/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230302.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, March 2, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 45

                            Headlines

ACE HARDWARE: Smith Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Illinois
ADDICTION RECOVERY: Carroll Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
AIRBUS SE: Faces Class Suit Over Large-Scale Bribery, Corruption
AKORN OPERATING: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice
ALICO INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Securities Violations

ALLIANZ LIFE: Small Seeks to Strike and Exclude Evidence
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: New Shares Diminish Voting Rights, Suit Says
ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS: Briefing Schedule Extended in Sessa Suit
ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS: Court OKs Bid to Seal Support Documents
APPLE RECOVERY: Maillet Sues Over Debt Collection Practices

ARMADA SKILLED: Bid to Decertify Class in Valencia Suit Denied
AUDIBLE INC: Golden Bid to Seal Documents Temporarily Granted
BANK OF AMERICA: Review of Partial Dismissal of Barokas Suit Denied
BP EXPLORATION: All Claims in Stallworth and 7 Other Suits Tossed
BP EXPLORATION: All Deloach & Woodland Claims Tossed With Prejudice

BP EXPLORATION: Butler and 3 Other Suits Dismissed With Prejudice
BP EXPLORATION: Lewis & Mayfield Claims Dismissed With Prejudice
BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: Caughey Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
BRILLIANT EARTH: Roberson Suit Alleges Illegal Wiretapping
CATALENT INC: Labaton Sucharow Discloses Securities Class Action

CLOVER HEALTH: Bid for Class Certification in Bond Suit Granted
COREWELL HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dove Suit Alleges
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Seeks to Postpone Class Cert. Proceedings
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Faces Suit for Keeping 300 People in Jail
EARGO INC: Securities Class Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend

EF INSTITUTE: Loses Bid to Dismiss & Strike Douglas' Class Claims
EMORY UNIVERSITY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply
ESCAMBIA OPERATING: Court Narrows Claims in Resource Strategies
FASTOOL INC: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FEDEX GROUND: Court Denies Bid to Conditionally Certify Class

FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS: Wildman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
FORACARE INC: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FORD MOTOR: Files Supplemental Brief in Tucker Class Action
FUSION INDUSTRIES: Garza Files Rule 23 Class Certification Bid
GLOBAL EQUITY: Dowell Moves to Stay Class Certification Deadline

GOWDY BAKER: Sisson's Bids to Certify Class & Appoint Counsel Nixed
GSK CONSUMER: Batey Sues Over Mislabeled Cough Syrup Products
HANNAFORD BROS: Court Certifies Class of Managers in Prinzo
HELZBERG'S DIAMOND: Roberson Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Data
HERSHEY CREAMERY: Henriquez Sues Over Delinquent Wage Payments

HIGHER PRIMATE: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HIGHMARK INC: Sued Over Failure to Safeguard PHI and PII
HU PRODUCTS: Levy Sues Over Deceptive and Misleading Practices
HYATT CORP: $990K Class Settlement in Crump Suit Has Final Approval
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Deadline for Settlement Claim Filing Set July 7

IDEALVILLAGE PRODUCTS: Morehouse Files Suit in S.D. California
IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS: Gray Sues Over False Marketing Claims
IMMUNOVANT INC: Pitman May File Third Amended Class Complaint
INDUS REALTY: Monteverde Continues Investigating Centerbridge Deal
INSPIRATO INCORPORATED: Koch Sues Over Misleading Statements

IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES: Manchur Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
ISAMAX SNACKS: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Toston Sues Over Wiretapping Communications
KOMAN ENTERPRISES: Knuckles Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
KORNIT DIGITAL: Cleveland Bakers Sues Over Exchange Act Violation

KORNIT DIGITAL: GCERS Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
L.L. BEAN: Lenzi Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
LAKE CHAMPLAIN: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LEVIN PAPANTONIO: Mey Files TCPA Suit in N.D. West Virginia
LKQ CORPORATION: Scalzo Files Suit in N.D. Illinois

MASSACHUSETTS: Court Dismisses Amended Cruz Complaint v. Hudson
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Monteverde Probes Proposed Merger With Advent
MAZIE SLATER: 3rd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Martino Class Suit
MCLANE/SUNEAST INC: Prado Suit Removed to C.D. California
MDL 2332: District Court Refuses to Remand Lipitor Antitrust Suit

MEGA MART: Dominguez Sues Over Discriminatory Work Environment
MEMPHIS, TN: Ruling May Held City Responsible for Victim's Distress
MENA REGIONAL HEALTH: Cant Suit Removed to W.D. Arkansas
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Weber Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
META PLATFORMS: Faces C.P. Suit Over Alleged Illegal Wiretapping

MICHAELS STORES: Kelly Files Suit in D. Delaware
MINNESOTA: Faces Suit Over Prisoners' Mental Health Treatment
MISSISSIPPI: Reaches Settlement Agreement in Child Welfare Suit
MOMENTUS INC: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Suit for $8.5-M
MULTI-COLOR CORPORATION: Lee sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation

MVP GROUP: Alvarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEW YORK, NY: Judgment on Pleadings as to Federal Claims Granted
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Faces Frawley Suit Over Video Privacy Violations
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Residents File Class-Action Over Train Derailment
P2 Energy LLC: Ogg Files Suit in D. Colorado

PANDADOC INC: Clement Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PETZL AMERICA: Wins Bid to Strike Class Claims in Faulhaber Suit
PHILIP D. MURPHY: Court Narrow Claims in Marrara Class Suit
PREFERRED FINANCIAL: Parties Must Confer on Revised Discovery Sched
PRISMA LABS: Flora Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Bounthon Sues Over Misleading Representations
QUALIA COLLECTION: Wallace Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Discovery Ongoing in ERISA Class Suit in N.J.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Subsidiary Seeks Dismissal of Trouville Suit
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Unit Seeks Dismissal of Bickham, Gordon Suit

RACHEL ROSSIN: Essential Home Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
RANCHO MESQUITE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
REALPAGE INC: Cheong Suit Alleges Housing Lease Monopoly
RETSEL CORP: Court Denies Bid to Consolidate U.S. and NDN Suits
RICH HOLDINGS: Flores Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

RIVERWAY BUSINESS: Fobbs Sues Over Unpaid Wages
S M CONSTRUCTION: Mateo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Bennett Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Wenzel Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
SAN DIEGO SIGN: Thomas Sues Over Unlawful Employment Practices

SEALED AIR: Settlement in UA Class Suit Wins Final Nod
SEQUOIA CAPITAL: Rabbitte Sues Over Unfair & False Advertising
SILVERGATE BANK: Keane Sues Over Fraud and Corporate Malfeasance
SILVERGATE BANK: Magleby Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
SILVERSUN TECHNOLOGIES: Jones Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties

SKYLAR BODY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SKYWAY CLAIMS: Johnson Sues Over Failure to Provide Advance Notice
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Grove Sues Over Breach of Contract
SPICE SAIGON: Second Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Wang FLSA Class Suit
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Court Won't Review Class Certification in Cox Suit

STERLING JEWELERS: S.D. California Dismisses McCormack Class Suit
SUNWING AIRLINES: ACTA Calls Amendment in Class Suit Settlement
SYNGENTA CANADA: Ontario Court Certified Corn Prices Class Suit
T-MOBILE USA: Williams Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
TACTILE SYSTEMS: $5MM Mart Securities Suit Settlement for Court OK

TCF CO: Curd Sues Over Wiretapping of Electronic Communication
TEMASEK HOLDINGS: Sued Over Cryptocurrency Exchange Conspiracy
TESORO REFINING: Bid to Certify Classes in McGhee Suit Granted
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: M&A Continues Investigating BP Merger
U.S. NURSING CORP: Guthrie Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

UNITED STATES: Appeals Final Judgment in Deanda Civil Rights Suit
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Detainees' Retaliation
USAA FEDERAL: Compelled to Produce Docs in Bulls Class Suit
VERIFF INC: Agrees to Settle BIPA Class Action Suit for $4-M
WERNER ENTERPRISES: $750K Class Deal in Ellis Suit Wins Prelim. OK

WEST COAST UNDERCOVER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gonzales Says
WORLD PRIVATE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bryant Suit Alleges
WYNDHAM VACATION: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Continued
[*] Federal Court OKs Class Suit Against Valsartan Manufacturers

                            *********

ACE HARDWARE: Smith Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ace Hardware
Corporation. The case is styled as Christopher Smith, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Ace Hardware
Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01038 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 21, 2023).

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

Ace Hardware Corporation -- http://www.acehardware.com/-- is an
American hardware retailers' cooperative based in Oak Brook,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Marco, Esq.
          SMITHMARCO, P.C.
          5250 Old Orchard Rd., Suite 300
          Skokie, IL 60077
          Phone: (312) 546-6539
          Fax: (312) 602-3911
          Email: dmarco@smithmarco.com


ADDICTION RECOVERY: Carroll Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Carroll, Leanna Murphy, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. ADDICTION RECOVERY CARE, LLC, Case No.
5:23-cv-00053-GFVT (E.D. Ky., Feb. 21, 2023), is brought pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and the Kentucky
Wage and Hour Act ("KWHA"), seeking payment of past due wages,
including overtime wages, in violation of state and federal laws,
along with statutory liquidated damages and attorney's fees and
court costs.

The Defendants, in bad faith, misclassified the job position of
"community liaison" as a salaried position exempt from the overtime
requirements of the FLSA and the KWHA. This misclassification and
violation of the wage and hour laws applied not only to the
Plaintiffs, but also to all other similarly situated employees
performing the role of a "community liaison." Although
misclassified as salaried, community liaisons, including the
Plaintiffs, are required to work hours in excess of 40 in a
work-week, but are not compensated for overtime for those hours
worked in violation of the FLSA and KWHA. Further, community
liaisons were required to work at community events, conferences and
outreach on the weekends and were not properly compensated for
overtime hours relating to same, even though they had already
worked 40 hours in that work-week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs performed the duties of a job called a "community
liaison."

ARC provides addiction recovery services to citizens of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher D. Miller, Esq.
          ARNOLD & MILLER, PLC
          121 Prosperous Place, Suite 6B
          Lexington, KY 40509
          Phone: 859.381.9999
          Facsimile: 859.389.6666
          Email: cmiller@arnoldmillerlaw.com


AIRBUS SE: Faces Class Suit Over Large-Scale Bribery, Corruption
----------------------------------------------------------------
litigationfinancejournal.com reports that for many years, Airbus
allegedly facilitated large-scale bribery and corruption in its
aviation business. Airbus did not adequately inform the investing
public about its wrongful conduct. Investigations by various
authorities subsequently resulted in Airbus having to pay a fine of
approximately EUR 3.6 billion (US$ 4 billion).

When this information became publicly known, the price of Airbus
shares fell sharply, causing huge loss to investors. They are
entitled to be compensated by Airbus.

The class action is open to all institutional investors and retail
investors in Airbus who purchased and held its ordinary shares
through the Paris, Frankfurt or Spanish stock exchanges during the
period 1 January 2008 to 31 July 2020.

No cure, no pay: Investors who have suffered loss can join the
class action by registering with Airbus Investors Recovery
Stichting (AIRS) at no upfront cost. AIRS is represented by leading
law firm Scott+Scott, and has obtained funding from Woodsford, a
specialist in environmental, social and corporate governance
related engagement and a leading litigation funder.[GN]

AKORN OPERATING: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
wandtv.com reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Akorn Operating Company LLC.

The plant closed without notice and laid off all employees on
February 22.

The plaintiffs are all Akorn employees who are bringing the class
action under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
(WARN Act) to recover unpaid wages and other compensation owed
after the company laid them off without notice.

According to the Illinois Department of Labor, "The Illinois WARN
Act requires employers with 75 or more full-time employees to give
workers and state and local government officials 60 days advance
notice of a plant closing or mass layoff. An employer that fails to
provide notice as required by law is liable to each affected
employee for back pay and benefits for the period of the violation,
up to a maximum of 60 days. The employer may also be subject to a
civil penalty of up to $500 for each day of the notice violation."

The Illinois Department of Commerce & Economic Opportunity told
WAND News via email that Akorn sent a WARN Notification late
Wednesday evening after the company had already alerted its
employees of permanent layoffs.

WAND will follow the progress of this suit as it moves through the
legal system. [GN]

ALICO INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Securities Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Alico, Inc. ("Alico" or "the
Company") (NASDAQ: ALCO) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Alico
securities between February 4, 2021 and December 13, 2022, (the
"Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/alco.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market, and specifically that Alico: (1) failed
to maintain appropriate controls on disclosures and financial
reporting; (2) miscalculated its deferred tax liabilities for a
multi-year period; and (3) would be forced to restate previously
issued financial statements.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/alco or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Law Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in Alico, you have until April 18, 2023, to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC represents investors in
securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits.
The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for
investors nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]

ALLIANZ LIFE: Small Seeks to Strike and Exclude Evidence
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWANDA D. SMALL,
Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, a Minnesota Corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-01944-TJH-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting her Motion to strike and exclude the
Documents from Defendant's evidence in opposition to her Motion for
Class Certification.

The Defendant did not list the Documents its Initial Disclosures
and has not supplemented its disclosures. Because the Documents
were never properly identified in disclosures or produced in the
ordinary course before the class certification cutoff, Plaintiff
respectfully requests the Court strike the Documents from
consideration of evidence.

The Plaintiff moves to strike the Documents on the grounds that the
Defendant never identified them in its disclosures nor produced
them (although called for in Plaintiff's document requests) before
the class discovery cutoff, or indeed before Plaintiff filed her
Motion for Class Certification.

In its opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification,
Defendant attempts to introduce several documents. The Defendant
attempts to use the Documents to purportedly show a handful of
putative class members, with pre-2013 policies, who may have
designated a third-party to receive notices of pending lapse prior
to when the Defendant fully implemented California Insurance Code
Section 10113.72's third-party designee requirement in or around
October 2021. The Documents are apparently offered to cast doubt on
Plaintiff's ability to satisfy Rule 23's predominance factor.

Allianz Life provides annuities and life insurance products in the
United States in all states except for New York.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kalsp6 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org

                - and -

          Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
          Sarah Ball, Esq.
          WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
          8489 La Mesa Boulevard
          La Mesa, CA 91942
          Telephone: (619) 234-9000
          Facsimile: (619) 750-0413
          E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
                  sball@einsurelaw.com

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: New Shares Diminish Voting Rights, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEGHENY COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMC
ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC.; ADAM M. ARON; HOWARD W. KOCH;
KATHLEEN M. PAWLUS; ANTHONY J. SAICH; PHILIP LADER; GARY F. LOCKE;
and ADAM J. SUSSMAN, Defendants, Case No. 2023-215 (Del. Ch., Feb
20, 2023) alleges violations of the Delaware General Corporation
Law.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the creation of the
Preferred Stock, the AMC Preferred Equity Units ("APEs"), and the
issuance of the Certificate of Designation constituted an amendment
to AMC's certificate of incorporation. The creation and issuance of
the Preferred Stock, with the Depositary Voting Requirement,
adversely impacted the "powers, preferences or special rights" of
the Company's outstanding Class A common shares. At the time the
Board created the Preferred Shares, AMC had only one class of
authorized stock with voting rights, its Class A common stock.

The right to vote on matters requiring stockholder approval was not
shared with any other class. Thus, the right to vote was a special
characteristic of the common stock in the capital structure of AMC.
The ancillary impact of the issuance of additional classes of
voting stock on the voting power of a company's existing
stockholders may not, under some circumstances, be deemed to impact
the "powers, preferences or special rights" of stockholders given
the capital structure of a particular company, says the suit.

However, the issuance of the Preferred Stock was specifically
engineered to neutralize and circumvent the power and right of the
Company's only existing class of stock in connection with a
specific course of Action desired by the Board and to deny its
holders their ability to exercise that right and power going
forward, the suit added.

AMC ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, provides theatrical exhibition,
movie screening, food distribution, online ticket booking, and
other related services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Barry, Esq.
          Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
          Jason M. Avellino, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street, 7th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000

               - and -

          Thomas Curry, Esq.
          Tayler D. Bolton, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          824 N. Market St., Suite 1003
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 485-0483

               - and -

          David Wales, Esq.
          Alec Coquin, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          10 Bank St., 8th Floor
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 437-8551

               - and -

          Adam Warden, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          7777 Glades Rd., Suite 300
          Boca Raton, FL 33434
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399

               - and -

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

ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS: Briefing Schedule Extended in Sessa Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY SESSA and MARK
SESSA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS INC., a Virginia Corporation;
ANCESTRY.COM INC., a Delaware Corporation; and ANCESTRY.COM LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company,Case No. 2:20-cv-02292-GMN-BNW
(D. Nev.), the Court entered an order approving extension of
briefing schedule for motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert and
motion for summary judgment as follows:

            Event                   Current         Proposed
                                     Deadline       Deadline

  Last Day to Respond to          Feb. 16, 2023    Mar. 2, 2023
  Motion to Exclude Clifford
  Kupperber

  Last Day to File Reply          Feb. 23, 2023    Mar. 16, 2023
  Supporting Motion to
  Exclude Clifford Kupperberg

  Last Day to Respond to          Feb. 23, 2023    Mar. 16, 2023
  Motion for Summary Judgment

  Last Day to File Reply          Mar. 9, 2023     Apr. 6, 2023
  Supporting Motion for
  Summary Judgment

Ancestry.com Operations provides online family genealogy
information and resources.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KvTkrt at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson St., Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775
          Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
          E-mail: raina@turkestrauss.com

                - and -

          Miles N. Clark, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MILES N. CLARK
          LLC
          5510 S. Fort Apache Rd, Suite 30
          Las Vegas, NV 89148
          Telephone: (702) 856-7430
          Facsimile: (702) 552-2370
          E-mail: Miles@milesclarklaw.com

                - and -

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Marie N. Appel, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
          LITIGATION GROUP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San
          Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 358-6913
          Facsimile: (415) 358-6293
          E-mail: MRam@forthepeople.com
                  MAppel@forthepeople.com

                - and -

          Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN R. OSBORN
          102 Bergen Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (347) 645-0464
          E-mail: Ben@benosbornlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Shon Morgan, Esq.
          John W. Baumann, Esq.
          Cristina Henriquez, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
          SULLIVAN, LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 443-3000
          Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
          E-maik: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com
                  jackbaumann@quinnemanuel.com
                  cristinahenriquez@quinnemanuel.com

                - and -

          H. Stan Johnson, Esq.
          COHEN-JOHNSON, LLC
          375 E. Warm Springs Road, Suite 104
          Las Vegas, NV 89119
          Telephone : (702) 823-2500
          Facsimile : (702) 823-3400
          E-mail: sjohnson@cohenjohnson.com

ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS: Court OKs Bid to Seal Support Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anthony Sessa, et al., v.
Ancestry.com Operations Inc., et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-02292-GMN-BNW (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Brenda Weksler
entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to seal several
documents filed in support of a motion for class certification.

The Court finds the Defendants have demonstrated good cause to seal
the documents in question. As explained by Defendants, Exhibits 1
through 9 contain Ancestry's competitively 6 sensitive information
regarding business strategy, revenue and costs, genealogy market
research, strategies for the development and marketing of
Ancestry's services, and third-party confidential business and
pricing information.

Ancestry.com provides online family genealogy information and
resources.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k6shIx at no extra charge.[CC]


APPLE RECOVERY: Maillet Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MAILLET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE RECOVERY SERVICES CORP., Defendant,
Case No. 5:23-cv-00273 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2023) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

APPLE RECOVERY SERVICES CORP. is a third-party debt collection
agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
     Woodland Hills, CA 91364
     Telephone: (323) 306-4234
     Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com

ARMADA SKILLED: Bid to Decertify Class in Valencia Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GRETCHEN VALENCIA, individually and On behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARMADA SKILLED HOME CARE OF
NM LLC, ARMADA HOME HEALTHCARE OF SOCORRO, LLC, and CHRISTOPHER
TAPIA, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01071-DHU-JFR (D.N.M.), Judge
David Hererra Urias of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Mexico grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Motion
to Strike Ineligible Employees from the Class and to Decertify the
Class, filed June 29, 2021.

