD HEALTHCARE, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order
remanding the case back to state court in the lawsuit entitled Jane
Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Cape Cod Healthcare, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-10080-RGS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit against the Defendant
for invasion of privacy in violation of Massachusetts General Law,
breach of fiduciary duty and/or common law duty of confidentiality,
breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, and unjust
enrichment by exposing the highly sensitive personal information of
its patients to third parties without those patients' knowledge or
consent.

On Jan. 12, 2023, the Defendant removed the case from the
Barnstable Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts pursuant to the federal officer removal
statute, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1442(a).

On Jan. 25, 2023, Judge Richard G. Stearns ordered to remand the
case back to the Barnstable Superior Court. The Court ruled that
the removal in this case was improvidently taken. The federal
officer removal statute (in its most recent 2011 iteration) applies
only to private parties acting under the direction of or in
relation to an assertion of authority by an officer of the United
States or any of its agencies, who is able to assert a colorable
(that is, not wholly frivolous) federal defense to the conduct
charged. The "charged conduct" must "relate to an act under color
of federal office." While given a broad reading, it does not apply
to the voluntary and unilateral adoption of a practice that may be
consistent in some respects with a nonbinding federal policy. The
clerk will return this case to the Barnstable Superior Court, ruled
Judge Stearns.

The appellate case is captioned Doe v. Cape Cod Healthcare, Inc.,
Case No. 23-1149, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit, filed on February 19, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Cape Cod Healthcare, Inc. Appearance form and
Docketing Statement are due on March 7, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Victoria M. Mair, Esq.
            SWEENEY MERRIGAN LAW LLP
            268 Summer St.
            Boston, MA 02210
            Telephone: (617) 523-8300

                   - and -

            Jonathan Tucker Merrigan, Esq.
            SWEENEY MERRIGAN LAW LLP
            268 Summer St.
            Boston, MA 02210
            Telephone: (617) 391-9001

Defendant-Appellant CAPE COD HEALTHCARE, INC. is represented by:

            Adam J. Bookbinder, Esq.
            Justin Joseph Wolosz, Esq.
            CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP
            2 International Pl
            Boston, MA 02110
            Telephone: (617) 248-5000

CBE CUSTOMER: Cellco Wins in Part Bid to Dismiss Counterclaims
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS,
Plaintiff v. CBE CUSTOMER SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
22-cv-8703 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York grants in part
and denies in part Verizon's motion for judgment on the pleadings
on both of CBE's counterclaims.

Plaintiff Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless claims that
Defendant CBE Customer Solutions, Inc. breached a contract between
them. Under that contract, known as the Master Services Agreement
("MSA"), CBE agreed to collect debt on behalf of Verizon. CBE also
agreed to indemnify Verizon for certain losses that Verizon might
incur from defending claims arising out of CBE's provision of
services under the MSA.

Verizon alleges that CBE breached this indemnity provision when CBE
failed to compensate Verizon for defending a multi-million-dollar
class action that, allegedly, arose from the negligence of a CBE
employee.

When CBE answered Verizon's Complaint, CBE asserted two
counterclaims. CBE's first counterclaim alleges that Verizon
breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. CBE's
second counterclaim alleges that Verizon was unjustly enriched when
CBE assisted Verizon with the defense of the claim that arose out
of the alleged negligence of CBE's employee.

On Dec. 16, 2022, Verizon moved for judgment on the pleadings on
both of CBE's counterclaims. For the reasons given here, the Court
grants Verizon's motion in part and denies it in part. More
specifically, the Court dismisses on the pleadings CBE's first
counterclaim but not its second counterclaim.

In April 2014, Verizon and CBE entered into the MSA. Under the MSA,
CBE was obliged to assist Verizon with debt collection and agreed
to indemnify Verizon from and against any claims, demands,
lawsuits, damages, liabilities, loss, costs or expenses, judgments,
settlements and penalties of every kind (Claims) that may be made
by anyone in connection with or based upon omissions of CBE and/or
its subcontractors, if any, in provided Services as directed by
Verizon.

The MSA also provided that CBE will defend any Indemnified Party
[i.e., Verizon], at the Indemnified Party's request, against any
Claim.

A purported Claim eventually arose. In July 2016, Robin Breda, a
Massachusetts resident, informed a CBE employee that she should not
receive pre-recorded calls on Verizon's behalf. But that CBE
employee failed to remove Ms. Breda's number from the relevant
Verizon call lists. Since Ms. Breda continued to receive unwanted
calls, she filed a class action complaint against Verizon in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, asserting
claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Verizon requested indemnification from CBE. CBE declined and began
a defense of Ms. Breda's claim with counsel of its choice, Golden
Scaz Gagain, PLLC ("Golden Scaz"). Verizon agreed to the
appointment of Golden Scaz so long as Verizon's chosen counsel,
Greenberg Traurig, LLP, would act as local counsel. Though the
district court initially awarded summary judgment to Verizon, the
First Circuit reversed, and Verizon eventually settled with the
Breda class for $3,950,000. CBE did not reimburse Verizon for this
settlement award, for attorneys' fees, or for costs incurred
defending the Breda litigation.

On Sept. 9, 2022, Verizon filed the Complaint in state court,
asserting that CBE breached the MSA by failing to indemnify
Verizon. CBE removed on Oct. 14, 2022. On Nov. 18, 2022, CBE filed
its answer, which asserts the two counterclaims.

CBE's first counterclaim asserts that Verizon breached the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. According to CBE, Verizon
breached this obligation by, among other things, settling with a
class that contained people, who were not injured by CBE's
actions.

CBE's second counterclaim asserts that Verizon was unjustly
enriched by CBE's provision of counsel in the Breda litigation.
According to CBE, Verizon knew that Breda's claims were based in
Verizon's own wrongful conduct and were, therefore, outside of the
scope of the MSA's indemnity. Nonetheless, Verizon accepted the
benefit of CBE's funds for Golden Scaz's counsel during the Breda
case.

Verizon argues that CBE's claim for breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing fails as a matter of law. According
to Verizon, CBE alleges only that Verizon breached that covenant by
bringing this suit to enforce the MSA's indemnity provision, and
enforcing a contract provision agreed to by both parties cannot
constitute a breach of good faith.

Judge Rakoff notes that many of CBE's allegations are, indeed,
nothing more than an assertion that Verizon brought a (purportedly
unfounded) lawsuit seeking enforcement of the MSA's indemnity
provision. Verizon's attempt to enforce the indemnity provision,
even if in error, does not constitute a breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Judge Rakoff opines.

Some of CBE's allegations, Judge Rakoff finds, do go beyond
asserting that Verizon should not have sought enforcement of the
MSA's indemnity provision. But these allegations, even if taken as
true, do not support a claim for breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing.

Thus, Judge Rakoff holds that CBE's allegations, even if taken as
true, do not support a claim for breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing. Judgment must be entered to Verizon on
this claim.

Verizon also argues that judgment must be entered against CBE's
second counterclaim, as well. Verizon argues that CBE's claim for
unjust enrichment concerns services furnished to Verizon during the
defense to the Breda litigation, and unjust enrichment is
unavailable when a valid and enforceable written contract governing
the same subject matter exists.

Judge Rakoff holds that Verizon overreads the law. True, a party
that has a remedy under a contract concerning a certain matter
cannot generally pursue unjust enrichment regarding that matter.
But the same does not hold for a party that lacks such a remedy,
Judge Rakoff points out. That is true even when the counterparty
has a remedy, under the contract, for underpayment. Since the
overpayer itself does not have a contractual remedy, a claim for
unjust enrichment can proceed.

So too here, Judge Rakoff says. Verizon has a contractual remedy if
CBE does not fully honor the indemnity provision. But the reverse
does not hold. If CBE paid more than it needed to under the
indemnity provision -- as CBE claims it did -- CBE would have no
remedy on the contract, either in the indemnity clause or
elsewhere, through which it could recover the mistakenly remitted
funds. Unjust enrichment is available to remedy such a situation.

Of course, it might be the case that CBE's provision of Mr. Golden
as counsel to Verizon in the Breda litigation was required under
the MSA's indemnity provision, in which case CBE's counterclaim
would fail. But CBE has pled sufficient facts to make this
counterclaim plausible. Accordingly, Judge Rakoff holds that
judgment CBE's second counterclaim cannot be dismissed on the
pleadings.

For these reasons, Verizon's motion for judgment on the pleadings
is granted in part and denied in part, and CBE's first counterclaim
is dismissed but its second counterclaim is not.

The Clerk is directed to close entry number 18 on the docket.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Order dated Feb. 6,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/269a3kks from
Leagle.com.


CCS-SOUTH FLORIDA: D.T. FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as D.T., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CCS-South Florida LLC Complete Collection
Service, Case No. 230100618 was removed from the Philadelphia
County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 16, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00609-PD to the
proceeding.

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

CCS – South Florida, LLC is a collection agency located in
Oakland Park, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jody T. Lopez-Jacobs, Esq.
          450 Narberth Ave, Suite 101
          Narberth, PA 19072
          Phone: (610) 266-7863
          Fax: (610) 667-0552
          Email: jlopez-jacobs@consumerslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Patrick J. Doran, Esq.
          ARCHER & GREINER PC
          Three Logan Square, Suite 3500
          1717 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 963-3300
          Fax: (215) 963-9999
          Email: pdoran@archerlaw.com


CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Raguseo Files Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CentraState
Healthcare Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Albert Raguseo,
Robert Grun, Joshua Grun, Zachary Grun, Jill Grun, Christina
Aiello, Alyssa Sblendorio, Miriam Belanger, Kaitlin Stroud, Thomas
Sanitate, Katelyn Grabinsky, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. CentraState healthcare systems, inc., Case
No. 3:23-cv-01024-ZNQ-LHG (D.N.J., Feb. 21, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for the Federal Trade
Commission Act.

CentraState Healthcare System -- https://www.centrastate.com/ -- is
a fully accredited, not-for-profit, community-based health system
that provides comprehensive health services in the central New
Jersey region.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas William Stavola, Jr., Esq.
          PO BOX 87
          Colts Neck, NJ 07722
          Phone: (732) 539-7244
          Email: tstavolajr@gmail.com


CHICAGO, IL: McKinney Sues Over Laborers' Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryland McKinney, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. City of Chicago, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-01020 (N.D. Il., Feb. 20, 2023) is a collective and class
action brought by the Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act, seeking to recover from the Defendant unpaid
minimum wages and overtime hours and unreimbursed expenses owed to
him and similarly situated laborers.

Plaintiff McKinney has been employed by Defendant from
approximately June 2006 to present as a laborer.

City of Chicago is a municipal corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
          Skokie, IL 60076  
          Telephone: (847) 986-5889
          Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

               - and -

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

CHRISTIAN DIOR: Warmack-Stillwell BIPA Suit Partially Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Delma Warmack-Stillwell, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Christian Dior, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 22 C 4633 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Elaine E. Bucklo
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the complaint.

Warmack-Stillwell has filed the putative class action against
Christian Dior under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA"), 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. According to the complaint, the
Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website and used a virtual try-on
tool ("VTOT") that allowed her to see how its sunglasses would look
on her face, as if she were trying the glasses on in a
brick-and-mortar store. The VTOT is accessed by clicking a button
that appears next to images of eyewear for sale.

The VTOT is "powered by" an application created by another entity
called FittingBox. When a consumer uses the VTOT, a facial geometry
scan is performed and the data is collected and transferred to
FittingBox's server, and possibly defendant's server too, where it
is stored for an uncertain amount of time. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant profits from the process of collecting, storing,
and using consumers' facial geometry scans because it improves
customers' experiences purchasing eyewear from defendant online.

The Plaintiff complains that the Defendant's conduct violates BIPA,
which was enacted out of concern over increasing use of biometric
data, which is "biologically unique to the individual" and, if
compromised, leaves that individual with "no recourse" and
"heightened risk for identity theft."

Private entities are subject to various requirements and
restrictions under BIPA, three of which are the bases for each of
the Plaintiff's three counts. First, under section 15(a) private
entities in possession of biometric data must have a publicly
available written policy for the retention and destruction of that
data. Second, under section 15(b), they must get informed consent
before collecting, capturing, purchasing, receiving through trade,
or otherwise obtaining an individual's biometric data. And third,
under section 15(c), they may not "sell, lease, trade, or otherwise
profit from" an individual's biometric data.

The Defendant now moves to dismiss the complaint under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

First, the Defendant lodges a threshold jurisdictional argument for
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1), asserting that teh Plaintiff has not
alleged an injury in fact sufficient to satisfy Article III for her
section 15(a) and 15(c) claims.

Drawing all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiff's favor, Judge
Bucklo opines that the allegation in paragraph 137 of the complaint
makes it plausible that the Defendant's use of the Plaintiff's
biometric information for profit deprived her of the opportunity to
profit from her biometric information. And contrary to the
Defendant's suggestion, it is not necessary to infer that this
means the Plaintiff would have wanted a profit-sharing agreement
with the Defendant, which itself may run afoul of section 15(c)'s
categorical bar on third parties using biometric data for profit
and give rise to redressability concerns under Article III.

The Defendant also seeks to dismiss the complaint under Rule
12(b)(6), arguing that the alleged conduct falls under one of
BIPA's statutory exemptions. The Plaintiff argues that she cannot
reasonably be considered a "patient" because she only sought
non-prescription sunglasses, not prescription glasses.

But sunglasses, even if non-prescription, protect one's eyes from
the sun and are Class I medical devices under the Food & Drug
Administration's regulations. By using the VTOT to try on
sunglasses, Judge Bucklo holds that the Plaintiff was "an
individual awaiting medical care," and therefore a "patient,"
because the tool facilitates the provision of a medical device that
protects vision.

The Plaintiff also contends that more specific exemptions in BIPA
make clear that the general health care exemption was not intended
to reach the facts alleged here. She also cites legislative
testimony to the same effect. Judge Bucklo disagrees that it is
such a stretch to count the trying on and provision of sunglasses,
even in a virtual setting, as "health care" alongside these more
specific provisions.

For these reasons, Judge Bucklo denies the Defendant's motion to
dismiss for lack of standing under Rule 12(b)(1). She grants the
Defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Given this
disposition, she does not reach the Defendant's remaining arguments
for dismissal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2knjc9bm from
Leagle.com.


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Court Turns Loomis Dismissal Bid to Judgment Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LOOMIS SAYLES TRUST CO., LLC, Plaintiff v. CITIGROUP
GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22 Civ. 6706 (LGS)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York  converts the Defendant's motion
to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiff brings the putative class action against the
Defendant for failure to achieve best execution in connection with
trades executed on March 18, 2022, alleging breach of contract and
breach of fiduciary duty.

On Nov. 18, 2022, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint in
its entirety under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It
argues among other things that it acted pursuant to the Plaintiff's
instructions and did not have discretion to do otherwise.

To support this argument, the Defendant filed a Declaration
attaching Bloomberg chat messages, audio files of recorded
telephone calls and transcripts of the calls between Defendant and
Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P., the sole member of Plaintiff. The
Declaration states that the messages and audio files are true and
correct copies, that the transcripts are true and accurate and that
no redactions were made to any communications in the messages. The
Defendant's memorandum of law argues that these materials are
incorporated by reference into the Complaint and thus can be
considered in connection with its motion.

The Plaintiff's opposition to the motion discusses the exhibits but
without conceding that the exhibits are true, correct, or complete
transcripts of the chat and telephone calls.

Judge Schofield states that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(d), if, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters
outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the
court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under
Rule 56, provided that the parties have a reasonable opportunity to
present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.

For these reasons, Judge Schofield converts the Defendant's motion
to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. The parties will file
any and all additional evidentiary material that is pertinent to
the motion. They are directed to the Court's Individual Rules
regarding the submission of affidavits and exhibits in connection
with a motion. The parties each may file a letter brief, not to
exceed three pages, regarding the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/9hu4ruvj from Leagle.com.


COINMARKETCAP OPCO: Bids to Dismiss Cox Suit Granted With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ryan Cox, Plaintiff v. CoinMarketCap OpCo LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. CV-21-08197-PCT-SMB (D. Ariz.), Judge Susan M.
Brnovich of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
grants:

   a. Defendant BAM Trading Services Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss the
      Plaintiff's Complaint;

   b. Defendants Binance Capital Management Co., Ltd., Changpeng
      Zhao, Yi He, and Ted Lin's Motion to Dismiss the
      Plaintiff's Complaint; and

   c. CoinMarketCap's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's
      Complaint.

Before the Court are three separate motions to dismiss the
Plaintiff's Complaint filed by (i) Defendant BAM Trading Services
Inc. ("Binance.US"); (ii) Binance Capital Management Co., Ltd.,
("BCM") Changpeng Zhao, Yi He, and Ted Lin; and CoinMarketCap.

The case involves the alleged artificially suppressed ranking of
the HEX cryptocurrency on CoinMarketCap's website. The Plaintiff
filed the class action lawsuit, alleging that from Sept. 27, 2020,
to the present ("the Suppression Period"), the Defendants
"artificially suppressed" the value of HEX by "artificially
inflating" the value of other cryptocurrencies.

The Plaintiff filed the Complaint on behalf of all persons who sold
HEX during the Suppression Period which they had acquired prior to
the Suppression Period. Specifically, he alleges the following: (1)
a private right of action against all the Defendants under the
Commodity Exchange Act "CEA" for manipulation of commodity prices
and provision of false, misleading, or knowingly inaccurate reports
tending to affect the price of commodities (7 U.S.C. Sections 9(1),
9(3), 13(a)(2)); (2) strict liability against Defendants BCM and
Binance.US for violations of the CEA; (3) violation of the Arizona
Consumer Fraud Act against all corporate Defendants; (4) control
person liability for violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act
("ACFA") against all Defendants except CoinMarketCap; and (5) an
antitrust claim against all corporate defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges that CoinMarketCap is a coin ranking website
owned by Binance Capital Mgmt. Co., Ltd. -- a cryptocurrency
exchange. He further alleges that Binance.US is the U.S. affiliate
of BCM, and that both are affiliated with CoinMarketCap. The
Plaintiff also names the following individuals as Defendants: (1)
Changpeng Zhao, Binance's CEO; Yi He, Binance's Chief Marketing
Officer; (3) Ted Lin, Binance's Chief Growth Officer; and (4)
Catherine Coley, Binance.US's CEO from its inception to May 2021.

The Plaintiff alleges CoinMarketCap's historical rankings show HEX
was ranked as the 20th top cryptocurrency as recently as Sept. 20,
2020, and was in line with CoinMarketCap.com's estimation of HEX's
market cap. However, he contends by Sept. 27, 2020, the Suppression
Period began when HEX's ranking dropped to number 201 and has
remained locked ever since.  Because top ranked cryptocurrencies
appear higher on CoinMarketCap's homepage for purchase, Plaintiff
asserts that HEX's locked ranking has caused HEX to trade at lower
prices due to consumers needing to scroll further down the list.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff alleges that: (1) CoinMarketCap's failure
to properly rank HEX has artificially suppressed its value to his
detriment; (2) if HEX had been ranked higher, consumers would have
purchased HEX over other cryptocurrencies, including Binances'
cryptocurrencies; (3) this artificial suppression has provided a
financial benefit to all named Defendants; and (4) the erroneous
ratings have improperly inflated the value of cryptocurrencies
ranked above HEX, including Binances' cryptocurrencies. His claims
also rely on the theory that the Defendants artificially suppressed
the value of HEX to serve their own financial interests.

Binance.US, BCM, the Binance Individual Defendants, and
CoinMarketCap all move to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint for
lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim. BCM
and the Binance Individual Defendants also move to dismiss for
insufficient service of process on Binance Individual Defendants.

First, Binance.US raises numerous arguments as to why it does not
belong in the suit. These arguments include: (1) Binance.US is not
incorporated in Arizona, nor is its principal place of business in
Arizona; (2) Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Binance.US has had
minimum contacts with Arizona; and (3) "operating a national
website which directed unidentified users from unidentified states
to CoinMarketCap does not establish personal jurisdiction in
Arizona." It notes that the Plaintiff has not even alleged its
place of incorporation or principal place of business.
Concurrently, Binance.US requests judicial notice that it is
incorporated in Delaware with a California principal place of
business.

After reviewing the evidence submitted, and with no objection from
Plaintiff, Judge Brnovich takes judicial notice as to these two
facts. To otherwise establish general personal jurisdiction, the
Plaintiff had to allege that the Defendant's contacts with Arizona
"are so constant and pervasive as to render it essentially at home"
in the state. The Plaintiff makes no such arguments, raising only
arguments for specific jurisdiction. Accordingly, Judge Brnovich
finds she cannot exercise general jurisdiction over Binance.US. She
grants Binance.US's motion for lack of personal jurisdiction. Being
moot, she does not address Binance.US's arguments under Rule
12(b)(6).

Next, CoinMarketCap argues the Court does not have personal
jurisdiction over it, because it is a Delaware corporation that is
not alleged to have any place of business, operation, or employees
in Arizona. It also argues the Plaintiff fails to allege any
injuries arising from or relating to Arizona, or any of
CoinMarketCap's in-forum activities. As such, CoinMarketCap
contends the Plaintiff cannot establish specific jurisdiction in
Arizona.

The Plaintiff again raises the argument that the CEA's national
service of process provision confers jurisdiction over
CoinMarketCap. Additionally, he argues personal jurisdiction exists
under the Ninth Circuit's three-prong test, because CoinMarketCap
directs its activities in Arizona through its website, has a
partnership with Binance.US to be advertised on that website, and
CoinMarketCap cannot show any burden exists by defending this
action in Arizona.

The parties also do not dispute that CoinMarketCap is incorporated
in Delaware, has no principal place of business in Arizona, and is
not alleged to have an agent for service of process in Arizona, any
licensure, mailing addresses, offices, or physical operations in
Arizona. Having no basis to exercise general jurisdiction, Judge
Brnovich examines whether she has specific jurisdiction.

She finds that the Plaintiff has failed to allege personal
jurisdiction over CoinMarketCap. CoinMarketCap prevails in
demonstrating that it would be unreasonable for the Court to
exercise specific jurisdiction over it. Judge Brnovich therefore
grants CoinMarketCap's motion for lack of personal jurisdiction.
She need not reach the Defendant's arguments for dismissal under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) as they are moot.

Finally, BCM moves to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction, arguing that besides acquiring CoinMarketCap
in 2020, the Plaintiff's claims have nothing to do with BCM. The
Plaintiff again claims that the Court can exercise personal
jurisdiction over BCM under the national service of process
provision of the CEA.

Judge Brnovich finds that outside his claims for personal
jurisdiction under the CEA, and BCM's acting as an alter-ego for
Binance.US, the Plaintiff fails to assert whether the Court has
general jurisdiction or if specific jurisdiction can be exercised
under the Ninth Circuit's test.

Among other things, she finds that (i) the Plaintiff does not
allege that BCM is incorporated anywhere in the United States or
where its principal place of business is; (ii) he raises the exact
same arguments as he did in response to Binance.US and
CoinMarketCap's motion under the CEA's national service of process
provision; (iii) he makes no allegations regarding BCM financing
Binance.US, paying any of its debts, or that Binance.US is
inadequately capitalized; (iv) the Plaintiff fails to allege that
BCM pays any of Binance.US's expenses, salaries, or that the two
entities commingle funds and asset; and (v) the Plaintiff has
failed to establish a unity of interest.

Judge Brnovich also denies the Plaintiff's request for
jurisdictional discovery and grants BCM's motion for lack of
personal jurisdiction. As such, she need not reach BCM and the
Binance Individuals' arguments for failure to state a claim and
failure to provide proper service, as they are moot.

The Plaintiff's Complaint, Response, and oral argument assertions
fail to assert any facts that could satisfy personal jurisdiction.
Therefore, Judge Brnovich grants the motions to dismiss and
dismisses the Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. She instructs
the Clerk of Court to terminate the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yhv3ba3j from Leagle.com.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Dorsey Sues Over Contaminated Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Dorsey and Arnold Thomas on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY., Case No.
1:23-cv-01426 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 21, 2023), is brought seeking to
remedy the damages and injuries caused by Defendant, which
manufactured, marketed, and sold Fabuloso cleaning products
(hereinafter the "Products") that were contaminated with bacteria
that made the Products dangerous for consumers and their family
members.

The Products contained a bacteria, including called Pseudomonas
aeruginosa and Pseudomonas Fluorescens (collectively refrred to as
"Pseudomonas"), which could lead to serious and life-threatening
adverse health consequences. The risk of serious infection is
particularly concerning for immunocompromised individuals who are
highly susceptible to life threatening diseases and death from
Pseudomonas. The Defendant failed to disclose that the Products
contained Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

The Products' packaging and labeling does not identify Pseudomonas.
Defendant lists the ingredients by saying "MADE JOYFULLY WITH:" and
then lists the ingredients in the Products. However, Defendant does
not disclose that the Products contain Pseudomonas. Pseudomonas is
not listed in the ingredients section, nor is there any warning
about the Products containing Pseudomonas. This leads reasonable
consumers to believe the Products do not contain the dangerous
Pseudomonas bacteria.

When Plaintiffs and the Class Members purchased the Products, they
relied on Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions about the
Products. Plaintiffs and other consumers relied on Defendant to
sell products that are safe and free from harmful known substances,
including Pseudomonas, and to promptly and clearly warn about the
dangers of the Products. Plaintiffs and those similarly situated
(hereinafter "Class Members") expected that the Products would not
contain any harmful substances that Defendant did not disclose.
Consequently, Plaintiffs and the Class Members were damaged and
injured when Defendant manufactured and sold the Products
contaminated by the bacteria that is harmful to Consumers, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased Defendant's Fabuloso Product that was
subject to the recall of Defendant's Products.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells cleaning
products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen J. Fearon, Jr.
          Paul V. Sweeny
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          305 Broadway, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 421-6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
          Email: Stephen@sfclasslaw.com
                 Paul@sfclasslaw.com

CORECIVIC INC: Court Adopts Modifications in Scheduling Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kathleen Bliss, on behalf
of herself, the Proposed Nationwide Rule 23 Class, and the Proposed
Nevada Subclass, v. CoreCivic, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-01280-JAD-EJY
(D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Elayna Youchah entered an order adopting
the modifications to the scheduling order set forth below with
respect to Defendant's expert disclosures and both parties' class
certification briefing:

       Filing                    Current           New
                                 Deadline          Deadline

  Plaintiff's opening class   March 31, 2023   June 2, 2023
  certification brief:

  Defendant's class           May 1, 2023      July 14, 2023
  certification response
  brief:

  Plaintiff's class           May 31, 2023     August 14, 2023
  certification reply
  brief:

CoreCivic is a company that owns and manages private prisons and
detention centers and operates others on a concession basis.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4137whh at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew H. Morgan, Esq.
          Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
          Charles A. Delbridge, Esq.
          Rebekah L. Bailey, Esq.
          Charles J. O'Meara, Esq.
          Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4700 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          E-mail: morgan@nka.com
                  aprakash@nka.com
                  cdelbridge@nka.com
                  bailey@nka.com
                  comeara@nka.com
                  helland@nka.com

                - and -

          Michael Hodgson, Esq.
          THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
          3609 SW Pryor Road
          Lee's Summit, MO 64082
          Telephone: (816) 600-0117
          E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com

                - and -

          Lance D. Sandage, Esq.
          SANDAGE LAW LLC
          1600 Genessee Street, Suite 655
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Telephone: 816.753.0800
          E-mail: lance@sandagelaw.com

                - and -

          Joseph K. Eischens, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH K. EISCHENS
          8013 Park Ridge Dr.
          Parkville, MO 64152
          Telephone: (816) 945-6393
          E-mail: joe@jkemediation.com

                - and -

          Paul S. Padda, Esq.
          PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC
          4560 South Decatur Blvd., Suite 300
          Las Vegas, NV 89103
          Telephone: (702) 366-1888
          E-mail: psp@paulpaddalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel P. Struck, Esq.
          Rachel Love, Esq.
          Jacob B. Lee, Esq.
          Ashlee B. Hesman, Esq.
          Anne M. Orcutt, Esq.
          Eden G. Cohen, Esq.
          STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI &
          ACEDO, PLC
          3100 West Ray Road, Suite 300
          Chandler, AZ 85226
          E-mail: dstruck@strucklove.com
                  rlove@strucklove.com
                  jlee@strucklove.com
                  ahesman@strucklove.com
                  aorcutt@strucklove.com
                  ecohen@strucklove.com

                - and -

          Gina G. Winspear, Esq.
          DENNETT WINSPEAR
          3301 North Buffalo Dr., Suite 195
          Las Vegas, NV 89129
          E-mail: gwinspear@dennettwinspear.com

COUNTRY FLOORS: Vachnine Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Country Floors Of
America, LLC. The case is styled as Ness-Lee Vachnine, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Country Floors Of
America, LLC also known as: CFA, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01329
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2023).

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

Country Floors -- https://www.countryfloors.com/ -- offer ceramic
tile collections with stunning colors and luxury designs at the
best prices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel Levy, Esq.
          GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
          1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Phone: (516) 287-3458
          Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com


COUNTRY LIVING: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Country Living
Primitives, LLC. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Country Living
Primitives, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01279 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2023).

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

Country Living Primitives -- https://countrylivingprimitives.com/
-- is America's online source for country farmhouse decor,
primitive handcrafted lighting, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CREATIVE VENTURES: Colon Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
--------------------------------------------------------
Israel Colon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CREATIVE VENTURES, INC., d/b/a PRO WRESTLING TEES, CASe
No. 2023LA000177 (Ill. 18th Judicial Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty., Feb.
21, 2023), is brought arising from PWT's failure to properly secure
and safeguard personal identifiable information ("PII"), including
without limitation, unencrypted and unredacted names, financial
account numbers and/or credit/debit card numbers (in combination
with security codes, access codes, passwords or PIN numbers)
(collectively, the "payment card data" or "PCD").

On November 1, 2021, PWT was informed by law enforcement that its
customers' PII had been compromised as a result of a malware virus
on its computer system (the "Data Breach"). As a result, PWT
customers across the United States have suffered real and imminent
harm as a direct consequence of Defendant's conduct, which
includes: refusing to take adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure its data systems were protected; refusing to take available
steps to prevent the breach from happening; failing to disclose to
its customers the material fact that it did not have adequate
computer systems and security practices to safeguard customers'
personal and financial information; and failing to provide timely
and adequate notice of the data breach. The injuries suffered by
Plaintiff and the proposed Classes as a direct result of the Data
Breach, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a custom tee-shirt from the Defendant's
website in November 2021.

Creative Ventures, Inc., doing business as Pro Wrestling Tees is an
online retailer that sells custom made tee shirts to
consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 866.252.0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

               - and -

          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Phone: (513) 651-3700
          Fax: (513) 665-0219
          Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com


CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Lundholm Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Lundholm, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00285-DAP
(N.D. Ohio, Feb. 14, 2023), is brought contending that the
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA")
and the New Jersey wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL") by, among other
things, maintaining a uniform policy of knowingly misclassifying
its Loan Salespeople as exempt from overtime, failing to pay them
required minimum and overtime wages and paying them commission
only.

Throughout the relevant period, CCM unilaterally dictated and
controlled the terms of employment for all Loan Salespeople,
including the nature of their work, the compensation they received
and their classification as employees exempt from federal and state
overtime requirements. Throughout the relevant period, CCM also
unilaterally dictated and controlled the common policies governing
the employment of Loan Salespeople, including their productivity
requirements, how they were compensated and whether their hours
were tracked. Pursuant to CCM's common policies, CCM knowingly
suffered or permitted Plaintiff and other Loan Salespeople to
arrive early for work, stay late at work and perform work- related
tasks on weekends. As a result, Plaintiff and other Loan
Salespeople worked over 40 hours in given workweeks, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Loan Salesperson
in Lyndhurst, New Jersey from April 4, 2022 through November 2,
2022.

CCM is a national mortgage bank that provides mortgage banking
services to consumers in Ohio, New Jersey and other states across
the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Bldg., suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Phone: 216-696-5000
          Facsimile: 216-696-7005
          Email: alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com

               - and -

          Christopher Q. Davis, Esq.
          Brendan Sweeney, Esq.
          Hajar Hasani, Esq.
          THE LAW OFTLCE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS, PLLC
          80 Broad Street, Suite 703
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (646) 430-7930
          Facsimile: (646) 349-2504
          Email: cdavis@workingsolutionsnyc.com
                 bsweeney@workingsolutionsnyc.com
                 hhasani@workingsolutionsnyc.com


CVI SGP: Settlement Classes Get Certification in Cotte Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUGUSTO COTTE and MERCEDES
HIDALGO, v. CVI SGP ACQUISITION TRUST; CVI SGPCO ACQUISITION TRUST;
and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:21-cv-00299-JNP-DAO (D. Utah), the
Hon. Judge Jill N. Parrish entered an order granting the Plaintiffs
Augusto Cotte and Merceds Hidalgo's motion for class certification,
finding that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) have
been met.

   1. The named Plaintiffs, Augosto Cotte and Mercedes Hidalgo,
      are certified as class representatives.

   2. Class representatives' counsel, Daniel Baczynski of
      Baczynski Law, PLLC, is appointed as class counsel.

   3. The court certifies two settlement classes and defines
      them as follows:

      a. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Class:

         All individuals; against whom a Defendant filed a debt
         collection lawsuit; where the lawsuit was filed in
         Utah; to collect a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C.
         section 1692(a)(5); while said Defendant was
         unregistered as a debt collector pursuant to Utah Code
         section 12-1-1; and where the lawsuit was filed between
         April 10, 2020, and the date of entry of this court's
         preliminary settlement approval order.

      b. UCSPA Class:

         All individuals; against whom a Defendant filed a debt
         collection lawsuit; where the lawsuit was filed in
         Utah; to collect a debt incurred in connection with a
         "consumer transaction" as defined by Utah Code section
         13-11-3(2); and where the lawsuit was filed between
         April 10, 2016, and the date of entry of this court's
         preliminary settlement approval order.

CVI is a debt collector.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SdE7Np at no extra charge.[CC]


CVS PHARMACY: Hasemann's Bid to Disclose Customer Info Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JENNIFER HASEMANN & WENDY MANEMEIT,
Petitioners v. CVS PHARMACY INC., Respondent, Case No.
19-MC-2518(EK) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Eric Komitee of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York grants in part the
motion to compel CVS to disclose names, addresses and email
addresses of certain customers.

The dispute arises out of a class action now pending before this
Court in Hasemann v. Gerber Products Co., No. 15-CV-2995, and cases
consolidated with it for pretrial purposes. The Petitioners are the
class representatives in that action, in which they allege that
Gerber engaged in false and deceptive advertising in marketing its
Good Start Gentle infant formula.

The Petitioners move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
45(d)(2)(B)(i) for an order compelling CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a
nonparty to the class action, to disclose names, addresses, and
email addresses of certain CVS customers, who purchased the Good
Start formula. That rule provides that if a "person commanded to
produce documents" objects to a subpoena, "the serving party may
move the court for the district where compliance is required for an
order compelling production."

The Petitioners moved to compel in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Rhode Island, where CVS is headquartered. On consent of
CVS, that court transferred the motion to this Court under Rule
45(f).

The Petitioners seek to enforce their subpoena for production of:
"A machine-readable list of the names, addresses and email
addresses of all individuals whose addresses are in the United
States and who, between May 15, 2011, and the present, purchased
Gerber Good Start Gentle infant formula."

The Petitioners seek this information for the purpose of providing
notice to these customers of their potential membership in the
subclasses certified in Hasemann.

CVS's principal objection is that compliance with the subpoena
would violate its customers' privacy interests. But CVS has not
cited any authority dictating that this consideration should
override the need for class notification, Judge Komitee observes.

Judge Komitee notes that these are purchasers who, by definition,
have already shared their identities with CVS in a non-anonymous
transaction (by purchasing with a credit card or under a rewards
program, rather than in a cash transaction).

And to the extent such information is sensitive, Judge Komitee
finds that CVS has not shown that the protective order previously
entered in this case would not adequately protect against any
potential harm from disclosure of this information to the
Petitioners. Under these circumstances, the class members'
due-process rights to notice outweigh CVS's privacy objection.