Named Plaintiff Valencia is a Registered Nurse who was employed by
the Defendants from October 2016 to November 2018. In this
position, she provided in-home healthcare services to patients.

On Nov. 15, 2019, the Plaintiff filed her First Amended Collective
and Class Action Complaint. She alleges the Defendants wrongfully
denied her and other home healthcare workers overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in given workweeks in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section
201, et seq., the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"), and the
New Mexico Wage Payment Act ("NMWPA").

The Plaintiff's overarching allegation is that the Defendants
violated FLSA, NMMWA, and the NMWPA by knowingly failing to pay
their home health workers all overtime premium wages due for the
overtime work they performed despite classifying them as non-exempt
under the FLSA and eligible for overtime pay. She states that the
Defendants maintained a policy and practice of paying home health
workers on a 'per event' basis for time spent visiting patients
based on a set visit rate for each visit completed of a certain
type.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants required home healthcare
workers to use a specific software to track their time on certain
tasks, but they do not use the software to log workers' time spent
on other tasks, like travel, preparing for visits, email,
voicemail, communicating with patients and other medical providers,
and coordinating care. As a result, she asserts that the Defendants
routinely permitted home health workers, including her, to work
more than 40 hours per week, but did not pay these workers overtime
wages at a rate of 1.5 times their regular rate.

On May 28, 2020, the Honorable Kenneth J. Gonzales granted the
Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Conditional Certification and
Issuance of Notice under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The Court found
that the Plaintiff made substantial allegations that the putative
class members are similarly situated, and therefore conditionally
certified the following collective ("FLSA Collective"): All
individuals who worked as home health Registered Nurses, Physical
Therapists, Occupational Therapists, Speech Therapists, Social
Workers, Certified Nursing Assistants, Certified Therapy
Assistants, Home Health Aides, Therapy Aides, and other
similarly-designated skilled and paraprofessional care positions
for Defendants during a period from three years prior to the entry
of the conditional certification order to the present.

After the Plaintiff mailed the 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) Notice and
Opt-In Consent Forms, potential plaintiffs were given 75 days to
return their Opt-In Forms to the Plaintiff's counsel for filing
with the Court. By the end of the opt-in period, 16 plaintiffs had
opted-in to the conditionally certified collective.

On June 29, 2021, the Defendants filed their Motion to Strike
Ineligible Employees from the Class and to Decertify the Class.
They move the Court to (1) strike ineligible employees who
attempted to join the conditional class and (2) decertify the class
because the lack of a sufficient number of class members dictate
that the class should be decertified and not tried as a class.

The Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition on July 27, 2021, and
the Defendants replied on Aug. 24, 2021. On April 13, 2022, the
Court ordered supplemental briefing regarding the applicability of
Thiessen v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 267 F.3d 1095 (10th Cir.
2001) to this matter. The parties submitted supplemental briefs and
responses as ordered.

Judge Hererra states that under Thiessen, the Court analyzes
several factors when evaluating a defendant's motion to decertify a
FLSA collective. In deciding a motion to decertify, the Court uses
a stricter standard of 'similarly situated,' as compared to the
standard used at the conditional certification stage. Specifically,
the Court examines (1) disparate factual and employment settings of
the individual plaintiffs; (2) the various defenses available to
defendant which appear individual to each plaintiff; and (3)
fairness and procedural considerations.

Regarding the first factor, Defendants argue there is no overriding
policy to deprive employees of overtime.

Judge Hererra finds the first factor weighs in favor of denying the
Defendant's motion to decertify. He says the Opt-In Plaintiffs
share largely similar factual and employment settings because they
all worked from the same centralized office under the same
management, share the common duty of providing home health care
services, are classified as "non-exempt," were paid on the same
"per event" basis, and used the same electronic system to record
their work time. This is sufficient for him to find that the first
factor indicates the Plaintiffs are similarly situated under
Section 216(b).

As to the second factor, the Defendant argues that individual
issues presented by these employees would predominate at trial. The
Plaintiff argues the Defendants have not identified any defenses
which appear to be individual to each plaintiff,  and even if they
had, the mere presence of defenses that might require
individualized inquiry does not mandate decertification if common
issues and facts predominate, as they do in the case.

Judge Hererra finds the second factor weighs in favor of denying
the Defendants' request for decertification. As a preliminary
matter, he says though the Defendants do not explicitly argue in
their decertification motion that there are individual defenses
that need to be litigated on an individual basis, many of the
Defendants' arguments in support of its request to strike certain
opt-in Plaintiffs appear to be assertions of individualized
defenses. Decertification would simply result in the Court having
to determine the application of the professional exemption in
different trials, which would not promote efficiency.

Finally, the Defendants argue the third factor weighs in their
favor because a trial of the action could not be coherently managed
given the differences in these employees' positions, circumstances
and employment agreements with Armada.

Judge Hererra finds the third factor weighs in favor of proceeding
collectively. He says the Plaintiffs' claims should be addressed
collectively as requiring them to present their claims individually
would be inefficient and likely expensive, and the facts and
circumstances underlying their claims are largely the same. As a
result, the third factor weighs in favor in proceeding
collectively. Considering all of the Thiessen factors together,
Judge Hererra concludes that the Defendants' motion for
decertification is denied.

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Hererra grants in part and
denies in part the Defendants' Motion. He strikes Opt-In Plaintiffs
Monique Calderon, Rachel Johnson, and Connie Heavner from the
collective. However, in all other respects, he denies the
Defendants' Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4yed2vjn from
Leagle.com.


AUDIBLE INC: Golden Bid to Seal Documents Temporarily Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Golden Unicorn
Enterprises, Inc. et al v. Audible, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-07059-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman
entered an order temporarily granting the motion to seal.

Any opposition to the motion shall be filed by February 8, 2023.
The Court will assess whether to keep the material at issue sealed
or redacted on a permanent basis when deciding the underlying
motions. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate 167.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs have redacted the street name and
number of Bonthu and her husband while leaving their city of
residence unredacted. The Plaintiffs have redacted the last seven
digits of thei telephone number, leaving the three-digit area code
unredacted, as this information is not "relevant to the performance
of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process."

The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is unlikely to turn
on Plaintiffs' precise addresses or telephone numbers, and, to the
extent the Court does consider this information, Plaintiffs'
redactions allow the public to know the cities of residence without
public disclosure of information which creates a risk of intrusion
by strangers into Plaintiffs' home (i.e., the Bonthus' precise
address and home telephone number).

Audible is an American online audiobook and podcast service that
allows users to purchase and stream audiobooks and other forms of
spoken word content.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chris Bagley, Esq.
          Gary Jackson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SCOTT FARRIN
          555 S. Mangum Street, Suite 800
          Durham, NC 27701
          Telephone: (919) 287-5037
          E-mail: cbagley@farrin.com

                - and -

          Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
          Andrei Rado, Esq.
          Leland Belew, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS & GROSSMAN
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, Floor 50
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (347) 668-8445
          E-mail: mbreit@milberg.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Review of Partial Dismissal of Barokas Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELINE BAROKAS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant,
Case No. 21-CV-2272 (ALC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr.,
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
denies Bank of America's motion for reconsideration of the Court's
Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss.

On March 16, 2021, Plaintiffs Tami Bruin and Eline Barokas brought
a putative class action suit against Bank of America asserting
claims under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, N.C.G.S. Section 75.1 ("NCUDTPA"); the New York
Deceptive Practices Act, N.Y.G.B.L. Section 349 ("NYDPA"); the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. Section 56:8-2 ("NJCFA"); and
an unjust enrichment claim. The Defendant moved to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On March 31, 2022, the Court issued the Order denying in part and
granting in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Specifically,
it dismissed Plaintiff Bruin and dismissed the NCUDTPA and unjust
enrichment causes of action. It denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the NYDPA and NJCFA claims for failure to state a claim.

Pending before the Court is the Defendant's motion for
reconsideration of the Court's Order.

Bank of America asks for reconsideration of the Court's decision
that the Plaintiff's NYDPA and NJCFA were legally sufficient;
however, it has not shown sufficient material facts or law that
would warrant overturning the Court's prior decision, Judge Carter
finds. He opines that the Defendant has identified no "clear error"
in the Order. It has provided no support for its assertion that the
Court misconstrued the Complaint. Bank of America's motion for
reconsideration is a bald attempt to take a "second bite at the
apple." But the Defendant has failed to indicate the exceptional
circumstances that would lead the Court to disturb its previously
reached conclusion.

The Plaintiff's arguments for reconsideration raised in its
opposition to the Defendant's motion also fail, Judge Carter holds.
The Plaintiff argues that the Court erred when it did not consider
Plaintiff Barokas' NCUDTPA claim and instead dismissed the claim
when it dismissed Plaintiff Bruin.

Judge Carter explains that under Local Rule, 6.3, any motion for
reconsideration or re-argument of a court order determining a
motion will be served within 14 days after the entry of the Court's
determination of the original motion. The Order was filed on March
31, 2022, making any motions for reconsideration due April 14,
2022. The Plaintiff first raised her arguments for reconsideration,
not in a motion as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b), but in her
memorandum in opposition to Defendant's motion, filed on April 27.
As such, her motion for reconsideration is untimely.

However, even if the Plaintiff's reconsideration was not untimely,
Judge Boyle points out that the request fails to raise any
"exceptional circumstances" that would warrant reconsideration,
since the Complaint does not state sufficient facts for Plaintiff
Barokas to sustain a claim under the NCUDTPA.

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Carter denies the Defendant's
motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court is directed to
terminate the motion at ECF No. 35.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc2jd8ye from Leagle.com.


BP EXPLORATION: All Claims in Stallworth and 7 Other Suits Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, STALLWORTH, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET
AL., SECTION "A". ALLEN, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET
AL., SECTION "A". DASCO, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET
AL., SECTION "A". POLK, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET
AL., SECTION "A". BRAGGS, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET
AL., SECTION "A". EDWARDS, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET
AL., SECTION "A". FOXWORTH, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC.,
ET AL., SECTION "A". DAVIS-SHERROD, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., ET AL., SECTION "A," Civil Action Nos. 17-3411, 17-3447,
17-3531, 17-3600, 17-3887, 17-3928, 17-3991, 17-4314 (E.D. La.),
Judge Jay C. Zainey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana:

   a. grants the Defendants' motions in limine and their motions
      for summary judgment;

   b. dismisses all of the Plaintiffs' claims against all of the
      Defendants with prejudice.

The captioned cases are B3 lawsuits that were allotted to this
section from Judge Barbier's MDL 2179 pertaining to the Deepwater
Horizon disaster that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. The
B3 pleading bundle includes personal injury claims due to oil or
chemical exposure during the disaster response. See In re Oil Spill
by Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in Gulf of Mexico, on April 20,
2010, No. MDL 2179, 2021 WL 6055613, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2021).
The B3 plaintiffs either opted out of the Medical Settlement or
were not members of the settlement class.

The plaintiff in each captioned B3 lawsuit was employed in the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill response effort and claims that
exposure to crude oil and chemical dispersants (the former being
released by the oil spill itself and the latter being used in the
cleanup process) caused various personal injuries, some temporary
and some long-term.

From the inception of the severed B3 cases, it has been understood
that to prevail B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of
the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals
used during the response. Because causation had proved to be the
critical element in the BELO cases, it was predicted to be the
"make-or-break" issue for many B3 cases as well. A B3 plaintiff
must prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is
exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the oil spill
response. The issue of causation will require an individualized
inquiry.

The plaintiff's burden with respect to causation in a toxic tort
case involves proof of both general causation and specific
causation. General causation is whether a substance is capable of
causing a particular injury or condition in the general population.
Specific causation is whether a substance caused a particular
individual's injury, i.e., the plaintiff's injury. If the
plaintiff's case fails at the first-step of producing admissible
evidence as to general causation, then the issue of specific
causation is rendered moot.

In each of the hundreds of B3 cases that were reassigned from MDL
2179 to the judges of this district, the plaintiff attempted to
prove both general and specific causation by relying on expert
medical doctor, Jerald Cook, M.D. Dr. Cook's expert report, of
which there have been several versions, has been described by
another judge as "an omnibus, non-case specific general causation
expert report that has been used by many B3 plaintiffs."
Unfortunately, no version of Dr. Cook's report has been accepted in
this district.

The motions in limine pertain to the Plaintiffs' use of Dr. Cook's
report, and the testimony that would derive from it at trial, as
evidence of both general and specific causation. The Movants seek
to exclude Dr. Cook's opinions on various grounds including the
principles espoused in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Again, Dr. Cook's report has been
rejected repeatedly under Daubert by the judges of this district.
If Dr. Cook's opinions are excluded from trial, then the Defendants
argue that their motion for summary judgment must be granted
because the Plaintiff in each case will have no expert medical
causation evidence, which would constitute a complete failure of
proof on an essential element of the case.

Judge Zainey has carefully studied and considered the numerous
decisions issued by the other judges of this district who have
determined that Dr. Cook's opinions should be excluded. For the
same reasons given by Judges Vance, Barbier, Morgan, Milazzo, and
Ashe when they granted the Defendants' motions in limine directed
at the same or even "improved" versions of Dr. Cook's report, Judge
Zainey has granted the Defendants' motions in limine in its own B3
cases on countless occasions.

For the same reasons, he grants the Defendants' motions in limine.
Consequently, he likewise grants the Defendants' motions for
summary judgment. All of the claims of the Plaintiffs against all
of the Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4v7c5e6x from Leagle.com.


BP EXPLORATION: All Deloach & Woodland Claims Tossed With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases captioned, DELOACH v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., ET AL. SECTION "A". WOODLAND v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., ET AL. SECTION "A," Civil Action Nos. 17-3149, 17-4240 (E.D.
La.), Judge Jay C. Zainey of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana:

   a. grants the Motions in Limine/Motions to Exclude filed in
      each of the captioned cases;

   b. grants the Motions for Summary Judgment filed in each of
      the captioned cases and dismisses all of the claims of the
      Plaintiffs against all of the Defendants in the captioned
      cases with prejudice; and

   c. denies the Plaintiffs' Motions for Spoliation of Evidence
      Relief filed in each of the captioned cases.

The captioned cases are B3 lawsuits that were allotted to this
section from Judge Barbier's MDL 2179 (In re Oil Spill by Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon" in Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, No. MDL
2179, 2021 WL 6055613, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2021) pertaining to
the Deepwater Horizon disaster that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico
in 2010. The B3 pleading bundle includes personal injury claims due
to oil or chemical exposure during the disaster response. The B3
plaintiffs either opted out of the Medical Settlement or were not
members of the settlement class.

The Plaintiff in each captioned B3 lawsuit was employed in the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill response effort and claims that
exposure to crude oil and chemical dispersants (the former being
released by the oil spill itself and the latter being used in the
cleanup process) caused various personal injuries, some temporary
and some long-term.

From the inception of the severed B3 cases, it has been understood
that to prevail B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of
the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals
used during the response. Because causation had proved to be the
critical element in the BELO cases, it was predicted to be the
"make-or-break" issue for many B3 cases as well. A B3 plaintiff
must prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is
exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the oil spill
response. The issue of causation will require an individualized
inquiry.

Judge Zainey explains that the plaintiff's burden with respect to
causation in a toxic tort case involves proof of both general
causation and specific causation. General causation is whether a
substance is capable of causing a particular injury or condition in
the general population. Specific causation is whether a substance
caused a particular individual's injury, i.e., the plaintiff's
injury. If the plaintiff's case fails at the first-step of
producing admissible evidence as to general causation, then the
issue of specific causation is rendered moot.

In each of the hundreds of B3 cases that were reassigned from MDL
2179 to the judges of this district, the plaintiff attempted to
prove both general and specific causation by relying on expert
medical doctor, Jerald Cook, M.D. Dr. Cook's expert report, of
which there have been several versions, has been described by
another judge as "an omnibus, non-case specific general causation
expert report that has been used by many B3 plaintiffs."
Unfortunately, no version of Dr. Cook's report has been accepted in
this district.

The motions in limine in the captioned cases pertain to the
Plaintiffs' use of Dr. Cook's report, and the testimony that would
derive from it at trial, as evidence of both general and specific
causation. The Movants seek to exclude Dr. Cook's opinions on
various grounds including the principles espoused in Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Again, Dr.
Cook's report has been rejected repeatedly under Daubert by the
judges of this district. If Dr. Cook's opinions are excluded from
trial, then the Defendants argue that their motion for summary
judgment must be granted because the Plaintiff in each case will
have no expert medical causation evidence, which would constitute a
complete failure of proof on an essential element of the case.

Judge Zainey has carefully studied and considered the numerous
decisions issued by the other judges of this district who have
determined that Dr. Cook's opinions should be excluded. For the
same reasons given by Judges Vance, Barbier, Morgan, Milazzo, and
Ashe when they granted the defendants' motions in limine directed
at the same or even "improved" versions of Dr. Cook's report, he
has granted the Defendants' motions in limine in its own B3 cases
on countless occasions. For the same reasons, he grants the
Defendants' motions in limine in the captioned cases. Consequently,
he likewise grants the Defendants' motions for summary judgment.

Finally, the plaintiff in each of the captioned cases has filed a
motion requesting that Dr. Cook's report be accepted as a sanction
against the Defendants due to issues of spoliation. Like the other
judges in this district, Judge Zainey has previously denied similar
spoliation motions. As such, he denies the Plaintiffs' spoliation
motions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 15, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yr3nbxjw from Leagle.com.


BP EXPLORATION: Butler and 3 Other Suits Dismissed With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases captioned, BUTLER v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., ET AL. SECTION "A". HARRIS v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., ET AL. SECTION "A". REEB v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., ET AL. SECTION "A". WENSEL v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., ET AL. SECTION "A," Civil Action Nos. 17-3075, 17-3268,
17-3602, 17-4629 (E.D. La.), Judge Jay C. Zainey of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana:

   a. grants the Motions in Limine/Motions to Exclude filed in
      each of the captioned cases;

   b. grants the Motions for Summary Judgment filed in each of
      the captioned cases and dismisses all of the claims of the
      Plaintiffs against all of the Defendants in the captioned
      cases with prejudice; and

   c. denies the Plaintiffs' Motions for Spoliation of Evidence
      Relief filed in each of the captioned cases.

The captioned cases are B3 lawsuits that were allotted to this
section from Judge Barbier's MDL 2179 (In re Oil Spill by Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon" in Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, No. MDL
2179, 2021 WL 6055613, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2021) pertaining to
the Deepwater Horizon disaster that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico
in 2010. The B3 pleading bundle includes personal injury claims due
to oil or chemical exposure during the disaster response. The B3
plaintiffs either opted out of the Medical Settlement or were not
members of the settlement class.

The Plaintiff in each captioned B3 lawsuit was employed in the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill response effort and claims that
exposure to crude oil and chemical dispersants (the former being
released by the oil spill itself and the latter being used in the
cleanup process) caused various personal injuries, some temporary
and some long-term.

From the inception of the severed B3 cases, it has been understood
that to prevail B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of
the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals
used during the response. Because causation had proved to be the
critical element in the BELO cases, it was predicted to be the
"make-or-break" issue for many B3 cases as well. A B3 plaintiff
must prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is
exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the oil spill
response. The issue of causation will require an individualized
inquiry.

Judge Zainey explains that the plaintiff's burden with respect to
causation in a toxic tort case involves proof of both general
causation and specific causation. General causation is whether a
substance is capable of causing a particular injury or condition in
the general population. Specific causation is whether a substance
caused a particular individual's injury, i.e., the plaintiff's
injury. If the plaintiff's case fails at the first-step of
producing admissible evidence as to general causation, then the
issue of specific causation is rendered moot.