Nonetheless, the Court does find that the subpoena, as currently
worded, is overbroad in one respect. It requests purchase
information from May 15, 2011 to "the present," which exceeds the
class period defined in the class certification order (Hasemann v.
Gerber Prods. Co., 331 F.R.D. 239, 279 (E.D.N.Y. 2019)).
Accordingly, the Court modifies the subpoena to encompass only
purchases during the class period.

For these reasons, CVS is directed to produce to Petitioners'
counsel the following information:

     A machine-readable list of the names, addresses, and email
     addresses of all individuals whose addresses are in the
     United States and who, between October 10, 2011, and
     April 23, 2016, purchased Gerber Good Start Gentle infant
     formula.

CVS will provide this information to the Petitioners no later than
14 days after the issuance of this order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated Feb. 6,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/e7fmawrc from
Leagle.com.


DAMERON HOSPITAL: Jones Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dameron Hospital
Association. The case is styled as Norman Jones, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dameron Hospital
Association, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0001461 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., Feb. 17, 2023).

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

Dameron Hospital -- https://www.dameronhospital.org/ -- are an
independent, fully accredited, non-profit community hospital with
specialized acute and tertiary care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chaya M. Mandelbaum, Esq.
          RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, LLP
          351 California Street. Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94104- 2412


DIZA TACOS: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration; Holmes Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sara L. Ellis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants the Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration and stay the case, DYNISHA HOLMES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DIZA TACOS STREETERVILLE, LLC Defendant, Case No. 22 C
3378 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Dynisha Holmes filed suit against Defendant Diza Tacos
Streeterville, LLC, alleging violations of the overtime provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage
Law ("IMWL") and the Chicago Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave
Ordinance ("Chicago Wage Ordinance"), as well as the payment
provisions of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act
("IWPCA").

Diza Tacos has moved to compel arbitration and stay the case
pending arbitration. Because the parties entered into an
arbitration agreement that leaves unconscionability challenges to
the arbitrator, the Court compels arbitration and stays this case
pending the outcome of the arbitration.

For several months in 2019 and again for one week in 2021, Holmes
worked for Diza Tacos, which owns and operates a Taco Bell
franchise in Chicago, Illinois. Diza Tacos employed Holmes as an
hourly "Crew Member," paying her wages and benefits, as well as
controlling her work schedule and duties. Holmes alleges that she
and other Crew Members regularly or occasionally worked over forty
hours per week without overtime pay in violation of the FLSA, IMWL,
IWPCA, and Chicago Wage Ordinance.

In connection with her employment, Holmes signed a Mandatory
Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver on Oct. 1, 2019.

Diza Tacos argues that the Arbitration Agreement requires the Court
to compel arbitration. While Holmes does not dispute that she
entered into an Arbitration Agreement that covers her claims or
that she refuses to arbitrate, she nonetheless maintains that the
Arbitration Agreement is unconscionable and, thus, unenforceable.
Diza Tacos responds, however, that because the Arbitration
Agreement includes a delegation clause, an arbitrator, and not the
Court, must resolve Holmes' enforceability challenge.

Judge Ellis finds that the Arbitration Agreement clearly and
unmistakably indicates an agreement to arbitrate the question of
the Agreement's enforceability. The agreement specifically states
that the arbitrator alone "is allowed to decide whether this
agreement is conscionable under state law." This language means
that the arbitrator, and not the Court, must determine any
questions concerning enforceability unless the delegation clause
itself is unenforceable.

But instead of challenging the enforceability of the delegation
clause, Holmes mounts a broader challenge to the Arbitration
Agreement as a whole, claiming it is both procedurally and
substantively unconscionable. Holmes' only mention of the
delegation clause in her response to the motion to compel comes in
a footnote addressing the applicable legal standard, in which she
states that a delegation clause, such as this, is enforceable
unless, as here, a party challenges the enforceability or validity
of the arbitration provision itself, citing Rent-A-Center, W., Inc.
v. Jackson, 561 U.S. at 69-70 (2010).

Judge Ellis opines that this misstates Rent-A-Center's holding,
which requires a specific challenge to the delegation clause's
enforceability, not to the arbitration agreement as a whole. And
because Holmes does not specifically challenge the delegation
clause, the Court must treat it as valid and enforce it pursuant to
Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, leaving Holmes'
unconscionability arguments for the arbitrator.

For these reasons, the Court grants Diza Tacos' motion to compel
arbitration and stay proceedings. The Court orders the parties to
initiate arbitration within twenty-one days and stays this matter
pending the resolution of the arbitration proceeding.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Feb. 6,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3tshu6ck from
Leagle.com.


DMP COLOR: Scott Sues Over High Levels of Benzene in Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marina Scott and Monica Luna, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DMP COLOR, LLC d/b/a dpHue, Case No.
2023LA000167 (Ill. 18th Judicial Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty., Feb. 16,
2023), is brought regarding the Defendant's manufacturing,
distribution, and sale of dpHue brand dry shampoo products (the
"Products") that contain dangerously high levels of benzene, a
carcinogenic impurity that has been linked to leukemia and other
cancers.

Benzene is a component of crude oil, gasoline, and cigarette smoke,
and is one of the elementary petrochemicals. The Department of
Health and Human Services has determined that benzene causes cancer
in humans.

These Products are not designed to contain benzene, and in fact no
amount of benzene is acceptable in dry shampoo products such as the
Products manufactured, distributed, and sold by Defendant. Thus,
the presence of benzene in the Products renders them adulterated
and misbranded, and therefore illegal to sell under both federal
and state law. As a result, the Products are unsafe and illegal to
sell under federal law, and therefore worthless.

Further, although Defendant lists both active and inactive
ingredients on the Products' labels, benzene is not among those
ingredients listed. Thus, Defendant misrepresents that the Products
do not contain benzene, or otherwise Defendant fails to disclose
that the Products contain benzene. Plaintiffs and other Class
Members would not have purchased the Products, or would have paid
substantially less for the Products, had Defendant disclosed that
the Products contained or risked containing benzene, or otherwise
not misrepresented that the Products did not contain or were not at
risk of containing benzene, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs have purchased multiple canisters of Defendant's
Products.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells dpHue brand dry
shampoo products throughout the State of Illinois and the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 866.252.0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

               - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
          Phone: 313-303-3472
          Email: nsuciu@milberg.com

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                 cardoso@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Fax: (212) 989-9163
          Email: mroberts@bursor.com

               - and -

          Sarah Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
          Email: swestcot@bursor.com


DRYBAR HOLDINGS: Hanyzkiewicz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. DRYBAR HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01363 (E.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 21, 2023), is brought against Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website,
www.drybarshops.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to
blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen reading software to read website content using her
computer.

The Defendant is a company that owns and operates
www.drybarshops.com offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


DYNAMIC COMMERCIAL: Mercado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Commercial
Service Inc., et al. The case is styled as Mchael Mercado, on
behalf of other members of the general bublic similarly situated v.
Dynamic Commercial Service Inc., Does 1-10, Case No.
34-2023-00335104-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Feb.
21, 2023).

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

Dynamic Commercial Service Inc. is a Delaware corporation located
in New Castle, Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Orlando J. Villalba, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park E., Ste. 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533
          Phone: 310-712-8002
          Email: Orlando.Villalba@capstonelawyers.com


E.I. DUPONT: Class Action Settlement in Moon Suit Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as 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, v. E.I.
du Pont de Nemours and Co., Case No. 1:19-cv-01856-SB (D. Del.),
the Hon. Judge Bibas entered an order approving the class action
settlement.

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 I
approve the settlement, Judge Bibas says.

Finally, the litigation expenses and the award for the Class
Representative are also sensible. Class Counsel requests $39,242
for expenses, far less than the $50,000 maximum. I have reviewed
the itemized expenses submitted under seal and confirmed with
Counsel that these expenses were necessary for the litigation, the
Judge adds.

DuPont is an American multinational chemical company first formed
in 1802 by French-American chemist and industrialist Eleuthere
Irenee du Pont de Nemours. The company played a major role in the
development of Delaware and first arose as a major supplier of
gunpowder.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IEp24w at no extra charge.[CC]



EASYWORKFORCE: Scottsdale Insurance Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EasyWorkforce
Software, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Scottsdale Insurance
Company v. EasyWorkforce Software, LLC, Maria Tapia-Rendon,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00991 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 17, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.

EasyWorkforce -- https://easyworkforce.com/ -- is a workforce
management solution for companies of all sizes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glenn A Klinger, Esq.
          Jonathan L. Schwartz, Esq.
          FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP
          33 N. Dearborn St., Suite 1430
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (773) 798-0819
          Email: glenn.klinger@fmglaw.com
                 jonathan.schwartz@fmglaw.com


EF EDUCATION FIRST: Littre Sues Over Automated Sales Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Madison Littre, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EF EDUCATION FIRST, INC., Case No. 23-000773-CI (Fla.
6th Judicial Cir. Ct., Pinellas Cty., Feb. 15, 2023), is brought
for legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions
of the Defendant in sending automated telephonic sales calls, in
the form of text messages, to her cellular telephone and the
cellular telephones of numerous other individuals across Florida,
in clear violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act
("FTSA").

The Plaintiff has never provided her "prior express written
consent" to Defendant or any other party acting on Defendant's
behalf to authorize the subject telephonic sales calls to Number by
means of an "automated system for the selection or dialing of
telephone numbers" within the meaning of the FTSA. Indeed, prior to
making (or knowingly allowing another person to make on its behalf)
the subject telephonic sales calls to the Plaintiff's Number, the
Defendant lacked a signed written agreement with the Plaintiff that
complies with the requirements of the FTSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Florida.

EF Education First, Inc. is an international education company that
specializes m language training, educational travel, academic
degree programs, and cultural exchange.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          Arun G. Ravindran, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: + 1 (305) 357-2107
          Facsimile: + 1 (305) 200-8801
          Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                 aravindran@hedinhall.com

EISENHOWER MEDICAL: Barber Sues Over Disclosure of PHI and PII
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Barber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Case No.
5:23-cv-00250-SSS-SHK (C.D. Cal., Feb. 16, 2023), is brought
against the Defendant, as the owner of eisenhowerhealth.org, for
knowingly and repeatedly intercepting, and disclosing to a third
party, Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Facebook"), confidential patient
communications and data from Eisenhower's website containing its
patients' personally identifiable information ("PII") and/or
statutorily-protected patient health information ("PHI") (together,
"User Data") without their knowledge, authorization, or consent, in
violation of various federal and state laws, as well as Defendant's
privacy policy with its patients, in violation of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), the California Invasion of
Privacy Act ("CIPA"), and the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act ("CMIA").

Eisenhower encourages patients to use its website and "secure"
online patient portal to communicate with Eisenhower. Plaintiff and
Class Members used eisenhmverhealth.org to communicate with their
doctors, view lab results, schedule medical appointments, and find
treatment options. Patients who exchange communications with
Eisenhower have a reasonable expectation of privacy that their
personally identifiable data and the content of their
communications will not be intercepted, transmitted, re-directed,
or disclosed by Eisenhower to third parties without the patient's
knowledge, consent, or authorization.

The Defendant aids, employs, agrees, and conspires with Facebook,
through the use of the Facebook Pixel, to intercept communications
sent and received by the Plaintiff and Class Members, including
communications containing protected medical information. The
Facebook Pixel is a code Defendant installed on its website and
patient portal allowing it to collect and transmit patients'
communications containing personally identifiable, sensitive
medical information. More specifically, it automatically intercepts
and transmits protected medical information, including, but not
limited to diagnoses, treatment information, lab results,
medications, and appointment times. This occurs even when the
patient has not shared (nor consented to share) such information.

Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, and pursuant to the
systemic process described herein, whenever a patient uses
Eisenhower's website and MyChart patient portal, patients' private
and protected communications with Eisenhower were automatically
transmitted and communicated to Facebook, alongside other
information--including diagnoses, treatment information, lab
results, medications, appointment times, and patients' unique
Facebook ID ("FID")--as a result of Defendant's decision to install
and use tracking pixels on its website.

Importantly, because the patient's FID uniquely identifies an
individual's Facebook user account, Facebook--or any other ordinary
person--can use it to quickly and easily locate, access, and view
patients' corresponding Facebook profile. Put simply, Facebook
Pixel grants Facebook knowledge of the private medical information
of Eisenhower's patients communicated on the Eisenhowerhealth.org
site.

The Defendant disregarded Plaintiff's and hundreds of thousands of
other patients' statutorily protected, constitutional, and common
law privacy rights by intercepting and releasing their sensitive
personal medical information to Facebook. As a result, Defendant
violated both state and federal statutes, including the ECPA, the
CIPA, and the CMIA. The Defendant's conduct also constitutes an
invasion of privacy under California's Constitution and the common
law, and a breach of contract, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been a patient of Eisenhower since at least
2021.

Eisenhower Medical, Inc. is a non-profit healthcare corporation
with its headquarters in Rancho Mirage, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (305) 975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


EMPACT VISION: Rice Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Rice, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EMPACT VISION INC., Case No. 7:23-cv-00032 (W.D. Tex.,
Feb. 17, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Portal-to-Portal Act (collectively, the "FLSA") seeking damages
for the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff overtime wages of time
and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40
during each seven-day workweek while working for Defendant paid on
a day rate basis.

Specifically, the Plaintiff was misclassified as an independent
contractor by the Defendant. The Plaintiff was paid a day rate and
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek while
performing his job duties for the Defendant. However, he was never
paid time and one half his regular rate of pay by the Defendant for
any hours worked over 40 in a workweek during his work for
Defendant, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Flowback Operator in
Midland, Texas from July 2021 to October 2022.

The Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          WAGE AND HOUR FIRM, LLP
          400 North Saint Paul Street, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
          Email: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
                 rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com


EMPIRE ONE FEDERAL: Kuzub Sues Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Donna Kuzub, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. EMPIRE ONE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:23-cv-00149
(W.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2023), is brought against the Defendant over
(1) the improper assessment and collection of $35.00 overdraft fees
("OD Fee") on debit card transactions authorized on sufficient
funds (2) multiple insufficient funds fees ("NSF Fee") or an OD Fee
after one or more NSF Fees was assessed on an item ("Multiple
Fees"); and violation of Regulation E of the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act.

Besides being deceptive, upon information and belief, these
practices breach Defendant's standardized adhesion contract (the
"Contract"). These practices also breaches the Defendant's duty of
good faith and fair dealing to the detriment of its customers.

The Plaintiff also alleges that because the Defendant provided
inaccurate and untruthful overdraft information to the Plaintiff
and the Classes regarding the overdraft practice, under Regulation
E of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Defendant was not
authorized to assess OD Fees to consumers for debit card and
non-recurring debit card charges. However, the Defendant did charge
its customers overdraft fees for ATM and debit card charges.

Through the imposition of these fees, the Defendant has made
substantial revenue to the tune of millions of dollars, seeking to
turn its members' financial struggles into revenue. The Plaintiff,
like thousands of others, has fallen victim to the Defendant's fee
revenue maximization scheme, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has maintained a checking account with the
Defendant.

The Defendant is a credit union with more than $85 million in
assets with a principal place of business in West Seneca, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 558-5500
          Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Phone: (202) 350-4783
          Email: sgold@kalielgold.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: (202) 280-4783
          Email: jkaliel@kalielgold.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq.
          JOHNSON FIRM
          610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
          Little Rock, AK 72201
          Phone: (501) 372-1300
          Email: chris@yourattorney.com
                 tyler@yourattorney.com


ENDLESSPENS LLC: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EndlessPens, LLC. The
case is styled as Iliana Lopez, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. EndlessPens, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01289
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2023).

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

EndlessPens -- https://endlesspens.com/ -- carries high-quality,
luxury pens of all styles from international brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: (718) 740-5060
          Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com


ENTRUST CORPORATION: Morrison Files Suit in D. Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Entrust Corporation,
et al. The case is styled as James Morrison, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Entrust Corporation, Entrust
MN Corporation, Case No. 0:23-cv-00415-WMW-ECW (D. Minn., Feb. 17,
2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.

Entrust Corp. -- https://www.entrust.com/ -- formerly Entrust
Datacard, provides software and hardware used to issue financial
cards, e-passport production, user authentication for those looking
to access secure networks or conduct financial transactions, trust
certificated for websites, mobile credentials, and connected
devices.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brittany N Resch, Esq.
          Raina Borrelli, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson St., Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone: (608) 237-1775
          Fax: (608) 509-4423
          Email: brittanyr@turkestrauss.com
                 raina@turkestrauss.com


EOG RESOURCES: Court Removes Steinhart as Counsel in May Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico grants the
Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw Counsel in the lawsuit titled JEREME
MAY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
EOG RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00025-KWR-SCY (D.N.M.).

The Court finds that good cause exists to remove Ryan W. Steinhart,
Esq., as counsel of record for the Plaintiff in this case.

The Clerk of the Court is ordered to cancel all future ECF filing
notifications to Ryan Steinhart. The Plaintiff will continue to be
represented by attorneys from Josephson Dunlap, LLP, and Bruckner
Burch PLLC.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 6, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4v7h6k28 from Leagle.com.


EROS MEDIA: Kandel Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII
-------------------------------------------------------
Pratik Kandel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EROS MEDIA WORLD PLC and EROS INTERNATIONAL USA INC.,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00905 (D.N.J., Feb. 16, 2023), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act
("VPPA") as a result of unlawful disclosure of personally
identifiable information ("PII") to third parties.

Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and members of the Class, however,
Defendants knowingly and intentionally disclose their users'
personally identifiable information--including a record of every
video viewed by the user--to unrelated third parties.

The United States Congress passed the VPPA in 1988, seeking to
confer onto consumers the power to "maintain control over personal
information divulged and generated in exchange for receiving
services from video tape service providers." The VPPA prohibits "a
video tape service provider who knowingly discloses, to any person,
personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such
provider."

The Defendants extol the fact that the Eros Now App provides
extensive video content to consumers, writing on their website that
the Eros Now App. The Defendants also reap massive financial
benefits from the video content it delivers on the App. At no point
do the Defendants receive permission from users to share their
location information, personally identifiable information, or video
viewing information with third parties, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff downloaded the Eros Now App on his Android phone in
June 2021.

EMW develops, owns, and operates a mobile application, titled "Eros
Now" ("Eros Now App" or the "App").[BN]

the Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Fax: (212) 989-9163
          Email: ykopel@bursor.com


ETERNAL SUNSHINE: Collective Cert Bid Dismissed as Moot in Cardenas
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDGAR SANTOS CARDENAS, v.
ETERNAL SUNSHINE CAFE, LLC, and MICHAEL PELLEGRINO, Case No.
7:21-cv-00205-D (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge James C. Dever III
entered an order granting the defendants' motion for judgment on
the pleadings and dismissing as moot plaintiff's motion for
collective action certification.

The suit arises from a wage dispute between Cardenas (a former
baker at the Cafe) and Pellegrino (the Cafe owner).

On January 31, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint
[D.E. 9] and filed a ·memorandum in support. On February 16, 2022,
Cardenas filed an amended complaint. On May 2, 2022, in light of
the amended complaint, the court denied as moot defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint.

In Cardenas's amended complaint, he alleges:

   (1) a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for
       failure to pay minimum wage and overtime and

   (2) a violation of the NorthCarolina Wage and Hour
       Act (NCWHA).

On April 21, 2022, defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to
collective action certification and an amendment to the memorandum.


Specifically, on November 24, 2021, after a jury trial, the state
court directed a verdict in favor of Pellegrino and the Cafe on
Cardenas's claims and counterclaims.

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

EVOLUTION WELL: Copley's $2.55M Class Settlement Wins Prelim. Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RYAN COPLEY, PAT MCGEENEY, JOE TILLEY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
EVOLUTION WELL SERVICES OPERATING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-CV-01442-CCW (W.D. Pa.), Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania grants
the Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of a Class and
Collective Action Settlement filed by Plaintiffs Ryan Copley, Pat
McGeeney, Joe Tilley and Opt-In Plaintiff Brian Hanes.

Plaintiffs Copley, McGeeney, and Tilley filed their operative
Second Amended Complaint on Feb. 24, 2021, naming as Defendants
Evolution Well Services, LLC and Evolution Well Services Operating,
LLC. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, as their employer,
failed to properly compensate them and other employees for time
spent traveling to remote work locations, where employees would
live for 14-day periods in employer-sponsored housing, and
additionally, for time spent traveling from the employer-sponsored
housing to daily work sites.

On April 13, 2021, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Evolution
Well Services, LLC, without prejudice. The remaining Defendant,
Evolution Well Services Operating, LLC ("EWSO"), then moved to
dismiss. The Court granted in part and denied in part EWSO's
motion. EWSO filed an Answer, and the case then proceeded into
discovery. While EWSO's motion to dismiss was pending, Mr. Hanes
joined this action as an opt-in plaintiff.

On Sept. 21, 2022, the parties successfully reached a settlement
with the assistance of Carole Katz, a mediator who specializes
wage-and-hour claims.

On Jan. 5, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion, seeking
an order: (1) granting preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement agreement of the above-captioned action pending in the
Court; (2) certifying, for settlement purposes only and pursuant to
the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the PA Class and the OH
Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), and approving final
certification of the FLSA Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b); (3) appointing the Plaintiffs as the class representatives;
(4) appointing the Plaintiffs' Counsel, Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr. and
Elizabeth Pollock-Avery of Lynch Carpenter LLP, as the Class
Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; (5) approving the form and
manner of Notice to be provided to the Settlement Class; (6)
setting a deadline to opt-out/object of 60 days after dissemination
of Class Notice; and (7) setting a date for a Final Approval
Hearing no sooner than 120 days after entry of a Preliminary
Approval Order.

The Plaintiffs had filed a brief in support, but have subsequently
amended the brief in support, and submitted an amended declaration
from the Plaintiffs' counsel, Elizabeth Pollock-Avery.

Judge Wiegand explains that according to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, there is an initial presumption of
fairness when the court finds that: (1) the negotiations occurred
at arm's length; (2) there was sufficient discovery; (3) the
proponents of the settlement are experienced in similar litigation;
and (4) only a small fraction of the class objected, citing In re
GMC Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig., 55 F.3d 768, 785
(3d Cir. 1995).

After analyzing the GMC factors, the Court examines whether any
"other obvious deficiencies" are present, such as unduly
preferential treatment of class representatives or segments of the
class, or excessive compensation of attorneys, and whether it
appears to fall within the range of possible approval. If there are
no obvious deficiencies, the settlement is considered "fair,
reasonable, and adequate" pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2).

Judge Wiegand opines that there does not appear to be any
preferential treatment of the class representatives. As service
awards, the named Plaintiffs will each receive $10,000 each, and a
pre-certification opt-in plaintiff, Brian Hanes, will receive
$5,000.

The settlement, itself, also falls into the range of possible
approval. The proposed settlement will create a $2,550,000 fund,
compensating the class for approximately 80% of the unpaid wages
sought. Each member of the class will recover, on average, $5,900.
This result is higher than other settlements, facing similar legal
issues, which have been approved. Therefore, the actual recovery
supports a presumption of fairness.

Finally, Judge Wiegand finds that the requested 33% in attorneys'
fees is well within the range of acceptable requests in this
district court and has been approved in many other wage and hour
collective/class matters. Hence, the fee request is not excessive.

There being no obvious deficiencies, the proposed settlement
appears to be "fair, reasonable, and adequate" pursuant to Rule
23(e)(2). Accordingly, Judge Wiegand preliminarily approves the
proposed settlement.

Judge Wiegand next addresses provisional certification of the
settlement class.

The Plaintiffs define two classes -- a Pennsylvania class and an
Ohio class -- as follows:

     a. OH Class: All current and former rotational, non-exempt
employees who were employed by Defendant, and who worked for
Defendant in the State of Ohio on or after August 26, 2018 and who
have not opted-out of the Settlement, pursuant to Ohio state wage
and hour laws.

     b. PA Class: All current and former rotational, non-exempt
employees who were employed by Defendant, and who worked for
Defendant in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on or after Feb. 1,
2019 and who have not opted-out of the Settlement, pursuant to
Pennsylvania state wage and hour laws.

Judge Wiegand finds that, for the purposes of provisional
certification, the proposed class meets the criteria set forth in
Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3), such that provisional certification
of the class is warranted.

After reviewing the Proposed Notice Plan, Judge Wiegand finds that
each of the requirements set forth in Rule 23(c)(2)(B) are met.

Finally, the Plaintiffs seek final certification of the FLSA
collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

The FLSA collective is defined as follows: The conditionally
certified collective including all current and former rotational
non-exempt employees who were employed by Defendant on or after
Feb. 1, 2019, who elected to opt-in to the Action pursuant to the
FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The complete list of Collective
Members is attached as Exhibit A.

Judge Wiegand holds that the proposed notice explains the opt-out
process, such that members may preserve any claim, which would
include FLSA claims, they might pursue separately. Therefore, she
concludes that the parties' release is acceptable and grants final
certification of the FLSA collective action.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wiegand grants the Plaintiffs'
Motion and enters an order: (1) granting preliminary approval of
the proposed settlement agreement at ECF No. 143-1; (2) certifying,
for settlement purposes only and pursuant to the terms of the
settlement agreement, the Pennsylvania Class and the Ohio Class
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), and approving final certification of the
FLSA Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b); (3)
appointing the Plaintiffs as the class representatives; (4)
appointing the Plaintiffs' Counsel, Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr. and
Elizabeth Pollock-Avery of Lynch Carpenter LLP, as the Class
Counsel pursuant to Rule 23; (5) approving the form and manner of
Notice to be provided to the Settlement Class; (6) setting a
deadline to opt-out/object of 60 days after dissemination of Class
Notice; and (7) setting a date for a Final Approval Hearing no
sooner than 120 days after entry of a Preliminary Approval Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p9e57kd from Leagle.com.


EYE CARE: Court Denies all Pending Bids to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FARLEY v. EYE CARE LEADERS
HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00468-CCE-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Court
entered an order denying all pending motions to dismiss in all
consolidated cases.

The cases have been pending many months, and the defendants should
be able to file answers within the usual time without extension.

The cases are referred to the Magistrate Judge for an initial
pretrial conference in March, to cover all the usual matters plus
discussion of timing for a consolidated class certification motion
and appropriate procedures to ensure that duplicative motions are
not filed when a consolidated motion is more efficient.

To get the ball rolling and to facilitate a meaningful initial
pretrial conference, no later than February 28, 2023, all parties
shall provide their initial pretrial disclosures per Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A).

The deadline for the motion for class certification is June 1,
2023, subject to extension by the Magistrate Judge at the initial
pretrial conference. Discovery on the merits can begin after the
initial pretrial conference, as usual, or earlier to the extent the
parties agree.

Eye Care provides eye care solutions. The Company focuses on
delivering solutions, services, and software to ophthalmology
practices.

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


F.C. INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sanders Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reginald Sanders, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. F.C. Industries, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00055-MJN-PBS (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 20, 2023) arises
under the Fair Labor Standards Act for Defendant's failure to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees earned overtime
wages and all hours worked, and improper kickbacks.

The Plaintiff was employed by F.C. Industries as an operator/team
lead from approximately October 2013 through approximately June
2020. He worked as a non-exempt, full-time, hourly employee in
Dayton, Ohio.

F.C. Industries, Inc. operates as a metal manufacturing
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: (847) 986-5889
          Facsimile: (847) 673-1228  
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

               - and -

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

FCTI INC: Polvay Seeks to Certify Checking Account Holder Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEROME POLVAY,
individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. FCTI, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
1:22-cv-04315-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff ask the Court to enter
an order for class certification on behalf of himself and the
proposed Class of:

   "all holders of a checking account at one, or more, Banks who
   were assessed more than one fee for a balance inquiry during
   the same visit at a FCTI ATM in the State of New York, within
   the applicable statute of limitation preceding the filing of
   this lawsuit until November 16, 2021, pursuant to Federal
   Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b), and appointing Todd
   D. Carpenter and (Eddie) Jae K. Kim of the law firm Lynch
   Carpenter, LLP, as Class Counsel."

The briefing schedule and oral argument are as follows:

   -- Moving Papers           February 3, 2023

   -- Opposition Papers       February 24, 2023

   -- Reply Papers            March 10, 2023

   -- Oral Argument           March 17, 2023 at 3:00 PM in
                              Courtroom 14B

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 3,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z3kA4p
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq.
          Tiffine E. Malamphy, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1900
          E-mail: todd@lcllp.com
                  ekim@lcllp.com
                  tiffine@lcllp.com
                  gary@lcllp.com

FINE'S GAS APPLIANCES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fine's Gas
Appliances, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Fine's Gas Appliances,
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01263-ER (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2023).

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

Fine's Gas -- https://www.finesgas.com/ -- is a family-owned
business & stocks gas fireplace logs, fireplace inserts, wall
heaters, gas grills and patio accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLORIDA POWER: Faces Toll Suit in Florida for Nuisance
------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS S. TOLL and STACY S. TOLL, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-002133 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial,
Broward Cty., Feb. 20, 2023) is an action for Common Law Nuisance
arising from Defendant's actions rendering Plaintiffs unsafe and
insecure in life and interfering with the use and enjoyment of
their property.

The Plaintiffs own a house in the residential neighborhood of Davis
Isles, located in the city of Dania Beach, Broward County,
Florida.

FPL owns the large tract of neighboring land to Plaintiffs' home
and operated the old power plant until 2018 then built a new power
plant on said land.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs have only had a few
minor and one major issue associated with the operation of the old
power plant. The minor issues were corrosive vapors from the old
power plant causing damage to the finish of boats and vehicles. The
major issue being a large explosion of the old power plant in 2016,
shaking Plaintiffs homes and sending 100-foot flames in the air for
over four hours, only about 100 yards from Plaintiffs' homes.

In March 2018, FPL started the demolition of the old power plant.
On April 18, 2018, loud sound of heavy machinery and industrial
tools started to come from the demolition site of the Old Power
Plant next door which was continuous for approximately nine months.
The disturbing noise started as early as 2:00 A.M but usually
picked up between 4-5:00 A.M. The sound consisted of industrial
engines hard at work, industrial machinery hard at work, the sound
of large engines struggling under heavy load using engine break and
reverse alarm. These sounds disturbed and kept Plaintiffs from
sleeping at night and from resting and enjoying their homes during
the day, lasting for approximately 9 months including weekends,
says the suit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Balazs Vigh, Esq.
          THE LEGAL WAY, P.A.
          1835 E. Hallandale Beach Blvd. Suite 872
          Hallandale Beach, FL 33009
          Telephone: (954) 816-8155
          E-mail: balazs@thelegalway.us

GEICO CASUALTY: Loses Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Thomas Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denies the
Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings in the lawsuit
styled JAMES G. THOMAS and ROXANNE G. THOMAS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GEICO
CASUALTY COMPANY, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, and GEICO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04306 (N.D. Ill.).

In October 2021, Plaintiffs James Thomas and Roxanne Thomas filed a
five-count Amended Complaint challenging Defendants GEICO Casualty
Company, GEICO Indemnity Company, and GEICO General Insurance
Company's (collectively "GEICO" or "Defendants") auto insurance
premium rates as unconscionably excessive in light of an alleged
reduction in the insurance risk pool due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Currently before the Court is the Defendants' motion for judgment
on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Illinois instituted social distancing
measures in an effort to control the spread of the disease. As a
result of these measures, there was a reduction in driving and
driving-related accidents. In response to reduced rates of driving
and driving-related accidents, the Defendants instituted a "GEICO
Giveback" program, which applied a 15% premium reduction to new and
renewed auto insurance policies.

The Plaintiffs allege that this premium deduction was insufficient
as compared to the overall reduction in GEICO's customers' risk
profiles, and is, thus, unfair and deceptive, in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
("ICFA").

The question presented to the Court is a narrow one: whether the
"filed-rate" doctrine prevents the Court from awarding the
Plaintiffs damages. The filed-rate doctrine prohibits courts from
invalidating or modifying a rate that has been filed with a public
utility or common carrier's regulator.

At issue here is whether Illinois' version of the filed-rate
doctrine applies to rates for personal automobile insurance, which
are filed with the Illinois Department of Insurance (the
"Department"). The Illinois legislature has largely deregulated the
private automobile insurance market, and the Department apparently
has no authority to set, approve, or disapprove these rates; it
merely publishes filed rates.

The Defendants argue that in Illinois, the filing of a rate with a
state regulatory agency is sufficient to bring that rate under the
protection of the filed-rate doctrine. The Plaintiffs counter that
the doctrine is triggered only when the rates are filed with an
agency that has the authority to approve and disapprove of the
rates, and that because the Department lacks that authority, the
Illinois filed-rate doctrine is not applicable in the private
automobile insurance context.

Underlying the parties' substantive legal dispute is a disagreement
over which Court's precedent should apply. The Defendants argue
that the matter is governed by a recent Seventh Circuit decision,
South Branch LLC v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 46 F.4th 646 (7th Cir.
2022). The Plaintiffs contend that Corbin v. Allstate Corp., 2019
IL App (5th) 170296, 140 N.E.3d 810 (5th Dist. 2019), a decision
from an Illinois intermediate appellate case, should govern.

Despite the Defendants' contentions, Judge Coleman opines that
South Branch is not controlling, given that it concerned a public
utility, which is regulated by the Illinois Commerce Commission
("ICC"), a state agency with different authorities and
responsibilities than the Department, and because the underlying
claim was under federal, not state, law. And a closer look at the
analysis and underlying facts in South Branch suggests the logic
contained within may be of limited applicability here.

The Defendants ask the Court to disregard the decisions in Corbin
and Cohen v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., 735 F.3d 601, 607 (7th Cir. 2013),
whose facts more closely resemble those before the Court today, in
favor of South Branch. The Court declines to do so.

In the absence of on-point precedent from the Seventh Circuit, the
Court adopts the persuasive reasoning in Corbin. One of the two
primary aims of the filed-rate doctrine is deference to the
regulatory authority of state regulatory agencies. But when the
relevant state agency plays no role in insurance rate approval,
application of the doctrine makes little sense. Accordingly, the
Court will not abdicate the responsibility to assess whether the
Defendants' pandemic-era rates were deceptive or unfair in
deference to non-existent state rate-setting authority.

For these reasons, GEICO's motion for judgment on the pleadings is
denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Feb. 6, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdefapw2 from
Leagle.com.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: S.D. New York Dismisses Trivedi Employment Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York issued an Order of Dismissal
and to Show Cause Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1651 in the lawsuit
titled MADHURI TRIVEDI, Plaintiff v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 23-CV-0126 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiff filed this action pro se. She brings this action
asserting claims arising from her employment at General Electric
Company, Inc. (GE) and GE Healthcare, her termination from GE
Healthcare, and the litigation of her employment discrimination
claims in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
and in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
For the reasons set forth here, the Court dismisses the complaint
and orders the Plaintiff to show cause, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1651, why the Court should not bar her from filing further
actions in this Court without prior permission.

The Plaintiff, who resides in Boston, Massachusetts, brings this
105-page complaint with 183 pages of exhibits against GE; GE
Healthcare, GE employees and affiliates; Fragomen, Del Rey, Bersen
& Loewy, LLP, and its partner, Jenny Schrager; Foley & Mansfield, a
law firm, and Seymour Mansfield and Andrew Shedlock, two of the
firm's attorneys; the United States Department of Labor and several
of its employees; the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) and several of its employees; the Office of the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), ALJ Timothy McGrath, and members of
the Administrative Review Board; and the Office of the Solicitor
and its employees.

The Plaintiff asserts 12 different claims against these Defendants,
including violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
whistleblower retaliation under the Dodd-Frank Act, violations of
whistleblower protections under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and
the Administrative Procedures Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that she was employed full time at GE
Healthcare in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, but that, in 2010, she did work
for GE in Boston, Massachusetts, for a short time. She further
alleges that she was terminated in Wisconsin, and that an
arbitration took place at a hotel in Wisconsin. She labels her
pleading as a "CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, EQUITABLE,
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF."

A review of the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER)
system shows that, on Aug. 30, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an action
in the District of Massachusetts against the same Defendants,
asserting the same claims (Trivedi v. General Electric Co., No.
19-CV-11862 (D. Mass. May 27, 2021)). By order dated May 27, 2021,
the Honorable Patti B. Saris, of that court, adopted the report and
recommendations of Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley and dismissed
the case against all defendants.

A review of PACER also shows that, on Aug. 9, 2022, the Plaintiff
filed a motion to transfer that case to the "second circuit or
another circuit; where judges are not this seriously corrupt." By
memo endorsement dated Aug. 12, 2022, Judge Saris denied the
Plaintiff's motion.

On Oct. 3, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an action in this Court
against the same defendants, asserting the same claims. By order
dated Oct. 5, 2022, the Court transferred the action to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Trivedi v.
General Electric Co., ECF 1:22-CV-8453, 4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2022)).
The Plaintiff then filed a motion for reconsideration on Oct. 7,
2022, and the Court denied the motion on Oct. 12, 2022. The
Plaintiff filed a second motion for reconsideration on Oct. 13,
2022, and, on Oct. 13, 2022, the Court denied the second motion for
reconsideration.

On Dec. 12, 2022, in the action that this Court transferred to the
District of Massachusetts, United States Magistrate Judge Karen
Frink Wolf of that court entered an order recommending that the
case be dismissed as barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion
(Trivedi v. General Electric Co., No. 1:22-CV-11746-LEW (D. Mass.
Dec. 12, 2022)). On Jan. 5, 2023, the Honorable Lance E. Walker
adopted the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Wolf, dismissed with
prejudice the Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety, and denied as
moot the Plaintiff's requests for transfer and other relief.

On Dec. 14, 2022, two days after Magistrate Judge Wolf issued her
recommendation, the Plaintiff filed a second action in this Court,
naming as defendants Judges Saris and Kelley, of the District of
Massachusetts, and judges of the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit as additional Defendants. By order dated Dec. 19,
2022, the Court transferred that action to the District of
Massachusetts (Trivedi v. General Electric Co., ECF 1:22-CV-10630,
6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2022)), where it is currently pending, Trivedi
v. General Electric Co., No. 23-CV-10067 (D. Mass. filed Jan. 10,
2023).

Because this was the second time that the Plaintiff attempted to
litigate the same claims in this Court, the Court's Dec. 19, 2022
order also warned the Plaintiff that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1651, further duplicative or frivolous litigation in this Court may
result in an order barring her from filing new actions in this
Court without prior permission.

Also on Dec. 19, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a "Motion for conference
call and hearing with Judge." On Dec. 21, 2022, the Plaintiff filed
a letter motion requesting that the Court: (1) "assign this case
either randomly to another judge or to judge Jesse Furman, Judge
Katherine"; (2) "reconsider transfer"; and (3) "have a conference
call (I filed one motion already yesterday)."

On Dec. 21, 2022, the Plaintiff also sent several emails and placed
several calls to chambers. By order dated Dec. 21, 2022, the Court
denied the Plaintiff's motions, advised her not to contact
chambers, and reiterated the warning that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1651, further duplicative or frivolous litigation in this
Court may result in an order barring the Plaintiff from filing new
actions in this court without prior permission.

On Jan. 6, 2023, the day after Judge Walker, in the District of
Massachusetts, adopted Magistrate Wolf's recommendation and
dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint as barred by the doctrine of
claim preclusion, the Plaintiff filed this action, her third action
initiated in this Court, naming mostly the same defendants and
raising the same claims.

For the reasons discussed here, the Court finds it appropriate to
dismiss this action although the Plaintiff has not paid the filing
fees or submitted a completed and signed IFP application.

Judge Swain holds that the Plaintiff's claims are barred by the
doctrine of claim preclusion. The Plaintiff brings this action on
behalf of herself and others asserting claims arising out of the
same transactions and occurrences that were the subject of two
previous actions she filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Trivedi, No. 1:22-CV-11746-LEW; Trivedi,
No. 19-CV-11862).

The elements of claim preclusion are satisfied here, Judge Swain
says. Claims arising from the events pleaded in the Plaintiff's
complaint have already been raised and adjudicated in prior
District of Massachusetts actions. Because the Plaintiff's present
claims arise out of the same transactions and occurrences that were
the subject of the previous actions in that court, her claims
either were brought or could have been brought in the prior
proceedings. Accordingly, Judge Swain holds that the claims raised
in this action are dismissed as barred by the doctrine of claim
preclusion.

In light of the Plaintiff's litigation history as outlined here,
the Court now orders her to show cause why she should not be barred
from filing any further actions in this Court without first
obtaining permission from the Court to file her complaint. Within
thirty days of the date of this order, the Plaintiff must submit to
the Court a declaration setting forth good cause why an injunction
should not be imposed upon her.

If the Plaintiff fails to submit a declaration within the time
directed, or if her declaration does not set forth good cause why
this injunction should not be entered, Judge Swain holds that she
will be barred from filing any further actions in this Court unless
she first obtains permission from the Court to do so.

In conclusion, Judge Swain holds that the complaint is dismissed as
barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion. All other pending
matters in the case are terminated.

The Plaintiff will have thirty days to show cause by declaration
why an order should not be entered barring her from filing any
future action in this Court without prior permission. A declaration
form is attached to this order.

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that any
appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and
therefore, IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal.

The Clerk of Court is instructed to keep this action open on the
docket until judgment is entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 6, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4c9etp4z from Leagle.com.


GENUENT GLOBAL: Cooper Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
EFFIE COOPER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENUENT GLOBAL, LLC, and INSPYR SOLUTIONS,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00177-UNA (D. Del., Feb. 16,
2023) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and
those similarly situated overtime compensation at one and one-half
times their regular rates in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was originally employed by Defendant Genuent in
January 2022 as a non-exempt, hourly, "trainer" that provided
support for healthcare recordkeeping software. He was still
employed when Genuent's merger with TekPartners, a subsidiary of
P2P Staffing Corporation, was announced in September 2022 to become
INSPYR Solutions.

Since the merger, Defendants jointly exercised operational control
over significant aspects of the day-to-day functions and shared
authority to set rates and methods of compensation of employees,
including Plaintiff and those similarly situated. As a result of
Defendants' practices and policies, Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees have been damaged in that they have not received
wages due to them pursuant to the FLSA, says the suit.

Genuent Global, LLC  provides job placement services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
          FARNAN LLP
          919 N. Market St. 12th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 777-0338
          Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
          E-mail: mfarnan@farnanlaw.com

               - and -

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          1360 East 9th Street, Ste. 808
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 230-2944
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7034 Braucher St NW, Suite B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com

GLOBAL INT'L: Ohio App. Nixes Appeal & Cross-Appeal in Lambert Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled THOMAS LAMBERT,
Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL
SERVICES, et al., Defendants, HAPNEL FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Case No. 2022-P-0050 (Ohio
App.), the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Portage
County, dismisses an appeal and cross-appeal for lack of a final
appealable order.

The Appellant, Thomas Lambert, appeals from the Aug. 17, 2022 order
of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, which certified the
court's July 15, 2022 order as final and found no just cause for
delay. The Appellee, Hapnel Financial Group, Inc., filed a
cross-appeal from that same order.

The underlying matter pertains to a class action lawsuit filed by
Mr. Lambert in 2020, against Global International Services, Global
Management Acquisition Firm, Inc., Hapnel Financial Group, Inc.,
and four John Does related to the Defendants' debt-collection
practices. Mr. Lambert alleges violations of Ohio's Consumer Sales
Practices Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

On July 15, 2022, the trial court entered an order and judgment
entry granting Hapnel's motion to dismiss and finding that Mr.
Lambert did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
court had personal jurisdiction over Hapnel. The court further
denied Mr. Lambert's Civ.R. 11 motion for sanctions, ordered Hapnel
to pay $8,335.72 in attorney's fees to Mr. Lambert's counsel, and
also sanctioned a non-party, Nelson Adesegha. Mr. Lambert moved for
certification of the court's order as final, which the court
granted in its Aug. 17, 2022 order. It is from that order that Mr.
Lambert appeals, and Hapnel cross-appeals.

Upon Hapnel's motion, the Court of Appeals remanded the matter to
the lower court for it to rule on two pending motions to vacate,
which were both filed by Hapnel on Aug. 22, 2022. On remand, the
Court vacated its Aug. 17, 2022 order, but it did not address one
of Hapnel's motions.

Given the disposition on remand, on Oct. 27, 2022, the Court of
Appeals issued a judgment entry ordering the parties to show cause
as to why the appeal and cross-appeal should not be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that
since there is no longer a finding by the trial court that there is
no just reason for delay, and neither the class action nor any
claim has been resolved, no final appealable order exists under
R.C. 2505.02.

In response, Hapnel asked that the Court of Appeals remands the
matter to the trial court for a ruling on its Motion to Vacate Void
Judgment, as directed by Court of Appeals in its Oct. 6, 2022
judgment entry. Similarly, Mr. Lambert asked that the Court of
Appeals extends the remand to the trial court for it to issue a new
ruling on his Civ.R. 54 Motion for Certification of the Trial
Court's July 15, 2022 order and judgment entry.

Judge John J. Eklund, writing for the Panel, notes that appellate
courts have jurisdiction over final orders or judgments of lower
courts within their appellate districts.

The lower court decision on remand vacated the order the parties
appealed. It is undisputed that the lower court has not disposed of
all claims by and against all parties. With the Aug. 17, 2022 order
vacated, Judge Eklund holds that there is no express determination
that there is "no just reason for delay," pursuant to Civ.R. 54(B).
Accordingly, there is no final appealable order before the Court of
Appeals.

Though both parties ask the Panel to remand the matter to the lower
court, the Court of Appeals lacks the jurisdiction to do so. While
the Court of Appeals is mindful of judicial economy, Judge Eklund
finds that this matter must be dismissed for lack of final
appealable order.

In light of the foregoing, the instant appeal and cross-appeal are
sua sponte dismissed for lack of a final appealable order.

MARY JANE TRAPP, J., MATT LYNCH, J., concur.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Feb. 6,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y56xur6e from
Leagle.com.

Michael L. Fine, Esq., Frederick & Berler LLC, 767 East 185th
Street, in Cleveland, Ohio 44119 (For the
Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee).

Jeffrey W. Krueger -- JWKrueger@jwk-law.com -- J. W. Krueger, LLC,
11925 Pearl Road, Suite 201, in Strongsville, Ohio 44136 (For the
Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant).


GOLFTEC INTELLECTUAL: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GOLFTEC Intellectual
Property LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. GOLFTEC
Intellectual Property LLC, GOLFTEC Enterprises LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01244 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2023).

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

GOLFTEC -- https://www.golftec.com/ -- provides golf lessons, golf
instruction and custom fit golf clubs to players of all ages and
abilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
          1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Phone: (516) 415-0100
          Email: msegal@segallegal.com


GOODRX HOLDINGS: Sued Over Unlawful Sharing of PII/PHI
------------------------------------------------------
John Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situate v. GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC., CRITEO CORP., META PLATFORMS,
INC., and GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00744 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 17,
2023), is brought against the Defendants violation of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"); Confidentiality of
Medical Information ("CMIA"); California Invasion of Privacy Act
("CIPA"), Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Unfair Competition
Law ("UCL"); and Plaintiff's and Class members' rights to privacy,
as a result of the Defendants unlawful sharing and selling of
confidential and sensitive personally identifiable and protected
health information ("PII/PHI").

GoodRx promised users of its website and mobile app that it
restricts how and with whom it shares confidential and sensitive
PII/PHI provided by users. GoodRx also represented that it
restricts third parties' use of PII/PHI, that it complies with
HIPAA privacy rules and Digital Advertising Alliance principles and
procedures for protecting and sharing PII/PHI, and that it would
never share PII/PHI with advertisers or other third parties.

These representations were false. Contrary to these
representations, GoodRx shared and sold millions of users' PII/PHI
as a regular course of business to the most notorious and high
profile data collectors and advertisers––including Facebook,
Google, and Criteo––for unauthorized and unlawful purposes,
including advertising and data analytics. GoodRx did this without
disclosing its sharing practices with users, actively
misrepresenting its sharing practices, and without obtaining users'
consent.

GoodRx also used users' PII/PHI to engage in targeted advertising
campaigns for its own services in violation of its promises,
purported policies, industry standards, and laws. GoodRx assembled
the PII/PHI obtained from users of its website and mobile app, and
used that information to send advertisements to Facebook and
Instagram users who had used its website. GoodRx induced its
customers to share their PII/PHI using these false promises and
assurances that it would safeguard PII/PHI, and Plaintiff and Class
members reasonably relied on these assurances and promises and
GoodRx's omissions of material facts, by disclosing their PII/PHI
to GoodRx in order to obtain prescription medications at a
discount.

The kinds of information GoodRx solicited and permitted to be
intercepted by third parties while in transit included prescription
medications, personal health conditions, personal contact
information, and unique advertising and persistent identifiers.
GoodRx's conduct is especially egregious and reprehensible because
it purposefully disproportionately preyed on the elderly, infirm,
and those with chronic health conditions who often are under
financial distress seeking any available means to obtain needed
medications at a discount. GoodRx targets these vulnerable
populations to extract their valuable and sensitive PII/PHI and
breach the firewall established by laws, like HIPAA, between
advertisers and healthcare providers, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff used GoodRx between 2016 and 2021 to obtain discounts
on numerous prescription medications.

GoodRx is an online provider of discounts on prescription
medicine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
          JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
          3 East 3rd Ave. Ste. 200
          San Mateo, CA 94401
          Phone: (650) 781-8000
          Facsimile: (650) 648-0705
          Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com


GOOGLE NORTH AMERICA: Klang Files Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Google North America
Inc. The case is styled as Esther Klang, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Google North America Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-01316 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.

Google Inc. -- https://www.google.com/ -- is a US multinational
technology company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Road, Ste. 409
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 260-7080
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


GRAND CANYON: University Students Seek to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SETH HANNIBAL-FISHER and
DAVID TRAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01007-SMB
(D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
certifying the proposed Class, and appointing their choice of
counsel as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class:

   "All Grand Canyon University students who paid on-campus
   tuition during the Spring 2020 semester and whose tuition has
   not been refunded."

Grand Canyon is a large, for-profit university.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 3, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KlV9qQ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          117 East Colorado Blvd, Suite 600
          Pasadena, CA 91105
          Telephone: (619) 762-1900
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: ekim@lcllp.com
                  gary@lcllp.com
                  eciolko@lcllp.com

                - and -

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
                  swestcot@bursor.com

                - and -

          Gerald Barrett, Esq.
          WARD, KEENAN & BARRETT, P.C.
          3838 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1720
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 279-1717
          Facsimile: (602) 279-8908
          E-mail: gbarrett@wardkeenanbarrett.com

                - and -

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          Phoenix,  AZ 85060
          Telephone: (480) 382-5176
          Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
          E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
                  chris@bendaulaw.com

HARTWIG TRANSIT: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTHER CHENAULT, on behalf
Of herself and those similarly Situated, v. HARTWIG TRANSIT, INC.,
et al., Case No. (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
      under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA);

   2. permitting the Plaintiff to send notice of the collective
      action to other potential class members, and

   3. compelling the Defendants to produce relevant contact
      information for those potential class members.

Here, the Plaintiff has submitted a proposed Notice of Collective
Action for the Court's review. It has been carefully drafted to
mirror other notices approved by district courts around the country
and is "timely, accurate, and informative."

The two proposed subclasses consist of:

   "current and former hourly employees of Hartwig and, with
   respect to Subclass 2, McCormick 2 (and other subsidiaries)
   who were employed as Dispatchers, Lead Dispatchers, or in any
   similar hourly position (other than drivers, driver's
   helpers, loaders, or mechanics whose duties affect the safety
   of operation of motor vehicles in transportation on public
   highways in interstate or foreign commerce).

   Their job responsibilities include, among other things,
   monitoring the progress of trucks and maintaining
   communications with truck drivers. The Defendants pay these
   employees on an hourly basis and they are considered non-
   exempt positions under the FLSA.

Specifically, the subclasses consist of:

  -- Collective Action Subclass 1 ("Straight Time FLSA
     Collective"):

     "all dispatchers employed by Defendant Hartwig Transit,
     Inc. ("Hartwig") who were paid their regular hourly rates
     of pay instead of the statutory overtime rate of pay for
     any hours they may have worked over 40 in any workweek
     during the three years preceding the date their consents to
     opt in to this collection action are filed (referenced in
     Plaintiff's Complaint and Jury Demand as the "Straight Time
     Collective")."

  -- Collective Action Subclass 2 ("Lunch Break FLSA
     Collective"):

     "all hourly employees (other than drivers, driver's
     helpers, loaders, or mechanics whose duties affect the
     safety of operation of motor vehicles in transportation on
     public highways in interstate or foreign commerce) of
     Hartwig Transit, Inc. and McCormick Trucking, Inc.,
     including but not limited to Dispatchers and Lead
     Dispatchers, who:

     (1) have worked more than 40 hours in a week, and

     (2) have had a lunch period automatically deducted from
         their hours worked when they did not take a lunch
         period; and

     (3) who were paid their regular hourly rates of pay instead
         of the statutory overtime rate of pay for any hours
         worked over forty, including those lunch hours that
         were improperly deducted, in any workweek during the
         three years preceding the date their consents to opt in
         to this collective action are filed.

Hartwig employed Plaintiff Chenault as a Dispatcher from February
17, 2020, through September 13, 2021, and again from December 8,
2021, until April 14, 2022.

Hartwig Transit is engaged in the trucking business.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 3, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ell7qE at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Butler, Esq.
          MEZIBOV BUTLER
          615 Elsinore Place
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 621-8800
          Facsimile: (513) 621-8833
          E-mail: bbutler@mezibov.com

                - and-

          Jesse D. Nelson, Esq.
          NELSON LAW GROUP, PLLC
          10263 Kingston Pike
          Knoxville, TN 37922
          Telephone (865) 383-1053
          E-mail: jesse@NLGattorneys.com

HEALTHY PAWS: Benanav Seeks to Certify Classes
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN BENANAV, BRYAN
GAGE, MONICA KOWALSKI, LINDSAY PURVEY, STEPHANIE CAUGHLIN, and
KATHERINE THOMAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. HEALTHY PAWS PET INSURANCE LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-00421-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying the proposed Classes;

   2. appointing them as the Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Turke & Strauss LLP and KalielGold PLLC as
      Class Counsel.

In the alternative, the Court should certify the Classes under Rule
23(c)(4), which authorizes certification of issues that are common
to all class members solely for purposes of liability, the
Plaintiff says.

For the last decade, Healthy Paws has lured American consumers into
purchasing pet health insurance with a simple promise: if you
purchase insurance, you will not pay higher premiums simply because
your pet ages.

The company's own Director of Compliance repeatedly stated in
emails that he agreed with Plaintiffs' central premise: it is
inaccurate (and, to quote one e-mail, "offensive") to state premium
increases would increase "slightly" based on "the cost of
veterinary medicine."

The Plaintiffs Steven Benanav, Monica Kowalski, Lindsay Purvey,
Stephanie Caughlin, Katherine Thomas, and Scott Currier seek
certification of the following proposed classes under Rule 23(b)(3)
13:

  --  NATIONWIDE CLASS

      "All persons who own or owned a pet health insurance
      policy administered by Healthy Paws purchased prior to
      January 1, 2019, and had their policy premiums increase
      more than the cost of veterinary medicine."

      (Proposed class representatives: Benanav, Kowalski,
      Purvey, Caughlin, Thomas, and Currier).

In the alternative, Plaintiffs seek certification of the following
state subclasses:

  --  CALIFORNIA CLASS

      "All persons in California who own or owned a pet health
      insurance policy administered by Healthy Paws purchased
      prior to January 1, 2019 and had their policy premiums
      increase more than the cost of veterinary medicine."

      (Proposed class representatives: Benanav, Purvey, and
      Caughlin).

  --  ILLINOIS CLASS

      "All persons in Illinois who own or owned a pet health
      insurance policy administered by Healthy Paws purchased
      prior to January 1, 2019, and had their policy premiums
      increase more than the cost of veterinary medicine."

      (Proposed class representatives: Kowalski and Currier).

  --  NEW JERSEY CLASS

      "All persons in New Jersey who own or owned a pet health
      insurance policy administered by Healthy Paws purchased
      prior to January 1, 2019 and had their policy premiums
      increase more than the cost of veterinary medicine."

     (Proposed class representative: Thomas)

Healthy Paws is a pet health insurance provider.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated Feb. 3,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XDC3iU
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          936 North 34 th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775
          Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
          E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com

                - and -

          Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
          Jeff Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          950 Gilman Street, Ste 200
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com
                  jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

                - and -

          Stan M. Doerrer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF STAN DOERRER PLLC
          950 N. Washington Street
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 348-4646
          E-mail: stan@doerrerlaw.com

HERITAGE LANDSCAPE: Guazon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heritage Landscape
Supply Group Inc., et al. The case is styled as Albert Guazon,
Ernesto Lainez, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Heritage Landscape Supply
Group Inc., SRS Distribution Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0001507
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 21, 2023).

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

Heritage Landscape Supply Group --
https://www.heritagelandscapesupplygroup.com/ -- is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of roofing and building products distributor SRS
Distribution.[BN]

JIM BUDDY LLC: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jim Buddy, LLC. The
case is styled as Maricela Donet, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Jim Buddy, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01400 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2023).

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

Jim Buddy is located in Eagle, Idaho and primarily operates in the
bread, cake, and related products business/industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JOHN DERIAN COMPANY: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against John Derian Company,
Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. John Derian Company, Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01158 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2023).

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

John Derian Company, Inc. -- https://www.johnderian.com/ -- is an
antique decoupage and paper products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com

JOHN PAUL MITCHELL: Heagney Sues Over Misleading Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Heagney, Rica Guerrero, Kerrie Gonnella, John Rohloff, and
Jewel Rule, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS, Case No.
3:23-cv-00687-TSH (N.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2023), is brought under the
Defendant's violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act; the California's False Advertising Law; and the California's
Unfair Competition as a result of the Defendant's "Cruelty Free"
advertisement which is false and misleading.

Defendant John Paul Mitchell Systems ("JPMS") was founded on the
principle that it would never test on animals, promising: "Never
have. Never will." Since 1980, JPMS has publicized and reinforced
this sentiment with its customers, always expressly emphasizing
that its hair-care products were never tested on animals. JPMS went
even further, actively publicly advocating against animal testing
in the cosmetics industry and seeking, through legislation, to
punish those who tested on animals.

JPMS's promise that its products were never tested on animals can
be found on every product it sells, as well as in all its other
media, publicity, and public-relation materials, including
advertisements, website, marketing campaigns, interviews, and press
releases. Over the years, John Paul Mitchell Systems' product
labels have promised in various ways and words that its products
are 100% cruelty free. Those promises include: "Never Animal
Tested"; "No Animal Testing"; "A Pioneer in Cruelty-Free Hair
Care"; and "John Paul Mitchell Systems does not conduct or endorse
animal testing."

Yet, despite founding its company on the principle that it would
never test on animals, repeating that promise for over 40 years,
and seeking to change California law to punish those who test on
animals, JPMS prioritized its profits over its principles. JPMS has
not honored its promises, allowing animal testing on numerous
products just to gain access to one of the world's biggest consumer
marketplaces, China. JPMS claimed it never has and never will test
on animals anywhere in the world, and in particular in China. While
portraying itself in the United States as an animal rights pioneer,
JPMS opted to sell its products in China where testing on animals
was mandatory for companies like JPMS during the Class period.

When a company agrees to perform animal testing to gain access to
the Chinese market--while claiming the opposite in advertising, to
the public, and on every product that it sells--consumers who
purchased products with false representations about the
characteristics of the products are harmed. Because the marketplace
disdains cosmetic products affiliated with animal testing, the
members of the Class were damaged at the point of sale by
overpaying for cosmetics that were in fact actually tested on
animals despite assurances on the product stating otherwise, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are purchasers of any JPMS hair-care products.

JPMS is a manufacturer of professional hair-care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Phone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          Leonard W. Aragon, Esq.
          Michella A. Kras, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          11 West Jefferson, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Phone: (602) 840-5900
          Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
          Email: rob@hbsslaw.com
                 leonarda@hbsslaw.com
                 michellak@hbsslaw.com


JP WHITE PLAINS: Hong Not Allowed to File Late Opt-In Consent Forms
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York denies the motion for leave to
file untimely opt-in consent forms in the lawsuit entitled YINGCAI
HONG, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. JP WHITE PLAINS, INC., d/b/a Haiku Asian Bistro White Plains, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 19 Civ. 5018 (NSR) (AEK) (S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiff, a former delivery driver, brought this putative
collective and class action against JP White Plains, Inc. and Haiku
@ WP Inc., and their owner, Soonwah Lee, alleging wage violations
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections
190, et seq., and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), N.Y. Lab. Law
Sections 190, et seq., Sections 650, et seq. The Plaintiffs moved
for leave to file untimely opt-in consent forms for two
individuals, Wei Li and Baozhong Yang, to join the FLSA
collective.

On Jan. 28, 2022, the Honorable Nelson S. Roman granted in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a collective
action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA. On March 14, 2022,
Judge Roman approved the parties' jointly submitted notice of
pendency, and the Plaintiffs were authorized to mail notice of this
action to current and former delivery drivers employed by the
Defendants at any time from May 31, 2016, to the present. The
opt-in period was set as 60 days from the date of mailing. On June
16, 2022, the Court so-ordered a stipulation between the parties
extending the period in which putative plaintiffs could opt in to
the collective action through July 3, 2022.

In their letter motion, which was filed on Oct. 12, 2022, the
Plaintiffs explain that Li and Yang contacted the Plaintiffs'
counsel on Sept. 20, 2022, and Sept. 15, 2022, respectively--more
than two months after the extended opt-in period had
concluded--expressing their desire to participate in the action
after learning about it from "coworkers."

According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants did not have a
telephone number for Li when they compiled contact information for
potential members of the collective, and the mailing address that
the Defendants provided for Li was not his current address. Yang,
meanwhile, received the notice but ignored it, believing it to be
junk mail because it was addressed to "Zhong, Yang Bao" instead of
"Baozhong Yang." The Plaintiffs also state in their letter that
they "have filed separate actions" in New York State court on
behalf of Li and Yang "to preserve their statute of limitations."

The Plaintiffs' letter motion was filed less than 24 hours before
the Court conducted a status conference on Oct. 13, 2022, which had
been scheduled on Sept. 19, 2022, to address various discovery
disputes and other matters. Because the Defendants had not had an
opportunity to respond to the letter motion prior to the Oct. 13,
2022 conference, the Court directed the Defendants to respond to
the Plaintiffs' letter motion by Oct. 20, 2022.

On Oct. 20, 2022, the Defendants filed a letter stating that the
parties had reached an agreement regarding the late opt-ins, and
that the Defendants would not object to joining Li and Yang on the
condition that they withdraw their state court action against the
Defendants. The Defendants further stated that in agreeing to allow
the late filed consents, the Defendants do not waive any defenses
that they may have in this case with respect to the claims of these
individuals and other former employees, who have opted-in,
including with respect to the statute of limitations of FLSA
claims. This statement was consistent with the position articulated
by counsel for the Defendants at the Oct. 13, 2022 conference.

Based entirely on the representation that the parties had reached
an agreement, the Court entered a memo endorsement on the Oct. 20,
2022 letter. The memo endorsement states that in light of the
parties' agreement, the Plaintiffs' letter motion is granted, and
the Court authorizes Wei Li and Bao Zhong Yang to opt in to this
action despite their late submission of the required forms.

Pursuant to the Court's instructions, Li and Yang's consents were
filed on the docket on Oct. 24, 2022.

Eleven days after the Court's order, and eight days after filing
the consent forms, the Plaintiffs filed a letter on Nov. 1, 2022,
raising for the first time objections concerning the Defendants'
asserted FLSA statute of limitations defense in counsel's letter
concerning the late opt ins, and stating that the Defendants'
position means that the Plaintiffs cannot withdraw the state court
claims as to the New York Labor Law claims at this juncture. The
Defendants responded by letter dated Nov. 2, 2022, making clear
that the position asserted by the Plaintiffs in their Nov. 1, 2022
letter meant that the Defendants could no longer consent to the
late opt-ins of Li and Yang.

The Court held a conference on Nov. 4, 2022, to discuss the opt-in
issue, among other matters. As part of that conference, the Court
directed the parties to continue to meet and confer and to submit a
letter concerning the status of the dispute by Nov. 16, 2022. On
Nov. 16, 2022, the parties submitted a joint letter stating that
they could not come to an agreement, and on Nov. 23, 2022, the
Defendants submitted a letter objecting to the late opt-ins.

The Defendants here contend that the Plaintiffs' motion for leave
to file the untimely opt-in consent forms should be denied because
the Plaintiffs have failed to establish good cause for the delay,
and because allowing the opt-ins would not promote judicial
economy. The Court agrees.

First, Judge Krause finds the Plaintiffs have not established good
cause for their delay. In the Plaintiffs' letter motion, they
explain that Li did not submit his consent form on time because he
did not receive it, and Yang did not submit his form because
although he received it, he did not read it. Yet the Plaintiffs did
not submit any declarations from the prospective opt-in plaintiffs
or any other form of evidence to confirm the representations in
counsel's letter. This alone is reason to deny the Plaintiffs'
motion.

With respect to Li--who purportedly did not receive the notice of
pendency at all--the absence of supporting evidence makes it
impossible for the Court to assess whether Li acted with
appropriate diligence upon learning of the lawsuit. Among other
things, there is no indication of when Li learned of the lawsuit,
what prompted the discussion with his "coworkers" about the lawsuit
(and why that did not happen earlier), and what he did upon
learning of the lawsuit.

With respect to Yang, even if counsel had submitted proper
evidence, the reasons for his delay are not compelling, Judge
Krause holds. The Plaintiffs maintain that Yang did not submit his
consent on time because he did not read it, believing it to be junk
mail. That explanation, and other similar explanations, have been
rejected by courts as insufficient to satisfy the "good cause"
standard, Judge Krause points out.


Second, Judge Krause opines that the evolution of this dispute
makes plain that allowing Li and Yang to join this lawsuit as
opt-in Plaintiffs would not promote any meaningful judicial
economy. The Plaintiffs have asserted that they have every
intention of continuing to litigate Li and Yang's wage-and-hour
claims in state court--indeed, they have taken the firm position
that regardless of the outcome of this motion, they "cannot
withdraw" the state court action. Because the Plaintiffs represent
that they will litigate Li and Yang's claims in state court even if
they are allowed to join this federal action, any argument that
allowing the late opt-ins would promote "judicial economy" rings
hollow.

For these reasons, Judge Krause finds the Plaintiffs have failed to
establish good cause to allow the filing of untimely opt-in consent
forms for Li and Yang, and allowing the late consents would not be
in the interest of judicial economy. Accordingly, Li and Yang
(listed on the docket as Yang Bao Zhong) will not be permitted to
join this action as opt-in Plaintiffs.

The Court's prior order, which authorized the filing of untimely
opt-in consent forms for these two individuals is vacated. As set
forth here, the Oct. 21, 2022 order was based on the Court's
understanding that the parties had reached an agreement with
respect to the two late opt-ins; subsequent developments have made
clear that there was no such meeting of the minds.

The Plaintiffs' letter motion for leave to file two late consents
to join the FLSA collective is now denied. The Clerk of Court is
directed to terminate Wei Li and Baozhong Yang (listed on the
docket as Yang Bao Zhong) on the docket as parties in this matter,
effective as of Feb. 6, 2023. In addition, the Clerk of Court is
directed to note on the docket that the filings at ECF Nos. 94 and
95 have been vacated as a result of this Decision and Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated Feb. 6,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/jbanxrs4 from
Leagle.com.


KRAPE LOGISTICS: Elliott Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
SETH COLE ELLIOTT, CODY PAINTER and LONNIE JORDAN, individually,
and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. KRAPE LOGISTICS, INC. and BRIAN AND STEPHANIE KRAPE,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02086-TLP-TMP (W.D.
Tenn., Feb. 16, 2023) is brought against Defendants as a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, and other damages for Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated current and former day-rate employees.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as delivery drivers.
The Plaintiffs assert that they were paid on a day-rate basis that
did not include compensation for hours over 40 per week within
weekly pay periods at the applicable FLSA overtime compensation
rates of pay.

Krape Logistics, Inc. provides delivery services for Federal
Express Ground Delivery in the State of Tennessee and in other
locations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

LONG & FOSTER: Court Allows Gaddy to File 2nd Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIXSA GADDY, Plaintiff v. THE LONG & FOSTER
COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 21-2396 (RBK) (EAP)
(D.N.J.), Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Pascal of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, grants
Gaddy's motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint and to
substitute a new lead plaintiff in the action.

The Defendant is a private residential real estate company
incorporated in Virginia with a principal place of business in
Chantilly, Virginia. Gaddy is a former employee of the Defendant.
As a condition of her employment, the Defendant required the
Plaintiff to provide her personal identifying information ("PII"),
including her name, telephone number, financial account
information, bank account numbers, date of birth, Social Security
number, and other information contained on her IRS W-2 Forms.

On Aug. 22, 2020, the Defendant was the victim of a ransomware
attack perpetrated by an unknown third part. During the attack, the
third party gained unauthorized access to the servers and systems
of the Defendant and its subsidiaries, potentially exposing the PII
of at least tens of thousands of persons.

The Defendant subsequently contacted the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and cybersecurity experts to investigate the Data
Breach. On Sept. 14, 2020, it sent letters to the Plaintiffs and
other potentially affected individuals notifying them of the Data
Breach. It identified additional persons who were possibly impacted
by the Data Breach, including property managers and vacation rental
owners, and notified those individuals in a letter dated Dec. 1,
2020. The Defendant offered the affected individuals 24 months of
complimentary identity protection services.

On Feb. 11, 2021, the Plaintiffs commenced a putative class action
on behalf of themselves and a class of other individuals affected
by the Data Breach. On May 18, 2021, they filed a First Amended
Complaint, pleading various causes of action. They alleged that the
Defendant was aware of the risk of cyberattacks and that the Data
Breach was preventable, but it failed to implement cyber security
procedures and protocols necessary to protect their PII.

The Plaintiffs alleged that they experienced: (1) lost time,
annoyance, interference, and inconvenience; (2) anxiety and
increased concerns for the loss of their privacy; (3) damages to
and diminution in the value of their PII; and (4) imminent and
impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of
fraud, identity theft, and misuse resulting from their PII. In
addition, Gaddy alleged that an unauthorized third person opened a
credit card in her name with PII exposed in the Data Breach.

On June 25, 2021, the Defendant moved to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6). On March 16, 2022, the Hon. Robert B. Kugler, U.S.D.J.
issued an Opinion granting the Defendant's motion in part and
denying it in part. Plaintiffs Shawn Marie Ryan and William
O'Bryant were dismissed because their alleged injuries were not
sufficiently "concrete" or "actual or imminent" to give them
Article III standing. However, the Court found that Gaddy had
standing because she pled a sufficiently concrete injury to her
privacy interests in the fraudulent opening of a credit card in her
name, which was fairly traceable to the Data Breach. Still, each of
Gaddy's causes of action were dismissed except for her negligence
claim and her Declaratory Judgment Act claim, to the extent that it
was premised on a negligence cause of action.

On July 15, 2022, the Plaintiff's counsel filed the present Motion
requesting the Court's leave to file a proposed Second Amended
Complaint and to substitute previously dismissed Ryan for Gaddy as
lead Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's counsel alleges that they had lost
contact with Gaddy because they had received no responses to their
repeated calls and emails. And because of that lack of
communication, the Plaintiff's counsel had been unable to obtain
discovery responses from Gaddy.

In addition, the Plaintiff's counsel argues that Ryan is a proper
lead plaintiff because she now has standing. Ryan alleges in the
proposed Second Amended Complaint that she discovered an
unauthorized charge on her Capital One credit card around August
2021. Consequently, Capital One cancelled her credit card and
mailed her a replacement card. Ryan further alleges in the proposed
Second Amended Complaint that in June 2022, a third party again
attempted to place an unauthorized charge on Ryan's Capital One
credit card. Also, following the Data Breach, an unauthorized
individual opened an account on a dating website in the Netherlands
using Ryan's identity. The Plaintiff's counsel argues that these
new developments are sufficiently concrete injuries in fact that
now give Ryan Article III standing to bring her claims.