In each of the hundreds of B3 cases that were reassigned from MDL
2179 to the judges of this district, the plaintiff attempted to
prove both general and specific causation by relying on expert
medical doctor, Jerald Cook, M.D. Dr. Cook's expert report, of
which there have been several versions, has been described by
another judge as "an omnibus, non-case specific general causation
expert report that has been used by many B3 plaintiffs."
Unfortunately, no version of Dr. Cook's report has been accepted in
this district.

The motions in limine in the captioned cases pertain to the
Plaintiffs' use of Dr. Cook's report, and the testimony that would
derive from it at trial, as evidence of both general and specific
causation. The Movants seek to exclude Dr. Cook's opinions on
various grounds including the principles espoused in Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Again, Dr.
Cook's report has been rejected repeatedly under Daubert by the
judges of this district. If Dr. Cook's opinions are excluded from
trial, then the Defendants argue that their motion for summary
judgment must be granted because the Plaintiff in each case will
have no expert medical causation evidence, which would constitute a
complete failure of proof on an essential element of the case.

Judge Zainey has carefully studied and considered the numerous
decisions issued by the other judges of this district who have
determined that Dr. Cook's opinions should be excluded. For the
same reasons given by Judges Vance, Barbier, Morgan, Milazzo, and
Ashe when they granted the defendants' motions in limine directed
at the same or even "improved" versions of Dr. Cook's report, he
has granted the Defendants' motions in limine in its own B3 cases
on countless occasions. For the same reasons, he grants the
Defendants' motions in limine in the captioned cases. Consequently,
he likewise grants the Defendants' motions for summary judgment.

Finally, the plaintiff in each of the captioned cases has filed a
motion requesting that Dr. Cook's report be accepted as a sanction
against the Defendants due to issues of spoliation. Like the other
judges in this district, Judge Zainey has previously denied similar
spoliation motions. As such, he denies the Plaintiffs' spoliation
motions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 15, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3jhj6ctv from Leagle.com.


BP EXPLORATION: Lewis & Mayfield Claims Dismissed With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases captioned, LEWIS v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC.,
ET AL. SECTION "A". MAYFIELD v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC.,
ET AL. SECTION "A," Civil Action Nos. 17-3330, 17-3364 (E.D. La.),
Judge Jay C. Zainey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana:

   a. grants the Motions in Limine/Motions to Exclude filed in
      each of the captioned cases;

   b. grants the Motions for Summary Judgment filed in each of
      the captioned cases and dismisses all of the claims of the
      Plaintiffs against all of the Defendants in the captioned
      cases with prejudice; and

   c. denies the Plaintiffs' Motions for Spoliation of Evidence
      Relief filed in each of the captioned cases.

The captioned cases are B3 lawsuits that were allotted to this
section from Judge Barbier's MDL 2179 (In re Oil Spill by Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon" in Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, No. MDL
2179, 2021 WL 6055613, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2021) pertaining to
the Deepwater Horizon disaster that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico
in 2010. The B3 pleading bundle includes personal injury claims due
to oil or chemical exposure during the disaster response. The B3
plaintiffs either opted out of the Medical Settlement or were not
members of the settlement class.

The Plaintiff in each captioned B3 lawsuit was employed in the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill response effort and claims that
exposure to crude oil and chemical dispersants (the former being
released by the oil spill itself and the latter being used in the
cleanup process) caused various personal injuries, some temporary
and some long-term.

From the inception of the severed B3 cases, it has been understood
that to prevail B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of
the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals
used during the response. Because causation had proved to be the
critical element in the BELO cases, it was predicted to be the
"make-or-break" issue for many B3 cases as well. A B3 plaintiff
must prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is
exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the oil spill
response. The issue of causation will require an individualized
inquiry.

Judge Zainey explains that the plaintiff's burden with respect to
causation in a toxic tort case involves proof of both general
causation and specific causation. General causation is whether a
substance is capable of causing a particular injury or condition in
the general population. Specific causation is whether a substance
caused a particular individual's injury, i.e., the plaintiff's
injury. If the plaintiff's case fails at the first-step of
producing admissible evidence as to general causation, then the
issue of specific causation is rendered moot.

In each of the hundreds of B3 cases that were reassigned from MDL
2179 to the judges of this district, the plaintiff attempted to
prove both general and specific causation by relying on expert
medical doctor, Jerald Cook, M.D. Dr. Cook's expert report, of
which there have been several versions, has been described by
another judge as "an omnibus, non-case specific general causation
expert report that has been used by many B3 plaintiffs."
Unfortunately, no version of Dr. Cook's report has been accepted in
this district.

The motions in limine in the captioned cases pertain to the
Plaintiffs' use of Dr. Cook's report, and the testimony that would
derive from it at trial, as evidence of both general and specific
causation. The Movants seek to exclude Dr. Cook's opinions on
various grounds including the principles espoused in Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Again, Dr.
Cook's report has been rejected repeatedly under Daubert by the
judges of this district. If Dr. Cook's opinions are excluded from
trial, then the Defendants argue that their motion for summary
judgment must be granted because the Plaintiff in each case will
have no expert medical causation evidence, which would constitute a
complete failure of proof on an essential element of the case.

Judge Zainey has carefully studied and considered the numerous
decisions issued by the other judges of this district who have
determined that Dr. Cook's opinions should be excluded. For the
same reasons given by Judges Vance, Barbier, Morgan, Milazzo, and
Ashe when they granted the defendants' motions in limine directed
at the same or even "improved" versions of Dr. Cook's report, he
has granted the Defendants' motions in limine in its own B3 cases
on countless occasions. For the same reasons, he grants the
Defendants' motions in limine in the captioned cases. Consequently,
he likewise grants the Defendants' motions for summary judgment.

Finally, the plaintiff in each of the captioned cases has filed a
motion requesting that Dr. Cook's report be accepted as a sanction
against the Defendants due to issues of spoliation. Like the other
judges in this district, Judge Zainey has previously denied similar
spoliation motions. As such, he denies the Plaintiffs' spoliation
motions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 15, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2s48ucst from Leagle.com.


BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: Caughey Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mathew Caughey, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation,
Case No. GD-23-000578 was removed from the Allegheny County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
Feb. 17, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00264-CRE to the
proceeding.

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

Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation -- https://www.bridgecrest.com/
-- offers financial services. The Company provides car and vehicle
loans and online payment services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chandler Steiger, Esq.
          Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
          Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
          Stephanie Moore, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP
          6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
          Pittsburgh, PA 15208
          Phone: (717) 491-9162
          Email: csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
                 kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
                 ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
                 smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Justin J. Kontul, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          Reed Smith Centre
          225 Fifth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2716
          Phone: (412) 288-3098
          Fax: (412) 288-3063
          Email: jkontul@reedsmith.com


BRILLIANT EARTH: Roberson Suit Alleges Illegal Wiretapping
----------------------------------------------------------
TANISHA ROBERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRILLIANT EARTH GROUP, INC. f/k/a
BRILLIANT EARTH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00987 (N.D. Ill.,
Feb. 17, 2023) is a class action brought by an Illinois citizen
against the California-headquartered company Brilliant Earth for
collection without prior consent of the hand geometry data of
Plaintiff and a potential class of other visitors to Brilliant
Earth's website who used the Virtual Try-On feature, violating the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint that unbeknownst to the website
user—including Plaintiff and the other Class members—Defendant
collects detailed and sensitive biometric identifiers and
information, including complete hand geometry scans, of its users
through the Virtual Try-On feature, and it does this without first
obtaining their consent, or informing them that this data is being
collected.

In addition, and in direct violation of BIPA, Defendant does not
provide users with a schedule setting out the length of time during
which their biometric information or biometric identifiers will be
collected, stored, used, or will be destroyed, says the suit.

BRILLIANT EARTH GROUP, INC. designs and manufactures jewelry
products. The Company offers diamonds, gemstones, and jewelry such
as rings, earrings, and necklaces online and through showrooms.
Brilliant Earth Group serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Steven Sukert, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON
          WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                 sukert@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

CATALENT INC: Labaton Sucharow Discloses Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") announces that, on
February 24, 2023, it filed a securities class action lawsuit (the
"Complaint") on behalf of its client City of Warwick Retirement
System against Catalent, Inc. ("Catalent" or the "Company") (NYSE:
CTLT) and certain Catalent officers (collectively, "Defendants").
The action, which is captioned City of Warwick Retirement System v.
Catalent, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-1108 (D.N.J.), asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act"), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Catalent securities
between August 30, 2021 and October 31, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Catalent is a multinational corporation that manufactures and
packages drugs into delivery devices fit for human consumption
(i.e., pre-filled syringes, vials, pills, etc.) pursuant to
long-term supply contracts with pharmaceutical companies. Catalent
directly sells these products to pharmaceutical companies which
later sell them through the supply chain to healthcare providers
(i.e., hospitals, clinics, etc.), which administer them to
patients, who are the end consumers. Catalent's vaccine
manufacturing business initially benefitted from the COVID-19
pandemic, causing its stock price to soar to record highs.

The Complaint alleges that by mid-2021, when COVID-related work
dropped off, Defendants engaged in accounting and channel stuffing
schemes to pad the Company's revenues. These schemes gave Catalent
the appearance of continued growth, causing its stock price to
reach record highs. Meanwhile, to support these schemes and keep
pace with its lofty growth targets, Catalent was cutting corners on
safety and control procedures at key production facilities. By late
2022, Catalent reported significant sales declines and excess
inventory throughout its supply chain. As a result, Catalent stock
dropped to pre-COVID levels causing substantial losses to its
investors as they learned that Catalent's early-COVID revenues were
never sustainable, and its Class Period revenues were the product
of securities fraud.

The Complaint further alleges that statements made by Defendants
throughout the Class Period were materially false and misleading
when made because they misrepresented or failed to disclose the
following adverse facts, which were known to Defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them: (a) Catalent materially overstated
its revenue and earnings by prematurely recognizing revenue in
violation of U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
("GAAP"); (b) Catalent had material weaknesses in its internal
control over financial reporting related to revenue recognition;
(c) Catalent falsely represented demand for its products while it
knowingly sold more product to its direct customers than could be
sold to healthcare providers and end consumers; (d) Catalent
disregarded regulatory rules at key production facilities in order
to rapidly produce excess inventory that was used to pad the
Company's financial results through premature revenue recognition
in violation of GAAP and/or stuffing its direct customers with this
excess inventory; and (e) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants
lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the
Company's financial performance, outlook, and regulatory compliance
during the Class Period.

If you purchased or acquired Catalent securities during the Class
Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class"
and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead
Plaintiff motion papers must be filed no later than April 25, 2023.
The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent
members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead
Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action. If you are
a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share
in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel
of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P.
McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (212) 907-0650, or via
email at fmcconville@labaton.com. You can view a copy of the
complaint online here.

City of Warwick Retirement System is represented by Labaton
Sucharow, which represents many of the largest pension funds in the
United States and internationally with combined assets under
management of more than $2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow's litigation
reputation is built on its half-century of securities litigation
experience, more than sixty full-time attorneys, and in-house team
of investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants.
Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the
courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading industry
publications. Offices are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE,
and Washington, D.C. More information about Labaton Sucharow is
available at www.labaton.com.[GN]

CLOVER HEALTH: Bid for Class Certification in Bond Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIMOTHY BOND, Lead Plaintiff and JEAN-NICOLAS
TREMBLAY, Named Plaintiff, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CLOVER HEALTH INVESTMENTS, CORP. f/k/a SOCIAL
CAPITAL HEDOSOPHIA HOLDINGS CORP. III, VIVEK GARIPALLI, ANDREW TOY,
JOE WAGNER, and CHAMATH PALIHAPITIYA, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-00096 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville
Division, grants Firas Jabri and Jean-Nicholas Tremblay's Motion
for Class Certification.

Jabri and Tremblay have filed a Motion for Class Certification, to
which Defendants Clover Health Investments, Corp. f/k/a Social
Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. III ("SCH"), Garipalli, Toy,
Wagner, and Palihapitiya have filed a Response, and Jabri and
Tremblay have filed a Reply.

In 1997, Congress created 'Medicare Part C,' sometimes referred to
as Medicare Advantage (MA). Under Part C, beneficiaries may choose
to have the government pay their private insurance premiums rather
than pay for their hospital care directly. Garipalli founded the
original Clover in 2013 for the purpose of providing MA plans.

United States securities laws allow the public trading of so-called
"special purpose acquisition companies" -- also referred to as
"SPACs" or "blank check companies." A SPAC typically has no
operating history, assets, revenue, or operations" of its own.
Rather, a SPAC exists to become publicly traded itself and then "to
buy a private company" -- one that actually provides a good or
service but is not yet publicly traded -- thereby allowing
investors to "effectively take the acquired company public while
avoiding the traditional initial public offering (IPO) process. SCH
was a SPAC, and, on Oct. 6, 2020, it announced that it would be
fulfilling its mission by acquiring Clover.

As the Clover/SCH merger moved forward, the companies and their
executives made various public statements about the transaction
and/or Clover's business model, either to the press or in filings
to the SEC. According to the Plaintiffs, many of those statements
were false or misleading because they concealed or failed to
disclose, among other things, that (i) the Company had committed
multiple legal and regulatory violations since January 1, 2018 and
was under investigation by the DOJ for violations of the False
Claims Act; and (ii) Clover's financial statements did not comply
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) because they
failed to disclose material agreements and transactions with
related parties.

On Feb. 4, 2021 -- after the combination of SCH and the original
Clover into a single business under the Clover name -- a market
research firm called Hindenburg Research released a report that,
according to the Plaintiffs, brought the truth about Clover's
flawed operations to light. The Plaintiffs have provided an expert
report of economist Matthew D. Cain, Ph.D., explaining that, when
news of the Hindenburg Report reached the market, the value of
Clover stock fell by more than 13%, wiping out a substantial amount
of value held by investors who had purchased their shares at prices
set by the pre-Hindenburg Report market.

On Feb. 5, 2021, Timothy Bond filed a Complaint against Clover and
some of its executives, stating claims under Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act against all defendants and under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against the individual defendants. A few other
plaintiffs filed similar cases, which were consolidated with the
original.

The Court selected Jabri for the role. It also approved Pomerantz
LLP as the Lead Counsel and Bramlett Law Firm as the Liaison
Counsel. On June 28, 2021, Jabri -- joined by Tremblay, who shares
the same counsel -- filed an Amended Complaint. On Aug. 27, 2021,
the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which the Court denied on
Feb. 28, 2022.

On July 1, 2022, Jabri and Tremblay filed a Motion for Class
Certification, asking the Court to certify the following class
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:" All
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities
of Clover Health Investments Corp. (Clover or the Company) between
October 6, 2020 and February 3, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
Class Period)."

Jabri and Tremblay ask to be appointed as the Class Representatives
and ask to appoint Pomerantz LLP as the Class Counsel. The
Defendants oppose the motion.

Judge Trauger states that compliance with Rule 23(a) requires the
proposed class to satisfy each of four requirements, typically
referred to as (1) numerosity, (2) commonality, (3) typicality and
(4) adequacy of representation. Then, if putative class
representatives are able to meet all four of the requirements of
Rule 23(a), they next must produce evidence sufficient to establish
that their case falls within at least one of the three types of
case listed as appropriate for class resolution in Rule 23(b).

There are ultimately two contested questions before the Court:
whether the named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class, as required by Rule 23(a)(4); and whether
questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members, such that a class
action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy, as required by Rule
23(b)(3).

The Defendants argue that these Plaintiffs cannot prevail on the
first of those issues because their behavior during and around the
litigation shows that they would not be good stewards of the claims
of other class members. They argue that the Plaintiffs cannot
prevail on the second issue because they cannot show that the class
members' fraud claims will primarily rise or fall together through
a single theory of classwide fraud.

Judge Trauger holds that the Plaintiffs maintain have established a
classwide theory of reliance based on the fact that the Defendants'
alleged fraud directly affected the price of publicly traded Clover
stock and therefore tainted every purchase of that stock during the
Class Period.

Judge Trauger concludes that the Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule
23(b)(3) -- in addition to satisfying Rule 23(a) -- and have met
the requirements for certification of their class. Moreover, she
finds that Jabri and Tremblay will be adequate class
representatives and that Pomerantz LLP, which is an established and
experienced firm with substantial securities-related expertise,
will be adequate class counsel.

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification is granted.

An appropriate order will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2023 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4djut9v5 from Leagle.com.


COREWELL HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dove Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE DOVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COREWELL HEALTH F/K/A SPECTRUM HEALTH
SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00182 (W.D. Mich., Feb. 20,
2023) is an action against the Defendant for unpaid regular hours,
overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest
periods.

Plaintiff Dove was employed by the Defendant as care provider.

COREWELL HEALTH F/K/A SPECTRUM HEALTH SYSTEM operates as a
non-profit health care organization. The Organization provides
detoxification, clinical stabilization services and residential
treatment, dining room, fitness center, peer recovery, addiction
and mental illness, anger management, adolescent, and medical
counseling services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer McManus, Esq.
          FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C.
          25892 Woodward Avenue
          Royal Oak, MI
          Telephone: (248) 658-8951
          Facsimile: (248) 542-6301
          Email: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com

               - and -

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
                 austin@a2xlaw.com
                 carter@a2xlaw.com

CSX TRANSPORTATION: Seeks to Postpone Class Cert. Proceedings
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jimmy Edwards, et al., v.
CSX Transportation, Inc., Case No. 7:18-cv-00169-BO (E.D.N.C.),
CSXT moves the Court to:

   1. stay briefing and determination of plaintiffs' motion for
      class certification pending resolution of CSXT's pending
      summary judgment motion.

   2. grant the unopposed request that briefing on class
      certification proceed on the same briefing schedule set
      for CSXT's summary judgment motion, such that CSXT's
      response to Plaintiff's class certification motion is due
      March 13, 2023 and Plaintiff's reply is due April 3, 2023.

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

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          April N. Ross, Esq.
          Scott L. Winkelman, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          1001 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20004
          Telephone: (202) 624-2500
          Facsimile: (202) 628-5116
          E-mail: aross@crowell.com
                  swinkelman@crowell.com

                - and -

          Henry L. Kitchin, Jr., Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          Wilmington, NC 28401
          Telephone: (910) 254-3800
          Facsimile: (910) 254-3900
          E-mail: hkitchin@mcguirewoods.com

CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Faces Suit for Keeping 300 People in Jail
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Ferrise at cleveland.com reports that a potential class-action
lawsuit accuses Cuyahoga County of keeping nearly 300 people in
jail long after they were supposed to be released.

The lawsuit filed in federal court late Thursday said the county
continued keeping people behind bars after judges ordered them
released or after prosecutors declined to pursue charges.

The issue is a longstanding one at the county. The lawsuit cites
cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer's reporting on the issue in
2018. Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb criticized the county over the
same issue last year and called on the county to reform its
practices.

"For at least two years now, Cuyahoga County has been systemically
overdetaining people in jail after the legal basis for their
detention," said Kate Schwartz, one of several attorneys who filed
the case. "It's a flagrant violation of people's most fundamental
constitutional rights to freedom from unwarranted physical
detention."

Tyler Sinclair, a spokesman for Cuyahoga County, said officials
will review the lawsuit once the county has been served. He
declined further comment.

The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Bridget Brennan, who
will ultimately decide whether or not to grant class-action
status.

The lawsuit was filed by Schwartz and two other attorneys from the
Chicago law firm Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym; New York civil
rights attorney Akeeb Dami Animashaun; Cleveland attorney Drew
Legando; and attorneys for Justice Catalyst Law, a nonprofit human
and civil rights organization.

The group filed the lawsuit on behalf of Alanna Dunn, a Cleveland
woman who spent two days in jail after Cleveland police and
prosecutors decided not to press charges against her.

Dunn is one of at least 289 people the lawsuit said has been
"overdetained" in 2021 and 2022. Overdetention, in legal terms, is
defined as someone who has been imprisoned longer than legally
authorized.

Attorneys said they believe many more could have been overdetained
in the jail during that time frame because they based their number
solely off Cleveland police officers' arrests.

Cleveland police in 2018 began bringing fresh arrests to the county
jail, instead of the city jail, which closed as part of a deal with
the county. County officials pushed to house Cleveland's inmates
because they believed it would generate revenue. For each inmate,
they charged cities $99 per day while cutting costs for basic
inmate care below that amount.

People were overdetained from one to 56 days, according to the
lawsuit. Most months, about a dozen people spent time in jail
longer than they were supposed to, although 26 people were
overdetained in August 2021 and 21 in December.

The lawsuit said 159 people were kept in the facility longer than
they should have been in 2021 and 130 last year.

Schwartz said attorneys based the numbers on monthly reports that
showed Cuyahoga County overbilled the city for inmates who were
supposed to have been released.

The number does not include any other police agency that booked
inmates into the county jail. Schwartz said she expects that number
to grow as attorneys investigate timelines for inmates arrested by
suburban police.

"The bottom line is that we know it's in the hundreds of people who
have been affected, and we expect that's just a fraction of the
total people impacted," Schwartz said.

The two-years' worth of Cleveland monthly reports should have
served as warnings to county officials that they were violating
people's due process rights, the lawsuit said.

Dunn was initially arrested about 1 a.m. March 30, 2021, and booked
into the Cuyahoga County Jail. By 4 p.m., Cleveland police declined
to prosecute Dunn and entered that decision into the Law
Enforcement Records Management System, an interagency database that
helps share information between police officials, including those
in the jail.

Dunn had no other reason to be jailed, including no active
warrants, the lawsuit said. She remained jailed until about 2:30
p.m. on April 1.

"The county's widespread and systematic overdetention of people in
its custody results in serious harm," the lawsuit said. "Even a
single additional night in jail can severely disrupt a person's
life and have lasting destabilizing and traumatic effects."[GN]

EARGO INC: Securities Class Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE EARGO, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. This document
relates to all consolidated cases, Case No. 21-cv-08597-CRB (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the Eargo Defendants and the
IPO Underwriters' motions to dismiss the amended consolidated class
action complaint in its entirety with leave to amend.

The consolidated putative securities class action alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"). Lead Plaintiffs
IBEW Local 353 Pension Plan and Xiaobin Cai, purchasers of Eargo's
publicly traded stock, allege that the company and its executives,
directors, and IPO underwriters falsely or misleadingly inflated
Eargo's revenue and growth opportunities because the company's
business model was incompatible with the requirements for federal
insurance reimbursement. The Plaintiffs also claim that Eargo
falsely or misleadingly downplayed an insurance audit, which
eventually became the subject of a Department of Justice
investigation for insurance fraud.

Eargo was founded in San Jose, California in 2010. It went public
in October 2020. Eargo makes and directly sells air conduction
hearing aids to people with mild-to-moderate hearing loss. Eargo's
president and CEO is Christian Gormsen, and its CFO is Adam
Laponis. Both corporate officers are named as defendants in the
suit, along with members of Eargo's board of directors, and its IPO
underwriters -- J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, BofA Securities, Inc.,
Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, and William Blair & Company, L.L.C.

The Lead Plaintiffs are IBEW Local 353 Pension Plan, a
multi-employer defined benefit pension plan, and Xiaobin Cai, an
individual. The Lead Plaintiffs purchased shares of Eargo common
stock and now allege that they purchased the shares at artificially
inflated prices and suffered damages because of the Defendants'
alleged violations of federal securities laws. They purport to
represent investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Eargo between Nov. 20, 2020, and March 2, 2022 ("Class
Period").

Eargo developed a telecare business model that eliminates the need
for in-person visits to hearing aid professionals and instead
relies on an in-house team of hearing aid dispensers who are
licensed in one or more states to advise customers on their hearing
aid needs. Customers do not need to have a hearing test to order
Eargo's hearing solution, and Eargo provides a do-it-yourself
hearing test. The telecare model allows Eargo to sell their
products online, cutting out the middleman and reducing the time it
takes for customers to receive their hearing aid to as little as
three days, compared to weeks or months under the traditional
model.

Eargo shifted its strategy in 2017 to target customers with Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) insurance benefits, which
provide hearing aid coverage. However, to submit claims for
reimbursement, FEHBP carriers require a hearing loss diagnosis,
which typically requires a hearing test performed by a healthcare
provider, and claims must be supported by a determination of
"medical necessity." Eargo allegedly submitted false insurance
claims that purported to meet FEHBP insurance requirements, even
though they did not, resulting in inflated revenue and guidance
figures. This strategy initially allowed Eargo to expand its
customer base and increase revenue, with insurance customers
comprising 45% of Eargo's total customer base by the end of 2020.

Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) requested Eargo to provide medical
records for 28 BCBS members in a letter mailed on March 15, 2021.
Failure to comply with the request could result in negative
consequences for Eargo's claim payments. Eargo received two more
letters from BCBS regarding irregularities in billing and the need
for additional review of submitted claims. Eargo disclosed in its
Q1 and Q2 2021 filings that it was subject to an audit by its
largest third-party payor and claims submitted since March 1, 2021,
had not been paid. Eargo's CFO stated that the audit was an
education of their business model, and the claims submitted were
valid and reimbursable. Eargo's stock price dropped by over 24%
after the Q2 filing, but Eargo's CEO stated that BCBS was not
questioning claims, the device delivered, or the delivery of
audiology, but rather defining a process for streamlined claim
approval.

Eargo filed a SEC Form 8-K in September 2021 notifying shareholders
of a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice into the
company's insurance reimbursement claims. The announcement caused a
68% drop in Eargo's stock price. In January 2022, Eargo disclosed
that the criminal investigation was no longer active and had been
referred to the Civil Division. In March 2022, Eargo offered
affected customers the option to return their hearing aids or
purchase them without using insurance benefits. In April 2022, the
DOJ announced a $34.37 million settlement with Eargo for alleged
False Claims Act violations related to unsupported diagnosis codes
on claims for hearing aid devices submitted to federal employee
health plans. Eargo denied wrongdoing.

Several investors filed lawsuits against Eargo, alleging violations
of federal securities law. The lawsuits were consolidated, and the
Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint alleging violations of the Securities Act and the
Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that Eargo and its executives
made numerous false or misleading statements in Eargo's Offering
Documents and in later SEC disclosures, and acted with scienter.
The Plaintiffs allege that Eargo submitted false insurance claims
that did not meet FEHBP insurance requirements, and that Eargo
overstated its revenue and guidance by accounting for insurance
reimbursements. Pending now are separate motions to dismiss filed
by the Eargo Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants.

The Plaintiffs assert claims under (A) Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act against Eargo, Gormsen, and Laponis, plus
members of Eargo's Board of Directors who signed the Offering
Materials, and the underwriters for Eargo's IPO. They also bring
claims under (B) Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against Eargo, Gormsen, and Laponis.

Judge Breyer examines the Securities Act claims.

First, the Plaintiffs argue that the Rule 8(a) pleading standard
should apply because the Complaint separates allegations for the
negligence-based claims under the Securities Act and the
fraud-based claims under Exchange Act. Eargo and the Underwriters
disagree because both set of the Plaintiffs' claims are premised on
fraud allegations.

Judge Breyer holds that the Defendants have the better argument. He
says the Plaintiffs cannot circumvent the heightened pleading
standard because their Securities Act allegations generally mirror
their fraud-based allegations under the Exchange Act. That is, both
the Securities Act and Exchange Act claims are based on Eargo's
alleged fraudulent act of submitting false or improper insurance
claims. Tellingly, in pleading the Securities Act violations, the
Plaintiffs expressly incorporate and reallege the fraud-based
allegations from the Exchange Act section of the Complaint. As both
set of claims are premised on fraud, the heightened pleading
requirements of Rule 9(b) apply to assess the sufficiency of
Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims.

Next, the hundreds of challenged statements, as pleaded in the
Complaint, generally fall into three categories: (a) unaudited
financial results; (b) statements concerning available insurance
coverage; and (c) risk factors concerning uncertainty surrounding
available insurance and Eargo's compliance with law.

Judge Breyer finds that (i) the Plaintiffs make no allegations that
establish a trend that Eargo knew its insurance claims were false
or improper and that consequently its submissions would be denied;
(ii) the challenged statements about Eargo's insurance
opportunities fall into one or more of the recognized defenses;
(iii) the Plaintiffs have not pleaded actionable claims under
Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act; and (iv) because
the Plaintiffs have not pleaded underlying violations of Sections
11 or 12, their Section 15 claim against a "control person" of the
company fails, too.

Judge Breyer turns to the Plaintiffs' second set of claims brought
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Eargo,
Gormsen and Laponis. Eargo challenges the sufficiency of the
Plaintiffs' allegations with respect to only the first two
elements: (1) the falsity of Eargo's statements and (2) whether
they were made with scienter. The "more exacting pleading
requirements" of the PSLRA require that the complaint plead both
falsity and scienter with particularity.

As to falsity and misrepresentation, Judge Breyer finds that the
statement about validation of customer eligibility is ambiguous,
and both readings of the phrase are plausible and the Plaintiffs do
adequately plead that Gormsen downplayed the audit at the Wells
Fargo Investor Conference. Hence, the Plaintiffs fail to plead with
particularity that the Eargo Defendants acted with scienter.

As to scienter, Judge Breyer finds that the Plaintiffs have not
pleaded particularized facts showing a strong inference of scienter
with respect to any of the challenged statements. Their Section
10(b) claim is therefore dismissed. And because the Plaintiffs have
failed to state an underlying federal securities law violation,
their Section 20(a) claim against a "control person" fails, too.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Breyer grants the Defendants'
motions to dismiss with leave to amend.

Should the Plaintiffs elect to file an amended complaint curing the
deficiencies identified in the Order, they will do so within 30
days of the Order. Failure to meet the 30-day deadline to file an
amended complaint or failure to cure the deficiencies identified in
the Order will result in a dismissal with prejudice of the
Plaintiffs' claims. The Plaintiffs may not add new causes of action
or parties without leave of the Court or stipulation of the parties
pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2s3w7dx2 from Leagle.com.


EF INSTITUTE: Loses Bid to Dismiss & Strike Douglas' Class Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MELISSA DOUGLAS, et al., Plaintiffs v. EF INSTITUTE
FOR CULTURAL EXCHANGE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-11740-DJC (M. Mass.), Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts denies the
Defendants' motion to dismiss and to strike the class allegations.

Plaintiffs Melissa Douglas, Thomas Aikins and Sarah Kahl, on behalf
of themselves and a purported class have filed the lawsuit against
Defendants EF Education First International, Ltd., EF Institute for
Cultural Exchange, Inc. and EF Explore America, Inc. (collectively,
"Defendants" or "EF Tours") alleging violations of Mass. Gen. L. c.
93A. The Plaintiffs seek class certification, an injunction against
EF Tours and an order requiring EF Tours to offer each class member
the options required under 940 C.M.R. Section 15.06.

The Plaintiffs bring a single claim under Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A
("Chapter 93A") based on an alleged violation of 940 C.M.R. Section
15.06 ("Section 15.06"). They allege that the Defendants acted
unfairly and deceptively when the Defendants failed to honor the
Plaintiffs' election of full cash refunds after the Defendants
canceled the tours they purchased in response to the COVID-19
pandemic.

The original lead plaintiff instituted the action in the District
Court for the Southern District of California. In September 2020,
the case was transferred to this Court. The Plaintiffs filed their
second amended complaint on Dec. 7, 2020. The Defendants moved to
dismiss and the Court denied the motion. The Defendants also moved
to certify questions to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
and the Court denied the motion. The Plaintiffs moved to amend the
second amended complaint and the Court denied it.

The Defendants have now moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint again for lack of standing and to strike the class
allegations. Judge Casper heard the parties on the pending motion
and took the matter under advisement.

Judge Casper holds that at this stage, the Named Plaintiffs have
standing to assert claims on behalf of the proposed class. Should
it prove impossible, however, to eliminate uninjured members of the
proposed class in a manageable, individualized process at or before
trial, the Court will be bound to deny class certification under In
re Asacol Antitrust Litig., 907 F.3d 42, 58 (1st Cir. 2018).
Accordingly, she denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs' proposed class is defined as "all persons in the
United States: (i) who purchased travel services from EF Tours;
(ii) for whom EF Tours failed to provide the purchased travel
services; and (iii) for whom EF Tours have not offered the option
of electing a full cash refund of the amount they paid for the
undelivered travel services."

The Defendants argue that the allegations and the class definition
in the second amended complaint cannot be construed as anything but
a 'fail-safe' class that cannot be certified" and that the Court
should strike the class allegations pursuant to Federal Rules 12(f)
and 23.

Judge Casper denies the Defendants' motion to strike the class
allegations. She finds that at this juncture, it is not obvious
from the pleadings that the proceeding cannot possibly move forward
on a classwide basis, or that a potential fail-safe issue cannot be
solved by refining the class definition. Given that the Plaintiffs
have not filed a motion for class certification and the parties
have not yet completed discovery before such motion will be filed,
she will await the development of a factual record before
determining whether the case should move forward on a
representative basis.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Casper denies the Defendants'
motion to dismiss and to strike class allegations.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2476fy4r from Leagle.com.


EMORY UNIVERSITY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC SCHULTZ, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. EMORY UNIVERSITY,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02002-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order granting a 14-day extension of time to file his
reply in support of his motion for class certification and to serve
any expert rebuttal reports in support of same through and
including Friday, March 3, 2023.

On January 18, 2023, after receiving leave to file excess pages,
the Defendant Emory University filed its opposition to Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification and contemporaneously disclosed its
expert witness, Dr. Benjamin Wilner, PhD.

Emory University is a private research university in Atlanta,
Georgia. Founded in 1836 as "Emory College" by the Methodist
Episcopal Church and named in honor of Methodist bishop John
Emory.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lTpO4o at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
          Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                  lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com

                - and -

          E. Adam Webb, Esq.
          WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444-0773
          E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com

                - and -

          Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
          Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (708) 628-4949
          E-mail: dank@hbsslaw.com
                  whitneys@hbsslaw.com
                  steve@hbsslaw.com
                  elaine@hbsslaw.com

                - and -

          Andrew S. Levetown, Esq.
          IVEY & LEVETOWN, LLP
          6411 Ivy Lane, Suite 304
          Greenbelt, MD 20770
          Telephone: (703) 618-2264
          E-mail: asl@iveylevetown.com

                - and -

          Jeffrey Sand, Esq.
          WEINER & SAND LLC
          800 Battery Avenue SE, Suite 100
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404) 205-5029
          Facsimile: (866) 800-1482
          E-mail: js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com

                - and -

          Lewis J. Saul, Esq.
          Edward A. Coleman, Esq.
          LEWIS SAUL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          29 Howard Street, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 376-8450
          Facsimile: (212) 376-8447
          E-mail: lsaul@lewissaul.com
                  ecoleman@lewissaul.com

ESCAMBIA OPERATING: Court Narrows Claims in Resource Strategies
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RESOURCE STRATEGIES, LLC,
on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, et al., v.
ESCAMBIA OPERATING CO., LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00126-TFM-N
(S.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Terry F. Moorer entered an order
granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss with respect to Count 6
and denying with respect to all remaining counts.

However, the Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend their complaint
with respect to Count 6 on or before February 22, 2023.

With respect to Defendant's argument that service by Plaintiffs'
attorney was improper, the Plaintiffs argue that Fed. R. Civ. P.
Rule 4(e)(2) authorizes service by personal delivery to an
individual, and Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 4(h)(1)(B) authorizes service
by personal delivery to an officer of a corporation.

The Plaintiff alleges that class certification may be appropriate.
Further, there is a demonstrated need for limited discovery on
class certification because it is evident from the pleadings that
the parties have different accounts over the basic facts.

On March 24, 2022, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs Resource Strategies, LLC, ATIC Limited
Partnership, and Briguna, LLC filed their original Complaint.

Escambia Operating operates gas producing properties.

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

FASTOOL INC: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fastool, Inc. The
case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Fastool, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01358 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2023)

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

Fastool, Inc. -- https://fastoolnow.com/ -- was founded in 2008.
The company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution
of industrial machinery and equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FEDEX GROUND: Court Denies Bid to Conditionally Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERARDO ARISTIZABAL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-00529-MSN-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Michael S.
Nachmanoff entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to
conditionally certify the case as a collective action.

Fedex provides package delivery services. The Company delivers
packages by truck to residential and business addresses.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/412Wskp at no extra charge.[CC]



FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS: Wildman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Accounts
Services Team, Inc. The case is styled as Geeia Wildman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Financial Accounts Services Team, Inc, Case No. 2:23-at-00149 (E.D.
Cal., Feb. 20, 2023).

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

Financial Accounts Service Team, Inc. --
https://fastcollections.com/ -- is licensed by the Collection
Service Board of the Tennessee Department of Commerce and
Insurance.[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


FORACARE INC: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ForaCare, Inc. The
case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. ForaCare, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01316 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2023).

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

ForaCare Inc. -- https://foracare.com/ -- is a healthcare
technology company dedicated to the design and development of
medical devices and telehealth software.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORD MOTOR: Files Supplemental Brief in Tucker Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL TUCKER, v. FORD
MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 4:22-cv-00430-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the Defendant
files a supplemental brief to address new authorities raised at
January 20, 2023 hearing.

Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automobile
manufacturer

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 3, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YZp9gN at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Laura K. Brooks, Esq.
          Stephen Bledsoe, Esq.
          BERKOWITZ OLIVER LLP
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 561-7007
          Facsimile: (816) 561-1888
          E-mail: lbrooks@berkowitzoliver.com
                  sbledsoe@berkowitzoliver.com

                - and -

          John M. Thomas, Esq.
          Krista L. Lenart, Esq.
          Dykema Gossett PLLC
          2723 South State Street, Suite 400
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 214-7660
          E-mail: jthomas@dykema.com
                  klenart@dykema.com

FUSION INDUSTRIES: Garza Files Rule 23 Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAVIER GARZA, on Behalf of
Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. FUSION
INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00336-D (W.D. Okla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order

   1. Finding that Plaintiff has met the requirements of Federal
      Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) regarding his
      claim asserted under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act
      (NMMWA);

   2. Certifying the following class:

      "All current and former welders who were paid on an hourly
      rate basis, were classified as independent contractors by
      Fusion Industries, LLC, and who worked in New Mexico for
      at least one week at any time from January 24, 2017
      through final resolution of this action";

   3. Designating Plaintiff Javier Garza as the class
      representative of the NMMWA claim;

   4. Approving the Plaintiff's Counsel to act as class counsel
      in this matter; and

   5. Awarding all such other relief to which Plaintiff and
      class members may be entitled under the law or in equity.

Fusion Industries provides various services to the oil and gas
industry, from turnkey EP&C projects to custom one of a kind
designs.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XM8prC at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          William M. Hogg, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
                  whogg@hftrialfirm.com

                - and -

          Amber L. Hurst, Esq.
          HAMMONS, HURST & ASSOCIATES
          325 Dean A. McGee Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235-6100
          Facsimile: (405) 325-6111
          E-mail: amber@hammonslaw.com

GLOBAL EQUITY: Dowell Moves to Stay Class Certification Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BECCI DOWELL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GLOBAL EQUITY
FINANCE, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01772-CCC (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff
moves to stay the class certification deadline until after a ruling
on Global Equity Finance's motion to dismiss.

The case was filed on November 7, 2022. Pursuant to Local Rule
23.3, the Plaintiff's class certification motion is due
February 5, 2023.