On Aug. 8, 2022, the Defendant filed opposition to the Plaintiff's
Motion. It argues that: (1) the Plaintiff's Motion is procedurally
improper, and Gaddy's claims should be involuntarily dismissed
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for her failure to
prosecute; (2) the Motion is futile because Ryan still lacks
Article III standing; (3) the Motion is untimely; and (4) the
Motion is prejudicial to Defendant. On Aug. 22, 2022, the Plaintiff
filed a reply brief.

On Oct. 13, 2022, Gaddy filed a sworn declaration explaining her
unavailability from the case. She swears that she has been
physically disabled after suffering severe injuries in a car
accident in 2017, and that her disability makes leaving home and
travelling difficult. In addition, she states that she has been in
a physical rehabilitation hospital since October 2021. Furthermore,
Gaddy attests that she has been under psychiatric care;
consequently, her sister turned off her telephone to protect her
from telephone solicitors. Gaddy wishes to remain a class member if
the case is certified as a class action, but she does not believe
that she can serve as a class representative. She does not object
to being replaced as the named plaintiff in the action.

On Oct. 18, 2022, the Court held a hearing attended by Gaddy, the
Plaintiff's counsel, and the Defendant's counsel. Gaddy, appearing
by telephone, confirmed that she intended to withdraw as the named
plaintiff in the action due to her physical condition and personal
circumstances but wished to remain part of the putative class. In
addition, Gaddy testified that she first notified the Plaintiff's
counsel of her inability to continue as the class representative in
July 2022. The Court excused Gaddy, and the counsel proceeded with
oral argument about the procedural validity of the Motion, Ryan's
standing, the Plaintiff's purported delay in filing the Motion, and
prejudice to the Defendant if the Motion is granted.

First, Judge Pascal states that the central issue is whether it is
procedurally valid for a lead plaintiff in a putative class action
to amend her complaint and substitute a new proposed lead
plaintiff. She finds that it is procedurally proper to grant Gaddy
leave to amend her complaint and substitute Ryan as the new named
plaintiff. Ryan's substitution as a named plaintiff will allow the
claims of the class to proceed toward a ruling on the merits,
instead of the entire action being dismissed due to the
unavailability of one named plaintiff.

In addition, granting leave to amend is compatible with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 1's directive to construe the Federal Rules
to "secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every
action and proceeding." Defendant's proposal that Plaintiff's
counsel must withdraw and file a new action would be more costly
and time-consuming for the Court and the parties when compared to
Ryan's substitution as the lead plaintiff. Ryan's claims arise out
of the same Data Breach, and the Second Amended Complaint does not
introduce any new causes of action.

Therefore, Judge Pascal finds that the Plaintiff's Motion to amend
is procedurally proper.

Next, Judge Pascal opines that Ryan's allegations of two
unauthorized credit card charges and the fraudulent opening of an
online dating account are intangible but cognizable injuries in
fact because they involve the actual misuse of her PII. Also, these
injuries are fairly traceable to the Data Breach since they
plausibly could be accomplished because of the type of personal
information the Defendant had under its control and because they
did not occur too long after the Data Breach to break the chain of
"but for" or concurrent causation. Therefore, Ryan's allegations
now support Article III standing and the Second Amended Complaint
is not futile.

Furthermore, Judge Pascal holds that the Plaintiff's delay in
filing the Motion is not so protracted or unjustified that it has
become undue. The Defendant also has not established that Gaddy or
the Plaintiff's counsel intended to delay the action. The
litigation is in discovery, and a motion to amend would be less
disruptive to the parties and the Court. The Plaintiff's counsel
has not repeatedly caused delays or failed to comply with discovery
deadlines. Thus, because the Plaintiff's counsel did not intend to
delay the litigation, and because the amendment would not burden
the Court or the Defendant, any delay in filing the Motion is not
undue and does not justify denying leave to amend.

Finally, Judge Pascal finds that the Plaintiff's Motion to amend
will add a factually similar claim by only one additional
Plaintiff. While the amendment may result in some additional
discovery, the Defendant has not argued that the amendment will be
excessively costly. Nor has it argued that the amendment would
result in the loss of evidence through time or faltering memory.
Because the Plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint would not
cause the Defendant to suffer excessive cost or difficulties
proceeding in the matter the amendment is not unduly prejudicial.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Pascal grants Gaddy's Motion to
amend the First Amended Complaint. An appropriate Order accompanies
the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3aw4n6vr from Leagle.com.


LOWES COMPANIES: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Carlos Herrera, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., Case No.
HUD-L-000068-23 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Hudson County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on Feb. 13, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00821-KM-CLW to
the proceeding.

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

Lowe's Companies, Inc., often shortened to Lowe's --
http://www.lowes.com/-- is an American retail company specializing
in home improvement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          660 Broadway
          Paterson, NJ 07514
          Phone: (862) 227-3106
          Fax: (973) 525-2552
          Email: dz@zemellawllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph Michael, Esq.
          VENTO SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          620 8th Ave Ste 31-084
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 218-5548
          Email: jvento@seyfarth.com


LUMINESS DIRECT: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Luminess Direct, LLC.
The case is styled as Iliana Lopez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Luminess Direct, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01294 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2023).

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

Luminess -- https://www.luminesscosmetics.com/ -- is the #1 global
leader in airbrush & airbrush foundation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: (718) 740-5060
          Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com


LUMISQUE INC: Garcia Sues Over Unsolicited Text Advertisements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LUMISQUE, INC., Case No. CACE-23-001986 (Fla. 17th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Feb. 15, 2023), is brought
pursuant to the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"),
alleging that the Defendant violated the FTSA when it sent
Plaintiff and the putative class text messages for the purpose of
soliciting a sale of consumer goods or services, soliciting an
extension Of credit for consumer goods or services, or obtaining
information that will or may be used for the direct solicitation of
a sale of consumer goods or services or an extension of credit for
such purposes ("Text Message Advertisements").

Specifically, Defendant sent Text Message Advertisements that
promoted CO2 Lift's services and products ("CO2 Lift Text Message
Advertisements") without transmitting to the recipients' caller
identification service a telephone number that was capable of
receiving telephone calls and that connected to either the
telephone solicitor or the Defendant (collectively, the "CO2 Lift
Callers").

The FTSA is a consumer protection statute that requires
telemarketers, when sending text message advertisements to
consumers, to transmit to the consumer's caller identification
service a telephone number that is capable of receiving telephone
calls and that connects consumers to either the telephone solicitor
or the seller on whose behalf the text message advertisement was
sent. In direct contravention of these protections, however,
telemarketers such as the Defendant routinely send text message
advertisements to consumers while hiding behind telephone numbers
that, when called back, result in no connection between consumer
and telemarketer (or seller) whatsoever, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number
that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls.

The Defendant owns and operates CO2 Lift and sells various goods to
persons throughout the country through its online store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          974 Howard Ave.
          Dunedin, FL 34698
          Phone: (202) 709-5744
          Fax: (866) 893-0416
          Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
                 shawn@sjlawcollective.com


M.C. DEAN INC: Domitrovich Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Russell Domitrovich, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. M.C. Dean Inc., Case No.
3:22-cv-00989 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on Feb. 16, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00210-CMH-JFA to
the proceeding.

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

M.C. Dean, Inc. -- https://www.mcdean.com/ -- is a design-build and
systems integration corporation for complex, mission-critical
organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica S. Prater, Esq.
          GALAHER LAW, PLLC
          725 Cool Springs Blvd. Suite #600
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Phone: (865) 556-0075
          Email: jessica@galaherlaw.com

               - and -

          Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          COLE & VAN NOTE
          555 12th Street, Suite 1725, Suite 1725
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Phone: (510) 891-9800
          Email: lvn@colevannote.com
                 sec@colevannote.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mary Wu Tullis, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Phone: (901) 577-8180
          Fax: (901) 577-0746
          Email: mtullis@bakerdonelson.com

MADERA COLLECTION: Manzanarez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Madera Collection
Services. The case is styled as Rosendo Manzanarez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Madera Collection
Services, Case No. 1:23-at-00140 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2023).

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

Madera Collection Services is a legitimate collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAGIC CLEANING: Initial OK of Settlement Deal Sought
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARISELI QUINONES and
MIGUELINA CEPEDA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. MAGIC CLEANING SOLUTIONS LLC, and DIAZ CONSULTING
GROUP LIMITED d/b/a BLUE MOON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, BMM MANAGEMENT
CORP., and FRANNYS PEREZ, individually, and ORIAN DIAZ,
individually, and SANDY PEREZ, individually, Case No.
1:22-cv-00197-HG (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:

  1. preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement Agreement;

  2. approving the proposed Notice of Pendency of Class Action
     Settlement, the proposed Claim Form and Release, the
     proposed Reminder Postcard, and approve the claims
     procedure;

  3. certifying, for settlement purposes only, the two
     overlapping settlement classes under Federal Rule of Civil
     Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), and under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);

  4. appointing the Named Plaintiffs Kariseli Quinones and
     Miguelina Cepeda as the Class Representatives;

  5. appointing Stevenson Marino LLP as Class Counsel;

  6. appointing Arden Claims Service, LLC as the Claims
     Administrator for the settlement; and

  7. approving the Parties' proposed schedule for the filing of
     a motion for final approval, for Class Members to submit a
     Claim Form, opt out, or file objections to the proposed
     settlement, and schedule a Fairness Hearing.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
          STEVENSON MARINO LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1500
          White Plains, New York 10601
          Telephone: (212) 939-7229
          E-mail: jmaguire@stevensonmarino.com

MDL 2047: Court Refuses to Add Expert Disclosures in Drywall Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana denies Plaintiffs Jawad and Fatme Gharib's
Motion to Add Expert Disclosures in the multidistrict litigation
titled IN RE: CHINESE DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION,
SECTION "L" (5), MDL No. 09-2047 (E.D. La.).

The case is part of the Chinese Drywall multi-district litigation
("MDL") that arose after thousands of Plaintiffs in several states
filed suits alleging that drywall used in their homes was
defective. The Plaintiffs claimed that the drywall, which was
manufactured in China, emitted gases, damaged wiring and
appliances, and sometimes caused physical afflictions to their
homes' residents.

On June 15, 2009, pursuant to a transfer order from the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, all federal
cases involving Chinese Drywall were consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in MDL No. 2047 before this Court.

The drywall at issue is largely attributable to two groups of
Defendants: the Knauf Defendants, German-based manufacturers whose
Chinese subsidiary sold some of the drywall; and the Taishan
Defendants, Chinese-based manufacturers, who produced some of the
drywall.

The present motion relates to the Knauf Defendants. On Feb. 7,
2013, the Court approved a class action settlement agreement
between the Knauf Defendants and several classes of Plaintiffs.
Thus, most claims against the Knauf Defendants within this MDL have
been resolved. However, some Plaintiffs have filed more recent
claims against the Knauf Defendants, including Gharib, whose claims
relate to the present motion.

Mr. Gharib owns two properties, one residential and one commercial,
that were allegedly affected by defective drywall that the Knauf
Defendants manufactured, sold, or installed. Gharib filed his
claims in January of 2016. In November of 2020, the Court ordered
Gharib's claims severed from the MDL. In November 2022, the Court
set this case to go to trial in April 2023.

Mr. Gharib now moves the Court to file additional expert
disclosures almost three years beyond the expert disclosure
deadline. He moves to file a new expert report detailing that
expert's estimation of costs to remediate the damage to his
properties allegedly caused by the Defendants' faulty drywall.
Gharib argues that there is good cause to extend the deadline and
allow this late filing based on the failures of his previous
counsel and his assertion that the damage estimation filed by his
previous counsel does not accurately reflect the remediation costs
for his properties.

On the other hand, the Defendants assert that there is no good
cause to permit the untimely disclosures, arguing that the
admission of the proffered expert report would be unduly
prejudicial, that the new report is unimportant because the
Plaintiffs already have a different damages expert, who provided
expert disclosures, and that for the Court to allow the new filing
would open the floodgates for similar motions in the other
remaining Chinese Drywall cases pending in the Court and others.

Mr. Gharib argues that he has met his burden of showing that there
is good cause to allow him to file the late expert disclosures. He
argues, among other things, that the Defendants would not be
prejudiced by the admission of the new expert report and that any
potential prejudice could be cured by continuing the trial date in
this case.

The Court disagrees. While the Court sympathizes with Gharib's
difficulties with his previous representation, a difference in
opinion and strategy between prior and current counsel cannot alone
support good cause to allow the filing of a wholly new expert
report in this instance. As the Defendants point out, the Plaintiff
may not want to use it, but he has already submitted an expert
damages report within the deadlines set by the Court, so he will
not be left without an expert estimation of damages should the
Court deny the instant motion. This renders the Plaintiff's
requested relief 'unimportant,' or at least of much less importance
than the Court might find it otherwise.

Additionally, allowing the Plaintiff to submit a three years late
expert report would significantly prejudice the Defendants in this
matter and potentially in other pending Chinese Drywall cases,
Judge Fallon holds. In this case, the proffered new report would
increase the Plaintiff's claimed damages by over 500%.

The Defendants have already deposed the Plaintiff's current expert
and completed discovery. Admission of the new report would require
the Defendants to incur additional costs, conduct additional
discovery, and obtain new rebuttal expert opinions.

As to other cases, approximately 50 Chinese Drywall cases remain
pending both in this Court and others in Alabama, Florida,
Louisiana, and Mississippi. Allowing the Plaintiff to offer new
expert disclosures here would not only effectively start this case
over, but also open the door to other plaintiffs in the remaining
Chinese Drywall cases to seek the same relief, Judge Fallon points
out. This would subject the Defendants to the prejudice of having
to relitigate those cases as well, and would constitute a waste of
judicial and party resources. The possibility of a continuance in
this matter would not cure that prejudice.

Accordingly, Judge Fallon finds that the Plaintiff has failed to
show that good cause exists to allow the late submission of his new
expert disclosures.

For these reasons, Gharib's Motion is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated Feb. 6,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4bd923bv from
Leagle.com.


MDL 2836: Bids for Summary Judgment in Zetia Antitrust Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: ZETIA (EZETIMIBE) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No.
2:18md2836 (E.D. Va.), Judge Rebecca Beach Smith of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk
Division, denies the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment.

In order to market and sell a pharmaceutical product, a firm must
file a New Drug Application ("NDA") with the Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA"). Seeking approval under the NDA process is a
long, comprehensive, and costly testing process. To incentivize the
entrance of lower-priced, generic versions of previously approved,
"listed drugs," the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984 ("Hatch-Waxman Act") provides for the
Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") process.

Under the ANDA process, a pharmaceutical company may request
approval from the FDA to market and sell a generic version of a
listed drug. The first generic manufacturer to obtain ANDA approval
(the "first filer") is granted an "exclusivity" period, which lasts
180 days.  During this exclusivity period, no other generic product
may enter the market, except for one produced by the patent
holder.

A patent holder's generic, if produced, is referred to as an
"authorized generic" ("AG"), and is defined as a drug "marketed,
sold, or distributed directly or indirectly to retail class of
trade under a different labeling, packaging (other than repackaging
as the listed drug in blister packs, unit doses, or similar
packaging for use in institutions), product code, labeler code,
trade name, or trade mark than the listed drug."

In an ANDA filing, an applicant must make certain assurances and
certifications, designed to ensure that the brand-name manufacturer
and the generic manufacturer "resolve intellectual property
disputes." One such certification, referred to as a "Paragraph IV
certification," claims that the manufacturer's patent is either
invalid or will not be infringed by the generic drug. If an ANDA
filer includes the Paragraph IV certification, the patent holder
must be notified. A patent infringement suit is likely to follow.

The Plaintiffs' theory in the case relies on the foundational
reverse payment case, Actavis. In Actavis, the patent holders of a
pharmaceutical drug sued two generic manufacturers for patent
infringement, after the generics had filed Paragraph IV ANDA
applications. After years of litigating their patent dispute, the
parties settled. As a part of the settlement agreement, the patent
holders paid millions of dollars to the generic manufacturers, who
agreed to a particular date on which their generic versions of the
patented drug could enter the market.

The Court found this reverse payment settlement "unusual," since
the patent holders faced no potential liability to the generics.
The payees were situated as the Plaintiffs in the patent
infringement suit and were further shielded by the protection of
their patents.

Accordingly, the Court's decision in Actavis addresses the concern
that settlements taking this form tend to have significant adverse
effects on competition, by declaring that these agreements may be
subject to antitrust scrutiny. Ultimately, it found that the
familiar rule of reason framework should apply to reverse payment
arrangements, but left up to lower courts the method for
effectuating the framework in the context of reverse payment cases.
While the payment in Actavis was strictly monetary, lower courts
have since extended its holding to apply to other, non-monetary
"transfers of value," such as a patent holder's agreement to not
produce an AG.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, Merck applied for and obtained
various patents and reissued patents related to the compound
ezetimibe. On Oct. 25, 2002, Merck obtained approval from the FDA
to market and sell Zetia, a cholesterol drug which contained
ezetimibe as its active ingredient. On Oct. 25, 2006, Glenmark
filed an ANDA for Zetia, certifying that the patents covering Zetia
were either invalid or would not be infringed by Glenmark's
generic.

On March 22, 2007, after receiving notice of Glenmark's ANDA
filing, Merck sued Glenmark in the District of New Jersey, alleging
that Glenmark's generic would infringe U.S. Patent No. RE37,721
(the "RE '721 Patent"), one of Merck's patents covering ezetimibe.
In mid-2009, Merck and Glenmark began settlement negotiations. See
ECF No. 1085 at 15-17 ("Merck Statement of Facts" or "Merck SOF").

On Nov. 5, 2009, a second generic drug manufacturer, Mylan,
notified Merck that it had submitted an ANDA for Vytorin. Vytorin
was also a drug marketed and sold by Merck, which contained a mix
of ezetimibe and a second compound, called simvastatin. On Dec. 16,
2009, Merck filed a patent infringement suit against Mylan in the
District of New Jersey, alleging that Mylan's ANDA application for
Vytorin also infringed the RE '791 Patent.

On May 10, 2010, Merck and Glenmark signed a settlement agreement.
The Settlement Agreement provided, among other things, inter alia,
that Merck would reimburse Glenmark for up to $9 million in
attorneys' fees, already incurred; and during its period of
exclusivity, Glenmark was granted the exclusive right to market
Generic Ezetimibe.

In January 2014 is the date on which the Plaintiffs' patent expert,
Robert Hrubiec, opines that the litigation between Merck and
Glenmark would have ended, after exhaustion of all appeals to the
Federal Circuit. In early-2015 is the date on which the Plaintiffs'
economic experts, Drs. Thomas McGuire and Keith Leffler, opine that
Merck and Glenmark would have agreed to allow entry of Glenmark's
generic version of Zetia, had the Settlement Agreement not included
Section 5.3. December 12, 2016, is the date on which the Settlement
Agreement, by its explicit terms, allowed entry of Glenmark's
generic version of Zetia. On April 25, 2017, Merck's period of
pediatric exclusivity for Zetia ended, terminating Merck's
exclusive rights to ezetimibe.

The Plaintiffs and the Defendants have been engaged in extensive
litigation concerning Merck and Glenmark's Settlement Agreement.
The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants conspired to delay the
introduction of generic ezetimibe to the market, in violation of
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The Settlement Agreement, the
Plaintiffs allege, included an "unexplained large reverse payment,"
which violates the antitrust laws, according to the Supreme Court's
opinion in Actavis, 570 U.S. 136. This prolonged multidistrict
litigation is now on the eve of trial, which is scheduled to begin
on April 17, 2023.

On Aug. 10, 2020, Glenmark and Merck filed their Motions for
Summary Judgment. On Sept. 2, 2022, Judge Miller issued his R&R,
recommending that the Court denies the Defendants' Motions. In
consolidated filings, the Defendants objected and the Plaintiffs
responded. Shortly thereafter, on Oct. 6, 2022, the Defendants
requested leave to file a reply, which the Court granted. The
Defendants also requested that the Court holds a hearing on the
matter. On Dec. 15, 2022, the counsel for the parties convened
before the Court and argument was heard.

The Defendants raise several objections to the R&R, which map
generally to the various elements of the Plaintiffs' antitrust
claim. Each objection concludes that the R&R was in error regarding
the finding of triable issues of fact related to an antitrust
element. The Defendants challenge the characterization and
valuation of the reverse payment in the case and submit that no
reasonable juror could conclude that (1) the Settlement Agreement
had anticompetitive effects, (2) their conduct caused the
Plaintiffs an antitrust harm, or (3) the Plaintiffs suffered an
antitrust injury.

Judge Smith overrules the Defendants' objections and accepts the
R&R's recommendation that the Defendants Motions for Summary
Judgment be denied. She opines that there are disputes of material
fact regarding the nature and value of the reverse payment in the
case, whether the Settlement Agreement had anticompetitive effects,
whether the Defendants' allegedly anticompetitive conduct caused
the Plaintiffs' injury, and whether the injury suffered by
Plaintiffs is the type of harm that the antitrust laws are meant to
prevent.

Accordingly, Judge Smith holds that the Defendants are not entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. She affirms Judge Miller's thorough
and well-reasoned R&R; and denies the Defendants' Motions for
Summary Judgment.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Opinion to the counsel
for all parties.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5xb8x34b from Leagle.com.


MDL 3010: Inform v. Google Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation captioned In Re: Google Digital
Advertising Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3010, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, transfers the case styled as Inform, Inc. v. Google
LLC, et al., (C.A. No. 1:19−05362, N.D. Cal.) to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York and assigned
to Judge P. Kevin Castel for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

Inform's action concerns Google's alleged monopolization and
suppression of competition in online display advertising, an
industry that involves high-speed electronic trading venues called
"exchanges" that advertisers and online publishers use to manage
the buying and selling of ad space on web sites and mobile apps. It
alleges that Google has monopolized or suppressed competition in
digital display advertising and that Google allegedly runs the
largest ad exchange and has engaged in numerous kinds of unlawful
acts to suppress competition, causing injuries to advertisers and
publishers that participate in its exchange by imposing
supra-competitive pricing and depriving them of revenue.

Defendants in the action moved to vacate the order conditionally
transferring the action to MDL No. 3010.  Google argued that
transfer of Inform would be inefficient because the action has a
three-year long history in the transferor court and that court is
familiar with the claims from ruling on previous rounds of motions
to dismiss. Inform opposed the motion and supports the transfer.

The panel concludes that Inform v. Google involves common questions
of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 3010, and that
transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation. The federal antitrust claims in Inform
namely monopolization, attempted monopolization, unlawful
leveraging of monopolies, and unlawful tying, overlap with the
federal antitrust claims in the MDL and that the Southern District
of New York is an appropriate transferee district because the
advertising and publishing industry around which these actions
revolve have a strong presence in New York. Moreover, significant
Google operations concerning the issues in this litigation are
located in New York and that much of the common evidence is there
as well, adds the panel.

A full-text copy of the court's February 1, 2023 Transfer Order is
available at bit.ly/3EwLnhS

MDL 3058: Centralization of 9 Actions in Trans Union Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation denies the motion for centralization of
nine actions in the multidistrict litigation titled IN RE: TRANS
UNION, LLC, BALANCE AFTER BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE FAIR CREDIT
REPORTING ACT (FCRA) LITIGATION, MDL No. 3058 (J.P.M.L.).

Defendant Trans Union, LLC, moves under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to
centralize this litigation, which involves the alleged
misattribution of balances to accounts for which debts were
discharged in bankruptcy, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. This litigation currently consists
of nine actions pending in four districts, as listed on Schedule
A:

   (1) Southern District of California:

       * GRAY v. TRANS UNION, LLC, C.A. No. 3:22-01330;

   (2) District of Hawaii:

       * SALZER v. TRANS UNION LLC, C.A. No. 1:22-00420;

   (3) District of Nevada:

       * LOUGHTON v. TRANS UNION LLC, C.A. No. 2:22-01076;

       * ANDERSON, ET AL. v. TRANS UNION, LLC,
         C.A. No. 2:22-01214;

       * SCALLION v. TRANS UNION, LLC, ET AL.,
         C.A. No. 2:22-01382;

       * GENNA v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, ET AL.,
         C.A. No. 2:22-01429; and

       * WOOTERS v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL.,
         C.A. No. 2:22-01691; and

   (4) District of Utah:

       * MOORE v. TRANS UNION, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:22-00078; and

       * HANSEN v. TRANS UNION, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:22-00124

Defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and Equifax
Information Services LLC do not oppose centralization.

All responding Plaintiffs oppose centralization. The Plaintiffs in
the District of Nevada Loughton action and the District of Hawaii
Salzer action alternatively suggest a District of Nevada transferee
forum, and the Plaintiffs in the District of Nevada Anderson and
Genna actions alternatively suggest a District of Nevada or
Southern District of California transferee forum.

After considering the argument of counsel, the Panel is not
persuaded that centralization is necessary for the convenience of
the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. The actions contain common factual
questions, inasmuch as the Plaintiffs in all actions previously
obtained bankruptcy relief and had certain of their debts
discharged.

The Plaintiffs all contend that Trans Union inaccurately reported a
balance on one or more former accounts that were subject to
discharge. The Plaintiffs bring claims solely for violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Despite this factual and legal
commonality, Judge Caldwell explains that centralization does not
appear needed to further the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation involving seemingly straightforward claims that a
balance was misattributed to certain discharged accounts.

The Plaintiffs argue that centralization is not appropriate because
the actions will turn on specific circumstances (such as the
adequacy of any reinvestigation conducted based on the Plaintiffs'
correspondence) in each of the eight individual actions. Further,
they assert that centralization is not needed because there is only
one class action among the nine actions. The Plaintiffs contend
that coordination in each of the districts with multiple cases
could streamline the litigation. The Panel is persuaded by these
arguments.

As the parties note, the Panel has centralized FCRA litigation in
the past, but centralization in those dockets was warranted, in
part, for a reason absent here: preventing inconsistent rulings on
competing motions for class certification, Judge Caldwell opines,
citing In re: Michaels Stores, Inc., Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA) Litig., 96 F.Supp.3d 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2015). Recently, the
Panel centralized six similar putative nationwide class actions in
In re: Trans Union Rental Screening Sols., Inc., (TURSS) Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Litig., 437 F.Supp.3d 1377 (J.P.M.L.
2020)

In contrast to In re: Michaels and In re: TURSS, here there is only
one class action -- the Southern District of California Gray action
-- and eight individual actions, which weakens the argument that
centralization is necessary to prevent inconsistent rulings and
create significant pretrial efficiencies, Judge Caldwell points
out.

To the extent there is any possibility of duplicative discovery or
inconsistent pretrial rulings, Judge Caldwell says voluntary
cooperation and coordination among the parties and the involved
courts is a preferable alternative to centralization.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 6, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4vh3vdes from Leagle.com.


MDL 3060: Nine Hair Relaxer Suits Consolidated in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled IN RE HAIR RELAXER MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 3060
(J.P.M.L.), Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation grants the motion to centralize
the litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.

The Plaintiffs in four actions pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois and the Northern District of
California move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize this
litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. The litigation
consists of nine actions pending in four districts, as listed on
Schedule A:

   (1) Northern District of California:

       * BHONOPHA v. L'OREAL U.S.A., INC., ET AL.,
         C.A. No. 3:22-06395;

   (2) Southern District of Georgia:

       * GAMBLE v. STRENGTH OF NATURE GLOBAL, LLC, ET AL.,
         C.A. No. 4:22-00256; and

       * LEE v. STRENGTH OF NATURE GLOBAL, LLC, ET AL.,
         C.A. No. 4:22-00257;

   (3) Northern District of Illinois:

       * MITCHELL v. L'OREAL USA, INC., ET AL.,
         C.A. No. 1:22-05815;

       * GORDON v. L'OREAL USA, INC., ET AL.,
         C.A. No. 1:22-06033;

       * SMITH v. L'OREAL USA, INC., C.A. No. 1:22-06047;

       * WILLIAMS, ET AL. v. L'OREAL USA, INC., ET AL.,
         C.A. No. 1:22-06110; and

       * GRANT v. L'OREAL USA, INC., C.A. No. 1:22-06113; and

   (4) Southern District of New York:

       * TERRELL v. REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS CORP., ET AL.,
         C.A. No. 1:22-09008

Since the filing of the motion, the Panel has been notified of 44
related federal actions pending in an additional 15 districts. The
Plaintiff in the Northern District of Illinois Smith action
supports the motion. The Plaintiffs in 24 potential tag-along
actions filed briefs or Notices of Presentation or Waiver of Oral
Argument supporting centralization and variously suggesting the
Northern District of Illinois, the Western District of Missouri,
the Southern District of Ohio, the Eastern District of New York,
the Southern District of New York, the Central District of
California, the Northern District of California, or the District of
South Carolina as the transferee district.

Judge Caldwell notes that all of them, however, indicated in their
filings or at oral argument that they support or do not oppose
transfer to the Northern District of Illinois at least in the
alternative. All responding Defendants oppose the motion but, in
the event of centralization, request centralization in the Southern
District of New York or, alternatively, in the Northern District of
Illinois.

The four sets of Defendants, who responded to the motion are:
L'Oreal USA, Inc., L'Oreal USA Products, Inc., SoftSheen-Carson
LLC, and SoftSheen-Carson (W.I.), Inc. (collectively, the L'Oreal
Defendants); Dabur International Ltd. and Namaste Laboratories,
LLC; Strength of Nature, LLC, Strength of Nature Global, LLC, and
Godrej SON Holdings, Inc.; and House of Cheatham. Two additional
Defendants named in certain of the actions, PDC Brands and Parfums
de Coeur, Ltd., did not enter an appearance.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, the
Panel finds that these actions involve common questions of fact,
and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation.

On Oct. 17, 2022, a study led by the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) reported findings that women, who frequently used chemical
hair straightening or hair relaxer products were more than twice as
likely to develop uterine cancer as women, who did not use such
products. These actions, filed shortly thereafter, share common
questions of fact arising from allegations that defendants' hair
relaxer products contain phthalates, including
di-2-ethylhexylphthalate, or other endocrine-disrupting chemicals
(EDCs), and that the use of such products caused or increased the
risk of developing uterine, ovarian, or breast cancer,
endometriosis, uterine fibroids, or other injuries to the
reproductive system.

All actions share common issues of fact regarding whether exposure
to phthalates or other EDCs causes injury to the reproductive
system, whether and when defendants knew or should have known of
the alleged risks posed by hair relaxer products, and whether the
Defendants engaged in adequate testing and post-market
surveillance. The Plaintiffs assert overlapping products liability
claims and consumer protection claims.

Judge Caldwell notes that centralization will obviate the risk of
duplicative discovery and inconsistent rulings on pretrial issues
such as what level of exposure to phthalates or other EDCs poses a
risk of reproductive injury, and what obligation, if any,
defendants had to disclose the presence of such chemicals in their
hair relaxer products. The parties in all actions are likely to use
many of the same experts, particularly with respect to the risks of
exposure to phthalates and other EDCs. Centralization will minimize
duplication of this expert discovery as well as pretrial motion
practice related to expert issues. It also will prevent
inconsistent rulings with respect to class certification.

While there is only one putative class action included in the
motion, there are eight class actions among the potential tag-along
actions. All nine are on behalf of overlapping putative classes.

The Defendants argue that the actions involve numerous disparate
questions of fact and that centralization will provide few
efficiencies. They point out that the actions name multiple
competing Defendants, who manufactured and sold different lines of
hair relaxer products, and that the Plaintiffs allege multiple
different injuries. They contend as well that the Plaintiffs have
not identified a single EDC common to all hair relaxer products
that is alleged to have caused the injuries at issue.

The Panel acknowledges that, to some extent, the claims against the
various Defendants may turn on facts specific to the Defendants and
their products, and that in some instances, the Panel has been
hesitant to centralize litigation against competing Defendants that
marketed, manufactured, and sold similar products.

In the circumstances presented here, however, the Panel concludes
that centralization will allow this litigation to be managed most
efficiently and will best serve the convenience of the parties,
witnesses, and courts. Since the filing of the motion, this
litigation has grown from nine actions pending in four districts to
53 involved actions in 19 districts. Most of the actions name
multiple sets of Defendants, and nearly all name the L'Oreal
Defendants.

In addition, most Plaintiffs allege exposure to multiple different
product lines. According to movants, this is because women, who use
hair relaxers typically use different product lines over the course
of their lives; hence, any future related actions are likely to
involve multiple defendants and product lines, as well.

As such, Judge Caldwell says declining to centralize this
litigation would not resolve the complexities presented by managing
cases involving multiple Defendants and products; rather, judges in
19 (or more) different districts would be required to manage such
cases, while addressing overlapping parties, facts, and claims. The
Panel's decision here is in keeping with past decisions in similar
circumstances.

The Panel concludes that the Northern District of Illinois is an
appropriate transferee district. Sixteen of the involved actions
are pending there and the district is not opposed or is supported,
at least in the alternative, by all responding Plaintiffs and is
supported, in the alternative, by all responding Defendants.

The Honorable Mary M. Rowland, to whom the Panel assigns the
litigation, presides over two of the involved actions and is a
highly capable jurist with the ability and willingness to manage
the proceedings efficiently. The Panel is confident that she will
steer this matter on a prudent course.

It is, therefore, ordered that the actions listed on Schedule A and
pending outside the Northern District of Illinois are transferred
to the Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that
court, assigned to the Honorable Mary M. Rowland for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Transfer Order dated Feb. 6, 2023,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrjnbkkz from Leagle.com.


MDL 3062: 10 Suits Consolidated in Crop Products Antitrust Row
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation captioned In Re: Crop Protection
Products Loyalty Program Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3062, Judge
Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, transfers 8 cases from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana and two from the Middle
District of North Carolina, all to the Middle District of North
Carolina and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge
Thomas D. Schroeder for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

Plaintiffs in the Indiana actions moved to centralize this
litigation in the Southern District of Indiana while plaintiffs in
both Middle District of North Carolina actions and two potential
tag-along actions pending in the district opposed centralization
and, instead, suggested a Middle District of North Carolina
transferee district. Defendants (Syngenta Crop Protection AG,
Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, Corteva, Inc.,
CHS Inc., Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc., Helena Agri-Enterprises LLC,
BASF SE, BASF Corp. and BASF Agricultural Products Group) support
centralization in the Middle District of North Carolina.

This litigation involves allegations that defendants engaged in
anticompetitive conduct in the operation of their customer loyalty
programs for certain pesticides. After considering the argument of
counsel, the panel found that centralization of these actions in
the Middle District of North Carolina will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation. There is no dispute that these actions
arise from similar allegations that producers of crop protection
products Syngenta and Corteva (and, in the moving Southern District
of Indiana plaintiffs' complaints, certain BASF entities) entered
into loyalty program agreements with major distributors and
retailers to illegally foreclose market entry by generic pesticide
competitors. Plaintiffs bring claims for violations of Sections 1
and 2 of the Sherman Act, violations of state antitrust and
consumer protection laws, and for unjust enrichment. Discovery
among the actions will be highly similar. Pretrial motions in all
cases also can be expected to be substantially similar.
Centralization affords the parties and the judiciary substantial
efficiencies by streamlining pretrial proceedings and reducing the
risk of potentially inconsistent pretrial rulings and other
obligations. With the relative infancy of the actions, the
likelihood of additional tag-along actions, and the unanimous
support of the parties to have all actions proceeding together,
centralization appears merited, the panel held.

The actions arise in the wake of a case which challenged as
anticompetitive certain "loyalty programs" (i.e., programs that
provide price discounts for meeting certain requirements) operated
by agriculture manufacturers Corteva and Syngenta concerning the
sale of pesticides. The Government plaintiffs alleged that the
programs incentivize distributors of all sizes, through discounts,
to purchase more crop protection products from those manufacturers
to the exclusion of generic competitors. According to defendants,
the decision-makers for Syngenta's rebate program are in North
Carolina, and many of its relevant employees and documents likely
will be found in North Carolina. BASF's agricultural products
business, which operates the BASF loyalty programs at issue in
those complaints naming BASF, also is based in North Carolina. BASF
has over 1,000 employees in North Carolina, including 947 personnel
in BASF's agricultural products business.