At the January 5, 2023 Case Management Conference, Defendant
requested that discovery be stayed pending Defendant's motion to
dismiss Plaintiff's claims (which was subsequently filed on January
9, 2023), arguing that if granted, the motion to dismiss would be
case dispositive.

On February 2, 2023, the parties' counsel conferred telephonically
regarding the relief requested in this motion. Defendant agrees to
the relief. Dated: February 3, 2023

Global Equity is a direct lender and mortgage broker.

A copy of the Plaintiff's dated Feb. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lNsC3h at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


GOWDY BAKER: Sisson's Bids to Certify Class & Appoint Counsel Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IVY R. SISSON, Plaintiff v. GOWDY, BAKER, MARION
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, KERRY J. FORESTAL, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00514-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind.), Judge James Patrick Hanlon
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division, denies the Plaintiff's motions for class
certification and appointment of class counsel.

Sisson, a prisoner proceeding pro se, asks the Court to certify the
civil rights suit as a class action and to appoint class counsel.

Judge Hanlon holds that the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification must be denied because, as a pro se litigant, he is
not an adequate class representative, and there is no indication
that he has tried to secure class counsel.

And, because he has denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification, Rule 23(g) does not require appointment of class
counsel. As explained in the Court's Order denying the Plaintiff's
motion for assistance with recruiting counsel, the Plaintiff has
not shown that he has made reasonable efforts to obtain counsel on
his own or that he has been effectively precluded from doing so.
Thus, the Court cannot recruit counsel to represent him at this
time.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/rk4anxyj from Leagle.com.


GSK CONSUMER: Batey Sues Over Mislabeled Cough Syrup Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
YUMBELLA BATEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GSK CONSUMER HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:23-cv-04031 (C.D. Ill., Feb. 18, 2023) alleges that the
Defendant manufactures and sells cough syrup promising "cough
relief," shelved next to traditional over-the-counter ("OTC") cough
and cold medications, yet described as a "dietary supplement" under
the Robitussin brand, synonymous with cough syrup for over 50
years.

According to the complaint, by promoting the product as providing
"cough relief," it tells purchasers that it is effective for
treating an upper respiratory infection, which is the cause of the
common cough. The product's placement in drug stores next to OTC
monograph cough products - at the Defendant's directions - causes
consumers to expect it is equivalent in effectiveness to those
items when it is not.

No credible evidence supports honey and ivy leaf extract to provide
cough relief. These substances are not capable of providing cough
relief because they are unable to act on the areas causing coughs,
says the suit.

GSK CONSUMER HEALTH, INC. manufactures healthcare and medical
products. The Company offers mineral supplements, topical
antifungal agents, systemic and topical analgesic, antacids, skin
care, vaccines, contact lenses, and lens care products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HANNAFORD BROS: Court Certifies Class of Managers in Prinzo
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDITH PRINZO, on behalf
of herself and all other employees similarly situated, v. HANNAFORD
BROS. CO., LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-11901-WGY (D. Mass.), the Hon.
Judge William G. Young entered an order granting the motion to
certify class of:

   "All persons who work or have worked between January 12, 2018
   and the present for Hannaford in Massachusetts as fresh
   department managers -- including all (i) Bakery Sales
   Managers, (ii) Deli Sales Managers, (iii) Deli/Bakery Sales
   Managers, (iv) Produce Sales Managers, (v) Meat Market
   Managers, (vi) Meat Market/Seafood Sales Managers, and (vii)
   Deli/Seafood Managers -- who did not receive overtime premium
   pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, did not
   receive a premium for hours worked on Sunday, or did not
   receive a premium for hours worked on Protected Holidays."

After careful consideration, the Court finds that all the
requirements for class certification under Rule 23 are met.

Hannaford is an American supermarket chain.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xAnge9 at no extra charge.[CC]

HELZBERG'S DIAMOND: Roberson Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tanisha Roberson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HELZBERG'S DIAMOND SHOPS, LLC f/k/a
HELZBERG'S DIAMOND SHOPS, INC., a Missouri limited liability
company, Case No. 1:23-cv-00988 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 17, 2023), is
brought under the Biometric Information Privacy Act of ("BIPA")
against the Defendant for collection without prior consent of the
hand geometry data of Plaintiff and a potential class of other
visitors to Helzberg's website who used the Virtual Try-On
feature.

Through the Virtual Try-On feature, visitors to Helzberg's website
including the Plaintiff and the other Class members—can view what
they would look like wearing different Helzberg jewelry items,
including engagement rings. All a user must do is enable his or her
computer or smartphone camera to take a photo to be used by the
website or upload a photo to the website.

But, unbeknownst to the website user—including Plaintiff and the
other Class members--Defendant collects detailed and sensitive
biometric identifiers and information, including complete hand
geometry scans, of its users through the Virtual Try-On feature,
and does so without first obtaining their consent, or informing
them that this data is being collected.

In addition, and in direct violation of BIPA, Defendant does not
provide users with a schedule setting out the length of time during
which their biometric information or biometric identifiers will be
collected, stored, used, or destroyed, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff used Helzberg's Virtual Try-On feature on
www.helzberg.com on her Android smartphone.

Helzberg conducts its jewelry selling business throughout the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Steven Sukert, Esq
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 525-4100
          Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                 sukert@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: 305-479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


HERSHEY CREAMERY: Henriquez Sues Over Delinquent Wage Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Branden Henriquez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. HERSHEY CREAMERY COMPANY, Case No. 7:23-cv-01392
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2023), is brought pursuant to New York Labor
Law ("NYLL") to recover damages for delinquent wage payments made
to workers who qualify as manual laborers and who were employed at
any time by the Defendant between July 4, 2016 and the present (the
"Relevant Period") in the State of New York.

The Defendant has compensated all its employees on a bi-weekly
(every other week) basis, regardless of whether said employees
qualified as manual laborers under the NYLL. Defendant has at no
time during the Relevant Period been authorized by the New York
State Department of Labor Commissioner to compensate its employees
who qualify as manual laborers on a bi-weekly basis, in
contravention of NYLL, which requires that without explicit
authorization from the Commissioner, such workers must be
compensated not less frequently than on a weekly basis, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a
driver/deliverer since March 2022 based out of the Defendant's
Middletown, New York distribution center.

HERSHEY CREAMERY COMPANY is a foreign company organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Phone: (516) 873-9550


HIGHER PRIMATE: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Higher Primate, LLC.
The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Higher Primate, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01376 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2023).

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

Higher Primate -- https://www.higherprimate.com/ -- sells T-shirts,
hoodies and other lifestyle accessories.[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


HIGHMARK INC: Sued Over Failure to Safeguard PHI and PII
--------------------------------------------------------
John Doe, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HIGHMARK, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation, Case No.
2:23-cv-00250-NR (W.D. Pa., Feb. 15, 2023), is brought against the
Defendant for their failure to properly secure and safeguard the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information and
personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's
information network, including, without limitation, full name,
address, date of birth, phone number, email address, financial
information, Social Security number, and health enrollment
information like group name, identification number,
claims/treatment information such as claim numbers, dates of
service, procedures, prescription information (these types of
information, inter alia, being thereafter referred to,
collectively, as "protected health information" or "PHI" and
"personally identifiable information" or "PII").

With this action, the Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible
for the harms it caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff
and at least 300,000 others similarly situated persons in the
massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by
Defendant on December 13, 2022, and December 15, 2022, by which
cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected
network servers and accessed highly sensitive PHI/PII and financial
information belonging to both adults and children, which was being
kept unprotected (the "Data Breach"). the Plaintiff further seeks
to hold Defendant responsible for not ensuring that the PHI/PII was
maintained in a manner consistent with industry, the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPPA").

While Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as
December 13, 2022, Defendant did not begin informing victims of the
Data Breach until February 13, 2023 and failed to inform victims
when or for how long the Data Breach occurred. Indeed, the
Plaintiff were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they
received letters from Defendant informing them of it. The notice
received by the Plaintiff was dated February 13, 2023.

The Defendant acquired, collected, and stored the Plaintiff's and
Class Members' PHI/PII and/or financial information. Therefore, at
all relevant times, Defendant knew, or should have known, that the
Plaintiff would use Defendant's services to store and/or share
sensitive data, including highly confidential PHI/PII.

The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff by
intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that
the Plaintiff's 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 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 in the future, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach.

The Defendant is one of America's leading health insurance
organizations and fourth Largest overall Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association-affiliated organization.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Daniel Srourian, Esq.
          SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 474-3800
          Email: daniel@slfla.com


HU PRODUCTS: Levy Sues Over Deceptive and Misleading Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sonya F. Levy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. HU PRODUCTS LLC, HU MASTER HOLDINGS LLC, and MONDELEZ
GLOBAL LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01381 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2023), is
brought seeking to remedy the deceptive and misleading business
practices of Hu with respect to the marketing and sale of Hu's
Organic Simple Dark Chocolate 70% Cocoa chocolate bars
(hereinafter, the "Products") throughout the State of New York and
the country by failing to disclose that the Products contain lead,
which is an extremely dangerous and harmful chemical when consumed,
especially by pregnant women and children.

The Defendants' marketing and advertising campaign includes the one
place that every consumer looks when deciding whether to purchase a
product--the packaging and labels themselves. The Defendants'
advertising and marketing campaign for the Products is false,
deceptive, and misleading because it does not disclose the high
levels of lead in the Products. The presence of lead, particularly
in high or elevated levels, in food products is unquestionably
material to reasonable consumers, because the chemical poses
serious health risk, even in small dosages.

In addition, the lead levels in the Products could not be known
before purchasing them, and may not be determined without extensive
and expensive scientific testing. Accordingly, consumers
understandably and justifiably rely on Defendants to be truthful
regarding the ingredients, including the presence of dangerous
chemicals like lead and cadmium, in the Products.

On the other hand, Defendants knew and could not be unaware of the
existence of lead in the Products. Defendants source the
ingredients and manufacture the Products, and have exclusive
knowledge of the quality control testing on the Products and the
ingredients contained therein.

The Plaintiff relied on Defendants' misrepresentations and
omissions that the Products contained only dark chocolate
ingredients when purchasing the Products. Had they known the truth
about Defendant's Products, the Plaintiff would not have purchased
them or would have paid less than they did for them, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased and consumed the Products in New York
multiple times during the Class Period.

Hu Master Holdings is a food and beverage company with a line of
"premium" snacks and chocolate products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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 -

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Sean L. Litteral, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
                 slitteral@bursor.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          David S. Almeida, Esq.
          ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
          849 W. Webster Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60614
          Phone: (312) 576-3024
          Email: david@almeidalawgroup.com


HYATT CORP: $990K Class Settlement in Crump Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTINE CRUMP, Plaintiff v. HYATT CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00295-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California,

   a. grants the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class
      action settlement

   b. grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's motion
      for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive award.

Crump was employed as a Line Cook at Hyatt House in Emeryville,
California from approximately January to June 2019. She contends
that the Defendant had a timekeeping policy that rounded hourly
employees' time to the nearest hour, as opposed to paying them for
every minute they were working. She further alleges that as a
result, the Defendant failed to pay overtime and minimum wage;
timely pay all wages upon termination; and keep accurate payroll
records.

In July 2021, the parties participated in a full-day mediation with
mediator Paul Grossman. They ultimately entered into a settlement
agreement, fully executed in February 2022. The Plaintiff filed a
motion for preliminary approval on Feb. 8, 2022, which the Court
granted the motion on June 17, 2022. The parties now seek final
approval of the class action settlement and the Plaintiff seeks
attorneys' fees, costs, and an incentive award for the named
Plaintiff.

During the Final Approval Hearing, the Class Counsel notified the
Court that they had not yet provided the State Attorneys General
with notice of the proposed class action settlement as required
under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). The parties
provided the notice on Nov. 4, 2022.

Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1715, an order giving final approval of the
parties' proposed settlement may not be issued earlier than 90 days
after the notice has been sent -- in the case, Feb. 2, 2023. The
90-day period has now expired. No objections were received. The
only communication the counsel has received is an email from the
Washington State Attorney General's Office, which simply
acknowledged receipt of the notice.

The key terms of the Settlement Agreement are as follows:

     a. Class Definition: The Settlement Class is defined as "all
current and former non-exempt, hourly employees working for
Defendant in California at any time between Dec. 6, 2015 through
June 9, 2019."

     b. Settlement Benefits: The Defendant will make a $990,000
non-reversionary payment. It will make this payment in two
tranches: the first 50% will be paid ten days after judgment has
been entered, and the remaining 50% will be paid six months later.

          The parties propose that $50,000 of this gross settlement
fund be allocated to the PAGA claim as civil penalties. Of this
PAGA Payment, $37,500 will be paid to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") and $12,500 will be
distributed pro rata to class members.

          The gross settlement fund also includes Court-approved
attorneys' fees and costs, settlement administration fees, the
employees' share of payroll taxes, any incentive payment to
Plaintiff as class representative, and payments to class members.
The cash payments to the class will be based on the number of weeks
each class member worked during the relevant class period.

     c. Release: All Settlement Class Members will release the
Defendant and its subsidiaries, including Select Hotels Group LLC:
of and from any and all claims, rights, demands, charges,
complaints, causes of action, obligations, or liability of any and
every kind between Dec. 6, 2015, and the date of Preliminary
Approval of the Settlement, for any and all claims asserted or that
could have been asserted based on the facts and theory that
Defendant or any of the Released Parties maintained a timekeeping
system that unlawfully rounded time as alleged in the Second
Amended Complaint in the Action.

     d. The second checks distributed to      class members will
also include the following language: My signature or cashing of
this check constitutes a full and complete release of Hyatt
Corporation, and all of their current or former subsidiary or
affiliated entities, and their current or former officers,
directors, and employees, for any and all claims asserted or that
could have been asserted based on the facts alleged in the
operative Second Amended Complaint in the lawsuit entitled Crump v.
Hyatt Corporation, et al. pending in the United States District
Court, Northern District of California, designated as Case No.
4:20-cv-00295-HSG, arising during my employment at any time between
December 6, 2015 and the date of the Preliminary Approval Order of
the Settlement of the lawsuit.

During the Final Fairness Hearing the parties agreed that the
release language should be included with the second check, rather
than the first as initially structured.

Judge Gilliam states that to assess whether a proposed settlement
comports with Rule 23(e), the Court may consider some or all of the
following factors: (1) the strength of plaintiff's case; (2) the
risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further
litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status
throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5) the
extent of discovery completed, and the stage of the proceedings;
(6) the experience and views of counsel; (7) the presence of a
governmental participant; and (8) the reaction of the class members
to the proposed settlement. In addition, adequate notice is
critical to court approval of a class settlement under Rule 23(e).

After considering and weighing the above factors, Judge finds that
the settlement agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and
that the settlement Class Members received adequate notice.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class
action settlement is granted.

In its unopposed motion and consistent with the Settlement
Agreement, the Class Counsel asks the Court to approve an award of
$346,500 in attorneys' fees and $97,158.56 in costs. It also seeks
a $10,000 incentive award for the named Plaintiff.

Judge Gilliam grants in part the request for attorneys' fees and
costs, and awards to the Class Counsel $277,200 in attorneys' fees
and $97,158.56 in costs, for a total of $374,358.56. He finds that
an award of 28% of the fund, or $277,200, is reasonable under the
circumstances. He further finds that the presumptive $5,000 service
award is reasonable to compensate the Plaintiff for her efforts. He
therefore grants in part the request for an incentive award in the
amount of $5,000.

Accordingly, Judge Gilliam grants the motion for final approval of
class action settlement and grants in part and denies in part the
motion for attorneys' fees and incentive award. She awards
attorneys' fees in the amount of $277,200; costs in the amount of
$97,158.56; and an incentive award to the named Plaintiff in the
amount of $5,000.

The parties and settlement administrator are directed to implement
the Final Order and the settlement agreement in accordance with the
terms of the settlement agreement. They are further directed to
file a short stipulated final judgment of two pages or less within
21 days from the date of the Order. The judgment need not, and
should not, repeat the analysis in the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yby3eysc from Leagle.com.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Deadline for Settlement Claim Filing Set July 7
--------------------------------------------------------------
Selena Fragassi at yahoo.com reports that a recent class action
lawsuit against carmaker Kia has been resolved. Parent company
Hyundai has settled for an undisclosed amount of money as a result
of vehicle owners claiming there have been ongoing issues with the
functionality of the cars' anti-lock braking systems (ABS), with
some even resulting in vehicle fires.

See: Can You Buy Cars Directly From Automakers To Save Money?
Find: With a Recession Looming, Make These 3 Retirement Moves To
Stay On Track

Per Fast Company, Hyundai Motor Group hasn't admitted to any
wrongdoing, but will nonetheless provide restitution for certain
models purchased between 2006 and 2021. Qualifying owners will be
able to have one or more of the following settlements applied, as
laid out by the Top Class Actions website:

-- Warranty extension for a period of five to seven years that
covers repairs related to ABS issues (as long as the owner kept up
on routine maintenance).
-- Refunds for owners who have had to make repairs on their Kia
model for ABS malfunctions, also including towing and car rental
costs.
-- Complementary inspection of the vehicle and ABS system at
participating Kia dealerships for any vehicle owner.
-- "Maximum value compensation" for any total loss of vehicle
claims as a result of a fire in addition to a payment of $140.

The list of models that are eligible include the following. To
determine if your vehicle qualifies, use the VIN lookup tool at the
official settlement website.

2017-2019 Kia Cadenza.

2016-2018 Kia K900.

2013-2015 Kia Optima.

2006-2010 Kia Sedona.

2007-2009 Kia Sorento.

2014-2015 Kia Sorento.

2008-2009 Kia Sportage.

2014-2021 Kia Sportage.

2018-2021 Kia Stinger.

The deadline to file a claim is July 7, 2023; it can be submitted
online here. To do so, you'll need documentation and receipts of
any repairs, towing services and car rentals. If you leased the
vehicle, you'll also need to provide proof of the agreement. [GN]

IDEALVILLAGE PRODUCTS: Morehouse Files Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Idealvillage Products
Corp. The case is styled as Jennifer Morehouse, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Idealvillage Products
Corp., Case No. 3:23-cv-00298-JLS-KSC (S.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for the Class Action
Fairness Act.

Ideavillage -- https://www.ideavillage.com/ -- creates and partners
with high-potential brands that are poised to change the world and
positively impact consumers' lives.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle Douglas McLean, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 376-3739
          Email: kmclean@sirillp.com


IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS: Gray Sues Over False Marketing Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Gray, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS CORP., D/B/A COPPER FIT, a New
Jersey corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01233 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 15,
2023), is brought against Defendant to redress the false marketing
claims with which Defendant has saturated its advertising for a
popular line of compression garments, namely its Copper Fit ICE
Compression Knee Sleeve, Copper Fit ICE Plantar Fascia Ankle
Sleeve, Copper Fit ICE Compression Gloves, Copper Fit ICE
Compression Elbow Sleeve, Copper Fit ICE Compression Socks and the
Copper Fit ICE Compression Back Support (the "Copper Fit ICE
Products").

Coenzyme Q10, commonly called CoQ10, is an antioxidant that the
human body naturally produces. Human cells use CoQ10 for growth and
metabolism. Specifically, Defendant is making false claims that (a)
CoQ10 infused into the fabric of the Copper Fit ICE Products is
motion activated and then released and absorbed into the human body
when using the product, and (b) the purportedly absorbed CoQ10
provides health benefits, including increased energy.

The Plaintiff purchased the Copper Fit ICE Product believing
Defendant's statements that the CoQ10 infused in the fabric is
released and then absorbed into the human body when moving while
using the product, and that the absorbed CoQ10 would provide health
benefits, including increased energy. The CoQ10 infused in the
fabric is useless and the Plaintiff received no such benefits. The
Defendant's omission regarding the true benefits of CoQ10 was
material to Plaintiff and Class Member's purchase of the Copper Fit
ICE Products.

Had Plaintiff known that the CoQ10 infused in the fabric of the
Copper Fit ICE Products is not absorbed into the human body and,
even if absorbed in some amount, provides no health benefits, she
would not have purchased Defendant's Copper Fit ICE Products or, at
the very least, would not have paid the price premium charged for
the Copper Fit ICE Products compared to a cheaper compression
garment that is not infused with CoQ10.

Because Defendant's Copper Fit ICE Products cannot deliver the
alleged benefits of CoQ10, the Plaintiff seeks to put an end to
Defendant's unfair, false, and deceptive marketing and sales of its
Copper Fit ICE Products and to obtain the financial redress to
which Plaintiff and class members are entitled, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a Copper Fit ICE Knee Sleeve via the
Defendant's Amazon storefront.

The Defendant develops, manufactures, markets, and sells various
consumer products, including the Copper Fit branded products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mason Barney, Esq.
          Kyle McLean, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Phone: 212-532-1091
          Facsimile: 646-417-5967
          Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
                 kmclean@sirillp.com

               - and -

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


IMMUNOVANT INC: Pitman May File Third Amended Class Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THERESA PITMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. IMMUNOVANT, INC. f/k/a
HEALTH SCIENCES ACQUISITIONS CORPORATION, RODERICK WONG, PETER
SALZMANN, FRANK M. TORTI, ANDREW FROMKIN, DOUGLAS HUGHES, GEORGE
MIGAUSKY, ATUL PANDE, ERIC VENKER, SVB LEERINK LLC, LIFESCI CAPITAL
LLC, CHARDAN CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC,
ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED, and ROIVANT SCIENCES LTD.,
Defendants, Case No. 21 Civ. 918 (KAM) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate
Judge Vera M. Scanlon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York grants the Plaintiff's request for leave to
amend the second amended complaint to add, inter alia, information
about the Defendant Immunovant's former employee on whom she
relies.

The Court has reviewed the three motions to dismiss the second
amended complaint, which, in brief, argue that the Plaintiff's
second amended complaint should be dismissed because it is
factually insufficient and legally insufficient. It has also
considered the Plaintiff's request for leave to amend the second
amended complaint to add, inter alia, information about the
Defendant Immunovant's former employee on whom she relies.

Judge Scanlon grants the Plaintiff's motion to file a third amended
complaint to address the facts that she proposes be added about the
Immunovant former employee, the factual issues identified (if the
Plaintiff agrees with the Defendants) and any other issues of
concern to her raised by the three motions. Hence, she finds the
three pending motions to dismiss as moot in light of her grant of
the motion to amend. The parties are to submit a proposed schedule
as to the filing of the third amended complaint and as to the
briefing of the anticipated motions to dismiss.

The Defendants together allege that the Plaintiff's second amended
complaint is factually deficient in the following ways:

     1. The Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege facts to make
out the claim that elevated cholesterol was a known anticipated
risk at the time the IMVT-1401 trials were designed or at the time
the challenged statements were made.

     2. The Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege facts about the
position that the cited animal studies demonstrate an anticipated
risk of increased cholesterol.

     3. The Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege facts about FE,
the unidentified former Immunovant employee upon whom Plaintiff
relies as a source of information.

     4. The Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to support
the unidentified former Immunovant employee's interpretation of the
research and data.

     5. The Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts about the
supposed errors arising from Immunovant's animal testing, given
that the bases for Immunovant's selection of the specific species
of monkey for testing was the high degree of sequence homology to
human FcRn and IMVT-1401's strong binding affinity for monkey FcRn,
as opposed to shared attributes for cholesterol.

     6. The Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege that the cited
scientific literature demonstrates an anticipated risk of increased
cholesterol.

     7. The Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege facts to support
the allegation that good clinical practices required testing as to
cholesterol as an anticipated risk.

     8. The Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege facts to support
an inference of knowledge, especially as to the alleged anticipated
risk of elevated cholesterol from the use of IMVT-1401.

     9. The Plaintiff does not plead that elevated cholesterol was
merely a risk, but instead pleaded in the second amended complaint
that elevated cholesterol was a certainty that would materialize.

     10. The Plaintiff pleads on information and belief that
Immunovant had failed to provide certain animal reports to the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) but does not include supporting facts
about the alleged omission.

     11. According to Roivant, the Plaintiff fails to plead
sufficient facts as to the control-person claim against it.

     12. The Plaintiff fails to plead sufficient facts supporting
the elements of a scheme under Rule 10b-5(a) or (c).

     13. Facts used to support claims of fraud in the amended
complaint have not been pleaded sufficiently under Fed. R. Civ. P.
9 and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), 15
U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(b)(1).

The major alleged factual deficiency that the Plaintiff appears to
acknowledge is the failure to include sufficient facts about the
former Immunovant employee and the scientific basis for his alleged
conclusions. At ECF No. 70, the Plaintiff asks for leave to amend
should the Court find any defects in the Amended Complaint. As to
the FE's qualifications and position with Immunovant, the Plaintiff
suggests that it be given leave to add information like Immunovant
hired FE to be involved with non-clinical strategies and the design
of non-clinical study profiles.

The Plaintiff further suggests that it be given leave to add
additional information in a third amended complaint like that in
early January 2021, patients treated with IMVT-1401 during a Phase
2b clinical trial displayed increased cholesterol levels and the
Principal Investigator notified IMVT-1401's clinical trial doctor
regarding this issue.

Judge Scanlon finds that the better use of the parties' and the
Court's resources is to have the Plaintiff file a third amended
complaint drafted with consideration to the Defendants' motions to
dismiss. Considering the anticipated motions to dismiss against a
third amended complaint would give the Court and the parties the
best opportunity to identify with specificity the issues that the
Plaintiff would need to address, if any, in a fourth amended
complaint.

The grant of the request for leave to amend does not prejudice the
Defendants, as these are the first such motions based on the merits
of the complaint; there has been no undue delay because the
Plaintiff raised the request in its omnibus opposition to all three
motions to dismiss; and the proposed amendments, as well as any
others the Plaintiff may make, cannot be said to be futile at this
early stage of the case.

For these reasons, Judge Scanlon grants the Plaintiff's request for
leave to amend. She does not express any opinion as to whether the
alleged deficiencies are grounds that would require dismissal of
the second amended complaint, but rather simply gives the Plaintiff
the opportunity to address the issues raised by the Defendants in a
third amended complaint as the Plaintiff sees fit. Given the grant
of the motion to amend, Judge Scanlon finds the three pending
motions to dismiss as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc8azrxu from Leagle.com.


INDUS REALTY: Monteverde Continues Investigating Centerbridge Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

INDUS Realty Trust, Inc. (NASDAQ: INDT), relating to its proposed
sale to affiliates of Centerbridge Partners, L.P. and GIC Real
Estate, Inc.. Under the terms of the agreement, INDT shareholders
are expected to receive $67.00 in cash per share they own. Click
here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/indus-realty-trust-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

About Monteverde & Associates PC

We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation
law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders
and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from
corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr.
Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super
Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and
2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a
particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell
as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes
include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the
standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in
the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this
victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as
improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex
Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years
the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds
for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.[GN]

INSPIRATO INCORPORATED: Koch Sues Over Misleading Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Koch, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INSPIRATO INCORPORATED, BRENT HANDLER, AND R. WEBSTER
NEIGHBOR, Case No. 1:23-cv-00438-RMR-MEH (D. Colo., Feb. 16, 2023),
is brought on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded Inspirato securities between May
11, 2022 and December 15, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") as a result of the
Defendants false and/or misleading statements.

The statements were materially false and/or misleading because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts
pertaining to the  Company's business, operations and prospects,
which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's unaudited
condensed consolidated financial statements as of and for the
quarterly periods ended March 31, 2022 and June 30, 2022
(collectively, the 'Non-Reliance Periods') included in the
Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the 'SEC') for the Non-Reliance Periods, could
no longer be relied upon; (2) the Quarterly Reports could no longer
be relied upon due to the incorrect application of Accounting
Standards Update (ASU) No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) ('ASC 842')
with respect to the assessment of right-of-use assets and
liabilities, resulting in an understatement of both right-of-use
assets and total lease liabilities of approximately 9% for each of
the Non-Reliance Periods resulting in an understatement of total
assets and total liabilities by approximately 5% for each of the
Non-Reliance periods, and due to property-related and other
expenses being under accrued in the first quarter, and over accrued
in the second quarter, resulting in cost of revenue being
understated by approximately 1% and overstated by approximately 5%
in the first and second quarter, respectively (similarly, any
previously issued or filed reports, press releases, earnings
releases, and investor presentations or other communications
describing the Company's condensed consolidated unaudited financial
statements and other related financial information covering the
Non-Reliance Periods should no longer be relied upon); (3) the
Company was not in compliance with the periodic filing requirements
for continued listing set forth in Nasdaq Listing Rule 5250(c)(1)
(the 'Rule') as a result of its failure to file its Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2022 (the
'Third Quarter Report') with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the 'SEC') by the required due date; and (4) as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On November 14, 2022 the Company filed its 8-K with the SEC signed
by CFO Neighbor. On November 14, 2022, the Company filed its
Form12b-25 with the SEC providing Notice of Late Filing, signed by
CFO Neighbor. On this news, Inspirato's stock price fell $0.27 per
share, or 11.89%, to close at $2.00 per share on November 14, 2022.
On November 23, 2022, the Company filed its Form 8-K filed with SEC
signed by CFO Neighbor, attaching a Press Release, disclosing the
Company's receipt of a Notice from the Listing Qualifications
Department of NASDAQ. On November 23, 2022, the Company issued a
Press Release in connection with the foregoing 8-K. On this news,
Inspirato's stock price fell $0.06 per share, or 3.21%, to close at
$1.81 per share on November 25, 2022.

On December 15, 2022, after market hours, the Company filed its
Form 10-Q/A with SEC to amend its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended March 31, 2022, that was originally filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on May 13,
2022 (the "Original Report"), signed by CEO Handler and CFO
Neighbor. On this news, Inspirato's stock price fell $0.10 per
share, or 6.58%, to close at $1.41 per share on December 16, 2022.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Inspirato securities during the Class
Period.

Inspirato purports to be a subscription-based luxury travel company
that provides unique solutions for: affluent travelers seeking
superior service and certainty across a wide variety of
accommodations and experiences; and hospitality suppliers who want
to solve pain points that include monetizing excess inventory and
efficiently outsourcing the hassle involved in managing rental
properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 686-1060
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com


IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES: Manchur Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Iovate Health
Sciences Inc. The case is styled as Edward L. Manchur, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Iovate Health Sciences
Inc., Case No. 2384CV00427 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Feb.
16, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Business Litigation."

Iovate Health Sciences -- https://www.iovate.com/ -- provides
bodybuilding and muscle building supplements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald Donald D'Avolio, Jr., Esq.
          JD CONSULTING, LLC
          PO Box 637
          Dracut, MA 01826


ISAMAX SNACKS: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Isamax Snacks, Inc.
The case is styled as Maricela Donet, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Isamax Snacks, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01286 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2023).

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

Isamax Snacks, Inc. doing business as Wicked Whoopies --
https://www.wickedwhoopies.com/ -- offers gourmet Whoopie Pies
baked in Maine daily and shipped fresh.[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


JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Toston Sues Over Wiretapping Communications
------------------------------------------------------------
Luther Toston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-01156
(C.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2023), is brought against JetBlue for
wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors to its
website, www.JetBlue.com, in violation of the Federal Wiretap Act
(the "Wiretap Act") and the California Invasion of Privacy Act
("CIPA"), and constitutes the torts of invasion of the privacy
rights and intrusion upon seclusion of website visitors in relation
to the unauthorized interception, collection, recording, and
dissemination of Plaintiff's and Class Members' communications and
data.

JetBlue procures third-party vendors, such as FullStory, to embed
snippets of JavaScript computer code ("Session Replay Code") on
JetBlue'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 JetBlue'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 JetBlue's request.

After intercepting and capturing the Website Communications,
JetBlue and the Session Replay Providers use those Website
Communications to recreate website visitors' entire visit to
www.JetBlue.com. The Session Replay Providers create a video replay
of the user's behavior on the website and provide it to JetBlue for
analysis. JetBlue'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
JetBlue's website for the entire duration of their website
interaction.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
class of all California citizens whose Website Communications were
intercepted through JetBlue's procurement and use of Session Replay
Code embedded on www.JetBlue.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.JetBlue.com and certain of its
subpages on his laptop computer and phone while in California.

JetBlue offers numerous flights to and from locations in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Nelson, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          280 S. Beverly Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Phone: (858) 209-6941
          Email: jnelson@milberg.com

               - and -

          MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
          THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
          3535 Piedmont Road
          Building 14, Suite 230
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Phone: (404) 978-6971
          Fax: (404) 320-9978
          Email: MGibson@TheFinleyFirm.com


KOMAN ENTERPRISES: Knuckles Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Katrina Knuckles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. KOMAN ENTERPRISES, LLC, and MICHAEL KOMAN, Case No.
1:23-cv-00093-MWM (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 17, 2023), is brought pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the
Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages.

The Plaintiff has regularly worked more than 40 hours in a single
workweek. The Defendants were aware that Plaintiff regularly worked
more than 40 hours in a single workweek. On several occasions, the
Plaintiff has contacted Defendants to inform them that her workday
lasted significantly longer than her 8 scheduled hours. The
Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for all overtime hours
worked at the proper rate of one and one-half times her regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an Insurance Sales
Agent from 2015 to July 2021.

The Defendants are in the insurance brokerage business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
          Rhiannon M. Herbert, Esq.
          MANSELL LAW, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Phone: 614-796-4325
          Fax: 614-547-3614
          Email: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
                 Rhiannon@MansellLawLLC.com


KORNIT DIGITAL: Cleveland Bakers Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland Bakers And Teamsters Pension Fund, on Behalf of Itself
and All Others Similarly Situated v. KORNIT DIGITAL LTD., RONEN
SAMUEL, ALON ROZNER, YUVAL COHEN, GABI SELIGSOHN, OFER BEN-ZUR,
LAURI HANOVER, STEPHEN NIGRO, ALON LUMBROSO, DOV OFER, YEHOSHUA
NIR, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., GOLDMAN
SACHS & CO. LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT
HOLDINGS LLC, and AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00971 (D.N.J.,
Feb. 17, 2023), is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased
shares of Kornit Digital common stock between August 10, 2021 and
July 5, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), including
purchases directly in Kornit Digital's November 19, 2021 public
stock offering (the "Offering"), seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Act of 1933 and under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On November 19, 2021, Kornit Digital filed with the SEC a
prospectus supplement on Form 424B5 (the "Prospectus"), which
incorporated and formed part of a shelf registration statement
previously filed with the SEC on Form F-3ASR (the "Registration
Statement"). Pursuant to the Registration Statement, Kornit Digital
and defendant Amazon Holdings, a favored shareholder of the Company
and a subsidiary of defendant Amazon (one of Kornit Digital's most
important clients), collectively sold approximately 3 million
Kornit Digital shares to public investors at $151 per share, for
more than $450 million in gross offering proceeds.

The Registration Statement stated that in the nine months ended
September 30, 2021, Kornit Digital generated revenue of $234.5
million, representing an increase of 93.7% over the nine months
ended September 30, 2020. The Registration Statement further
asserted that the Company's "current market opportunity is 21
billion impressions with the potential to reach an estimated 31
billion impressions by the end of 2026, and 39 billion square
meters of printed fabric output industry-wide with the potential to
reach an estimated 42 billion by the end of 2026."

The Defendants' statements were materially false and misleading
when made because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the
following material adverse facts about Kornit Digital's business,
operations, and prospects, which existed at the time of the
Offering: (a) that one of Kornit Digital's largest customers,
DTG2Go, a Delta Apparel subsidiary, was transitioning to a
competitor's product offerings for its manufacturing needs; (b)
that a second key customer, Fanatics, had decided to outsource
production, a substantial portion of which was going to producers
using non-Kornit Digital systems; (c) that, as a result of (a)-(b)
above, Kornit Digital expected to and ultimately did lose
substantial demand for its products and services; (d) that Kornit
Digital was suffering from lessening demand for high-margin
consumables, which caused the Company to suffer from an unfavorable
sales mix and lower gross margins; (e) that e-commerce demand for
Kornit Digital products was slowing down as facets of the economy
reopened following the COVID-19 pandemic, which was having a
negative effect on Company revenue; (f) that Kornit Digital had
artificially boosted sales during the pandemic by selling more
inventory than was needed to its customers, which caused a customer
inventory glut which pulled sales forward and had contributed to
slowing demand; and (g) that as a result of (a)-(f) above, Kornit
Digital's projected financial results and market opportunity were
not achievable and lacked a reasonable basis in fact.

Subsequent to the Offering, the price of the Kornit Digital stock
sold therein fell substantially below the Offering price, falling
to a low of just $20.40 per share on July 6, 2022. As of the date
of this complaint, the price of the Kornit Digital stock sold in
the Offering has remained substantially below the Offering price,
inflicting economic losses and damages on investors in the
Offering, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Kornit Digital common stock during the
Class Period.

Kornit Digital develops, designs, and markets digital fashion and
textile production technologies, with a focus on digital printing
and cloud-based software for the global printed textile
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Phone: (973) 639-9100
          Facsimile: (973) 679-8656
          Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Vicki Multer Diamond, 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
                 vdiamond@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Phone: 619/231-1058
          Fax: 619/231-7423
          Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com


KORNIT DIGITAL: GCERS Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Genesee County Employees' Retirement System, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated v. KORNIT DIGITAL LTD., RONEN
SAMUEL, and ALON ROZNER, Case No. 2:23-cv-00888 (D.N.J., Feb. 15,
2023), is brought on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Kornit ordinary shares between
February 17, 2021 and July 5, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
against Kornit and certain of the Company's current and former
senior executives (collectively, "Defendants"), for violations
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934  and Rule 10b-5,
promulgated thereunder resulting in the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's shares.

The Company's digital inkjet printers enable end-users to print
both direct-to-garment ("DTG") and direct-to-fabric ("DTF"). In DTG
printing, designs and images are printed directly onto finished
textiles such as clothing and apparel. In DTF printing, large rolls
of fabric pass through wide inkjet printers that print images and
designs directly onto swaths of fabric that are then cut and sewn
into a product, and can be used in the fashion and home decor
industries. Kornit also produces and sells textile inks and other
consumables for use in its digital printers. Through customer
support contracts, Kornit also provides customer assistance and
equipment services for its printers, including technical support,
maintenance, and repair.

During the Class Period, the Company also began offering software
services to its customers, including a suite of end-to-end
fulfillment and production solutions, called KornitX, through which
the Company provides, among other things, automated production
systems and workflow and inventory management.

Kornit repeatedly touted the purported competitive advantages
provided by its technology and assured investors that it faced
virtually no meaningful competition in the "direct-to-garment"
printing market. The Company also represented that there was strong
demand for its digital printing systems, consumable products, such
as textile inks, as well as the services Kornit provided customers
to maintain and manage its digital printers, and to manage customer
workflow. Kornit further assured investors that the purportedly
strong demand for the Company's products and services would enable
it to maintain its existing customer base and attract new customers
that would limit the risks associated with a substantial portion of
its revenues being concentrated among a small number of large
customers.

These and similar statements made throughout the Class Period were
false. In truth, Kornit and its senior executives knew, or at a
minimum, recklessly disregarded, that the Company's digital
printing business was plagued by severe quality control problems
and customer service deficiencies. Those problems and deficiencies
caused Kornit to cede market share to competitors, which, in turn,
led to a decrease in the Company's revenue as customers went
elsewhere for their digital printing needs. As a result of these
misrepresentations, Kornit ordinary shares traded at artificially
inflated prices throughout the Class Period.