A full-text copy of the court's February 6, 2023 order is available
at https://bit.ly/3XOM3Gg

MDL 3064: Eight Harley-Davidson Antitrust Cases Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation captioned In Re: Harley-Davidson
Aftermarket Parts Marketing, Sales Practices and Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 3064, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers one
case each from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona,
Central District of California, Northern District of California,
Northern District of Illinois,  District of Massachusetts, District
of Minnesota, Northern District of New York and the Western
District of New York, all to the Eastern District of Wisconsin and,
with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge William C.
Griesbach for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Defendants Harley-Davidson Motor Group, LLC, Harley-Davidson Motor
Company, and Harley-Davidson, Inc. support centralization in the
Northern District of Illinois or, alternatively, the Eastern
District of Wisconsin. The responding plaintiffs proposed various
other districts as the transferee forum in the panel briefing --
the Central District of California, the Northern District of
California, and the District of Minnesota -- but subsequently filed
notices with the panel noting that they had changed their
positions, and now all support the Northern District of Illinois.

These actions present common factual questions arising from the
allegation that defendant Harley-Davidson unlawfully tied the
validity of its new motorcycle two-year warranty to consumers'
exclusive use of Harley-Davidson replacement parts and authorized
repair services, in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and
state laws. These include the nature of the alleged tying
arrangement in defendant's warranty, whether defendant concealed
the full terms of its warranty from consumers prior to purchase,
whether defendant's representations and omissions are material to
reasonable consumers, whether consumers paid more for parts and
servicing of their motorcycles as a result of the restrictive
warranty and the proper measure of any damages.

Additionally, three actions assert antitrust claims that raise
common factual questions concerning defining the relevant market
and determining whether the conduct caused supra-competitive
pricing for repair services and replacement parts.

The panel concluded that centralization will serve the convenience
of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings,
including with respect to class certification and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

Defendant has its headquarters in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, the transferee district for these actions, where common
witnesses and other evidence likely will be found.

A full-text copy of the court's February 8, 2023 order is available
at https://bit.ly/3YE14f2

MDL 3065: Transfer of 11 Suits to CROA Contract Litigation Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation captioned In Re: The Litigation
Practice Group, PC, Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA) Contract
Litigation, MDL No. 3065, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, denied the
move of The Litigation Practice Group, PC (LPG) to centralize
eleven actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio or, alternatively, in the Northern District of Ohio. The
actions are pending in the U.S. District Courts for the Central
District of California, Eastern District of California, Northern
District of Georgia, District of Kansas, Southern District of
Mississippi, Northern and Southern District of Ohio, Middle
District of Pennsylvania and the Western District of Texas.

Plaintiffs in five actions oppose centralization and plaintiffs in
two additional actions oppose inclusion of their actions in any
MDL. Alternatively, in the event of centralization, responding
plaintiffs variously propose the Northern District of Georgia, the
Southern District of Mississippi and the Central District of
California as the transferee district.

The panel concluded that centralization was not necessary.

These actions share allegations that LPG, a California law
corporation, violated the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA) or
state statutory and common law, by falsely representing to clients
that it would remove debts from their credit reports and improve
their credit ratings and by failing to comply with various other
statutory requirements. While most of the actions will involve
common issues of fact relating to whether LPG is a credit repair
organization within the meaning of CROA, the involved claims appear
to be relatively straightforward and each will involve distinct
questions of fact regarding the plaintiffs' individual financial
circumstances, the representations made by LPG to each plaintiff,
and whether and how LPG failed to provide the promised services.

Plaintiffs assert claims under six different states' credit
services, debt relief, or other consumer protection statutes, whose
terms and requirements vary. LPG maintains that there may be
inconsistent rulings regarding attorney-client privilege issues.
Thus, the actions will not raise identical class certification
issues. In any event, even if certain class certification and
attorney-client privilege issues may arise in both class actions,
that is not sufficient reason to centralize the eleven involved
actions, nine of which are brought by or on behalf of individual
plaintiffs, ruled the panel.

The plaintiffs in six actions are represented by two law firms and
LPG is represented in all actions by national counsel. In these
circumstances, various mechanisms should be available to minimize
duplicative discovery, the panel added.

A full-text copy of the court's February 6, 2023 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/3xu6mxU

MEAD JOHNSON: Martinez Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
CECILIA MARTINEZ is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
her lawsuit entitled Cecilia Martinez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mead Johnson and
Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00213-JWH-SHK, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against the Defendant
for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False
Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law, and for breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty, intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and quasi
contract/unjust enrichment/restitution. According to the complaint,
the Defendant is engaged in misleading business practices with
respect to the marketing and sale of its powdered Enfamil
Gentlease, Enfamil Enspire Gentlease, Enfamil NeuroPro Gentlease,
and Enfamil NeuroPro Sensitive Infant Formula products.

On Dec. 16, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss count
eight of her complaint without prejudice.

On Jan. 17, 2023, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to
dismiss count eight through an Order entered by Judge John W.
Holcomb. The eighth claim for relief in Martinez's complaint for
unjust enrichment is dismissed without prejudice. On the same day,
the Court ordered judgment in favor of the Defendant and dismissed
the action.

The appellate case is captioned Cecilia Martinez v. Mead Johnson
and Company, LLC, Case No. 23-55141, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 16, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Cecilia Martinez Mediation Questionnaire was due on
February 23, 2023;

   -- Appellant Cecilia Martinez opening brief is due on April 17,
2023;

   -- Appellee Mead Johnson and Company, LLC answering brief is due
on May 17, 2023; and

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

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

            Lisa Omoto, Esq.
            FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
            1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060
            Los Angeles, CA 90067
            Telephone: (424) 365-3225

                   - and -

            Timothy J. Peter, Esq.
            FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
            1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1550
            Philadelphia, PA 19103
            Telephone: (215) 277-5770

Defendant-Appellee MEAD JOHNSON AND COMPANY, LLC is represented
by:

            Eskandar Alex Beroukhim, Esq.
            ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER, LLP
            777 S Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
            Los Angeles, CA 90017
            Telephone: (213) 243-4059

                   - and -

            Oscar Daniel Ramallo, Esq.
            ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER, LLP
            777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
            Los Angeles, CA 90017
            Telephone: (213) 243-4000

MIDLAND CREDIT: Pierni Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Amanda Pierni, Individually
and on behalf of All others similarly situated v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 2383CV00150 (Mass. Super. Ct., Plymouth
Cty., Feb. 17, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Contract/Business Cases."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew A. McKenna, Esq.
          SHIELD LAW, LLC
          157 Belmont St.
          Brockton, MA 02301

               - and -

          Nicola Yousif, Esq.,
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ATTORNEY NICK YOUSIF
          157 Belmont St.
          Brockton, MA 02301


MISSION LINEN: Macias Suit Moved to San Bernardino Super. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Jack Macias v. Mission Linen Supply, et al., Case No.
5:22-cv-01942-SSS-SPx (C.D. Cal.), Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes of
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand the action back to state
court and the Defendant's request for judicial notice.

On Aug. 5, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a wage and hour putative class
action complaint in the California Superior Court for the County of
San Bernardino. His complaint alleges seven causes of action for
(1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime
wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to permit
rest breaks; (5) failure to pay wages upon separation of employment
and within the required time; (6) failure to furnish accurate
itemized wage statements; and (7) violation of Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.

On Nov. 3, 2022, the Defendant filed a Notice of Removal of Civil
Action to Federal Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441 and
1446 on federal question grounds on Nov. 3, 2022. The Defendant
claimed removal was proper because the Plaintiff's claims were
preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act
("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 185(a). The Plaintiff now seeks to
remand the action back to the California Superior Court for the
County of San Bernardino.

Judge Sykes has reviewed the Defendant's request for judicial
notice of two CBAs between the Parties: the 2022-2026 CBA and the
2017-2022 CBA. She finds both CBAs can be accurately and readily
determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned, and grants the Defendant's request.

Turning to the Plaintiff's remand request, Judge Sykes holds that
the Plaintiff's claims do not exist solely as a result of a
collective bargaining agreement and are not substantially dependent
on analysis of a CBA. Thus, remand is appropriate. She finds that
(i) the Plaintiff's claims regarding overtime wages thus do not
exist solely as a result of the CBAs; (ii) the Plaintiff's meal and
rest period claims are not governed by the CBA nor exist solely as
a result of it; and (iii) the Plaintiff and the putative class are
not exempted employees under Labor Code Sections 514 and 512, and
their claims are not preempted by the LMRA.

Because she concludes there is no federal question subject matter
jurisdiction, Judge Sykes necessarily does not have supplemental
jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's remaining claims.

Finally, the Defendants argues that the Plaintiff and the putative
class are exempt from California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512,
which relate to meal and rest break rules because of an order
published by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
("FMCSA"), which states Sections 226.7 and 512 are preempted by the
FMCSA as applied to property-carrying commercial vehicle drivers,
such as the Plaintiff.

However, Judge Sykes holds that there are two fatal flaws to the
Defendants' newly raised argument regarding FMCSA preemption.
First, a defendant cannot present new grounds for removal for the
first time in opposition to a motion for remand. Second, even if
Defendant had raised FMCSA preemption in its removal papers, the
FMCSA preemption defense does not create a federal question for
purposes of removal.

For these reasons above, Judge Sykes grants the Defendant's request
for judicial notice. Additionally, because she does not have
subject matter jurisdiction over the case, she grants the
Plaintiff's motion and remands the case back to the California
Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino.

The Clerk is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4a34deff from Leagle.com.


NEXTGEN LEADS: Danner TCPA Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RONDA DANNER, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEXTGEN LEADS LLC d/b/a FIRSTQUOTE
HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-11498-SJM-EAS, was transferred
from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, San Diego, on Feb. 16, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00309-LL-NLS to the proceeding.

The class action arises out of Defendant's alleged relentless
marketing practices that violate the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act. The Defendant makes, or has made on its behalf, aggressive
telemarketing calls soliciting its insurance placement services to
individuals, including Plaintiff, on the National Do-Not-Call
Registry, says the suit.

NextGen Leads LLC provides marketing, lead generation and
technology services to the insurance industry.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          David W. Warren, Esq.
          JOELSON, ROSENBERG, MOSS, COHEN, WARREN,
           AND DRASNIN, PLC
          30665 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
          Farmington Hills, MI 48334
          Telephone: (248) 855-2233
          Facsimile: (248) 855-2388

               - and -

          Irina Kashcheyeva, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 234-7100
          E-mail: ikashcheyeva@foley.com

NOGIN INC: Teperson Sues Over Deceptive Advertising of Discounts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trisha Teperson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NOGIN, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1- 50,
inclusive, Case No. 8:23-cv-00281 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 16, 2023), is
brought seeking monetary damages, restitution, declaratory and
injunctive relief from Defendant arising from its own deceptive
business practice of advertising fictitious "original" prices and
corresponding phantom discounts on its website, shopjustice.com,
where it sells girls' apparel and accessories.

False reference pricing occurs when a seller fabricates a false
"original" price for a product and then offers that product at a
substantially lower price under the guise of a sale. The resulting
artificial price disparity misleads consumers into believing the
product they are buying has a higher market value, and it induces
them into purchasing the product. This practice artificially
inflates the true market price for these products by raising
consumers' internal reference price and in turn the value consumers
ascribe to these products (i.e., demand). Consequently, false
reference pricing schemes enable retailers, like Defendant, to sell
products above their true market price and value—and consumers
are left to pay the price.

It is well-established that false reference pricing violates state
and federal law. Even so, sellers, including Nogin, continue to use
the tactic because they know they will be able to increase sales
and profits by tricking consumers into making purchasing decisions
based on the advertised reference prices. The information available
to consumers varies for different types of products; nonetheless,
consumers frequently lack full information about products and as a
result often use information from sellers to make purchase
decisions.

Through its false and misleading marketing, advertising, and
pricing scheme, Nogin violated, and continues to violate,
California and Federal law, which prohibit the advertisement of
goods for sale discounted from false former prices. California and
Federal law also prohibit the dissemination of misleading
statements about the existence and amount of price reductions.
Specifically, Defendant violated and continues to violate the
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), the California's False
Advertising Law ("FAL"), and the California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act ("CLRA").

The Plaintiff brings this action on similarly situated consumers
who have purchased one or more products through shopjustice.com
that were deceptively represented as discounted from a false
reference price. The Plaintiff seeks to halt the dissemination of
this false, misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme, to correct
the false and misleading perception it has created in the minds of
consumers, and to obtain redress for those who have purchased
products tainted by this deceptive pricing scheme, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased an item online from San Diego County,
California.

The Defendant operates the shopjustice.com website, and advertises,
markets, distributes, and/or sells girls' apparel and accessories
in California and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          Scott G. Braden, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619.762.1910
          Facsimile: 619.756.6991
          Email: todd@lcllp.com
                 scott@lcllp.com


NOHBLE ONES: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Nohble Ones, Inc.
The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. The Nohble Ones, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01172 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2023).

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

The Nohble Ones, Inc. -- https://nohble.com/ -- is a family owned,
community driven retailer carrying adidas, Converse, Champion,
G-Star, Jordan, Lacoste, New Era, Nike, Puma, Timberland, Vans and
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


NOOM INC: Mikulsky Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping of Communications
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Mikulsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NOOM, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00285-H-MSB (S.D. Cal.,
Feb. 14, 2023), is brought against Noom for wiretapping the
electronic communications of visitors to its website, www.noom.com.
Noom procures third-party vendors, such as FullStory, to embed
snippets of JavaScript computer code ("Session Replay Code") on
Noom's website, which then deploys on each website visitor's
internet browser for the purpose of intercepting and recording the
website visitor's electronic communications with Noom's website,
including their mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes (such as text
being entered into an information field or text box), URLs of web
pages visited, and/or other electronic communications in real-time
("Website Communications").

These third-party vendors (collectively, "Session Replay
Providers") create and deploy the Session Replay Code at Noom's
request. After intercepting and capturing the Website
Communications, Noom and the Session Replay Providers use those
Website Communications to recreate website visitors' entire visit
to www.noom.com. The Session Replay Providers create a video replay
of the user's behavior on the website and provide it to Noom for
analysis. Noom's procurement of the Session Replay Providers to
secretly deploy the Session Replay Code results in the electronic
equivalent of "looking over the shoulder" of each visitor to Noom's
website for the entire duration of their website interaction.

Noom's conduct violates the Invasion of Privacy Act, and
constitutes the torts of invasion of the privacy rights and
intrusion upon seclusion of website visitors. The Plaintiff brings
this action individually and on behalf of a class of all California
citizens whose Website Communications were intercepted through
Noom's procurement and use of Session Replay Code embedded on
www.noom.com, as well as its subpages, and seeks all civil remedies
provided under the causes of action, including but not limited to
compensatory, statutory, and/or punitive damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has visited www.noom.com and certain of its subpages
on her computer while in California.

Noom is a digital health and wellness platform for individuals to
lose weight and lead healthier lives operating the website
www.noom.com as well as all of its subpages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven M Nathan Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          33 Whitehall Street
          Fourteenth Floor
          New York, NY 10034
          Phone: (646) 357-1100
          Fax: (212) 202-4322
          Email: snathan@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Phone: (202) 540-7200
          Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Stephen B. Murray, Esq.
          Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq.
          Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
          Thomas M. Beh, Esq.
          THE MURRAY LAW FIRM
          701 Poydras Street, Suite 4250
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Phone: (504) 525-8100
          Email: Tbeh@Murray-lawfirm.com


NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY: Davis Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Norfolk Southern
Railway Company, et al. The case is styled as Jessica Davis, Gerald
Heaton, Christopher Ammon, Anita Ammon, Chase Ammon, Todd Hart,
each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
B. H., E. H., minors, by and through their parents and natural
guardians v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Norfolk Southern
Corporation, Case No. 4:23-cv-00308-SO (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 16, 2023).

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

Norfolk Southern Corporation -- http://www.nscorp.com/-- is one of
the nation's premier transportation companies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew S. Baker, Esq.
          BAKER LAW
          89 East Nationwide Blvd.
          2nd Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (614) 228-1882
          Fax: (614) 228-1862
          Email: andrew.baker@bakerlawgroup.net


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Battaglia Sues Over Toxic Chemical Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTIN BATTAGLIA, individually, on behalf of and as next friend of
her minor child, G.M., and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons; LAURA ZUCH-BATTAGLIA, individually, on behalf of
and as next friend of her minor child, S.Z., and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of her parent,
MARGO ZUCH, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons;
and DAWN BAUGHMAN, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY
COMPANY and NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
4:23-cv-00303-JPC (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 16, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, nuisance,
damage to trees and crops, and trespass after hazardous train
derailment.

Norfolk Southern operates a Class I railroad in interstate commerce
throughout the eastern half of the continental United States. NS
Corp., its parent company, freely admits that it transits hazardous
materials on Norfolk Southern's rails.

According to the complaint, 50 cars from the hazardous train
derailed just east of the corporate limits of the Village of East
Palestine, in close proximity to the Ohio-Pennsylvania border on
February 3, 2023. Around 20 of the 141 loaded cars on the hazardous
train were known to be carrying materials classified as hazardous,
including butyl acrylate, ethylhexyl acrylate, ethylene glycol
monobutyl ether, isobutylene, and benzene residue, and 14 of these
20 cars were carrying vinyl chloride, a Group 1 human carcinogen
posing elevated risks of tumors. The cause of the said derailment
was a failed axle and/or wheel bearing on one of the rail cars,
says the suit.

As a result of Defendants' actions, the air, water, and soil in and
around East Palestine, Ohio has been contaminated with toxic
chemicals, some of which are hazardous to human health at very low
concentrations. The Defendants' ultra-hazardous and abnormally
dangerous activities caused harms and losses to residents including
Plaintiffs. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for all harms and
losses caused by their ultra-hazardous and abnormally dangerous
activities, the suit alleges.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Margaret M. Murray, Esq.
          Florence A. Murray, Esq.
          Dennis E. Murray Sr., Esq.
          Nolan E. Murray, Esq.
          Donna Jean A. Evans, Esq.
          Joseph A. Galea, Esq.
          MURRAY & MURRAY CO., L.P.A.
          111 East Shoreline Drive
          Sandusky, OH 4470
          Telephone: (419) 624-3000
          Facsimile: (419) 624-0707      
          E-mail: mmm@murrayandmurray.com
                  fam@murrayandmurray.com
                  dms@murrayandmurray.com
                  nem@murrayandmurray.com
                  dae@murrayandmurray.com
                  jag@murrayandmurray.com

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Ibel Sues Over Failure to Contain Derailment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Ibel and Sheryl Tomor, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION and
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-00315 (N.D.
Ohio, Feb. 17, 2023), is brought against the Defendants' failure to
contain the train derailment which carried harmful chemicals.

On February 3, 2023, at approximately 9:00 p.m., Norfolk Southern
Railway Freight Train 32N derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, near
the Pennsylvania border. Following this initial derailment,
approximately 40 additional cars derailed and a fire started,
damaging another 12 cars. Train 32N was transporting chemicals and
combustible materials, including hundreds of thousands of pounds of
polyvinyl, polyethylene, butyl acrylates, ethylhexyl acrylate,
ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, and vinyl chloride, a toxic
flammable gas. Vinyl chloride and ethylhexl acrylate are known
carcinogens.

In the derailment and fire, certain of these chemicals combusted
and would burn for several days. Thick, billowing smoke emanated
from the fire and spread across the town of East Palestine and
surrounding area. The vinyl chloride was being stored in DOT105
pressurized tanks. In the heat from the burning fire, safety valves
on these pressurized tanks opened to relieve pressure and thereby
vented vinyl chloride into the atmosphere. As the blaze continued
unabated, government officials feared that the DOT105 tanks may
rupture, causing an explosion. Both Ohio and Pennsylvania
government officials ordered an immediate evacuation of the
vicinity within a mile of the derailment. The Defendants then
punctured holes in the vinyl chloride containers, allowed the
chemical to discharge into the environment, and set it on fire.
This chemical fire spread from the site of the derailment across
the surrounding community.

Approximately 1500 to 2000 East Palestine residents were told to
evacuate following the derailment. Schools remained closed for at
least a week afterward. On February 6, 2023, Ohio Governor Mike
DeWine expanded the evacuation area to include anyone in a one-by-
two mile area surrounding East Palestine. This included parts of
western Pennsylvania.

As a result of the derailment of Defendants' Train, and the
subsequent release of hundreds of thousands of pounds of toxic
chemicals, Plaintiffs and members of the Class have been exposed to
acute and chronic toxic constituents that pose a danger to human
health. The derailment of Defendants' train was the result of a
failure to exercise due care and, following the derailment, to
ineffectively and inadequately contain the fallout. The Train
derailment and resulting displacement of the East Palestine
community has interfered with the use and enjoyment of Plaintiffs'
and members of the Class's properties, caused harm to person and
property, and led to significant emotional distress, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs are citizens of Ohio and reside in Columbiana
County.

The Defendants operate a railway enterprise in numerous states
throughout the United States, including Ohio and Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          Justin C. Walker, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Phone: (513) 651-3700
          Fax: (513) 665-0219
          Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com
                 jwalker@msdlegal.com

               - and -

          James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
          Robin L. Greenwald, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 558-5500
          Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
                 rgreenwald@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 866.252.0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

               - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
          Phone: 313-303-3472
          Email: nsuciu@milberg.com


NORTH MEMORIAL: Faces Redmon Suit Over Disclosure of Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
LATOYA REDMON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE, Defendant, Case
No. 0:23-cv-00419-NEB-DJF (D. Minn., Feb. 20, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for invasion of privacy, unjust
enrichment, breach of confidence, and violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and
the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The complaint seeks to address Defendant's alleged outrageous,
illegal, and widespread practice of disclosing Plaintiff's and
Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information and
protected health information to third parties, including Meta
Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Facebook. The Plaintiff and other Class
Members who used Defendant's website http://www.northmemorial.com/
thought they were communicating only with their trusted healthcare
provider. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, however,
Defendant had embedded the Facebook Tracking Pixel on its website,
surreptitiously forcing Plaintiff and Class Members to transmit to
Facebook every click, keystroke, and intimate detail about their
medical treatment, says the suit.

On numerous occasions, Plaintiff accessed Defendant's website on
her mobile device and/or computer. She used the website to find and
obtain medical treatment. Pursuant to the systematic process
described in this complaint, Plaintiff's private information was
disclosed to Facebook, and this data included her PII, PHI, and
related confidential information. The Defendant intercepted and/or
assisted these interceptions without Plaintiff's knowledge,
consent, or express written authorization. By failing to receive
the requisite consent, Defendant breached confidentiality and
unlawfully disclosed Plaintiff's private information, the suit
alleges.

North Memorial Healthcare is a Minnesota-headquartered integrated
health care organization providing health care services and health
plan financing and administration.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-7300
          Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
          E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
                  jbores@chestnutcambronne.com
                  pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
          Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100  
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
                  gabramson@milberg.com
                  ahoneycutt@milberg.com

               - and -
        
          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          119 E. Court St., Ste. 530
          Cincinnati, OH 4502
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
                  dgould@msdlegal.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
          THE LYON LAW FIRM
          2754 Erie Ave.
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Telephone: (513) 381-2333
          Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
          E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com

OAK STREET: Bid to Dismiss All of Allison's Claims Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, REGINALD T. ALLISON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OAK STREET HEALTH, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 22 C 149 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Matthew F.
Kennelly of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' motions to dismiss all of the claims.

Allison filed suit against Oak Street, a company operating primary
care centers, and against its CEO and CFO, two shareholders,
several current and former board members, and several underwriters
of the company's public offerings, on behalf of a class of
individuals who acquired Oak Street common stock from Aug. 6, 2020
through Nov. 8, 2021. Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund -
Defined Benefit Plan, Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund -
Retirement Income, and Boston Retirement System (collectively, the
Northeast Pension Funds) have been appointed to serve as the Lead
Plaintiff.

The Northeast Pension Funds assert that Oak Street's marketing
tactics violated the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and the False
Claims Act (FCA). The day after Oak Street revealed that its
marketing practices were under investigation by the U.S. Department
of Justice (DOJ) for potential violations of the FCA, the price of
Oak Street's stock fell by more than twenty percent. The Northeast
Pension Funds claim that the Defendants' failure to disclose Oak
Street's marketing practices violated sections 11, 12, and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Oak Street is a healthcare company that operates primary care
centers. At all times relevant to the suit, Michael Pykosz was the
CEO and Timothy Cook was the CFO of Oak Street. Newlight Partners
LP, a private equity firm, and Newlight Harbour Point SPV, its
investment vehicle housing Oak Street's stock (collectively,
Newlight), and General Atlantic LLC, another private equity firm,
and General Atlantic (OSH) Interholdco, L.P., its investment
vehicle housing Oak Street's stock (collectively, General
Atlantic), together owned approximately 52%, and later in the class
period 48%, of Oak Street's stock. The Court refers to Newlight and
General Atlantic as the Private Equity Defendants.

Oak Street's registration statements during the class period stated
that the Private Equity Defendants control the vote of all matters
submitted to a vote of their shareholders, enabling them to control
Oak Street's board election "and all other corporate decisions" and
that, for so long as the Private Equity Defendants continue to own
a significant percentage of our stock, they will continue to have
significant influence with respect to their management, business
plans and policies.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss all of the claims.

The Northeast Pension Funds claim that the Defendants violated the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
through omissions and misrepresentations of two of Oak Street's
marketing practices: (1) providing referral payments of $200 per
patient to insurance agents and (2) offering free transportation to
prospective patients. The Defendants have moved to dismiss the
complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim.

First, the Northeast Pension Funds claim that Oak Street and the
Individual Defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. The elements of a claim under
section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 are: (1) a material misrepresentation
or omission by the defendant; (2) scienter; (3) a connection
between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale
of a security; (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission;
(5) economic loss; and (6) loss causation. The Defendants contend
that the Northeast Pension Funds have not adequately alleged a
material misrepresentation or omission, scienter, and loss
causation.

Judge Kennelly finds that (i) the statements cited by the Northeast
Pension Funds are not misleading because the statements omitted the
fact that Oak Street engaged in the two specific practices alleged
to be illegal; (ii) the Northeast Pension Funds have sufficiently
alleged that the Defendants knew payments based on referral volume
and the offering and providing of free transportation violated the
AKS, rendering their contrary opinion actionable; and (iii) the
Northeast Pension Funds have accordingly sufficiently alleged Items
303 and 105 violations, providing another basis for their section
10(b) claim.

Judge Kennelly also finds that the inference that the defendants
intentionally misled investors by concealing Oak Street's allegedly
unlawful marketing practices is "cogent and at least as compelling
as" the Defendants' opposing inference that they acted
unintentionally, believing that their marketing tactics did not
violate the AKS. He accordingly finds that the Northeast Pension
Funds have sufficiently alleged a strong inference of scienter.

Judge Kennelly further finds that the Northeast Pension Funds have
adequately pled loss causation by alleging that Oak Street's stock
price dropped the same day that it announced that the DOJ was
investigating its "relationships with third-party marketing agents"
and "provision of free transportation to federal health care
beneficiaries."

In sum, Judge Kennelly concludes that the Northeast Pension Funds
have stated a viable section 10(b) claim.

Next, the Northeast Pension Funds claim that Oak Street, Oak
Street's directors, the underwriters, and the Individual Defendants
violated section 11 of the Securities Act and that those defendants
along with the Private Equity Defendants violated section 12(a)(2)
of the Securities Act. The parties dispute whether Rule 9(b)
applies to these claims, but there is no need to resolve it because
Judge Kennelly has already determined that the Northeast Pension
Funds have alleged material omissions satisfying Rule 9(b)'s
pleading requirements.

The Defendants contend that the section 11 claim still must be
dismissed because the Northeast Pension Funds failed to allege that
they have standing under the statute. In addition to lack of
statutory standing, they contend that the section 12(a)(2) claim
must be dismissed for the additional reason that the Northeast
Pension Funds failed to allege that the Individual Defendants and
the private equity defendants were statutory sellers.

Judge Kennelly opines that the Northeast Pension Funds' allegation
that Dearborn purchased shares "in" the offerings, not "traceable
to" the offerings is sufficient to allege statutory standing for
section 11 purposes. However, with respect to the May 2021 SPO, the
Northeast Pension Funds have not alleged that any named plaintiff
purchased shares in this offering. Accordingly, the motion to
dismiss Northeast Pension Funds' section 11 claim with respect to
the May SPO is granted but the motion with respect to the Northeast
Pension Funds' section 11 claims for misrepresentations in the
registration statements from the IPO, December SPO, and February
SPO is denied.

Judge Kennelly also opines that because the Northeast Pension Funds
have not alleged the statutory requirements, their the section
12(a)(2) claim is dismissed. He agrees with the Defendants that the
Northeast Pension Funds have not adequately alleged that the
individual defendants and the private equity defendants are
statutory sellers. The Defendants are only liable under section
12(a)(2) if they pass title or directly solicit or offer to the
Plaintiff.

Finally, the Northeast Pension Funds additionally claim that the
individual defendants and private equity defendants violated
section 15 of the Securities Act and section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. The Defendants contend that the claims should be dismissed
because the Northeast Pension Funds have failed to allege a primary
violation of the Securities Act and Exchange Act.

Among other things, because he has determined that the Northeast
Pension Funds have adequately alleged their section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act claim and section 11 of the Securities Act claim with
respect to the IPO, December SPO, and February SPO, Judge Kennelly
denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss on this ground.

Regarding the private equity defendants specifically, the
Defendants contend that both claims should be dismissed because the
Northeast Pension Funds failed to allege that the private equity
defendants were control persons. Judge Kennelly need not decide
that issue because even assuming he does, the Northeast Pension
Funds' allegations are sufficient.

Judge Kennelly accordingly denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the sections 15 and 20(a) claims with respect to the Private equity
Defendants.

For these reasons, Judge Kennelly grants the Defendants' motions to
dismiss with respect to the Northeast Pension Funds' section
12(a)(2) claim and section 11 claim based on misrepresentations
from the May 2021 SPO, but otherwise denies the motion.

The Defendants are directed to answer the complaint within 28 days
of the Order. The parties are directed to confer and attempt to
agree upon a discovery and pretrial schedule to propose to the
Court. A joint status report including a proposal, or alternative
proposals if the parties cannot agree, is to be filed. A telephonic
status hearing is set for March 6, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., using
call-in number 888-684-8852, access code 746-1053.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/27vcabnf from
Leagle.com.


OFFICE FURNITURE: Chunn Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jahiek Chunn, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
OFFICE FURNITURE OF NEW YORK, INC.; OFFICE FURNITURE WHOLESALERS,
INC.; FURNITURE RENTALS OF NY INC; and RANDOLF FLORES, Case No.
2:23-cv-01318 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2023), is brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL"), to recover from Defendants: unpaid minimum wage and
overtime compensation; unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each
day they worked in excess of 10 hours; damages for failure to give
required notices and wage statements; unpaid uniform maintenance;
liquidated damages and civil penalties pursuant to the New York
Labor Law and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act;
prejudgment and post judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Plaintiff has worked for Defendants full time. During
Plaintiff's first period of employment ending in January 2021, he
did not typically work overtime. He did, however, work a few weeks
of overtime. In particular there was one month when he worked 22
days, and significant overtime. Also during this stint of employed
he typically worked more than ten hours per shift at least once per
week and most shift worked each week work in excess of ten hours.
Since returning to work in August 2022, Defendants have required
Plaintiff to work six days per work, 10-12 hours per day, working
an average of 60-70 hours per week.

Despite Plaintiff regularly working more than 40 hours per week
performing non-exempt tasks, Defendants have never paid Plaintiff
the required overtime rate of time and one-half for every hour he
worked in excess of 40 hours. The Defendants have never paid
Plaintiff a spread of hours premium of one additional hours' pay at
the applicable minimum wage for each day where Plaintiff worked
more than ten hours at a time. Because of Defendants' improper
compensation policies, Plaintiff was deprived of pay, in direct
violation of the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been working for Defendants as a laborer from
August 2019 to December 2020/January 2021 and then again from
August 2022 to the present.

The Defendants' business owns and operates the furniture liquidator
business Office Furniture of New York, Inc. in New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810,
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 718-669-0714
          Email: mgangat@gangatpllc.com


PARTYTOYZ INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PartyToyz, Inc. The
case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. PartyToyz, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01264
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2023).

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

PartyToyz, Inc. -- https://www.partytoyz.com/ -- offers online
shopping for a great selection at Toys & Games Store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PEABODY GATEWAY: Kizeart Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaliyah Kizeart, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. PEABODY GATEWAY NORTH MINING, LLC, Case No.
3:23-cv-00515-NJR (S.D. Ill., Feb. 16, 2023), is brought to
challenge policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
("IMWL") of failing to pay proper overtime wages.

As a miner, Plaintiff was required to don and doff safety clothing
and other protective equipment and obtain and return an oxygen
respirator, work belt and tools, prox stopper, radio, and locator.
The Plaintiff was not paid for the time they spent donning and
doffing safety clothing and equipment and were also not paid for
the time obtaining and returning the oxygen respirator, work belt
and tools, prox stopper, radio, and locator. Donning and doffing of
the safety clothing and other protective equipment and obtaining
and returning the oxygen respirator, work belt and tools, prox
stopper, radio, and locator is integral and indispensable to the
work performed by Defendant's non-exempt hourly mining employees.
The Plaintiff was not paid for doffing safety clothing and other
protective equipment and returning an oxygen respirator, work belt
and tools, prox stopper, radio, and locator.

The Plaintiff regularly worked 40 or more hours in a workweek. As a
result of Plaintiff not being paid for all hours worked, the
Plaintiff was not paid overtime compensation for all of the hours
they worked in excess of 40 each workweek. The Defendant knowingly
and willfully engaged in the violations of the FLSA, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt hourly
employee.

The Defendant is an underground mining company located in Randolph
County, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          7034 Braucher St NW, Suite B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Phone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com


PELLE DESIGNS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pelle Designs LLC.
The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Pelle Designs LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01237 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2023).

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

PELLE -- https://pelledesigns.com/ -- is an independent design
studio that combines the practices of art and engineering to create
expressive lighting, furniture and design objects.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          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: nyjg@aol.com
                 danalgottlieb@aol.com

PENNSYLVANIA: Class Members' Opt-In Forms in Jennings Due March 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled RUSSEL "JOEY" JENNINGS, by and through his
parents/guardians, Richard and Susan Jennings, et al., Plaintiffs
v. TOM WOLF, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-CV-148 (M.D. Pa.),
Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum Order
setting March 6, 2023, as the deadline for putative class members
to return opt-in forms.

The case, a class action lawsuit brought against the former
Governor of Pennsylvania and a number of state health officials,
involves claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
regarding the continued placement of profoundly intellectually
disabled persons in state-operated Intermediate Care Facilities
("ICFs").

The Named Plaintiffs and class members are intellectually disabled
individuals, who currently reside in two state-operated ICFs, White
Haven Center and Polk Center. In 2019, the state made a decision to
close these two ICFs and transfer the remaining residents to either
a community placement, a privately-operated ICF, or one of the two
remaining state-operated ICFs--Selinsgrove and Ebensburg.

On Nov. 2, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify this lawsuit as a class action but denied their motions for
injunctive relief. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed a second motion
for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

While it understands and is sympathetic to the Plaintiffs' concerns
voiced in this motion, the Court was constrained to deny the
motion. However, given the rapidly shifting legal and factual
landscape in this case, the Court instructed the Plaintiffs'
counsel to notify the Court regarding whether any of the Named
Plaintiffs now wish to withdraw from this litigation.

In addition, the Court instructed the Plaintiffs' counsel to
prepare and distribute to putative class members notices which
comply with the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2), along with forms
requiring putative class members to affirmatively notify the Court
that they wish to opt-in to this lawsuit. The deadline for the
return of these opt-in forms was February 17, 2023.

The Court has now received a communication from counsel indicating
that all of the Named Plaintiffs except for Russell "Joey" Jennings
represented by his parents/guardians Richard and Susan Jennings and
Janine Winsock represented by his sister/guardian Ann Meszczynski
wish to withdraw from this lawsuit. It is also represented that the
class now consists of no more than 34 individuals, raising
questions concerning whether Rule 23's numerosity requirements are
still met here.

In light of these developments, the Court directed the Clerk to
terminate all Named Plaintiffs except for Russell Joey Jennings
represented by his parents/guardians Richard and Susan Jennings and
Janine Winsock represented by his sister/guardian Ann Meszczynski.