On May 11, 2022, despite reporting revenues that exceeded
expectations, Kornit reported a net loss of $5.2 million for the
first quarter of 2022, compared to a profit of $5.1 million in the
prior year period. The Company also issued revenue guidance for the
second quarter of 2022 that was significantly below analysts'
expectations. Kornit attributed its disappointing guidance to a
slowdown in orders from the Company's customers in the e-commerce
segment. In addition, the Company admitted that, for at least the
previous two quarters, Kornit knew that one of its largest
customers, Delta Apparel, had acquired digital printing systems
from a Kornit competitor. As a result of these disclosures, the
price of Kornit ordinary shares declined by $18.78 per share, or
33.3%.

Then, on July 5, 2022, after the market closed, Kornit disclosed
that it would report a sizeable shortfall in revenue for the second
quarter of 2022. Specifically, Kornit expected revenue for the
second quarter to be in the range of $56.4 million to $59.4
million, far short of the previous revenue guidance of between $85
million and $95 million that the Company provided less than two
months earlier, in May 2022. Kornit attributed the substantial
revenue miss to "a significantly slower pace of direct-to-garment
(DTG) systems orders in the second quarter as compared to our prior
expectations." As a result of these disclosures, the price of
Kornit ordinary shares declined by an additional $8.10 per share,
or 25.7%.

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

The Plaintiff purchased Kornit ordinary shares at artificially
inflated prices.

Kornit designs and manufactures industrial digital printing
technologies for the garment, apparel, and textile industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Hannah Ross, Esq.
          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          Scott R. Foglietta, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          Email: hannah@blbglaw.com
                 avi@blbglaw.com
                 scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
          Francis E. Judd, Esq.
          VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY P.C.
          79 Alfred Street
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Phone: (313) 578-1200
          Facsimile: (313) 578-1201
          Email: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com
                 fjudd@vmtlaw.com

L.L. BEAN: Lenzi Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
----------------------------------------------------------
Linda Lenzi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. L.L. BEAN, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-06117 (W.D.N.Y., Feb. 17,
2023), is brought against the Defendant for labeling and expressly
warranting its "L.L.Bean" brand boots with zipper closures
(collectively, the "Products" or "Mislabeled Boots") as being
"waterproof," when in fact they are not waterproof, in violation of
the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; breach of express warranty;
breach of implied warranty of merchantability; violation of N.Y.
Gen. Bus. Law; and unjust enrichment.

The zipper closures used (and hence the L.L.Bean boots themselves)
are not waterproof and the zipper closures are not otherwise backed
with a waterproof gusset to make them waterproof. L.L. Bean's
marketing, advertising and promotion of such boots on point of
purchase displays and in several forms of media, including but not
limited to, catalogs, retail websites, and social media, reinforces
L.L. Bean's false "waterproof" labeling and express warranty by
repeating this "waterproof" misrepresentation and using misleading
claims about the "waterproof" attributes of its Products.

Moreover, Plaintiff and each and every proposed class member was
necessarily exposed to L.L. Bean's marketing and advertising, as
the uniform "waterproof" representation was located (among other
places) on the Mislabeled Boots themselves. The "waterproof"
representation was also at the point of purchase on shelf tags and
webpages that necessarily had to be encountered by consumers in
order to purchase the Mislabeled Boots. The Mislabeled Boots,
however, are not "waterproof." Rather, the design and construction
of key components on the Products, including the lack of waterproof
gussets and/or use of non-waterproof zipper closures, allows water
to easily penetrate the boots through the zipper rendering the
"waterproof" representations false and misleading.

L.L. Bean's false and misleading "waterproof" statements and
warranties, as well as omissions of material fact, concerning the
Products have injured Plaintiff and other members of the Class and
Subclass defined herein by inducing them to purchase premium priced
products that were not "waterproof" as claimed. Had Plaintiff and
Class members known about the false and misleading nature of L.L.
Bean's claims and warranties that the Products were "waterproof",
they either would not have purchased the Products or would have
paid less for them, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Women's Storm Chaser Boots with a
zipper closure from L.L. Bean's Eastview Mall retail store in
Victor, New York.

L.L. Bean is an international retail chain that designs,
manufactures, markets and sells outdoor apparel and equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          29 Broadway, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10006-3205
          Phone: (212) 952-0014
          Email: jkravec@fdpklaw.com
          Second Address: 429 Fourth Avenue
          Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 281-8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281-1007

                 - and -

          Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
          Andrea Clisura, Esq.
          VOZZOLO LLC
          499 Route 304
          New City, New York 10956
          Phone: (201) 630-8820
          Facsimile: (201) 604-8400
          Email: avozzolo@vozzolo.com
                 aclisura@vozzolo.com
          Second Address: 345 Route 17 South
          Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458
          Phone: (201) 630-8820
          Facsimile: (201) 604-8400


LAKE CHAMPLAIN: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lake Champlain
Chocolates. The case is styled as Rafael Cordero, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lake Champlain
Chocolates, Case No. 1:23-cv-01283 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2023).

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

Lake Champlain Chocolates --
https://www.lakechamplainchocolates.com/ -- offers a wide-selection
of premium chocolate from truffles, bars, gift baskets, hot
chocolate & more shipped nationwide from Vermont.[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


LEVIN PAPANTONIO: Mey Files TCPA Suit in N.D. West Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Levin, Papantonio,
Rafferty, Proctor, Buchanan, OBrien, Barr, & Mougey P.A., et al.
The case is styled as Diana Mey, on behalf of herself and a class
of others similarly situated v. Levin, Papantonio, Rafferty,
Proctor, Buchanan, OBrien, Barr, & Mougey P.A., Principal Law
Group, LLC, MCM Services Group LLC, John Does 1-5, Case No.
5:23-cv-00046-JPB (N.D.W. Va., Feb. 14, 2023).

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

Levin, Papantonio, Rafferty, Proctor, Buchanan, OBrien, Barr, &
Mougey P.A. -- https://www.levinlaw.com/ -- is an American law firm
based in Pensacola, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew C. Robey, Esq.
          Ryan McCune Donovan, Esq.
          HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE PLLC
          707 Virginia Street, East, Suite 260
          Post Office Box 3983
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: (681) 265-3802
          Fax: (304) 982-8056
          Email: arobey@hfdrlaw.com
                 rdonovan@hfdrlaw.com


LKQ CORPORATION: Scalzo Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LKQ Corporation. The
case is styled as Mark Scalzo, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LKQ Corporation, Case No.
1:23-cv-01029 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 21, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.

LKQ Corporation -- https://www.lkqcorp.com/ -- is an American
provider of alternative and speciality parts to repair and
accessorize automobiles and other vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7127
          Fax: (212) 989-9163
          Email: ykopel@bursor.com


MASSACHUSETTS: Court Dismisses Amended Cruz Complaint v. Hudson
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ICTOR L. MELENDEZ CRUZ, Plaintiff v. THOMAS M. HUDSON,
et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 22-10856-DJC (D. Mass.), Judge
Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts dismisses the amended complaint.

By Memorandum and Order dated Oct. 11, 2022, the Court allowed the
Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, assessed him an
obligation to make monthly filing fee payments pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(b)(2), and directed him to file an amended
complaint that sets forth plausible claims upon which relief can be
granted. The Court's Memorandum and Order explained that the
Plaintiff's original complaint fails to provide a plain statement
of his claims as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Now before the Court is the Plaintiff's two-page amended complaint.
The amended complaint is captioned "amended complaint and relief
remedies." The Plaintiff indicates in the case heading that the
following laws are at issue: "Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, Sec 9 civil
actions and remedies, class action . . ." The body of the amended
complaint simply states that for relief, the Plaintiff seeks
remedies by damage economic, alimentation, malpractice health care
medical in his condition over the past three years. He also seeks
transfer to the custody of the Worcester County Sheriff from the
Bristol County House of Correction, as well as a federal monitor
and investigation of the Bristol County Sheriff's Office.

Upon review, Judge Casper finds that the Plaintiff's amended
complaint is subject to dismissal. First, she finds that the
Plaintiff's amended complaint fails to comport with the pleading
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Next, to the
extent the Plaintiff seeks transfer to another facility, an inmate
has no justifiable expectation that he will be incarcerated in any
particular prison. Finally, to the extent that the Plaintiff
requests that the Court initiate an investigation regarding the
Bristol County Sheriff's Office, the Court does not have the power
to do so.

For these reasons, Judge Casper dismisses the amended complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2), 1915A(b).

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 15, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mfhvr4jn from Leagle.com.


MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Monteverde Probes Proposed Merger With Advent
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

Maxar Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: MAXR), relating to its proposed
sale to Advent International. Under the terms of the agreement,
MAXR shareholders are expected to receive $53.00 in cash per share
they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/maxar-technologies-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

                  About Monteverde & Associates PC

We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation
law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders
and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from
corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr.
Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super
Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and
2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a
particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell
as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes
include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the
standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in
the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this
victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as
improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex
Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years
the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds
for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.[GN]

MAZIE SLATER: 3rd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Martino Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY MARTINO, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Appellant v. DAVID MAZIE, Esq.; ADAM
SLATER, Esq.; MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC, hereinafter "Mazie
Slater," Case No. 22-2019 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit affirms the District Court's order dismissing
Martino's complaint with prejudice.

Martino sued his lawyers, David Mazie and Adam Slater, and their
law firm, Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman, LLC (collectively, Mazie
Slater). Mazie Slater represented Martino and over 200 others in a
products liability multidistrict litigation in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. Slater was co-lead
counsel in the MDL, which involved the blood pressure medication
Olmesartan and eventually settled for over $300 million dollars.

After settlement, Martino filed a putative class action against
Mazie Slater in New Jersey state court on behalf of all clients
Mazie Slater represented in the Olmesartan MDL. He alleged legal
malpractice, conversion of funds, and unjust enrichment. The
complaint asserts that Mazie Slater received contingent fees from
the Olmesartan MDL in violation of various New Jersey court rules
applicable to litigation in federal court under the District of New
Jersey's local rules.

Mazie Slater removed the case to the District Court. Because the
civil docket sheet indicated that the case was related to the
Olmesartan MDL, it was assigned to the same judge who had handled
the MDL (the Honorable Robert B. Kugler). Mazie Slater moved under
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss
the complaint with prejudice. Martino responded with a motion for
summary judgment, claiming that Mazie Slater violated New Jersey
Rules of Court 1:21-7(i), (c), and (f).

The District Court granted Mazie Slater's motion to dismiss with
prejudice and denied Martino's motion for summary judgment as moot.
Martino timely appealed.

Martino argues that the District Court resolved Mazie Slater's Rule
12(b)(6) motion improperly by deciding many disputed issues of
material fact and relying on materials not appropriately considered
on a motion to dismiss.

But the Third Circuit opines that it need not decide whether the
District Court converted Mazie Slater's Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a
Rule 56 motion by relying on inappropriate materials. It says any
procedural error accompanying a possible conversion would be
harmless because Martino's complaint warrants dismissal under Rule
12(b)(6).

First, Martino alleges that Mazie Slater should have credited its
individual MDL clients for monies it received through the MDL
settlement's common benefit fund (CBF). But he has identified no
legal authority supporting the theory that awards disbursed from
CBFs by court order to attorneys who exercised leadership roles in
MDLs must be credited or paid to the attorneys' clients. And the
Third Circuit knows of none.

Second, Martino also alleges that Mazie Slater violated New Jersey
Rule of Court 1:21-7(c). That rule caps contingent fees by
requiring attorneys seeking a fee on more than $3 million in
damages recovered for any client to apply for court approval of a
"reasonable fee." The assigned judge determines "a reasonable fee
in light of all the circumstances."

Then Third Circuit opines that the complaint fails to state a claim
for relief under Rule 1:21-7(c) because Martino has not alleged any
facts, let alone plausible ones, showing that Mazie Slater violated
the rule. Martino's conclusory allegations failed to state a
claim.

The last allegation on which Martino's legal malpractice and
conversion claims depend is Mazie Slater's violation of Rule of
Court 1:21-7(i). That rule, titled "Calculation of Fee in
Settlement of Class or Multiple Party Actions." Martino does not
argue on appeal that the claims of Mazie Slater's MDL clients
"arose out of the same transaction or set of facts."

So the Third Circuit must decide only whether Martino's complaint
plausibly alleges that those claims involved substantially
identical liability issues. It opines that the complaint alleges no
facts that, taken as true, entitle Martino to relief under Rule
1:21-7(i). The complaint says nothing about the liability issues
implicated by Mazie Slater's MDL clients' claims. So the District
Court did not err when it rejected Mazie Slater's alleged violation
of Rule 1:21-7(i) as a ground for relief on the legal malpractice
and conversion claims.

For these reasons, the Third Circuit affirms the District Court's
order dismissing Martino's complaint with prejudice. In light of
this disposition, it denies Martino's request to certify legal
questions to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3j25wffr from Leagle.com.


MCLANE/SUNEAST INC: Prado Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Fernando Prado, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. McLane/Suneast, Inc.,
DOES 1 - 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV31208 was removed from the
Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on Feb. 17, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01220 to the
proceeding.

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

McLane/Suneast, Inc. doing business McLane Company, Inc. --
https://www.mclaneco.com/ -- is one of the largest supply chain
services leaders in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew Charles Kane, Esq.
          BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: (310) 820-8800
          Fax: (310) 820-8859
          Email: mkane@bakerlaw.com


MDL 2332: District Court Refuses to Remand Lipitor Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE LIPITOR ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Master Docket No.
3:12-cv-2389 (PGS/DEA) (D.N.J.), Judge Peter G. Sheridan of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denies the
Motion for Suggestion of Remand to the Northern District of
California filed by Sandra Hellgren and Anita Cox.

Judge Sheridan states that the authority to remand to the
transferor court rests with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ("JPML") until the conclusion of summary judgment
proceedings. Despite same, the Court may suggest to the JPML the
remand of a case. When considering whether to remand a matter back
to the transferor court, the transferee District Court is guided by
the same standards employed by the Panel. The burden is on the
party seeking remand prior to completion of pretrial proceedings to
establish good cause for remand.

The question before the Court is whether Hellgren and Cox have
demonstrated that everything that remains is case-specific,
thereby, suggesting remand is appropriate.

Applying the standard described, Judge Sheridan denies the motion
because Hellgren and Cox have failed to show "good cause" for
suggestion of remand.

First, Despite Mr. Alioto's claim, abandoning the committee process
at this juncture of the litigation leaves the remaining end-payors
at a significant disadvantage. Second, it is of little value for
Hellgren and Cox to abandon the class at this time, and to undo the
efficiency gained. Third, Mr. Alioto considers all of the cases to
have the same core facts. Fourth, Some of Mr. Alioto's arguments
are old hat. Fifth, there are certain depositions that must be
conducted. Sixth, Hellgren and Cox still have common questions of
fact. Lastly, Mr. Alioto has not presented any arguments why this
procedure should not continue, or is not in the best interest of
all parties.

Having carefully reviewed and taken into consideration the
submissions of the parties, as well as the arguments and exhibits
therein presented, Judge Sheridan denies Hellgren and Cox's Motion
for Remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ysp96u86 from Leagle.com.


MEGA MART: Dominguez Sues Over Discriminatory Work Environment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Dominguez, Teodoro Santos Moreno, Francisca Solis Orduna,
Emmanuel Rodriguez Quintana, Erasto Quintana Crisantos, and Maria
Flor Solis Orduna, on behalf of themselves v. MEGA MART LLC, d/b/a
CHESTNUT SUPERMARKET, MENACHEM ABRAMOWITZ, JOEL EPSTEIN, MOSHE
LANDAU, and YECHEZKEL S NOIMAN AKA CHESKY NEIMAN in their
individual and professional capacity, Case No. 1:23-cv-01372
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 21, 2023), is brought to redress the hostile and
discriminatory work environment that they were subjected to at
Chestnut Supermarket in Brooklyn, New York.

Although the Defendants purports to be a grocery store, it also
acts as a Money Lender, and customers come to the Grocery Store to
take out cash loans from the Defendants and/or its individual
owners. The Defendants routinely discriminates against, mistreats
and abuses its employees on account of their race, religion,
gender, national origin and citizenship status. The Defendants
openly endorses and allows sexual harassment against its staff. The
Defendants also engages in outrageous unfair pay practices,
including failing to pay overtime, failing to allow breaks and
failing to pay employees in a legal manner. Employees who speak out
against the unlawful and unfair employment practices at the
Defendants suffer severe retaliation.

The Defendants routinely and purposefully hire individuals who they
perceive as non-citizens, whom they believe are less likely to know
their civil rights, and less likely to take action against them for
their unlawful employment actions, and whom they threaten to "have
deported" if they dare to object. Upon information and belief, the
Defendants negligently hire and negligently retain Managers and
Supervisors who openly sexually harass and discriminate against
employees, who assault, batter and falsely imprison employees, and
who openly retaliate against employees who object to unlawful
behavior, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are Hispanics of Mexican national origin who worked
for the Defendants.

Mega Mart LLC, d/b/a Chestnut Supermarket is a privately held
kosher food chain retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kristina Mazzocchi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF KRISTINA MAZZOCCHI
          43 West 43rd Street, Suite 153
          New York, NY 10036-7424
          Phone: 347-484-7413
          Email: kristina@mazzocchilaw.com

               - and -

          Megan S. Goddard, Esq.
          GODDARD LAW PLLC
          39 Broadway, Suite 1540
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (646) 504-8363
          Email: megan@goddardlawnyc.com


MEMPHIS, TN: Ruling May Held City Responsible for Victim's Distress
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rya Wooten at localmemphis.com reports about the final hearing for
the lawsuit seeking sanctions against the City of Memphis for its
alleged failure to test more than 12,000 DNA rape kits.

Several victims are represented in the case Janet Doe v. The City
of Memphis.

The Memphis class action lawsuit, if ruled in favor of the victims,
will hold the City of Memphis responsible for "recklessly
inflicting emotional distress" of the many rape victims, Attorney
Daniel Lofton said.

Attorneys Lofton and Gary K. Smith represent the victims in the
case.

According to Lofton, he and Smith are asking the court declare that
the city is "liable by summary means"  before the scheduled
hearing.

Lofton and Smith argue that the evidence in the case is
"uncontradicted," stating that the City of Memphis failed to meet
the requirements of a mandate that was set by the Tennessee Bureau
of Investigation in 2003. This mandate required the testing of
no-suspect rape kits.

On the contrary, the city says there was no standard for the
process of testing rape kit evidence until 2016.

The victims in this case face a grave disadvantage, as they have
reportedly been waiting for rulings from previous hearings for five
years, Lofton said in a press release.[GN]

MENA REGIONAL HEALTH: Cant Suit Removed to W.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Chris Cant, Timothy Craig, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Mena Regional
Health System doing business as: Mena Hospital Commission, John Doe
Insurance Carrier, Case No. 57CV-23-00012 was removed from the
Circuit Court of Polk County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas on Feb. 15, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02027-PKH to the
proceeding.

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

Mena Regional Health System -- https://menaregional.com/ -- is a
general hospital in Mena, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Courtney Elizabeth Ross, Esq.
          Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
          Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC
          519 West Seventh St
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 312-8500
          Fax: (501) 312-8505
          Email: cross@cbplaw.com
                 rpulliam@cbplaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Patrick McDaniel, Esq.
          PATRICK MCDANIEL, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PA
          311 DeQueen Street
          Mena, AR 71953
          Phone: (479) 394-3091
          Email: patrick@arklawyer.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. Lowe, I, Esq.
          MCDONALD HOPKINS
          39533 Woodward Avenue, Suite 318
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Phone: (248) 646-5070
          Fax: (248) 646-5075
          Email: tlowe@mcdonaldhopkins.com


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Weber Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercedes-Benz USA,
LLC. The case is styled as Michael Weber, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Case No. 1:23-cv-00706-SEG (N.D. Ga., Feb.
15, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for
Breach of Warranty.