The trial on this case is postponed as the Court attempts to
ascertain whether this litigation presents a viable class action.
In this regard, the Defendants must file a motion to de-certify the
class, if they deem this course to be appropriate. Briefing will be
deferred pending completion of the steps outlined below.

Because the Court deems proper notice to class members to still be
necessary for the preservation of individual rights and interests,
and in order to ensure that any motion to de-certify the class is
based upon a fully developed factual record, the parties will
jointly prepare and distribute to putative class members notices,
which comply with the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2), along with
forms requiring putative class members to affirmative notify the
Court that they wish to opt-in to this lawsuit.

Those putative class members, who wish to join the litigation
should return the opt-in forms for filing with the court no later
than March 6, 2023. Only the Plaintiffs, who complete the opt-in
forms, will be considered members of this class action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Order dated Feb. 6,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ukzh3pb4 from
Leagle.com.


PORTLAND, OR: Court Denies Bid for Summary Judgment in Lake Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BEA LAKE, Plaintiff v. CITY OF PORTLAND, a municipal
corporation; and Portland Police Bureau Police Officer JOHN DOE, in
his individual capacity, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-818-SI (D.
Or.), Judge Michael H. Simon of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon denies the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment

Lake brings the complaint against the City and an unknown Portland
Police Bureau Police Officer, John Doe, under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983, alleging violations of her rights under the First and Fourth
Amendments. The Defendants move for summary judgment, arguing that
Lake has waived her right to bring federal claims based on the
underlying facts of the case, or that the Court should apply
judicial estoppel to preclude the Plaintiff's claims.

The Plaintiff had previously been one of three named plaintiffs in
a putative class action that was filed in state court on July 7,
2020, Evans v. City of Portland, Case No. 3:20-cv-1142-S. That
class action complaint was filed against the City, and alleged
state law claims for assault, battery, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, negligence, and false arrest, and sought
declaratory and injunctive relief.

The City removed the case to federal court on July 14, 2020, the
plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that they had only brought
state law claims, and the City responded that removal was
appropriate because the complaint referenced the "First Amendment"
of the U.S. Constitution, "free speech," and case law interpreting
federal free speech rights under the First Amendment. The
plaintiffs then filed an amended class action complaint that
removed all reference to the U.S. Constitution and federal law.

The Court held oral argument in Evans on the putative class action
plaintiffs' motion to remand. At the hearing, the Court asked
whether the amended complaint and removal of all federal claims
sufficiently addressed the City's concerns to support the Court
declining supplementary jurisdiction and entering a discretionary
remand.

Judge Simon states that a party is entitled to summary judgment if
the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. He finds there is no genuine dispute whether Lake waived her
right to bring an individual federal claim for damages against the
Defendants. The lengthy Evans discussion about what Lake waived in
the putative class action is clear that, repeatedly, both the Court
and the Plaintiffs' counsel emphasized that the only federal claims
that were waived were claims presented in the context of a putative
class action.

The Court ensured that the City would not have to face a putative
class action in state court that included federal claims, or have
to litigate in state court for months or years and then have
federal claims added and need to re-remove to federal court and
start over. Whenever the counsel for the City made a statement that
may have been interpreted broadly as covering more than the
putative class action, the Court interjected and made clear that
the stipulation and waiver only covered that case, which was a
putative class action. Thus, the City's argument based on waiver
fails.

For the same reasons, the City's argument based on judicial
estoppel fails. Judicial estoppel, sometimes also known as the
doctrine of preclusion of inconsistent positions, precludes a party
from gaining an advantage by taking one position, and then seeking
a second advantage by taking an incompatible position. Lake's
filing a new, individual federal lawsuit for damages is not clearly
inconsistent with her stipulation and waiver not to amend to add
federal claims in her earlier state law putative class action
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

For these reason, Judge Simon denies the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5yyk6ybn from Leagle.com.


PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Bid to Dismiss Amended Reese Complaint Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSICA REESE and DAVID MONCADA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No.
22-cv-10539-ADB (D. Mass.), Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts grants the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

In this putative class action, Plaintiffs Reese and Moncada bring
suit against the Defendant, alleging breach of contract, violations
of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 176D, Section
3(9)(c), (d), (f), and (n), and requesting declaratory judgment.

On Oct. 24, 2019, Reese's vehicle was damaged in a collision with
one of Defendant's insureds. Following the accident, the Defendant
determined that its insured's insurance policy (the "2016 Standard
Policy"), covered the loss. Subsequently, on Sept. 28, 2020,
Moncada's vehicle was involved in a separate motor vehicle
collision, which was caused by the negligence of another of the
Defendant's insureds. After the crash, the Defendant again
determined that the insured's policy, also the 2016 Standard
Policy, covered the loss.

The Defendant made payments to the Plaintiffs under Part 4 of the
Policy, but did not pay them for the inherent diminished value
("IDV") of their vehicles as a result of the accidents. IDV
accounts for the fact that a vehicle that has been involved in a
collision and suffered damage is worth less on the resale market
than a comparable vehicle that has not suffered damage, even after
that damage is repaired. Reese and Moncada thereafter filed
requests for their vehicles' IDV on, respectively, March 2 and
March 22, 2021, which the Defendant denied.

Reese filed the initial complaint in Essex County Superior Court on
March 10, 2022, and the Defendant removed the case to this Court on
April 12, 2022. On June 17, 2022, Reese and Moncada filed the
amended complaint, which added Moncada as a plaintiff and brought
additional claims. The Defendant moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on Aug. 26, 2022, and the Plaintiffs opposed the motion
on Sept. 9, 2022.

First, despite the plain terms of the relevant policy language
excluding third-party recovery of IDV claims, the Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendant is nonetheless liable for such claims. Judge
Burroughs disagrees. She finds that the policy's plain language is
unambiguous and concludes that the policy does not provide for
third-party recovery of IDV damages.

The Plaintiffs argue that notwithstanding the policy's express
exclusion of coverage for IDV damages, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90,
Section 34O mandates such coverage. Judge Burroughs finds that the
Commissioner approved the 2016 Policy, which plainly excludes IDV
damages. She therefore concludes that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90,
Section 34O does not compel the Defendant to cover IDV damages.

For all these reasons, the Plaintiffs claim for breach of contract
fails (Count I) is dismissed.

Next, the Plaintiffs additionally bring claims pursuant to Chapter
93A (Count II) and Chapter 176D (Counts III, IV, V, and VI).

Applying that legal framework to the pending claims, Judge
Burroughs finds that because the Defendant's interpretation of the
Policy was not only plausible, but also correct, failure to cover
the Plaintiffs' claims for IDV damages does not rise to the level
of an unfair or deceptive act under 93A. Moreover, the Plaintiffs
have failed to point to any evidence of bad faith or ulterior
motives for the rejection of the IDV claims. She therefore grants
the Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts II, III, IV, V, and VI.

Finally, the Plaintiffs seek a declaration that they, and all
putative class members, are entitled to IDV damages.

Judge Burroughs finds that although the claim has been properly
brought, for the reasons she stated, she concludes that the
Plaintiffs' underlying claims do not state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, so the request for declaratory judgment is
also denied.

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is
granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p82m6aw from Leagle.com.


QUALITY PACKAGING: S.D. Illinois Refuses to Remand Callender Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois denies the parties' request to remand in the
lawsuit styled DAWN CALLENDER, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. QUALITY PACKAGING
SPECIALISTS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-505-SMY
(S.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Dawn Callender brings this putative class action against
her former employer, Quality Packaging Specialists International,
LLC ("QPSI") for alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). QPSI removed the case to this
Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The
matter is now before the Court on the parties' Stipulation to
Remand, in which they assert they have reached a settlement, which
contemplates effectuation in state court.

The Court's discretion to remand a case involving a properly
removed claim is narrow and limited by statute. Significantly, the
remand statutes do not expressly allow remand on the sole basis
that the parties consent to it. In other words, the parties may
neither confer subject matter jurisdiction on the Court nor strip
it of such jurisdiction by agreement or waiver.

Judge Yandle notes that the parties do not contend that the Court
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction nor do they cite authority
indicating that the Court otherwise has discretion to remand this
case. And their attempt to tactically manipulate the removal
process is clear; after having removed the case and invoked this
Court's subject matter jurisdiction, they now wish to go back from
whence they came to finalize their agreed settlement.

Judge Yandle says she has neither the discretion nor the
inclination to allow the Court to be used as a judicial
placeholder.

Accordingly, Judge Yandle denies the joint request for remand.
Further, as the parties have advised the Court that this matter is
settled, it is set for a videoconference hearing for preliminary
approval of class action settlement on March 6, 2022, at 1:30 p.m.
Instructions for accessing the videoconference will be provided by
email. The Petition for Preliminary Approval was due Feb. 27,
2023.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Feb. 6,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4z6ec8af from
Leagle.com.


RANDSTAD INHOUSE: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Ortiz Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
RANDSTAD INHOUSE SERVICES, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a
court order denying their motion to compel arbitration in the
lawsuit entitled Adan Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Randstad Inhouse Services,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-00213-JWH-SHK, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

As previously reported in Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, is brought by the Plaintiff against
the Defendants for alleged violations of the California Labor Code
and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to
provide meal periods, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to
provide rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
hourly wages, failure to indemnify, failure to provide accurate
written wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages,
unfair competition, and civil penalties.

On Aug. 30, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which the Court denied through an Order entered by
Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. on Jan. 18, 2023.

The appellate case is captioned Adan Ortiz v. Randstad Inhouse
Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 23-55147, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 17,
2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Randstad Inhouse Services, LLC and Randstad North
America, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due on February 24,
2023;

   -- Appellants Randstad Inhouse Services, LLC and Randstad North
America, Inc. opening brief is due on April 17, 2023;

   -- Appellee Adan Ortiz answering brief is due on May 17, 2023;
and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee ADAN ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Farrah Grant, Esq.
            Thomas Alistair Segal, Esq.
            SETAREH LAW GROUP
            9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
            Beverly Hills, CA 90212
            Telephone: (310) 888-7771

                   - and -

            Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
            LAW OFFICE OF SHAUN SETAREH
            9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
            Beverly Hills, CA 90212
            Telephone: (310) 888-7771

Defendants-Appellants RANDSTAD INHOUSE SERVICES, LLC, et al. are
represented by:

            Kiran A. Seldon, Esq.
            SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
            2029 Century Park, E., Suite 3500
            Los Angeles, CA 90067
            Telephone: (310) 201-1581

RANGE RESOURCES: Briefing Sched & Case Management Order Entered
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUPERT, et al., v. RANGE
RESOURCES -- APPALACHIA, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01281 (W.D.
Pa,) the Hon. Judge Patricia L. Dodge entered an setting briefing
schedule and case management order as follows:

   -- Completion of Class Certification        May 12, 2023
      Discovery by:

   -- The Plaintiffs' Disclosure of            May 26, 2023
      Class Certification Experts and
      Reports by:

   -- The Defendant's Disclosure of Class      June 23, 2023
      Certification Experts and Reports by:

   -- Discovery of Class Certification         July 14, 2023
      Experts Completed by:

   -- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class         July 28, 2023
      Certification by:

   -- The Defendant's Memorandum in            August 31, 2023
      Opposition to Class Certification by:

   -- The Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in      Sept. 14, 2023
      Further Support of Class
      Certification by:

   -- A telephone status conference            Sept. 27, 2023
      is scheduled for:

The nature of suit states Diversity -- Contract Dispute.

Range Resources was founded in 1999. The company's line of business
includes performing geophysical, geological, and other exploration
services for oil and gas.[CC]

RDO EQUIPMENT: Mendoza Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Anjelica Mendoza, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. RDO
Equipment Co., Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2300155
was removed from the Riverside County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 15,
2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00256-MEMF-SP to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Other
Contract.

RDO Equipment Co. -- https://www.rdoequipment.com/ -- sells and
supports agriculture, construction, environmental, positioning,
surveying, and irrigation equipment from manufacturers including
John Deere, Vermeer, and other top equipment brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Phone: (818) 230-7502
          Fax: (818) 230-7259
          Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com

               - and -

          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          William Wilkinson, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 North Fair Oaks Avenue Suite 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
          Phone: (818) 230-7502
          Fax: (818) 230-7259
          Email: statavos@justicelawcorp.com
                 wwilkinson@justicelawcorp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David H. Stern, Esq.
          Alex Edwin Spjuteg, Esq.
          Jennifer F. Delarosa, Esq.
          BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: (310) 979-8480
          Fax: (310) 820-8859
          Email: dstern@bakerlaw.com
                 aspjute@bakerlaw.com
                 jdelarosa@bakerlaw.com


REGAL MEDICAL: Alldis Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Alldis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REGAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC., Case No. 23STCV03196 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 14, 2023), is brought arising
from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of sensitive
information in the possession and custody and/or control of
Defendant (the "Data Breach").

The Data Breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration,
and theft of the Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly personal
information, including names, Social Security numbers, dates of
birth, addresses, phone numbers ("personally identifying
information" or "PII"), and diagnoses and treatments, laboratory
test results, prescription data, radiology reports, and health plan
member numbers ("protected health information" or "PHI"). Plaintiff
refers to both PII and PHI collectively as "Private Information."

The Data Breach occurred on or about December 1, 2022. On or about
February 1, 2023, RMG finally notified state Attorneys General and
many Class Members about the widespread Data Breach ("Notice
Letter"). RMG waited two months before informing Class Members even
though Plaintiff and approximately 3,300,638 Class Members had
their most sensitive personal information accessed, exfiltrated,
and stolen, causing them to suffer ascertainable losses in the form
of the loss of the benefit of their bargain and the value of their
time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the
attack.

Plaintiff did not receive a Notice Letter from RMG until February
1, 2023--over two months after the Data Breach occurred. During
this time, Plaintiff and Class Members were unaware that their
sensitive Private Information had been compromised, and that they
were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and
various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm.

RMG failed to reasonably secure, monitor, and maintain the Private
Information provided to it by its customers and patients. Upon
information and belief, the Data Breach resulted in the likely
unauthorized access, download, exfiltration, and misuse of the
Private Information by the cyber criminals who targeted that
information through their wrongdoing.

By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal
and equitable duties to those individuals, and knew or should have
known that it was responsible for safeguarding and protecting
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information from
unauthorized access, disclosure, and theft due to criminal hacking
activity, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Santa Monica, California
who provided their Private Information to the Defendants.

RMG is healthcare network with its principal office located in
Northridge, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Nelson, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          401 W Broadway, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (858) 209-6941
          Email: jnelson@milberg.com

               - and -

          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          Justin C. Walker, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          119 E. Court Street, Suite 530
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: (513) 651-3700
          Fax: (513) 665-0219
          Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com
                 jwalker@msdlegal.com


REGAL MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Rodriguez Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID RODRIGUEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC.; and
DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01185 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 16,
2023) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
negligence per se, declaratory judgment, common law invasion of
privacy, and for violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act,
California Customer Records Act and California Unfair Competition
Law.

This putative class action arises from Regal Medical Group, Inc.'s
negligent failure to implement and maintain reasonable
cybersecurity procedures that resulted in a data breach of its
systems on December 1, 2022. The Plaintiff brings this class action
complaint, on behalf of himself and a nationwide class and
California subclass of similarly situated persons, whose personal
information were collected by the Defendants including individuals'
name, social security number, date of birth, address, diagnosis and
treatment, laboratory test results, prescription data, radiology
reports, health plan member number, phone number, among other
personal, sensitive and confidential information.

Regal Medical Group, Inc. is a physician-led healthcare network in
Southern California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason M. Wucetich, Esq.
          Dimitrios V. Korovilas, Esq.
          WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP
          222 N. Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 2000
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 335-2001
          Facsimile: (310) 364-5201  
          E-mail: jason@wukolaw.com
                  dimitri@wukolaw.com

REGAL MEDICAL: Hiatt Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PHI & PII
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Hiatt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REGAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC., LAKESIDE MEDICAL
ORGANIZATION, ADOC MEDICAL GROUP, GREATER COVINA MEDICAL GROUP,
INC., HERITAGE PROVIDER NETWORK, INC., Case No. 23STCV03207 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 14, 2023), is brought against
the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard
the Protected Health Information ("PHI"), such as medical diagnosis
and treatment information, laboratory test results, prescription
data, radiology reports, and health plan member numbers, and their
failure to properly secure and safeguard Personally Identifiable
Information ("PII") that Defendants required patients to provide,
including without limitation, first and last names, Social Security
numbers, dates of birth, addresses, and phone numbers.

On December 8, 2022, Defendants became aware of a cybersecurity
incident that they later learned began on December 1, 2022. On
December 2, 2022, Defendants noticed difficulty in accessing some
of their servers. Defendants discovered that malware was present on
their servers and that cybercriminals were "accessing and
exfiltrating" certain data from their systems1 (the "Data Breach").
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and at least 3,300,638
Class Members had their most sensitive personal information
accessed and exfiltrated by cybercriminals, causing them to suffer
ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of
their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time
reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the
attack.

By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendants
assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect
and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and
intrusion. The Defendants failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's
and Class Members' Private Information and failed to even encrypt
or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted,
unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendants'
negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the utter failure
to protect their patients' sensitive data. Hackers obtained
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI because of its value in
exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class
Members. The risk to these individuals will remain for their
respective lifetimes, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a patient of one or more of the Defendants.

Regal Medical Group, Inc. is a medical provider headquartered in
Northridge, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          M. Anderson Berry (SBN 262879)
          Gregory Haroutunian (SBN 330263)
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, PROFESSIONAL CORP.
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Phone: (916) 239-4778
          Email: aberry@justice4you.com;
                 gharoutunian@justice4you.com

               - and -

          Rachele R. Byrd (SBN 190634)
          Ferdeza Zekiri (SBN (335507)
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 1820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          Email: byrd@whafh.com; zekiri@whafh.com


REGAL MEDICAL: Kelechian Sues Over Failure to Secure PHI and PII
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mayda Kelechian, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. REGAL MEDICAL GROUP INC., HERITAGE PROVIDER
NETWORK, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
23STCV03107 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 14, 2023), is
brought against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and
safeguard Class Members' protected health information and
personally identifiable information stored within Defendants'
information network, including, without limitation, names, Social
Security numbers, dates of birth, address, diagnosis and treatment
information, laboratory test results, prescription data, radiology
reports, health plan member numbers, phone numbers (these types of
information, inter alia, being thereafter referred to,
collectively, as "protected health information" or "PHI" and
"personally identifiable information" or "PII"), in violation of
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
("HIPPA")

With this action, the Plaintiff seek to hold Defendants responsible
for the harms it caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff
and, at least, 3,300,6383 others similarly situated persons in the
massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by
Defendants on December 8, 2022 by which cybercriminals infiltrated
Defendants' inadequately protected network servers and accessed
highly sensitive PHI/PII belonging to both adults and children,
which was being kept unprotected (the "Data Breach").

While Defendants claim to have discovered the breach as early as
December 8, 2022 Defendants did not begin informing victims of the
Data Breach until February 1, 2023 and failed to inform victims
when or for how long the Data Breach occurred. Indeed, the
Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach
until they received letters from Defendants informing them of it.
The notice received by the Plaintiff was dated on February 2, 2023.
Defendants acquired, collected and stored the Plaintiff' and Class
Members' PHI/PII and/or financial information. Therefore, at all
relevant times, Defendants knew, or should have known, that the
Plaintiff and Class Members would use Defendants' services to store
and/or share sensitive data, including highly confidential
PHI/PII.

By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
Plaintiff' and Class Members' PHI/PII, Defendants assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals. These duties arise from
HIPAA and other state and federal statutes and regulations as well
as common law principles. the Plaintiff do/does not bring claims in
this action for direct violations of HIPAA, but charge(s)
Defendants with various legal violations merely predicated upon the
duties set forth in HIPAA.

The Defendants disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that the Plaintiff' and Class Members' PHI/PII was
safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an
unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable,
required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures
regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a
result, the PHI/PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members was
compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third
party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit
off this disclosure by defrauding the Plaintiff and Class Members
in the future, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of this state and victim of
the Data Breach.

Regal is "one of the largest physician-led healthcare networks in
Southern California, which contracts "with thousands of doctors and
hundreds of hospitals and urgent care centers."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Srourian, Esq.
          SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 474-3800
          Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
          Email: daniel@slfla.com


REGAL MEDICAL: Perez Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII and PHI
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ivon Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REGAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC., LAKESIDE MEDICAL
ORGANIZATION, ADOC ACQUISITION CO., AND GREATER COVINA MEDICAL
GROUP, Case No. 23STCV03077 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
Feb. 14, 2023), is brought arising out of the recent targeted
cyberattack and data breach that took place on or around December
2022 ("Data Breach") on the Defendants' network that resulted in
unauthorized access to its patients' sensitive personal data as a
result of the Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information that it
collected and maintained in violation of the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, California's Unfair
Competition Law, Unlawful Business Practice Act; and California's
UCL Unfair Business Practice Act.

As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and approximately
3,300,638 Class Members1 had their most sensitive personal
information accessed, exfiltrated, and stolen, causing them to
suffer ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit
of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their
time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the
attack. Information compromised in the Data Breach involves
individuals' personally identifying information ("PII) including
names, Social Security number, dates of birth, address, health plan
member numbers, and phone numbers, as well as protected health
information ("PHI) including diagnosis and treatment, laboratory
test results, prescription data, radiology reports, (collectively,
"PII and PHI" or "Private Information").

The Defendants maintained the Private Information in a reckless and
negligent manner. In particular, the Private Information was
maintained on Defendants' computer system and network in a
condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief,
the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper
disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information
was a known risk to Defendants, and thus Defendants were on notice
that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private
Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous
condition.

The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendants' negligent conduct because the Private
Information that Defendants collected and maintained was exposed
and is now in the hands of data thieves. As a result of the Data
Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a
heightened and imminent risk of financial and medical fraud and
identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial and healthcare accounts to
guard against identity theft, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff received medical services through the Defendants.

Regal Medical Group, Inc. is a hospital system based in Southern
California that acquired, utilized, and stored Plaintiff's and
Class Member's Private Information.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-7300
          Email: bbleichner@chesnutcambronne.com
                 pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
          THE LYON FIRM, LLC
          2754 Erie Ave.
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Phone: (513) 381-2333
          Fax: (513) 766-9011
          Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com


RITE AID: Modified Scheduling Order Entered in Lemus Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIAN LEMUS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. RITE AID
CORPORATION, Case No. 8:22-cv-00253-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge David O. Carter entered a modified scheduling order as
follows:

           Event                 Previous Date     New Date

  File motion for class         Feb. 13, 2023     Apr. 3, 2023
  certification

  Opposition to motion for      Mar. 13, 2023     May 1, 2023
  class certification

  Reply to motion for class     Mar. 27, 2023     May 15, 2023
  certification

  Hearing on class              Apr. 10, 2023     Jun. 5, 2023
  certification

  Fact discovery cut-off        Jun. 1, 2023      Aug. 1, 2023

  Mediation deadline            Jun. 10, 2023     Jun. 30, 2023

  Expert disclosures            Jul. 19, 2023     Aug. 16, 2023

  Rebuttal expert disclosures   Aug. 16, 2023     Aug. 23, 2023

  Expert discovery cut-off      Aug. 31, 2023     Sep. 13, 2023

  File motions for summary      Sep 15, 2023      Sep. 22, 2023
  judgment

Rite Aid Corporation is an American drugstore chain.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IeaOG3 at no extra charge.[CC]

RMLS HOP ILLINOIS: Isham Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Direlle Isham, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, known and unknown v. RMLS HOP ILLINOIS, LLC, Case No,
1:23-cv-00921 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 14, 2023), is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
("IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act
("IWPCA") for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff, and other
similarly situated employees, minimum wages, overtime wages, and
earned wages.

When Defendant worked as a server, Defendant paid Plaintiff a sub
minimum, tip-credit wage. Defendant pays their other servers a sub
minimum, tip credit wage to work for Defendant. Plaintiff does not
recall Defendant informing him of the tip-credit provisions of the
FLSA. Despite the fact that the tip-credit wage is designed
specifically, and only, for employees who receive tips for their
work, Defendant regularly made Plaintiff and other servers perform
non-tipped labor while receiving a sub-minimum, tip-credit wage.
Because of their unlawful employment practices, Defendant has
forfeited their right to claim a tip credit against the wages of
Plaintiff and Defendant's other servers.

The Defendant instituted a policy that required Plaintiff and other
servers to perform "sidework." This was work that servers must
complete before they end their shift and leave work. The Defendant
paid Plaintiff and other servers the sub-minimum, tip-credit wage
to do sidework, despite the fact that the duties involved in the
sidework are entirely different and separate from those involved in
serving, and do not involve tips (meaning Plaintiff and other
servers should receive the minimum wage for side-work).

Side-work was a significant responsibility for Plaintiff and other
employees that took at least one hour to complete at the end of
shifts, after serving was over. Plaintiff and other employees were
paid the sub-minimum, tip-credit wage to do side-work which does
not involve employees receiving tips. The Defendant's side-work
policy is clearly a scheme to unlawfully avoid paying Plaintiff and
other servers the minimum wage for work where minimum wage would be
the correct compensation, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a server and host at
their IHOP restaurant in the Lansing, Illinois between August, 2022
through October, 2022.

RMLS HOP ILLINOIS, LLC is a limited liability corporation
organized under the laws of the state of Arizona and authorized to
do business in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Golubowski Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHILIP GOLUBOWSKI, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD MARKETS,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-09767-EMC (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants Robinhood's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint with leave to amend.

Plaintiffs Aimee Sodha and Vinod Sodha filed suit against
Defendants Robinhood, certain senior executives and directors of
Robinhood (Vladimir Tenev, Jason Warnick, Baiju Bhatt, Jan Hammer,
Paula Loop, Jonathan Rubinstein, Scott Sandell, and Robert
Zoellick), and the underwriters (Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global
Markets Inc., Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Mizuho Securities USA
LLC, JMP Securities LLC, KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Piper
Sandler & Co., Rosenblatt Securities Inc., BMO Capital Markets
Corp., BTIG, LLC, Santander Investment Securities Inc., Academy
Securities, Inc., Loop Capital Markets LLC, Samuel A. Ramirez &
Company, Inc. and Siebert Williams Shank & Co., LLC).

The Plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 ("the Securities Act") alleging that the
registration statement and prospectus for Robinhood's July 30, 2021
initial public offering ("IPO") contained false and misleading
statements and omissions.

Robinhood is a financial services company headquartered in Menlo
Park, California. The company provides a trading platform on
computers and mobile devices for retail investors. Robinhood is a
commission-free broker that earns revenue through a "pay for order
flow" practice, where it primarily earns revenue by routing
customer transactions on its app to market makers in exchange for
payments. The "pay for order flow" practice accounted for 75% of
Robinhood's revenue in 2020.

The Plaintiffs assert that the "pay for order flow" practice has
been extensively criticized by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, due to brokers' incentives to route customers' trades
to market makers who pay more, even if those market makers have
worse spreads. A "spread" is the difference between the bid prices
(i.e., the price investors are willing to purchase at) and ask
prices (i.e., the price investors are willing to sell at) for the
securities. In December 2020, the SEC charged Robinhood for its
misstatements that failed to disclose the firm's receipt of
payments from trading firms for routing customer orders to them and
for failing to satisfy its duty to seek the best reasonably
available terms to execute its customer orders. Robinhood paid $65
million to settle.

The Plaintiffs allege that Robinhood has experienced 70 outages or
disruptions on its trading platform between Jan. 1, 2020, and Nov.
30, 2020. They allege that Robinhood's help center was also
inadequate in addressing customer concerns. On July 30, 2021,
Robinhood conducted an initial public offering ("IPO") and offered
55 million shares of common stock to the public at a price of $38
per share for proceeds of over $2 billion. Prior to the IPO,
Robinhood released the Registration Statement and Prospectus
(collectively, the "Offering Documents"), effective July 28, 2021.

The Plaintiffs allege that Robinhood was not successfully
generating massive growth by executing its strategy, completely
abandoned its stated principles, undermined small customers'
decision-making process through app features designed to trigger
rapid trading that generated fees for Robinhood at the expense of
investors, and exposed inexperienced customers to more complex and
dangerous trading products, such as options and margin trader.

The Plaintiffs filed their original class action complaint on Dec.
17, 2021, under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act.
After the lead plaintiffs were appointed, the Plaintiffs filed a
First Amended Complaint. They alleged that the Offering Documents
filed in connection with Robinhood's IPO contained materially false
and misleading statements and material omissions.

On Aug. 18, 2022, Robinhood filed a motion to dismiss the FAC. It
argues that none of its business strategy statements or risk factor
statements were false or misleading, and that the Offering
Documents accurately disclosed its financial performance.

Judge Chen examines the claims under Section 11 or Section 12(a).
The Plaintiffs claim that, in the pre-IPO Offering Documents,
Robinhood misrepresented both (1) the pre-IPO KPI decline and (2)
the customer-centric business strategies at Robinhood.

First, Judge Chen finds that the Plaintiffs' FAC failed
sufficiently to plead that Robinhood's KPI disclosures contained
any false or misleading statements, because Robinhood accurately
reported historical data (2019 and 2020). The FAC does not allege
that the decline of KPIs in May, June, and July (up to July 28,
2021, the date the Offering Documents were filed) were historically
extraordinary. Moreover, the FAC included warnings regarding future
growth (for 2021 onwards).

Next, Judge Chen finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations are
insufficient to establish a violation of Item 303. He says the
Plaintiffs failed to plead that Robinhood did not disclose
"material factors" that would make an investment in Robinhood
speculative or risky. As it stands, the FAC does not sufficiently
allege that the declines in the May to July 2021 period "accurately
reflect persistent conditions" of Robinhood's business because
there are no contextual allegations establishing the recent
declines in question are historically extraordinary and represent a
present condition.

Judge Chen then finds that Robinhood provided sufficient
disclosures of material facts such that these corporate strategy
statements do not constitute a misrepresentation actionable under
the Securities Act. Thus, the Offering Documents' description of
Robinhood's overall business strategy as alleged, do not violate
Sections 11 or 12 or Items 105 or 303. Because the Plaintiffs' FAC
fails to allege such a violation, the Section 15 claim must be
dismissed.

Finally, because he cannot conclude that the Plaintiffs are not
able to amend the complaint to assert additional allegations which
would state a claim (e.g., allegations of specific contextual
information demonstrating that the decline in KPI and
cryptocurrency trading levels in the two to three months before the
filing of the Offering Documents were extraordinary and indicative
of larger future trends known to the management or through which
management should have known would have a material impact on future
performance and which were not adequately disclosed), Judge Chen
gives the Plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaint.

Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted with
leave to amend. The amended complaint will be filed within 30 days
from the date of the Order.

The Order disposes of Docket No. 78.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yedmw49d from Leagle.com.


ROCHESTER INSTITUTE: Wins Summary Judgment v. Bergeron
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS BERGERON and NICK
QUATTROCIOCCHI, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Case No.
6:20-cv-06283-CJS-MJP (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Charles J.
Siragusa entered an order granting in all respect Defendant RIT's
motion for summary judgment.

The Court further ordered that:

  -- RIT's motion to preclude Plaintiffs' expert report is
     denied as moot;

  -- the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied as
     moot; and

  -- the Plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Amended Complaint is
     dismissed.

The Plaintiffs Nicholas Bergeron and Nick 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.

Rochester Institute is a private research university.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Se93Np at no extra charge.[CC]

ROZLIN FINANCIAL: Rodriguez FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Masiel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Rozlin Financial Group, Inc., TRP
Acquisition, Inc., Case No. 2023CH00324 was removed from the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 15, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00927 to the
proceeding.

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

Rozlin Financial Group, Inc. (RFGI) -- https://www.rfgionline.com/
-- is a highly rated professional and ethical debt collection
agency .[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael William Drew, Esq.
          NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL, LLC
          20 N. Clark, Ste. 3300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 967-7220
          Email: mwd@neighborhood-legal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nicole Marie Strickler, Esq.
          Stephanie Anne Strickler, Esq.
          MESSER STRICKLER BURNETTE, LTD.
          142 W Station St
          Barrington, IL 60010
          Phone: (312) 334-3442
          Email: nstrickler@messerstrickler.com
                 sstrickler@messerstrickler.com


RUSTIC DECO: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rustic Deco
Incorporated. The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Rustic Deco
Incorporated, Case No. 1:23-cv-01291 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2023).

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

Rustic Deco -- https://www.rusticdeco.com/ -- offers unique
furniture and decor: industrial, rustic, farmhouse and mid-century
modern styles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          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: nyjg@aol.com
                 danalgottlieb@aol.com


RUSTIC RED DOOR: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rustic Red Door
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Iliana Lopez, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Rustic Red Door
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01292 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2023).

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

Rustic Red Door -- https://rusticreddoor.com/ -- is a family owned
rustic furniture company based out of Pennsylvania offering 100%
American Made, Heirloom Quality furniture and decor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: (718) 740-5060
          Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Kelechian Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Raffi Kelechian, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-08056 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on Feb. 16, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00918 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Samsung Electronics -- http://www.samsung.com/us-- leads the
global market in high-tech electronics manufacturing and digital
media.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Z. Srourian, Esq.
          SROURIAN LAW FIRM
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (310) 601-3131
          Fax: (310) 388-8444
          Email: daniel@slfla.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jason Jonathan Kim, Esq.
          Ann Marie Mortimer, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          550 South Hope Street Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 532-2000
          Fax: (213) 532-2020
          Email: kimj@huntonak.com
                 amortimer@huntonAK.com


SCRATCH FINANCIAL: Faces Sowders Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALICE SOWDERS, DVM d/b/a FAIRBORN ANIMAL HOSPITAL, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. SCRATCH FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00056-TMR-PBS (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 20, 2023) seeks statutory
damages and other relief arising from Scratch's violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The complaint alleges that Scratch did not seek Plaintiff's express
invitation or permission before sending advertising material to
Plaintiff's fax machine. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' fax
machines are ready to send or receive their urgent business
communications, or private communications about patients' medical
and veterinary needs, and not to receive Scratch's unsolicited
advertisements, says the suit.

Plaintiff Fairborn Animal Hospital is the registered business name
of Dr. Alice Sowders' veterinary clinic operating in Greene County,
Ohio.

Scratch Financial, Inc. provides veterinary payment services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Simpkins, Esq.
          CLIMACO, WILCOX, PECA & GAROFOLI CO., LPA
          55 Public Square, Suite 1950  
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 621-8484
          E-mail: sdsimp@climacolaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          820 W. 41st St., #305
          Miami Beach, FL 33140
          Telephone: (305) 239-8726
          E-mail: service@classlawyers.com

SELECT MEDICAL: Arends, et al., File Renewed Circulation Notice Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL ARENDS, ALEXANDRA
FOSTER, and SABRINA SIERRA, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated individuals, v. SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION;
SELECT EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 2:20-cv-11381-TJH-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting their renewed motion for
circulation of Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and
issuing notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs as soon as
practicable.

In denying Plaintiffs' initial motion, this Court identified the
additional "dispositive issue" of "whether an employment
relationship existed" between the Defendants, the Plaintiffs, and
potential opt-in plaintiffs.

While the Court appeared to be concerned that the earlier-proposed
nationwide FLSA class of tens of thousands of employees spread
across thousands of facilities may not be similarly situated with
respect to this question, the Court subsequently allowed Plaintiffs
to amend their complaint to, among other things, "identify and
allege two sub-classes within the original FLSA Class for employees
employed at Cal Rehab and SPT facilities."

Select Medical Corporation provides healthcare services. The
Company offers long term care for critically ill patients, as well
as inpatient and outpatient.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KrnWds at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq.
          Leah L. Jones, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703.5027
          E-mail: info@thiermanbuck.com

SIG SAUER: Bid for Class Certification in Ortiz Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Derick Ortiz v. Sig Sauer, Inc., Civil No.
19-cv-1025-JL (D.N.H.), Judge Joseph N. Laplante of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Hampshire denies Ortiz's
motion for class certification.

The class action "predominance" requirement in Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), as applied to fraudulent concealment and
unjust enrichment claims, is the main focus in this motion, where a
single named Plaintiff moves under Rule 23 to certify a class of
individuals who purchased an allegedly defective semi-automatic
pistol, the SIG P320.

The Defendant, Sig Sauer, is a New Hampshire-based firearms
manufacturer that produces the P320 pistol. The Plaintiff, Ortiz,
is an Arizona law enforcement officer who purchased the civilian
version of the P320 in 2016 to use as his primary duty pistol.

Ortiz filed suit against Sig Sauer in 2019, asserting contract,
breach of warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment claims premised on
a purported design defect in the P320 that makes it susceptible to
"drop firing," or discharging after being dropped.

Prior to entering the P320 pistol into the U.S. commercial market,
Sig Sauer performed drop testing on the pistol. Based on its
testing, Sig Sauer determined that the P320 satisfied the drop
safety standards promulgated by the National Institute for Justice
and the American National Standards Institute/Sporting Arms and
Ammunition Manufacturers Institute. It began selling the pistol in
January 2014. By August 2017, the end of the proposed class period,
consumers in the U.S. commercial market had purchased 314,059 P320
pistols. Around late 2016 or early 2017, Sig Sauer received notice
of drop fires in certain pistols

In September 2019, Ortiz filed a putative class action complaint
against Sig Sauer, centered on the alleged drop defect. In his
complaint, Ortiz asserted claims for violation of the
Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act (Count 1), breach of express warranty
(Count 2), breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count 3),
unjust enrichment (Count 4), fraudulent concealment (Count 5),
fraud (Count 6), violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (Count
7), and violation of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act
(Count 8). This court previously granted Sig Sauer's motion to
dismiss as to Count 8, and Sig Sauer's motion for summary judgment
of Ortiz's claims in Counts 1-3.

Following a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment,
only Ortiz's fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment claims
are subject to the class certification motion.

Under the fraudulent concealment claim, Ortiz asserts, in pertinent
part, that Sig Sauer was aware of the drop defect and failed to
disclose this material fact, and that the class members relied on
this omission and overpaid for what they considered to be a
defect-free pistol. As for the unjust enrichment claim, he contends
that Sig Sauer secured a benefit by selling a defective pistol at
an inflated price, and it would be unjust for it to retain this
benefit. Ortiz seeks to certify a nationwide class of individuals
from 50 states, who purchased the P320 prior to Aug. 8, 2017.

Alternatively, Ortiz moves for class certification treatment of the
unjust enrichment (Count 4) and fraudulent concealment (Count 5)
claims under Rule 23(b)(3). Each class limits its membership to
P320 owners from specific states. He defines the class as "All
persons in the United States who purchased a SIG P320
semi-automatic pistol, regardless of size, at any time prior to
August 8, 2017," the date that Sig Sauer issued its press release
launching the VUP.39

Alternatively, Ortiz moves to certify two subclasses:

     (1) a Multistate Fraudulent Omission Subclass, defined as all
persons in Arizona, Idaho, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New
Hampshire, South Carolina and Washington who purchased a SIG P320
semi-automatic pistol, regardless of size, at any time prior to
Aug. 8, 2017; and

     (2) a Multistate Unjust Enrichment Subclass defined as all
persons in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Nebraska, Pennsylvania
and Utah who purchased a SIG P320 semiautomatic pistol, regardless
of size, at any time prior to Aug.t 8, 2017.

Sig Sauer argues that class certification of the nationwide class
and either subclass is improper under Rule 23.

Judge Laplante notes that the Court has class action jurisdiction
over the case under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d) (diversity). After
considering the parties' submissions, and receiving evidence and
oral argument, he denies Ortiz's motion, largely based on Rule
23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement, which bars certification when
issues affecting individual members of the class predominate over
issues that are common to the class.

First, Judge Laplante denies certification of the nationwide class
as to the unjust enrichment claim because the threshold,
choice-of-law analysis raises individual legal and factual
inquiries, which predominate over common issues. Specifically, as
part of the choice-of-law analysis, he must identify 'actual
conflicts,' or outcome-determinative differences, between New
Hampshire law and the laws of 49 other interested states. This
exercise requires him to find distinctions between New Hampshire
law and the foreign laws, and to adjudicate individual class
members' claims under these different legal standards.

Next, Judge Laplante denies certification of the unjust enrichment
subclass due to the predominance of individual, factual inquiries
that go to the crux of the claim under applicable New Hampshire law
-- whether Sig Sauer's retention of the full sale price of the P320
would be unconscionable in each transaction. Finally, the
fraudulent concealment claims cannot be managed in a class format,
for the nationwide class or the fraudulent omission subclass,
because the claims require individual proof of reliance on Sig
Sauer's false representations regarding the drop safety of the
P320.

For these reasons, Judge Laplante denies Ortiz's motion for class
certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2023 Memorandum Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mrxr5r9t from Leagle.com.


SLEEPY'S LLC: Gundell Seeks Reconsideration of Dec. 6, 2022 Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY GUNDELL, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. SLEEPY'S, LLC,
MATTRESS FIRM, INC. AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO SLEEPY'S, LLC AND
MATTRESS FIRM, INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-07365-ZNQ-DEA (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiff Jeffrey Gundell will move the Court for Reconsideration
of the Court's December 6, 2022 Order Denying Class Certification.

Sleepy's operates a chain of mattress retail stores.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 3, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z33aFb at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Javier L. Merino, Esq.
          THE DANN LAW FIRM, PC
          1520 U.S. Highway 130 - Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (201) 355-3440
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: jmerino@dannlaw.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Discovery and Briefing Dates Entered in Bombin
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN BOMBIN, et al., v.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 5:20-cv-01883-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge John M. Gallagher entered an order regarding
supplemental discovery and briefing related to Plaintiffs' motion
seeking class certification as follows:

   1. No later than February 14, 2023, Plaintiffs must file any
      opposition to Southwest's Motion to Exclude the Expert
      Testimony of Christopher Bennett.

   2. No later than March 27, 2023, the Parties must complete
      the outstanding discovery discussed during the January 24,
      2023 conference, consistent with the Court's
      pronouncements at the January 24 conference regarding that
      discovery.

   3. No later than May 9, 2023, Southwest must file any
      opposition to any motion to exclude the expert report of
      Darin Lee.

Southwest Airlines engages in the operation and management of a
passenger airline.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lAXqnv at no extra charge.[CC]



STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Court Amends Case Management Order in Nguyen
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Duy Nguyen, on behalf of
himself and other individuals similarly situated, v. Stephens
Institute, d/b/a Academy of Art University, and DOES I through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-04195-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Jeffrey S. White entered an order amending the case management
order as follows:

                                   Current           Revised
                                   Deadline          Deadline

  Plaintiff's deadline to       Feb. 13, 2023      Mar. 6, 2023
  file a motion for class
  certification:

  Defendant's brief in          Mar. 20, 2023      Apr. 10, 2023
  opposition:

  Plaintiff's reply in          Apr. 17, 2023      May 8, 2023
  support:

  Hearing on Motion for         May 26, 2023       May 26, 2023
  Class Certification

Stevens is a private research university in Hoboken, New Jersey.

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

SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Giambalvo Appeals Denied Show Cause Order Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY GIAMBALVO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
denying their motion for order to show cause in the lawsuit
entitled Zachary Giambalvo, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Suffolk County, New
York, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04778, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for violation
of the Civil Rights Act.

On Dec. 11, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for order to show
cause, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge
Gary R. Brown on Feb. 14, 2023. The Court ruled that the Plaintiffs
have failed to meet the exacting standard for the issuance of a
preliminary injunction, such that their motion must be denied. The
Court further held that as noted, defendants have filed a
pre-motion application seeking to move for dismissal. The parties
are to meet and confer and provide the Court with a full briefing
schedule in 60 days. Defendants time to file answers or otherwise
move were adjourned pending resolution of that motion.

The appellate case is captioned Giambalvo v. New York, Case No.
23-208, in the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on February 16, 2023. [BN]

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

            Amy L. Bellantoni, Esq.
            THE BELLANTONI LAW FIRM, PLLC
            2 Overhill Road
            Scarsdale, NY 10583
            Telephone: (914) 367-0090

Defendants-Appellees SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK, et al. are
represented by:

            Glenn Green, Esq.
            SUFFOLK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
            Arthur M. Cromarty Court Complex
            200 Center Drive
            Riverhead, NY 11901
            Telephone: (631) 852-2469

                   - and -

            Arlene S. Zwilling, Esq.
            SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF LAW
            H. Lee Dennison Building
            100 Veterans Memorial Highway
            Hauppauge, NY 11788
            Telephone: (631) 853-4055

                   - and -

            Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
            NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
            28 Liberty Street
            New York, NY 10005

SUPERIOR STONE: Faces Sesam Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALVARO SESAM, CARLOS ALVAREZ, EDMIN GARMENDIA, WILFREIDO LEON,
JAIME LOBOS, WILLIAM MARTINEZ, SANTIAGO MARCOS MORALES, HINMER
MORENO, NEYS REYES MONTERO, FIDEL OCHOA, LUIS SUICA, ALEX ZAPATA,
and JOSE ZELAYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. SUPERIOR STONE & INTERIORS, LLC,
KONSTANTINOS MANASAKIS, and PAUL COLLINS, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-01335 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2023) is an action seeking
equitable and legal relief for Defendants' violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Internal
Revenue Code.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to timely pay wages,
failure to provide payroll notices, failure to provide wage
statements, and fraudulent filing of information returns.

Plaintiff Sesam was employed by the Defendants as a tile installer
from March 1, 2019 until January 1, 2020.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eliseo Cabrera, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 460-0047
          Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
          E-mail: edcabrera@katzmelinger.com

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Retail Wholesale Union Wins Class Status Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Retail Wholesale
Department Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund v. Synchrony
Financial, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01818-VAB (D. Conn.), the Hon.
Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an order granting the motion for
class certification.

The Class is defined as:

    "all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
    the common stock of Synchrony between January 19, 2018, and
    July 12, 2018, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby."

The Court appoints the Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative,
BLB&G as Class Counsel, and Motley Rice as Liaison Counsel.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have established superiority, the final
Rule 23 requirement, and the Court will grant the motion for class
certification.

On April 5, 2019, Stichting Depositary APG Developed Markets Equity
Pool ("Lead Plaintiff") and Stichting Depositary APG Fixed Income
Credits Pool filed an Amended Complaint in this putative class
action against the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs allege that Synchrony and certain Synchrony
executives violated Sections 10(b), 20A, and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Synchrony Financial is a consumer financial services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z61drl at no extra charge.[CC]


TARGET CORPORATION: Kelly Sues Over Fair Workweek Law Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linden Kelly, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 230201898 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia Cty., Feb. 17, 2023), is brought against the
Defendants seeking all available relief under the Philadelphia Fair
Workweek Employment Standards ("Fair Workweek Law") as a result of
the Defendants failure to provide compliant written good faith
estimates of employees work schedules.

The Philadelphia City Council passed the Fair Workweek Law to
require retail, hospitality and fast-food employers to provide
their employees with predictable schedules with advance notice,
sufficient time between shifts, and pathways to full-time
employment.

Target violated the Fair Workweek Law by failing to provide
compliant written good faith estimates of employees work schedules;
failing to pay required penalties and Predictability Pay and obtain
written consent when Target changed employees' work schedules with
less than 14-days' notice; changing employees' schedules at the
last minute; and failing to offer new shifts to current employees
before hiring new employees, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly employee at the Target
store located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Target is a nationwide big box retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
          WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
          1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 656-3679
          Email: rhancock@wwdlaw.com


TERRAN ORBITAL: Mullen Sues Over Misleading Proxy Prospectus
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Mullen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TERRAN ORBITAL, INC., MARC BELL, GARY HOBART, JAMES
LaCHANCE, STRATTON SCLAVOS, MATTHEW EBY, DANIEL STATON, PHILIP
KRIM, CHRIS HOLLOD, WISDOM LU, TOMMY STADLEN, BORIS REVSIN, MICHAEL
KIM, TAILWIND TWO ACQUISITION CORP., TAILWIND TWO SPONSOR LLC, and
CONTINENTAL STOCK TRANSFER CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-01394
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2023), is brought similar situated persons in
who were non-insider owners of shares in pre-merger Terran Orbital,
Inc. ("Legacy TOC") (a now publicly traded Company hereinafter
referred to as "New TOC") through their employment with Legacy TOC
and who were induced to vote in favor of the merger via a
materially false and misleading Proxy Prospectus but later were
restricted from, or otherwise unable to, sell or dispose of their
post-merger Terran Orbital ("New TOC") common stock because of the
misfeasance and/or malfeasance of the Defendants.

The New TOC stock was itself issued in violation of the Securities
Act of 1933 because it was issued from a materially false and
misleading S-4 Registration Statement and Prospectus ("S-4").
Defendants' failure to timely provide Plaintiff and class members
with New TOC stock which was freely tradeable on the "Effective
Date" as defined in the Merger Agreement also breached a contract
formed between non-insider Legacy TOC common stockholders and
Legacy TOC and New TOC.

In 2021, Legacy TOC and Defendant Tailwind Two Acquisition Corp.
("TTAC") agreed to merge and The Merger was affected in 2022. The
Merger terms dictated, inter alia, that Legacy TOC common stock
would be exchanged for New TOC common stock at an agreed exchange
rate. New TOC common stock shares were to be registered and issued
pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement. After registration
and issuance on March 25, 2022, New TOC shares started trading on
the New York Stock Exchange under ticker symbol "LLAP." But
Plaintiff and class members did not receive the New TOC shares as
provided in the terms of the Merger Agreement nor as represented in
the solicitation of their consents to the Merger. Legacy TOC
shareholders' consents to approve the Merger were a condition
precedent to the Merger.

Each individual Class member is a current or former Terran Orbital
employee who was a "non-insider" and was granted and subsequently
exercised employee stock options and converted same into Legacy TOC
common stock well in advance of the registration of New TOC common
stock. None of the class members were in the C-suite or served on
Legacy TOC's board of directors and all of them were solicited to
sign written consents in favor of the Merger.

Legacy TOC CEO Marc Bell, and the other Legacy Terran Orbital
directors named as Defendants, and Defendant Continental Stock
Transfer Corporation, d/b/a Continental Stock Transfer & Trust
Company ("Continental") were responsible for the implementation of
execution of the exchange of Legacy TOC common stock for freely
tradeable New TOC common stock which was to have occurred to allow
Plaintiff and class members to have possession and control of
freely tradeable New TOC common stock on the effective date of the
Merger, March 25, 2022 ("IBC closing" or "initial business
combination closing") and be able to sell same. While Continental's
transfer of New TOC common stock to brokerage accounts was an
administrative task that should have taken place on March 25, 2022
(the "Effective Date" as defined in the Merger Agreement), it took
several more weeks, during which time Plaintiff and other class
members were unable to sell their stock and the Terran share price
fell.

Neither Plaintiff nor any class members were subject to any
restrictions relevant to class members' Legacy TOC common stock
exchange of Legacy TOC stock for freely tradeable New TOC common
stock on the date of the Merger. According to the terms of the
applicable instruments, Plaintiff and the class members were to
receive freely tradeable New TOC stock on the Effective Date
without any further action that needed to be taken by the Legacy
TOC stockholder. Terran provided no information on how class
members could contact Continental or other steps to take to sell
the New TOC common stock. Continental failed to exercise the
requisite care and diligence required for Plaintiff and class
members to get their freely tradeable New TOC stock, making the
process much different than disclosed in the Proxy Prospectus.

In addition, Plaintiff and class members suffered loss and damages
because the New TOC stock given to Plaintiff and the Class in
exchange for their Legacy TOC stock was issued from a materially
false and misleading Proxy Prospectus contained in a Registration
Statement Form S-4 effective February 14, 2022 and thereafter
supplemented. As a result of the foregoing violations of fiduciary
duties, the DGCL, the Securities Act of 1933 ("33 Act") and acts of
misfeasance and malfeasance, class members suffered loss and
damage.

In addition, Plaintiff and class members did not receive their New
TOC common stock as per representations made when their vote was
solicited and proxy tendered to Legacy TOC and thereby lost their
opportunity to sell their New TOC shares for the prevailing market
price on the Effective Date. This class action is brought on behalf
of Plaintiff and each Class Member to recover the damages they
suffered by Defendants wrongful conduct and violations of law, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of Terran who held shares of
Terran's Legacy common stock.

Terran Orbital, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Boca Raton, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee Squitieri, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          305 Broadway, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 421-6492
          Email: lee@sfclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Fletcher Moore, Esq.
          Justin Kuehn, Esq.
          MOORE KUEHN, PLLC
          30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 709-8245
          Email: fmoore@moorekuehn.com
                 jkuehn@moorekuehn.com


TOLEDO BLADE: Discloses Subscribers' Personal Info, Collins Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID COLLINS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE TOLEDO BLADE COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00302 (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 16, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's surreptitious disclosure of its subscribers' personally
identifying information in violation of the Video Privacy
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant uses a "Pixel" tracking
cookie to disclose to Meta Platforms, Inc. a record of its digital
subscribers' identities side by side with the specific videos its
digital subscribers requested or obtained. Moreover, the Defendant
does this without their "informed, written consent," assert the
Plaintiff.

Plaintiff Collins is a victim of the Defendant's misconduct after
the latter allegedly disclosed to Facebook his personally
identifiable information, including his Facebook ID, along with the
video title and the video's URL identifying each video he requested
or obtained. The Plaintiff brings this case as a class action,
seeking damages and equitable relief on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated.

The Toledo Blade Company owns and publishes The Blade, also known
as the Toledo Blade, a Toledo-based newspaper that publishes a
print edition as well as a daily online edition available on its
website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
          Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
          Jared W. Connors, Esq.
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          305 W. Nationwide Blvd.
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224-6000
          Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
          E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
                  mboyle@meyerwilson.com
                  jconnors@meyerwilson.com

               - and -

          Brian Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN LAW, P.A.
          2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH2b
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 402-9050
          Facsimile: (305) 676-4443
          E-mail: brian@levinlawpa.com

               - and -

          Don Bivens, Esq.
          DON BIVENS, PLLC
          15169 N. Scottsdale Rd, Suite 205
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          E-mail: don@donbivens.com

TOYOTA MOTOR: Scheduling Order Entered in Murphy Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIET MURPHY, et al., v.
TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00178-ALM (E.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amos L. Mazzant entered an order granting
joint motion regarding scheduling order as follows:

         Deadlines                 Current         Proposed
                                   Deadline        Deadline

  Plaintiffs' Motion for         Feb. 13, 2023    Aug. 14, 2023
  Class Certification and
  all supporting declarations,
  evidence, expert reports,
  and other papers:

  Close of Non-Expert            Mar. 10, 2023    Sep. 11, 2023
  Discovery:

Toyota is a global automotive industry leader manufacturing
vehicles in 27 countries or regions.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41mexdt at no extra charge.[CC]


TRASIMENE CAPITAL: Farzad Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Farzad, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TRASIMENE CAPITAL FT, LP II, TRASIMENE CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, LLC, WILLIAM P. FOLEY, II, RICHARD N. MASSEY, ERIKA
MEINHARDT, MARK D. LINEHAN, and C. MALCOLM HOLLAND, Case No.
2023-0193- (Del. Chancery Ct., Feb. 16, 2023), is brought on behalf
of all other similarly situated investors in Foley Trasimene
Acquisition Corp. II ("FTAC" or the "Company"), now known as
Paysafe Limited, who were entitled to redeem their shares of
Company stock in connection with the Company's merger with Paysafe
Group Holdings Limited ("Legacy Paysafe") (the "Merger"), asserting
breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger by the
following individuals and entities (collectively, "Defendants," and
each a "Defendant"): William P. Foley, II, Richard N. Massey, C.
Malcolm Holland, Mark D. Linehan, and Erika Meinhardt, in their
capacities as members of FTAC's Board of Directors and/or FTAC
officers; and Defendant Trasimene Capital FT, LP II (the "Founder")
and Trasimene Capital Management, LLC (the "Sponsor," together with
Founder, the "Trasimene Entities"), as FTAC's controlling
stockholder.

Paysafe, as it exists today, is the product of the March 2021
Merger between FTAC—then a publicly traded special purpose
acquisition company ("SPAC")—and Legacy Paysafe, then a privately
held company. Prior to the Merger, FTAC lacked any business
operations of its own. Instead, its sole purpose was to seek out
and combine with an operating company or business. Paysafe
conducted an initial public offering ("IPO") of 130 million units
(not including underwriter overallotments) at $10 per unit on
August 26, 2020, raising $1.3 billion. Pursuant to the SPAC's
terms, Paysafe had two years after the IPO to identify a merger
target and complete the merger or face returning the initial $10
per share investment, plus interest, to its investors.

Critically, once a merger target had been identified, putative
class members had the right, in connection with their investment in
pre merger FTAC, either to take possession of the stock in any
post-merger company or to seek a redemption of their pro rata share
of trust assets (i.e., $10 in cash initially paid per share, plus
interest) ("Redemption Rights").

This action is brought on behalf of the former holders of FTAC
common stock whose Redemption Rights were unlawfully impaired due
to Defendants' misstatements and omissions about Paysafe's true
business metrics and financial prospects in connection with the
Merger. These materially false and misleading statements deprived
the Class of their right to a fully informed decision whether to
redeem their FTAC shares and induced stockholders to vote to
approve the Merger to their detriment and to the substantial
benefit of Defendants.

The Merger at issue here was entered into through a flawed and
unfair process and based on severely misleading disclosures, thus
precluding the Class from exercising their voting and redemption
rights in an informed manner. Defendants nonetheless pushed through
the Merger because, even as poor as it was, the deal would provide
them with over a hundred million dollars in value despite wiping
out the value held by the investing public. Defendants, gaining
unique and unfair benefits, will be unable to meet their burden of
showing the entire fairness of the Merger.

The Defendants knew that even a bad deal that caused FTAC's stock
price to drop below the $10 per share redemption value would likely
still provide them with a large windfall. The worst-case scenario
for Defendants would be the failure to enter into a business
combination, since Paysafe would have to return the Class A
investors' money with interest and Defendants would suffer a total
loss of their investment in FTAC.

Thus, Defendants had a strong personal incentive to convince Class
A investors to approve the Merger regardless of how
value-destructive it may be, and not to redeem their shares for the
return of their original $10 per share investment, plus interest.
Unfortunately, Defendants agreed to a transaction that grossly
overvalued Legacy Paysafe. The Proxy provided to investors in
connection with the Merger contained numerous material misleading
statements that prevented the Class from making an informed
decision whether to invest in this ill-fated transaction or elect
to redeem their stock, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has consistently held, and has been the beneficial
owner of, Paysafe stock.

Trasimene Capital FT II is a Delaware limited partnership with
principal executive offices located at in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
          Craig J. Springer, Esq.
          David M. Sborz, Esq.
          ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
          4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Phone: (302) 504-4957

               - and -

          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          Benny C. Goodman III, Esq.
          Erik W. Luedeke, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 231-1058

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq.
          ROBBINS LLP
          5040 Shoreham Place
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Phone: (619) 525-3990


TW LATH-N-STUCCO: Class Settlement Agreement Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMON CORDOVA-GONZALEZ,
PEDRO DIAZ-ARREGUIN, and SAUL ROJAS-RAMIREZ, on their own behalf
and on behalf of others similarly situated, and HORLANDO DOMINGUEZ,
ARTURO DOMINGUEZ, RUBEN JUAREZ, DIEGO JUAREZ, and ALDO MENDOSA, on
their own behalf, v. TW LATH-N-STUCCO, INC., and THOMAS MURRAY WARE
II, Case No. 1:21-cv-01617-CMA-MDB (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge
Maritza Dominguez Braswell entered an order:

   1. granting the parties' joint motion for final approval of
      class action settlement agreement;

   2. issuing final certification of the class;

   3. appointing class counsel and Class Representatives as
      identified in the Court's Preliminary Approval Order;

   4. approving the proposed settlement agreement;

   5. dismissing the action with prejudice;

   6. granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for Award of
       Attorney's Fees and Costs.

The case concerns class claims against a Colorado Springs-based
stucco business, which allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiffs and
others certain wages required by state and federal law.

The claims were filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act [the
"FLSA"], the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order (the
"COMPS Order"), the Colorado Minimum Wage Act
("MWA"), and the Colorado Wage Claim Act.

The Amended Complaint also alleges a violation of 26 U.S.C. section
7434(a) with respect to one Plaintiff, claiming that the Defendant
"willfully filed fraudulent information returns with respect to
payments made to Plaintiff Cordova-Gonzalez."

The proposed settlement agreement defines the settlement class
as:

    "All hourly "production workers" employed by T.W. Lath-N-
    Stucco, Inc. between June 14, 2015, and the present who were
    allegedly not paid all wages due. "Production workers"
    include workers employed on scaffold, lath and plaster
    crews."

    "Production workers" excludes workers employed in office-
    based administrative tasks or sales.

    The Plaintiffs Ramon Cordova-Gonzalez, Pedro Diaz-Arreguin,
    Saul Rojas-Ramirez, are "Class Representatives," and the
    Class Representatives, together with Horlando Dominguez,
    Arturo Dominguez, Ruben Juarez, Diego Juarez and Aldo
    Mendosa are "Named Plaintiffs," for purposes of the proposed
    settlement agreement.

T.W. Lath-N-Stucco provides concrete works, including portland
cement and asphalt.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kiCVM2 at no extra charge.[CC]



U.S. BANCORP: Robbins Geller Named as Lead Counsel in Buhrke Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THE BUHRKE FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST, on behalf of Itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. BANCORP,
ANDREW CECERE, TERRY DOLAN, and JODI RICHARD, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 22 Civ. 9174 (JPC) (SLC) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge
Sarah L. Cave of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York appoints:

   a. Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund and Ohio Carpenters
      Pension Fund as the Lead Plaintiffs; and

   b. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as the Lead Counsel.

Plaintiff The Buhrke Family Revocable Trust brings the putative
securities class action against Defendants U.S. Bancorp, Andrew
Cecere, Terry Dolan, and Jodi Richard, for alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15
U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a).

Before the Court are the competing motions of the Trust and
Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund and Ohio Carpenters Pension Fund
to be appointed as lead plaintiffs and for their chosen counsel to
be appointed as lead counsel pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4(a)(3)(B).

On Oct. 26, 2022, the Trust filed the Complaint on behalf of a
class [the 'Putative Class'] consisting of all persons other than
the Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired U.S. Bancorp
securities between Aug. 1, 2019 and July 28, 2022." The Trust
alleges that, during the Class Period, the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding U.S. Bancorp's
business, operational and compliance policies, resulting in the
precipitous decline in U.S. Bancorp's market value and significant
losses and damages to the Trust and the Putative Class members.

Also on Oct. 26, 2022, the Trust's counsel, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.,
published notice of the Complaint on "Accesswire," a press-release
distribution service. The Notice, which was addressed to investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of U.S. Bancorp
during the Class Period, informed the Putative Class members that
they had until Dec. 26, 2022 to move to serve as the Lead Plaintiff
through counsel of their choice. On Nov. 21, 2022, noting that Dec.
26, 2022 was a federal holiday, Judge John Cronan set the deadline
for motions for appointment of lead plaintiff for Dec. 27, 2022.

The Honorable John P. Cronan referred this matter to the Magistrate
Judge for general pretrial supervision, including all
non-dispositive pretrial motions.

On Dec. 27, 2022, the Funds and the Trust filed the Motions, each
seeking appointment as lead plaintiff, and with the Funds proposing
Robbins Geller as lead counsel, and the Trust proposing Lowey
Dannenberg.

On Jan. 10, 2023, the Funds opposed the Trust's Motion. That same
day, the Trust filed a "Notice of Non-Opposition," in which it
concedes that it does not appear to have the largest financial
interest in this litigation, and therefore does not oppose the
Funds' Motion. On Jan. 17, 2023, in lieu of a reply, the Funds
filed a notice advising the Court that their Motion is unopposed as
the sole competing movant [i.e., the Trust] does not oppose the
Motion and Defendants do not oppose the Motion.

The Trust concedes that it does not have the largest financial
interest in this litigation and, therefore, it does not oppose the
Funds' Motion. As a result, Judge Cave deems the Trust's Motion
abandoned. Thus, the Funds are the only remaining movant.

Although the Funds' Motion to appoint them as lead plaintiffs is
now unopposed, Judge Cave still must consider the factors under the
PSLRA to ensure that they are the most adequate plaintiffs. She
finds that the Funds meet that standard after having meet the
PSLRA's three requirements to be the presumptive most adequate
plaintiffs.

First, the Funds satisfied the PSLRA's procedural requirement when
they filed their Motion, which was timely. Second, the Funds have
the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the Putative
Class. Third, the Funds satisfy the relevant requirements of Rule
23.

Accordingly, the Funds' Motion to be appointed as lead plaintiffs
is granted, and the Trust's Motion is denied.

The Funds propose Robbins Geller to serve as lead counsel.

Judge Cave opines that the Funds have established that Robbins
Geller is an appropriate selection for lead counsel. Based on the
firm's experience, Robbins Geller is qualified to serve as lead
counsel in securities class actions. Accordingly, the Funds' Motion
to appoint Robbins Geller as lead counsel is granted.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Cave denies the Trust's Motion as
abandoned, and grants the Funds' Motion. The Funds are appointed as
the Lead Plaintiffs, and Robbins Geller is appointed as the Lead
Counsel.

Pursuant to Judge Cronan's Nov. 16, 2022 Order, the parties will
promptly meet and confer and attempt to stipulate to a briefing
schedule for the Defendants to respond to the Complaint or any
amended or consolidated complaint superseding the Complaint, as
applicable, and, will file a joint letter not exceeding three pages
with their joint or competing proposals.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF Nos. 16
and 18.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4cz46tt8 from Leagle.com.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Trial in Australia Class Suits Set for Feb. 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Uber Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2023, that the Supreme
Court of Victoria, Australia is set to start trial for the
Australia class suits in February 2024.

In May 2019, an Australian law firm filed a class action in the
Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, against us and certain of our
subsidiaries, on behalf of certain participants in the taxi,
hire-car, and limousine industries.

The plaintiff alleges that the Uber entities conspired to injure
the group members during the period 2014 to 2017 by either directly
breaching transport legislation or commissioning offenses against
transport legislation by UberX Drivers in Australia.

The claim alleges, in effect, that these operations caused loss and
damage to the class representative and class members, including
lost income and decreased value of certain taxi licenses.

In March, April and October 2020, the same Australian law firm
filed four additional class action lawsuits alleging the same
claim.

We deny these allegations and intend to continue to vigorously
defend against the lawsuits. A trial has been scheduled to commence
in February 2024.

Uber Technologies, Inc. develops and supports proprietary
technology applications that enable independent providers of
ridesharing, and meal preparation and delivery services to
transact
with riders and eaters worldwide. The company operates in two
segments, Core Platform and Other Bets. The company was formerly
known as Ubercab, Inc. and changed its name to Uber Technologies,
Inc. in February 2011. Uber Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2009
and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


UMR INC: W.D. Wisconsin Decertifies Berceanu Suit as Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LUCIANA BERCEANU and JUDY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of
themselves, their respective beneficiaries and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. UMR, INC., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-568-wmc (W.D. Wis.), Judge William M. Conley of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin:

   a. decertifies the case as a class action;

   b. dismisses the claims of all non-named Plaintiffs with
      prejudice, leaving before the Court the named Plaintiffs
      who originated the action; and

   c. grants UMR's motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs Luciana Berceanu and Judy Hernandez filed the ERISA
class action against Defendant UMR, a benefit claims administrator
for hundreds of employer-sponsored health care plans nationwide.
The Plaintiffs claim that UMR violated ERISA by adopting and
applying overly strict guidelines to deny their requests for
residential treatment for mental health and substance abuse
disorders, contrary to the terms of the benefit plans and UMR's
fiduciary duties.

The Plaintiffs are current or former participants in
employer-sponsored health benefit plans whose requests for coverage
of residential treatment services for mental illnesses or substance
use disorders were denied by the Defendant as the benefit claims
administrator for their respective health benefit plans. As the
benefit claims administrator for these plans, UMR's role was
limited to deciding benefits coverage requests and appeals, and
each plan granted UMR discretion to interpret and apply that plan's
terms, limitations and exclusions in making benefits
determinations.

While the Plaintiffs and the other class members are or were
enrolled in hundreds of different employer-sponsored health benefit
plans administered by UMR, all plans have some commonalities.

The named Plaintiffs and the other class members each submitted
coverage requests to UMR seeking coverage of residential treatment
for a patient's mental health condition or substance abuse disorder
during the 3½ year class period. Moreover, all of the randomly
chosen class members had been diagnosed with one or more mental
health conditions or substance abuse disorders that met the plans'
definitions of "illness," and all but one of those class members
had been prescribed residential treatment by a licensed, qualified
healthcare provider. Nevertheless, UMR denied coverage to each
class member after determining under the level-of-care guidelines
that the services did not satisfy the plan's medical necessity
requirement.

The Plaintiffs claim that UMR violated ERISA by: (1) breaching its
fiduciary duty as claims administrator by adopting and applying
level-of-care guidelines inconsistent with plaintiffs' plans; and
(2) arbitrarily and capriciously denying their claims for
residential treatment benefits.

In a previous order, the Court certified a class of current and
former members of health benefit plans whose requests for coverage
of residential treatment services were denied by UMR between July
11, 2016, and Jan. 31, 2020, based in whole or in part on the same
guidelines.

Still pending before the Court is UMR's motion for summary
judgment. UMR challenges the Plaintiffs' claims on several grounds,
including lack of standing and a lack of evidence sufficient for a
reasonable trier of fact to find for the Plaintiffs on the merits.

Because standing is a requirement for the Court's subject matter
jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution, Judge Conley
addresses UMR's standing arguments first.

Judge Conley finds that the evidence of record shows already that
whether the Plaintiffs and the class members could obtain effective
relief from reprocessing, and thereby establish standing, will
require an individual, fact intensive inquiry and vary
substantially among class members. He therefore concludes that the
individualized circumstances of the class members on the issue of
standing defeat the elements of commonality and typicality
necessary to sustain the case as a class action. Moreover, he say
the Plaintiffs have not shown as class members that they are
similarly situated to other members of the class, nor that an
injunction or declaratory relief would provide relief to each
member of the class.

Accordingly, Judge Conley decertifies the class and only addresses
the merits of the named Plaintiffs' ERISA claims.

The Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty and denial of benefits
claims are based on the same set of facts. The Plaintiffs contend
that UMR breached its fiduciary duties and improperly denied their
requests for benefits by relying on its own level-of-care
guidelines to interpret and apply the medical necessity requirement
of their health benefit plans when making coverage decisions.

Ultimately, Judge Conley finds that none of the Plaintiffs'
critiques or evidence begin to support a finding that UMR abused
its discretion, much less acted arbitrarily or capriciously. At
most, the Plaintiffs have shown that medical experts can disagree
about significant factors that should be considered in evaluating
the appropriate level of care for a patient suffering from mental
illness and substance abuse. However, raising debatable points does
not entitle the claimant to a reversal under the
arbitrary-and-capricious standard.

As a result, Judge Conley opines that the Plaintiffs' showing that
UMR did not adopt the specific standards of care urged by the
Plaintiffs and their experts is not sufficient reason to overturn
UMR's decisions under ERISA's abuse of discretion standard, and UMR
is entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' ERISA claims.

In sum, Judge Conley concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to
establish constitutional standing on behalf of most of the class
members, and however inadvertently, demonstrated that the issue of
standing cannot be resolved on a class-wide basis. Thus, the class
must be decertified. With respect to the named Plaintiffs'
remaining claims, the evidence shows that UMR's adoption of the
challenged guidelines comports with the plans' terms, and as to its
application to the Plaintiffs' denial of coverage, was a proper
exercise of discretion as a fiduciary in keeping with ERISA.

For these reasons, the case is decertified as a class action. The
claims of all non-named plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice,
leaving before the court the named plaintiffs who originated the
action. UMR's motion for summary judgment is granted with respect
to Berceanu and Hernandez.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment for the Defendant
and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p97x6pb from Leagle.com.


UNION PACIFIC: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in DeFries Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael H. Simon of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon grants the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the
lawsuit titled NICHOLAS DEFRIES, Plaintiff v. UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-205-SB (D. Or.).

Plaintiff Nicholas DeFries asserts claims of disparate treatment
and disparate impact under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) against Union Pacific Railroad Company. Union Pacific has
moved for summary judgment against all claims. United States
Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and
Recommendation on Nov. 23, 2022, recommending that the Court grant
Union Pacific's motion for summary judgment because DeFries's
claims are time-barred. Judge Beckerman did not reach Union
Pacific's other arguments.

Mr. DeFries objected and Union Pacific responded. DeFries argues
that his claims are timely because the applicable statute of
limitations was tolled. He also contends that the doctrine of
equitable estoppel precludes Union Pacific from making certain
arguments in support of summary judgment.

Judge Simon opines that this contention is raised for the first
time at this stage, lacks merit, and is not an objection to the
F&R. Accordingly, the Court does not consider it further.

The parties agree that DeFries's claims were tolled while he was a
putative class member of a class action lawsuit alleging some of
the same claims against Union Pacific (Harris v. Union Pac. R.R.
Co., 329 F.R.D. 616 (D. Neb. 2019)). The parties dispute whether
the named plaintiffs in Harris narrowed the scope of the putative
class when they moved to certify, thereby, removing DeFries from
the class and ending the tolling of his claims.

Mr. DeFries argues that he was included as a class member in the
Harris class certification order, not excluded as Union Pacific
responds and the F&R concludes. Thus, DeFries contends that his
claims were tolled until the Eighth Circuit reversed the district
court's class certification order (Harris v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.,
953 F.3d 1030, 1039 (8th Cir. 2020)).

Union Pacific responds that the Harris class action plaintiffs
excluded DeFries when they limited the class to employees referred
for a "fitness-for-duty" evaluation because of a "reportable health
event." Union Pacific contends that DeFries underwent a fitness
evaluation because he failed an examination required by railroad
regulations, not due to any reportable health event.

According to Union Pacific, DeFries was excluded from the putative
Harris class well before the Eighth Circuit reversed the District
of Nebraska's class certification order. If Union Pacific is
correct, this would render DeFries' claims untimely, Judge Simon
says.

Mr. DeFries's objection reiterates arguments on these points that
he made in his response to Union Pacific's motion for summary
judgment, in his sur-reply to Union Pacific's motion for summary
judgment, and at oral argument before Judge Beckerman. Union
Pacific does likewise in its filings. Judge Beckerman analyzed
these arguments at length in recommending that the Court grant
summary judgment in favor of Union Pacific.

In his reply in support of his objection to the F&R, DeFries cites
two opinions by other district courts in the Ninth Circuit that
rejected the same argument that DeFries advances here, under nearly
identical fact patterns, Donahue v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 2022 WL
4292963, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2022), and Blankinship v.
Union Pac. R.R. Co., 2022 WL 4079425, at *5 (D. Ariz. Sept. 6,
2022). In his reply, DeFries cites opinions from two district
courts in the Ninth Circuit that he argues conclude the opposite
and that he contends are persuasive.

Judge Simon says the cases cited by DeFries are not new. The Court
will consider them but find them distinguishable. In the first
case, Campbell v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., the district court rejected
a motion in limine by Union Pacific because the court was "not
persuaded that Campbell is not a putative class member" due to the
purported absence of a reportable health event.

The second case also is distinguishable and for the same reason,
Judge Simon holds. In Munoz v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., U.S. Magistrate
Judge Andrew Hallman recommended denying the defendant's motion for
summary judgment and explained that the plaintiff's supervisor
referred the plaintiff for a fitness-for-duty evaluation "due to a
combination of reports from others and his own observations."

The Court has reviewed de novo those portions of Judge Beckerman's
Findings and Recommendation to which DeFries has objected, as well
as DeFries's objection, Union Pacific's response, DeFries's reply,
the transcript of oral argument on Union Pacific's summary judgment
motion, and the underlying materials filed before Judge Beckerman.

The Court agrees with Judge Beckerman's reasoning regarding the
untimeliness of DeFries's claims and adopts those portions of the
Findings and Recommendation. For those portions of Judge
Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation to which neither party has
objected, the Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory
Committee and reviews those matters for clear error on the face of
the record. No such error is apparent, Judge Simon holds.

The Court adopts Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation, as
supplemented. The Court grants Union Pacific's motion for summary
judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 6, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2jx3hk6v from Leagle.com.


UNITED COLLECTION: Moskovits Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
ZALMEN MOSKOVITS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 505431/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Feb. 20,
2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of a
class of New York consumers, arising from the Defendant's abusive
debt collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

On October 18, 2022, Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection
letter in an attempt to collect the subject debt. The letter sets
forth that as of October 13, 2022, Plaintiff owed $313.55. The
letter also sets forth that the total amount of the debt as of
October 18, 2022, was $313.55. Accordingly, the letter itemizes the
interest, fees, payments and credits between October 13, 2022 and
October 18, 2022, as $0.00. Thus, upon information and belief, the
letter reflects that the debt was charged off.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the law by
failing to clearly provide the amount of the debt, by seeking a
"Minimum Payment Due" despite the apparent charge off and/or
without advising that the balance may change. As a result of the
Defendant's FDCPA violations, Plaintiff was unable to evaluate his
options of how to handle this debt, says the suit.

United Collection Bureau, Inc. provides debt collection and
accounts receivable management services to creditors.[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  

UNITED SERVICES: Maryland Court Grants Bid to Remand Schupp Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JASON SCHUPP, Plaintiff v. UNITED SERVICES
AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-00714-JRR (D. Md.), Judge Julie R. Rubin of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland issued a Memorandum
Opinion:

   (a) granting Plaintiff Jason M. Schupp's Motion for Remand;
       and

   (b) denying as moot Defendant United Services Automobile
       Association's ("USAA") Motion to Dismiss.

Jason M. Schupp brought this pro se action against USAA for
allegedly charging customers higher premiums than advertised. The
company purportedly told customers it would not increase their
premiums if they were involved in certain types of accidents--such
as no-fault accidents and at-fault accidents under $750. USAA,
however, allegedly programmed its pricing algorithm to consider
those types of accidents, which ultimately increased the rates for
some customers.

The alleged discrepancy "impacts some 80,000 Maryland policies
resulting in an average overcharge of 10.5% or $245.70 per policy
per year," according to Schupp. Schupp, a USAA customer, is one of
those Marylanders affected by the alleged bait-and-switch scheme.
He claims USAA increased his premiums after he was involved in two
auto accidents that should have been excluded from USAA's
calculations of future rate increases. He argues the discrepancy
between USAA's advertisements and its pricing algorithm goes back
as far as Aug. 17, 2009.

Mr. Schupp initially filed suit for declaratory and injunctive
relief in the Circuit Court for Frederick County, Maryland. He
asserted no underlying causes of action. Instead, Schupp requested
the court enter a declaratory judgment pronouncing that USAA "is
bound by the terms of its promise" to exclude certain accidents
when calculating rate increases. Further, he requested an
injunction directing USAA to re-rate and synchronize premiums in
accordance with the company's advertising promises.

USAA then removed the case to this Court under the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA"), codified at 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(b), which
permits the Defendants to remove certain types of class actions to
federal court. Schupp argues his case is not, in fact, a "class
action." USAA disagrees. The company asserts Schupp's complaint is
a class action for two reasons.

First, USAA notes that Schupp's complaint contains the following
language: "Should Maryland's Rules of Civil Procedure require, or
should USAA insist upon, a traditional Class Action to achieve a
fair and equitable outcome, Plaintiff asks that this Complaint be
regarded as a Class Action Complaint with Plaintiff as putative
Class Representative so that an amendment may be filed and Class
Counsel retained."

Second, USAA argues that Schupp seeks relief "on his own behalf and
for the benefit of others similarly situated," at least according
to the caption of his complaint.

Mr. Schupp now moves the Court to remand the case back to state
court. USAA opposes Schupp's Motion to Remand and separately moves
to dismiss the case for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.

Judge Rubin says Schupp's motion to remand raises the question of
whether his complaint is a "class action" as defined by CAFA.
Because the answer is no, the Court will remand the case.

Here, Schupp did not file his complaint under a Maryland statute or
rule similar to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Judge Rubin observes. In fact, Schupp's complaint does not mention
any specific statute or rule. The only mention of a class action
comes from a single sentence in his complaint. There, Schupp
speculates about a hypothetical situation in which he would amend
his complaint to seek class-wide relief, but only if Maryland's
Rules of Civil Procedure required him to do so, or if USAA insisted
upon a traditional class action.

Judge Rubin opines that Schupp's conditional language does not turn
his complaint into a class action. USAA's attempt to enlarge CAFA's
definition of "class action" by pointing to legislative history has
already been rejected by the Fourth Circuit in West Virginia ex
rel. McGraw v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 646 F.3d at 174.

Judge Rubin holds that Schupp's caption to his lawsuit is similarly
immaterial to the Court's analysis. USAA asserts that Schupp's case
is a representative action because he sues "on his own behalf and
for the benefit of others similarly situated." These sorts of
labels, however, are not transformative for CAFA purposes, Judge
Rubin points out. Again, the Court must gauge the complaint's
"substance" when deciding whether a claim falls under CAFA's
jurisdictional orbit. That obligation requires the Court to look
beyond Schupp's passing (if not puffing) reference to aggregate
litigation in the complaint.

Mr. Schupp's complaint is not sufficiently similar in substance to
a class action under Rule 23, Judge Rubin finds. While USAA parses
Schupp's complaint for language that may support a hypothetical
motion for class certification, significant barriers exist to
class-wide relief. Judge Rubin adds, among other things, that
nothing in the complaint suggests anybody other than Schupp relied
on that alleged misrepresentation. The lack of typicality could
prove fatal in a motion for class certification. These patent
impediments to class treatment mitigate against construing Schupp's
complaint as a class action for purposes of CAFA.

To be sure, Schupp's complaint paints with a broad brush insofar as
the potential benefit to USAA Maryland policy holders should he
prevail, Judge Rubin notes. But Schupp is the master of his
complaint and is not beholden to USAA's interpretation of it. In
sum, the grounds for removal presented by USAA hinge on Schupp's
complaint falling within CAFA's definition of a "class action." It
does not, Judge Rubin points out.

For these reasons, Schupp's Motion to Remand will be granted and
Defendant USAA's Motion to Dismiss will be denied as moot. The case
will be closed and remanded to the Circuit Court for Frederick
County, Maryland. The Court will issue an accompanying order in
accordance with this memorandum opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Feb. 6,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/rswxc4wv from
Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Bradley Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMERSON BRADLEY,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-03442-RBW
(D.D.C.), the Plaintiff requests that the Court enlarge the
deadline for the Plaintiff to file his motion for class
certification pursuant to LCvR 23.1(b) and set a date certain for
such deadline after the Court sets a discovery deadline for this
matter.

The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint under the Privacy Act
of 1974 on November 9, 2022. The Plaintiff served the Complaint on
the Office of the United States Attorney of the District of
Columbia on November 30, 2022, and Defendant's answer was due by
January 30, 2023.

On January 24, 2023, the Defendant filed its unopposed motion for
enlargement of time to answer, requesting a 30-day extension to
file its responsive pleading. During the Parties' conferral
regarding this extension, Defendant indicated that it intends to
file a motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff's current deadline to file his motion for class
certification is February 7, 2023.

The United States Department of Education is a Cabinet-level
department of the United States government.

A copy of the Court's order Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 3, 2023
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ilo1No at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Drew D. Sarrett, Esq.
          Kevin A. Dillon, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION
          ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  drew@clalegal.com
                  kevin@clalegal.com

UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Brooks v. Army Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTONIO GREGORY BROOKS, Plaintiff v. U.S. ARMY 1ST
INFORMATION OPERATIONS COMMAND, et al., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 1:23-cv-00189 (UNA) (D.D.C.), Judge Rudolph Contreras of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismisses the
complaint without prejudice.

The matter is before the Court on its initial review of the
Plaintiff's pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis.

Judge Contreras grants the in forma pauperis application and
dismisses the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, for failure to meet the minimal pleading
requirements of Federal Rule 8(a), and in part, for lack of
standing.

The Plaintiff, who resides in Alexandria, Virginia, sues the US
Army 1st Information Operations Command -- which the Plaintiff
refers to more colloquially as the "1st IO CMD" -- the Defense
Counterintelligence and Security Agency, the US Army
Counterintelligence Command, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. Judge Contreras says the complaint is not titled for
this Court, and is difficult to follow.

As far as it can be understood, the Plaintiff alleges that,
starting in July 2020, he was employed as a contractor with the 1st
IO CMD, and from that time to date, defendants have worked together
to surveil him and others with "cyber electromagnetic devices and
techniques," causing "physical reactions and responses." Despite
having filed a civil case, he relies on predominantly criminal
statutes, demanding unspecified monetary damages and injunctive
relief.

First, Judge Contreras holds that criminal statutes generally do
not create a private right of action and, therefore, cannot be
relied on by a civil plaintiff to state a claim for relief. Even if
the Plaintiff was afforded a cause of action, it is unclear how, if
at all, 34 U.S.C. Section 12601 can plausibly apply to his claims,
as that statute governs the deprivation of juvenile rights.

Second, pro se litigants must comply with the Rules of Civil
Procedure. A confused and rambling narrative of charges and
conclusions does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8. The
Plaintiff's allegations that the Defendants have used weapons to
harm him fall into this category. As presented, neither the Court
nor the Defendants can reasonably be expected to identify the
Plaintiff's intended claims.

Finally, to whatever extent the Plaintiff attempts to bring the
matter on behalf of "others," Judge Contreras points out that he
has no standing to do so, because a pro se litigant can represent
only himself in federal court. A class member cannot represent the
class without counsel, because a class action suit affects the
rights of the other members of the class.

Consequently, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. A
separate order accompanies Judge Contreras' Memorandum Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/tanddp3z from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Court Terminates Bid to Certify Class in Duarte
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUARTE, et al., v. UNITED
STATES METALS REFINING COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01624
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Michael A. Hammer entered an order:

  -- terminating motion to preclude; and

  -- terminating motion to certify class.

The motion to certify the class and motion to preclude expert
testimony are terminated without prejudice

The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land.

United Precious Metals is a refiner and supplier of precious
metals.[CC]

UNITY SOFTWARE: Lead Plaintiff and Counsel Appointed in Das Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ISHITA DAS, Plaintiff v. UNITY SOFTWARE INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-03962-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J.
Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, appoints:

   a. Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System and
      Indiana Public Retirement System as the Lead Plaintiff;

   b. Labaton Sucharow LLP as the Lead Counsel; and

   c. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLPas the Liaison Counsel.

Pending before the Court are five motions to appoint lead plaintiff
and approve selection of lead counsel.

On July 6, 2022, Plaintiff Das initiated a securities class action
brought on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or
acquired Unity Software stock between March 5, 2021 to May 10, 2022
and were allegedly damaged by the Defendants' materially false and
misleading statements or omissions in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a)) (the "Class").

Defendant Unity creates and operates a 3D content platform that
provides software developers who create video games (for mobile
phones, computers, and game consoles) a platform to create and
monetize their games and content. It provides a "Pinpointer" which
is a user acquisition service which uses real-time user valuation
at the time of an ad request.

The Plaintiff alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to
disclose that: (i) deficiencies in Unity's product platform reduced
the accuracy of the Company's machine learning technology; (ii) the
foregoing was likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's revenues; (iii) accordingly, Unity had overstated the
Company's commercial and/or financial prospects for 2022; (iv) as a
result, the Company was likely to have to reduce its fiscal 2022
guidance; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

After the market closed on May 10, 2022, Unity announced its
financial results for the first quarter of 2022 and fiscal guidance
citing a "fault" in its platform which resulted in "reduced
accuracy" for Pinpointer. The following day its stock fell $17.83
per share, or approximately a 37% decrease. The Plaintiffs allege
that the market decline resulted from the Defendants' false or
misleading statements and/or omissions, and they were harmed as a
result.

Initially, seven movants timely moved for lead plaintiff and lead
counsel: (1) Dennis Johnson, (2) Aleksandr Kuperman, (3) Melanie
Kight, (4) Oklahoma Fire and Indiana, (5) Timothy Aines, (6) City
of North Miami Beach Police Officers and Firefighters Retirement
Plan, and (7) Victor Winfrey. Movants Johnson and Kuperman withdrew
their motions the following day. Shortly thereafter, movants Kight,
Aines, North Miami Beach, and Winfrey filed notices of
non-opposition, acknowledging that each lacked the largest
financial interest" in this litigation within the meaning of the
PSLRA.

On Jan. 19, 2023, the Court held a brief hearing on the motions and
indicated that it would grant Oklahoma Fire and Indiana Public
Retirement System's motion in light of it having the largest
financial interest and otherwise satisfying the PSLRA requirements
and a lack of opposition.

First, Judge Davila holds that Oklahoma Fire and Indiana have made
a prima facie showing of typicality and adequacy. He finds that
Oklahoma Fire and Indiana satisfy typicality because they purchased
and/or acquired Unity securities during the Class Period; the
prices were allegedly artificially inflated by the Defendants'
materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions; and
they suffered damages as a result.

Moreover, the record is devoid of any evidence of conflicts, and
Oklahoma Fire and Indiana's interests appear to align with those of
the class members such that they will "vigorously" prosecute the
action on behalf of the class. Lastly, none of the four other
movants challenge the presumption that Oklahoma Fire and Indiana
are the most adequate lead plaintiff, nor do they challenge their
selection of lead counsel.

Oklahoma Fire and Indiana selected Labaton Sucharow as proposed
Lead Counsel based on the firm's accomplishments and reputation as
a well-regarded firm that has obtained significant recoveries for
plaintiffs in securities class action like this case. They also
selected Hagens Berman, located in Berkley, California, to serve as
Liaison Counsel. Hagens Berman has experience as lead counsel and
co-lead counsel prosecuting securities and investor fraud class
actions.

No movant challenges Oklahoma Fire and Indiana's selection of Class
Counsel and Liaison Counsel. In light of the qualifications and
experience of both firms, no grounds exist to disturb the choice
that these law firms serve as Lead and Liaison Counsel.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Davila grants Oklahoma Fire and
Indiana's motion and appoints Oklahoma Fire and Indiana as the Lead
Plaintiff. He approves Oklahoma Fire and Indiana's selection of
Lead Counsel for the Class, Labaton Sucharow, and Hagens Berman as
Liaison the Counsel for the Class. Accordingly, the competing
motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of lead
counsel at ECF Nos. 21, 30, 34, and 35 are denied.

The Order will apply to the Action and to each case that relates to
the same subject matter that is subsequently filed in the Court or
is transferred to the Court, and is consolidated with the Action.

A Master File is established for this proceeding. The Master File
will be Civil Action No. 5:22-cv-03962-EJD. The Clerk will file all
pleadings in the Master File and note such filings on the Master
Docket. Every pleading in the Action will have the following
caption: In re Unity Software Inc. Securities Litigation, No.
5:22-cv-03962-EJD (N.D. Cal.).

Each new case that arises out of the subject matter of the Action
will be consolidated with the Action. The Order will apply thereto,
unless a party objects to consolidation, or to any provision of the
Order, within 10 days after the date upon which a copy of this
Order is served on counsel for such party by filing an application
for relief, and the Court deems it appropriate to grant such
application. Nothing in the foregoing will be construed as a waiver
of the Defendants' right to object to the consolidation of any
subsequently filed or transferred related action.

The Lead Counsel will have the authority to speak for all the
Plaintiffs and the Class members in all matters regarding the
litigation, including, but not limited to, pretrial proceedings,
motion practice, trial, and settlement. It will make all work
assignments in such a manner as to facilitate the orderly and
efficient prosecution of the litigation, and to avoid duplicative
or unproductive effort.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/m6k7zwxf from Leagle.com.


UNTUCKIT LLC: Fliegelman Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lynette Fliegelman, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. UNTUCKit, LLC, Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 37-02023-00001137-C U-BT-CTL was removed from
the Superior Court, San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California on Feb. 16, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00314-LAB-JLB to
the proceeding.

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

UNTUCKit, LLC -- https://www.untuckit.com/ -- operates as an online
clothing store. The Company offers shirts, tees, sweatshirts,
bottom, and jackets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zev Benjamin Zysman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ZEV B. ZYSMAN
          15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 700
          Encino, CA 91436
          Phone: (818) 783-8836
          Email: zev@zysmanlawca.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher T. Casamassima, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 443-5374
          Email: chris.casamassima@wilmerhale.com


UPGRADE LOANS: Nunez Sues Over Unlawful Collections of Debt
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rolando Nunez, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. UPGRADE LOANS, INC. D/B/A UPGRADE, INC., Case No.
23-000806-CI (Fla. 6th Judicial Cir. Ct., Pinellas Cty., Feb. 17,
2023), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA") by an unlawful
collection of debt due to sending the communication between a time
zone without prior consent.

The Defendant began attempting to collect a debt (the "Consumer
Debt") from Plaintiff. The Consumer Debt is an obligation allegedly
had by Plaintiff to pay money arising from a transaction between
the creditor of the Consumer Debt, Defendant, and Plaintiff (the
"Subject Service").

The FCCPA prohibits persons from communicating with a debtor
between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the debtor's time zone
without the prior consent of the debtor. On February 15, 2023,
Defendant sent an electronic mail communication to Plaintiff (the
"Communication"). The Communication was sent by Defendant to
Plaintiff at 7:53:18 EST in Plaintiff's zone. The Communication was
received by Plaintiff from Defendant at 7:53:18 EST in Plaintiff's
zone.

The Defendant sent an electronic communication to Plaintiff in
connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt. The
Communication was sent to Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM
and 8:00 AM in the time zone of Plaintiff. The Defendant did not
have the consent of Plaintiff to communicate with Plaintiff between
the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM. As such, by and through the
Communication, Defendant violated the FCCPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the Consumer Debt.

The Defendant is a Delaware Corporation, with its principal place
of business located in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 907-1136
          Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                 jen@jibraellaw.com


USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE: Petery Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Paul Petery, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons v. USAA Casualty Insurance
Company, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on Feb. 16, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00604-JLS to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract for
Misappropriation of Trade Secrets.

USAA -- https://www.usaa.com/ -- and its family of property and
casualty insurance companies offers members a wide range of
products and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Haggerty, Esq.
          HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER, & KUPERSMITH
          1801 Market Street, Suite 100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (267) 350-6633
          Email: jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com

               - and -

          John P. Goodrich, Esq.
          429 Fourth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 261-4663

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
          134 Kings Highway, Second Floor
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Phone: (856) 772-7200
          Email: ecf@shublawyers.com

               - and -

          Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
          SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER P.C.
          209 State Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17101
          Phone: (717) 232-6300
          Email: scooper@schmidtkramer.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alyse F. Stach, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1735 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501
          Phone: (215) 568-3100
          Email: astach@bakerlaw.com

VERSAILLES REHABILITATION: Faces Taylor Suit Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHELSEY TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. VERSAILLES REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER LLC,
CROWN HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT LLC, and CROWN HEALTHCARE GROUP LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00053-WHR-CHG (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 20,
2023) challenges policies and practices of Defendants that violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has been jointly employed by Defendants as an hourly,
non-exempt state tested nursing assistant for the last three years.
She alleges that the Defendants failed to pay her proper overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek and
failed to pay wages on a semimonthly basis.

Versailles Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center LLC is a nursing
home in Versailles, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 230-2955
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7034 Braucher St NW, Suite B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

WANZEK CONSTRUCTION: Padilla Furs Files Suit in D. Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wanzek Construction,
Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Padilla, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated v. Wanzek Construction, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00421-SKC (D. Colo., Feb. 14, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract: Recovery/Enforcement.

Wanzek Construction, Inc. -- https://wanzek.com/ -- is a leading
general construction contractor and industrial services company in
North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Jackson Simpson, Esq.
          LANGSTON & LOTT, PLLC
          100 South Main Street
          Booneville, MS 38829
          Phone: (662) 728-9733
          Email: jsimpson@langstonlott.com


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Beltran Sues Over FCRA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Ramon Beltran, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation; WASTE
MANAGEMENT NATIONAL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; USA
WASTE OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-at-00129 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 14,
2023), is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants routinely acquire consumer
background checks on Plaintiff and other prospective, current, and
former employees and use information from consumer reports in
connection with their hiring process without providing proper
disclosures and without obtaining proper authorization in
compliance with the law. The Plaintiff, on behalf of similarly
situated current, former, and prospective employees, seeks
statutory penalties due to the Defendants' systematic and willful
violations of the FCRA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in the State of
California.

WASTE MANAGEMENT NATIONAL SERVICES, INC. is a Delaware corporation
and does business in the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Phone (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile (310) 888-0109
          Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com


WESTERN ENGINEERING: Martin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Western Engineering
Contractors, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Maurece Martin, and
on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. Western
Engineering Contractors, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2023-00334816-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Feb.
15, 2023).

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

Western Engineering Contractors, Inc. -- https://www.westeng.com/
-- are a customer focused, full service sitework contractor
providing the best value through quality, teamwork, integrity, and
performance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
          SHIMODA LAW CORP.
          9401 E Stockton Blvd., Ste. 120
          Elk Grove, CA 95624-5050
          Phone: 916-525-0716
          Fax: 916-760-3733
          Email: attorney@shimodalaw.com


WEXFORD HEALTH: Underpays Licensed Practical Nurses, Collopy Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY COLLOPY, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00143-GJF-JHR (D.N.M., Feb. 16, 2023) seeks to recover
Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Wexford
under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, Wexford does not provide bona fide meal
periods for its hourly employees who are responsible for direct
patient care. Wexford continues to require hourly employees
responsible for direct patient care to remain on duty and subject
to interruptions during meal breaks. Wexford also failed to pay for
certain compensable hours altogether, improperly failing to pay
Collopy and the Putative Class Members for hours worked
off-the-clock, says the suit.

Ms. Collopy worked as a licensed practical nurse for Wexford from
approximately June 2019 to October 2022.

Wexford is a healthcare services company headquartered in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

WHITE KNIGHT: Charles Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Charles, Jakobe Wells, Kimo Taitano and Makalon Antoine,
each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
WHITE KNIGHT PEST CONTROL, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00640 (S.D. Tex.,
Feb. 21, 2023), is brought for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (the "FLSA"), and the last paycheck provision of the
Texas Labor Code, seeking declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of the Defendants' policy
and practice of failing to pay proper wages under the FLSA.

The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiffs or other Technicians an
hourly or a salary wage. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiffs
or other Technicians for their drive time before, after or between
performing services for the Defendant's customers. The Defendant
did not pay the Plaintiffs or other Technicians for time spent at
the Defendant's office to pick up materials needed to perform
services for the Defendant's customers. The Defendant paid the
Plaintiffs an hourly wage of $10.00 per hour during a brief
training period in the beginning of their employment. The Defendant
classified the Plaintiffs and other Technicians as exempt from the
overtime requirements of the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs regularly worked over forty hours per week
throughout their tenure with the Defendant. The Defendant did not
pay the Plaintiffs or other Technicians 1.5 times their regular
rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a week. The Defendants knew
or should have known that the Plaintiffs and other Technicians were
working hours which went unrecorded and uncompensated, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as Technicians.

The Defendant's primary business is to provide pest control
services to its customers, and Defendant employs technicians to
accomplish this purpose.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AK 72211
          Phone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


WHOA DOUGH LLC: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whoa Dough, LLC. The
case is styled as Maricela Donet, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Whoa Dough, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01401 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2023).

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

Whoa Dough -- https://www.whoadough.com/ -- is the first
health-conscious plant based, gluten free cookie dough snack
bar.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WHOLE FOODS: Court Dismisses Foster Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIAN FOSTER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01240-ERK-RML
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Edward R. Korman entered an order
granting WFM's motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff
requests leave to amend his complaint in the event that WFM's
motion is granted, but does not offer any explanation of what new
allegations might be added that would cure the FAC's pleading
deficiencies regarding how the Product's label is materially
misleading to a reasonable consumer.

The Plaintiff Foster filed this action against defendant WFM,
principally alleging that the front label of WFM's branded Fish Oil
softgel product is false and deceptive because it suggests to a
reasonable consumer that the Product contains 1000mg of two types
of Omega-3s -- Eicosapentaenoic Acid (EPA) and Docosahexanoiac Acid
(DHA) -- per capsule, when in fact the Product contains only 300mg
of Omega-3s per capsule.

The Plaintiff has indicated his intent to seek class certification.
WFM has moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim.

The Plaintiff alleges that the "1000mg Per Serving" statement on
this label is false and misleading because it appears underneath
"Omega-3s EPA and & DHA," suggesting that the Product contains
1000mg of those types of Omega-3s per serving.

In fact, the Product actually contains 300mg of Omega-3s. The
Supplement Facts located on the back label of the Product state
that the Product contains 1000mg of Fish Oil, 180mg of EPA, 120mg
of DHA (the latter two ingredients adding up to 300mg of total
Omega-3s): The Plaintiff alleges that he and those persons
similarly situated were injured by WFM's false representations on
the front label of the Product because they reasonably believed
that the Product contained 1000mg of Omega-3s, and this
information was a significant factor in their decisions to purchase
the Product.

Whole Foods owns and operates a chain of natural and organic foods
supermarket.

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


WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN: Schilly Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Williams Scotsman,
Inc. The case is styled as Jonathan Schilly, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general
public v. Williams Scotsman, Inc., Case No. BCV-23-100502 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Feb. 17, 2023).

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

Williams Scotsman, Inc. -- https://www.willscot.com/ -- operates as
a space solutions. The Company provides solutions for
instructional, living, health, office, storage and specialty
including modular offices, and permanent modular structures.[BN]

XPO LOGISTICS: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Ortiz Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
XPO LOGISTICS, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
denying their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled
Adan Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. XPO Logistics, Inc., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 5:22-cv-00213-JWH-SHK, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, is brought by the Plaintiff
against the Defendants for alleged violations of the California
Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including
failure to provide meal periods, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay hourly wages, failure to indemnify, failure to
provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay all
final wages, unfair competition, and civil penalties.

On Aug. 30, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which the Court denied through an Order entered by
Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. on Jan. 18, 2023.

The appellate case is captioned Adan Ortiz v. XPO Logistics, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 23-55149, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 17, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants XPO Logistics Supply Chain, Inc., XPO Logistics,
Inc. and XPO Logistics, LLC Mediation Questionnaire was due on
February 24, 2023;

   -- Appellants XPO Logistics Supply Chain, Inc., XPO Logistics,
Inc. and XPO Logistics, LLC opening brief is due on April 17,
2023;

   -- Appellee Adan Ortiz answering brief is due on May 17, 2023;
and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee ADAN ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Farrah Grant, Esq.
            Thomas Alistair Segal, Esq.
            SETAREH LAW GROUP
            9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
            Beverly Hills, CA 90212
            Telephone: (310) 888-7771

                   - and -

            Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
            LAW OFFICE OF SHAUN SETAREH
            9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
            Beverly Hills, CA 90212
            Telephone: (310) 888-7771

Defendants-Appellants XPO LOGISTICS, INC., et al. are represented
by:

            Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq.
            Cameron O'Brien Flynn, Esq.
            Timothy L. Johnson, Esq.
            OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC
            4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
            San Diego, CA 92122
            Telephone: (858) 652-3100

XTO ENERGY: Hystad Ceynar Suit Removed to D. North Dakota
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Hystad Ceynar Mineral, LLC, on behalf of itself
and a class of similarly situated persons v. XTO Energy, Inc., Case
No. 27-02023-cv-00020 was removed from the McKenzie County District
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on Feb. 14, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00030-CRH to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

XTO Energy Inc. -- http://www.xtoenergy.com/-- is an American
energy company and subsidiary of ExxonMobil principally operating
in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua A. Swanson, Esq.
          VOGEL LAW FIRM (FARGO)
          218 NP Avenue
          PO Box 1389
          Fargo, ND 58107-1389
          Phone: (701) 237-6983
          Email: jswanson@vogellaw.com

               - and -

          George A. Barton, Esq.
          Stacy Burrows, Esq.
          BARTON AND BURROWS LLC
          5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110
          Mission, KS 66205
          Phone: (913) 563-6250
          Email: george@bartonburrows.com
                 stacy@bartonburrows.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Elizabeth Tiblets, Esq.
          Jeffrey C. King, Esq.
          K&L GATES
          301 Commerce Street, Ste. 3000
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Phone: (817) 347-5270
          Fax: (817) 347-5299
          Email: elizabeth.tiblets@klgates.com
                 jeffrey.c.king@klgates.com

               - and -

          Ian Ronald McLean, Esq.
          Ronald H. McLean, Esq.
          SERKLAND LAW FIRM
          PO Box 6017
          Fargo, ND 58108-6017
          Phone: (701) 232-8957
          Email: imclean@serklandlaw.com
                 rmclean@serklandlaw.com


YOUNG ADULT INSTITUTE: Lagunas Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joana Rios Lagunas, on behalf of herself and the Class members v.
YOUNG ADULT INSTITUTE, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00654 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2023), is brought
challenging the Defendant's policies and practices of: failing to
compensate the Plaintiff for all hours worked; failing to pay the
Plaintiff all minimum wages owed; failing to properly pay the
Plaintiff overtime wages; failing to authorize and permit the
Plaintiff to take compliant meal and rest periods to which they are
entitled by law, and failing to pay premiums for those missed meal
and rest periods; failing to reimburse the Plaintiff for necessary
business expenses; failing to provide the Plaintiff accurate,
itemized wage statements; and failing to timely pay all wages due
upon separation from employment

The Plaintiff and putative Class members have been denied payment
for all hours worked, including minimum wage and overtime payments.
Additionally, they have been denied proper meal and rest breaks,
and have been denied reimbursement for necessary business expenses.
As a result of the violations stated herein, Plaintiff, on behalf
of herself and putative Class members, seeks compensation, damages,
penalties, and interest to the full extent permitted by the
California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC")
Wage Orders, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Lead Registered
Behavioral Technician from November 30, 2021 to December 26, 2022,
in Hollister, California.

The Defendant owns and operated facilities that specialize in
serving people with intellectual and developmental
disabilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ZEGARY ALLEN: Wiley Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zegary Allen, MD, et
al. The case is styled as Stella Wiley, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated v. Zegary Allen, MD, Summit Medical
Group, Inc. doing business as: St. Elizabeth Physicians, Saint
Elizabeth Medical Center, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00026-DLB-CJS
(E.D. Ky., Feb. 17, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Medical Malpractice.

Dr. Zegary Allen, MD, is an Internal Medicine specialist practicing
in Covington, KY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan J. Statman, Esq.
          STATMAN, HARRIS EYRICH LLC
          35 E. Seventh Street, Suite 315
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: (513) 621-2666
          Email: ajstatman@statmanharris.com


[24]7.AI: Jarrett Sues Over Failure to Pay All Hours Worked
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adrianna Jarrett and Mary Ngethe, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. [24]7.AI, INC., Case No.
5:23-cv-00677 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2023), is brought arising from
the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") by failing to compensate the Plaintiff for all hours
worked.

The Defendant does not compensate its CSRs, like Plaintiffs, for
all work performed. Instead, Defendant requires its CSRs to perform
compensable work tasks before and after their scheduled shifts and
during their unpaid meal periods, when they are not logged into
Defendant's timekeeping system. This corporate policy and practice
results in CSRs not being paid for all time worked.

In particular, Defendant required its CSRs to begin work prior to
their scheduled shifts and perform a number of off-the-clock tasks
that were integral and indispensable to their jobs, including
booting up computers, logging into numerous software programs, and
logging into phones. The CSRs only clocked in and received
compensation after this preliminary work was completed, though they
were required to perform this work in order to be "phone ready"
when their scheduled shifts began. In addition to this pre-shift
work, Defendant also required its CSRs to perform unpaid mid-shift
work during their unpaid meal periods. The CSRs' duties performed
during their unpaid meal periods included similar login procedures.


The Defendant, through its managers, had actual and constructive
knowledge that its CSRs were completing this off-the-clock work
without compensation. Nevertheless, Defendant suffered or
permitted, and in fact trained and required, its CSRs to complete
this unpaid work. Defendant's practice of failing to compensate its
CSRs for all hours worked violated the CSRs' rights under the FLSA,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as hourly remote CSRs.

The Defendant is in the call center (also referred to as "contact
center") services business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Stoops, Esq.
          Kathryn E. Milz, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Phone: (248) 355-0300
          Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                 kmilz@sommerspc.com



                            *********

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 ***