Mercedes-Benz -- https://www.mbusa.com/en/home -- combines luxury
with performance across the full line of models including luxury
sedans, SUVs, coupes, roadsters, convertibles & more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          John E. Tangren, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY
          505 20th Street
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (312) 214-7900
          Fax: (312) 253-1443
          Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                 dferri@dicellolevitt.com

               - and –

          Jonathan R. Chally, Esq.
          Joshua Paul Gunnemann, Esq.
          Stephen D. Councill, Esq.
          COUNCILL, GUNNEMANN & CHALLY, LLC
          1201 W. Peachtree St. NW, Suite 2613
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3499
          Phone: (404) 407-5250
          Email: jchally@cgc-law.com
                 jgunnemann@cgc-law.com
                 scouncill@cgc-law.com

META PLATFORMS: Faces C.P. Suit Over Alleged Illegal Wiretapping
----------------------------------------------------------------
C.P., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00735 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 17, 2023) is an action arising from
the Defendant's violation of privacy and confidentiality of
personal tax return and related financial information of the
Plaintiff by collecting, storing, exploiting for financial gain,
and intercepting electronic communications on major online tax
filing services and websites such as H&R Block, TaxSlayer, and
TaxAct.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant wiretaps the Plaintiff and
millions of other class members and collects and transmits their
sensitive and confidential tax return and related financial
information when they file their taxes online through such tax
filing services. This wiretapping, transmission and collection of
data by the Defendant is done without the knowledge and informed
consent or authorization of the Plaintiff and Class members herein
and is in violation of Defendant's own representations as well as
state and federal laws, alleges the suit.

Meta's unlawful interception, transmission, collection, and
exploitation of confidential and private data is accomplished by
use of a device referred to as the Meta Pixel or Facebook Pixel
("Pixel") which is embedded in the JavaScript of the online tax
preparation website, the suit says.

META PLATFORMS, INC. operates as a social technology company. The
Company builds applications and technologies that help people
connect, find communities, and grow businesses. Meta Platform is
also involved in advertisements, augmented, and virtual reality.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
          Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0800
          Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
          Email: sbasser@barrack.com
                 sward@barrack.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Heo, Esq.
          BARRACK RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
          Email: aheo@barrack.com

               - and -

          Eve H. Cervantez, Esq.
          Connie K. Chan, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
          Email: ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com
                 cchan@altshulerberzon.com

               - and -

          John G. Emerson, Esq.
          EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
          2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300
          Houston, TX 77042
          Telephone: (800) 551-8649
          Facsimile: (501) 286-4659
          Email: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

MICHAELS STORES: Kelly Files Suit in D. Delaware
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michaels Stores, Inc.
The case is styled as Amber Kelly, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Michaels Stores, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00182-UNA (D. Del., Feb. 17, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Michaels -- https://www.michaels.com/ -- has the products for home
decor, framing, scrapbooking and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dean R. Roland, Esq.
          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 N. West Street, 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 984-3851
          Fax: (302) 984-3939
          Email: droland@coochtaylor.com
                 bbennett@coochtaylor.com


MINNESOTA: Faces Suit Over Prisoners' Mental Health Treatment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rasmussen at KSTP reports that for the second time in a month,
the Minnesota Department of Human Services is facing a class action
lawsuit involving dozens of people stuck in jails instead of
receiving mental health treatment in a state hospital.

The agency is accused of violating state law and the rights of
mental health patients.

Anthony Swope, one of two named plaintiffs in the latest lawsuit
filed this week, spent 57 days in the Scott County Jail after a
judge committed him to treatment for a mental illness.

Under state law, Swope should have been transferred to a state
hospital within 48 hours.

But DHS is accused of violating the state's "48-hour rule" in
dozens of cases throughout Minnesota.

Class Action
Lawyers cited 5 INVESTIGATES reporting on the "commitment crisis"
in their arguments for class action status.

They argue in the complaint the number of patients waiting for beds
"will inevitably continue to grow because (DHS) has made no
meaningful efforts to increase the number of beds available at
treatment programs."

DHS confirmed there were still 61 people on the agency's "priority
admissions" waiting list.

"As much as we'd like to do so, we don't have the capacity to admit
all patients immediately," DHS said in a statement to 5
INVESTIGATES. "We respect the law and are doing our level best to
admit patients as quickly as possible. But our facilities are full
and we can't safely admit or effectively treat new patients until
clinically appropriate beds open up."

Another class action complaint filed in Hennepin County last month
accused DHS of violating the constitutional rights of those held in
jail more than 48 hours after they were committed to mental health
treatment.

That case has since been moved to federal court where attorneys for
DHS have filed a motion to dismiss.[GN]

MISSISSIPPI: Reaches Settlement Agreement in Child Welfare Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Children's Rights, a national advocacy organization, and local
Mississippi counsel, along with lawyers for the state of
Mississippi, are submitting today for preliminary court approval a
settlement agreement reached to reform the state's child welfare
system and resolve a federal class action lawsuit, which was
scheduled for trial beginning May 7.

Children's Rights and local Mississippi counsel filed the federal
suit in 2004 on behalf of approximately 3,500 foster children in
Mississippi Department of Human Services (DHS) custody. The May
trial would have determined whether the constitutional rights of
the children had been violated. In the settlement agreement,
Governor Haley Barbour and Attorney General Jim Hood did not
dispute that children's constitutional rights were violated, and
agreed that the case should move immediately into the remedial
stage to determine the relief required to protect children in the
state's care.

The agreement provides that during the next six months Mississippi
will work with outside experts and Children's Rights to create a
detailed plan to reform the system. If the plaintiffs agree that
the plan is adequate, it will be submitted to the court to become a
binding court order. If plaintiffs determine that the plan is
insufficient to reform the system, the district court will decide
what relief should be granted after a hearing scheduled to begin on
December 3.

"Now that Mississippi has stopped defending the failures of its
child welfare system, it's time for the state to take the urgently
needed steps to reform the system so that it will provide for and
protect the children entrusted into state custody," said Marcia
Robinson Lowry, founder and executive director of Children's
Rights.

A hearing for approval of the settlement is scheduled for May 17.

The suit charges Mississippi with failing to provide legally
required safety, protection and basic health care services to
thousands of abused and neglected children in state custody, while
denying them the opportunity for a permanent, loving home.
Longstanding problems identified in the suit include dangerously
overburdened and untrained caseworkers, a shortage of safe foster
homes and a lack of basic health services.

"Mississippi's foster children have been without protection and
care for far too long," said Eric Thompson, lead counsel on the
case and senior staff attorney at Children's Rights. "Reforms
should now be swiftly put in place, before another child is
harmed."

"The decision by the state not to contest the unconstitutionality
of its system will allow the court to implement an effective
remedial plan for Mississippi's abused and neglected children. This
is a great day for the children, and for the people of Mississippi,
who will soon have a child welfare system that treats our children
legally and humanely," said Wayne Drinkwater, a partner at Bradley
Arant Rose & White in Jackson, Mississippi.

Plaintiffs' counsel on the case include Children's Rights; Wayne
Drinkwater and Melody McAnally, Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP,
Jackson, MS; Stephen Leech, Attorney at Law, Jackson, MS; John
Lang, John Piskora and Christian D. Carbone, Loeb & Loeb LLP, New
York, NY. [GN]

MOMENTUS INC: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Suit for $8.5-M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Momentus Inc. (NASDAQ: MNTS) ("Momentus" or the "Company"), a U.S.
commercial space company that offers transportation and other
in-space infrastructure services, has reached an agreement in
principle to settle the consolidated securities class action
lawsuits against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and former officers pending in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California captioned "In Re
Stable Road Acquisition Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File
No. 2:21-cv-05744" (the "Securities Class Actions").

On February 10, 2023, the lead plaintiff in the Securities Class
Actions and the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle
the Securities Class Actions for payment of $8.5 million, at least
$4 million of which is expected to be funded by insurance proceeds.
The agreement in principle remains subject to the satisfaction of
various conditions, including negotiation and execution of a
memorandum of understanding, final stipulation of settlement,
notice to the proposed class, and approval by the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

Earlier today, Momentus also announced a $10 million investment.
The infusion of capital combined with the retirement of legacy
challenges from the period before Momentus became a public company
in August 2021, enables the Company to focus on future growth. The
Company has also taken other recent steps to extend its cash
runway.

Momentus has a Share Repurchase Agreement for a final payment to
the two founders of the Company of $10 million. The founders were
divested from the Company in January 2021 due to U.S. Government
foreign ownership concerns and the Company previously paid $40
million for this purpose. The $10 million investment, which is
equivalent to the total specified in the Share Repurchase Agreement
(SRA), will provide capital to the Company to meet the obligations
in the SRA.

"Retirement of these issues clears the way for Momentus to continue
progress on its vision to provide backbone infrastructure services
for the growing space economy. We're eager to support customers in
the commercial sector and civil and military government users like
NASA and the U.S. Defense Department to use space in more dynamic
and impactful ways," said Momentus Chief Executive Officer John
Rood. "A key part of our service offerings is our innovative
Microwave Electrothermal Thruster (MET) that uses water as a
propellant to power our spacecraft, which we plan to demonstrate on
our Vigoride-5 mission that is currently in orbit. We continue to
make progress completing the commissioning of the Vigoride-5
spacecraft, which is in good health with nominal power and thermal
conditions and maintaining regular communications with our ground
controllers."

"We're glad to be closing this chapter, and excited as we continue
to make important progress in the demonstration of our technology
in space," said Rood. "The space economy continues to develop, and
Momentus plans to play a leading role in enabling the growth and
evolution of this vibrant part of the global economy."

About Momentus

Momentus is a U.S. commercial space company that offers in-space
infrastructure services, including in-space transportation, hosted
payloads and in-orbit services. Momentus believes it can make new
ways of operating in space possible with its in-space transfer and
service vehicles that will be powered by an innovative water
plasma-based propulsion system that is under development.[GN]

MULTI-COLOR CORPORATION: Lee sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Lee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. MULTI-COLOR CORPORATION and WS PACKAGING GROUP, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-00216-WCG (W.D. Wis., Feb. 15, 2023), is brought pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's
Wage Payment and Collection Laws ("WWPCL") by the Plaintiff, for
purposes of obtaining relief under the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed
upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory
and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court
may deem appropriate.

The Defendants operated an unlawful compensation system that
deprived and failed to compensate the Plaintiff and all other
current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours
worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime
rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, by failing to compensate Plaintiff and all other
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all pre-shift and post-shift
hours worked and/or work performed, to the detriment of said
employees and to the benefit of Defendants, in violation of the
FLSA and WWPCL. The Defendants' failure to compensate its hourly
paid, non-exempt employees for compensable work performed each
workweek, including but not limited to at an overtime rate of pay,
was intentional, willful, and violated federal law as set forth in
the FLSA and state law as set forth in the WWPCL, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was re-hired by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee in the position of Plate Output Technician in
August 2018 and is still currently employed by the Defendants.

Multi-Color Corporation is a commercial printer and labeling
manufacturer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MVP GROUP: Alvarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MVP Group
International, Inc. The case is styled as Vivian Alvarez,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MVP
Group International, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01287 (S.D.N.Y., Feb.
15, 2023).

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

MVP Group International, Inc. -- http://www.mvpgroupint.com/-- is
a global leader in home fragrance based on rich heritage, family
roots and strong values.[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


NEW YORK, NY: Judgment on Pleadings as to Federal Claims Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEWAYNE McQUEEN and RAY CEDENO, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF
NEW YORK, DERMOT SHEA, PETER RUOTOLO, and OMAR ELTABIB, Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-4879 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Brian M. Cogan of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York:

   a. grants the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings
      as to the Plaintiffs' federal claims; and

   b. denies as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.

In this removed putative class action, the Plaintiffs allege that
their rights were violated when they were subject to
pre-arraignment detention by the Defendants. Although the
Plaintiffs do not dispute that there was probable cause to support
their arrests for drunk driving, they argue that the Defendants
were required to issue them a desk appearance ticket ("DAT") rather
than detain them under New York's recent bail reform legislation.

In April 2019, the New York State Legislature passed bail reform
legislation that altered the circumstances under which people
accused of crimes may be detained or imprisoned prior to
conviction. This legislation came into effect Jan. 1, 2020. Among
these changes is an amendment to New York's Criminal Procedural Law
("CPL") that makes it mandatory for police to issue a DAT for
certain misdemeanors and infractions, as opposed to detaining a
suspect prior to arraignment. The bail reform statute lists several
exceptions to the DAT requirement. One such exception applies to
instances in which the person is charged with a crime for which the
court may suspend or revoke his or her driver license.

On Jan. 11, 2020, McQueen was arrested at approximately 3:40 a.m.
by a NYPD officer on suspicion of drunk driving. After initially
refusing testing at the police precinct, McQueen's blood alcohol
content ("BAC") was tested and measured at .07%. He was charged
with violating VTL Section 1192(1), which prohibits driving while
ability impaired ("DWAI"), and VTL Section 1192(3), which prohibits
driving while intoxicated ("DWI"). McQueen was detained for
approximately 20 hours before he was arraigned and released on his
own recognizance. His driver's license was not suspended or revoked
at his arraignment.

Similarly, on Feb. 1, 2020, at approximately 1:24 a.m., Cedeno was
arrested on suspicion of drunk driving. After being brought back to
the police precinct, his BAC was tested and measured at .07%.
Cedeno was charged with DWAI and DWI. He was detained for
approximately 24 hours before being released on his own
recognizance, without suspension or revocation of his driver's
license.

The Plaintiffs filed the class action suit in state court on June
15, 2020. On Oct. 9, 2020, the Defendants removed the case to
federal court based on federal question jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' federal law claims.

The Plaintiffs moved to certify a class under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure Rule 23 comprising "all DUI-suspects in New York
City who agreed to blow into a breathalyzer, blew under the legal
limit of 0.08 BAC, and were nevertheless denied a DAT by the
arresting officer." The Defendants opposed their motion, and also
moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) and to dismiss
for lack of standing under Rule 12(b)(1).

The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants violated their rights
because New York's bail reform legislation required that they be
issued a DAT instead of detained after they were arrested for and
charged with DWAI and DWI. The Defendants move to dismiss the
claims, arguing that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to a DAT
because they were charged with DWI, which is a crime for which the
court may suspend or revoke a person's driver license and therefore
exempted from New York's DAT mandate.

Judge Cogan dismisses the Plaintiffs' federal law claims. He finds
that the Plaintiffs' attempt to base federal constitutional
requirements on state statutory law is misplaced. With respect to
the Plaintiffs' claim under 42 U.S. Code Section 1983, he says it
is axiomatic that violations of state law alone are insufficient to
state a claim for Section 1983 relief. The Plaintiffs have also
fallen far short of stating a substantive due process claim based
on "conscience-shocking" or "egregious" conduct on behalf of the
arresting officers.

Having dismissed the Plaintiffs' federal law claims, Judge Cogan
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs'
remaining state law claims. The Plaintiffs' state law claims are
therefore remanded to state court.

Consistent with his analysis, Judge Cogan grants the Defendants'
motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Plaintiffs' federal
claims and dismisses those claims. He remands the Plaintiffs'
remaining state law claims. He denies as moot the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class is denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2023 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2a83wfve from
Leagle.com.


NEXSTAR MEDIA: Faces Frawley Suit Over Video Privacy Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALLIN FRAWLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-10384 (D. Mass., Feb. 20, 2023) alleges violation of
the Video Privacy Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is
engaged in the practice of knowingly disclosing to a third party,
Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Facebook"), data containing its digital
subscribers' (i) personally identifiable information or Facebook ID
("FID") and (ii) the computer file containing video and its
corresponding URL viewed ("Video Media") (collectively, "Personal
Viewing Information").

The Defendant violated the VPPA by disclosing its digital
subscribers' identities and Video Media to Facebook without the
proper consent, says the suit.

NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC. operates as a television broadcasting
company. The Company focuses on the acquisition, development, and
operation of television stations in medium using traditional media,
e-media digital, and mobile media platforms. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 234-6487
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
          GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (847) 208-4585
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

               - and -

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          Email: katrina@lcllp.com

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Residents File Class-Action Over Train Derailment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Zack Budryk at wric.com reports that a Youngstown, Ohio-based law
firm has announced a class-action lawsuit against Norfolk Southern
Railway over the derailment of a train in East Palestine, using a
strategy it says echoes the state's 1990s lawsuit against tobacco
companies.

The firm, Johnson and Johnson, is partnering with class-action law
firm Hagens Berman on behalf of all residents within 30 miles of
the derailment site. The lawsuit specifically invokes the legal
doctrine of "public nuisance," the backbone of both the landmark
1990s lawsuits against the tobacco industry and ongoing litigation
against opioid manufacturers and fossil fuel companies. Hagens
Berman represented the state of Ohio in tobacco litigation as well
as an ongoing opioid suit.

In addition to punitive damages, the lawsuit also seeks the
creation of a fund for medical monitoring, new testing and cleaning
procedures and injunctive relief in the form of safety and
compliance oversight.

The Environmental Protection Agency has already said it will compel
Norfolk Southern to cover all cleanup expenses, as well as the
lodging costs for residents who were temporarily evacuated. In an
email to The Hill, Hagens Berman managing partner Steve Berman said
the lawsuit's aims were distinct from those expenses.

"All of our lawsuit's proposed benefits (monetary damages for all
injured businesses & residents/individuals within 30 miles of the
derailment, establishment of testing & cleaning protocols, a
medical monitoring fund, injunctive relief oversight to Norfolk
Southern's safety & compliance programs) would be above and beyond
what the EPA would have for residents," Berman said. "Additionally,
we will want a say in what an effective cleanup is."

The Norfolk Southern train derailed Feb. 3, toppling multiple cars
containing hazardous materials, including vinyl chloride, a toxic
substance used in the manufacture of plastics. State and federal
authorities have said the air and water are safe for residents, but
earlier this week, the state Department of Natural Resources
updated its estimate of animals that have died in the area from
35,000 to more than 43,000.

A Norfolk Southern spokesperson said the company cannot comment on
ongoing litigation. [GN]

P2 Energy LLC: Ogg Files Suit in D. Colorado
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against P2 Energy LLC. The
case is styled as Joan Ogg, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. P2 Energy LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00469
(D. Colo., Feb. 20, 2023).

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

P2 Energy Solutions -- https://www.p2energysolutions.com/ --
provides a comprehensive range of the best oil and gas software,
geospatial data, land management tools, and outsourcing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary Michael Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com


PANDADOC INC: Clement Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Davin Clement, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PANDADOC INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-00384 (M.D. Fla., Feb.
21, 2023), is brought for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (the "FLSA"), as a result of the Defendants failure to pay
overtime wages to all Inside Sales Representatives (ISR), working
under various job titles, some self-created, others created by the
company such as: Sales Development Representative (SDR), Account
Executive, Sales Partner In Integration, Account Manager, Strategic
Account Executive, Enterprise Account Manager, and other
interchangeable or related job titles.

The Plaintiff was unlawfully not compensated a premium for all
hours worked over 40 in each and every workweek by a scheme and
plan of the Defendant to evade the overtime wage laws and save many
millions of dollars in labor costs to the detriment and harm of the
Plaintiff and all other Inside Sales Representatives. The Defendant
absolutely knows that Inside Sales Representatives routinely worked
overtime hours, as managers and supervisors witnessed the extra
hours, encouraged, and even pressured Inside Sales Representatives
to work as many hours as possible to hit quotas and meet goals and
performance metrics. The Defendant has willfully failed to pay the
Plaintiff, and all similarly situated persons in accordance with
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Specifically, the Plaintiff,
and similarly situated employees were not paid premiums for all
hours they worked in excess of 40 hours per week, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a Sales Development
Representative (BDR) (later called a Sales Partner In Integration)
from March 2021 until the present.

PandaDoc is a company which offers "Guiding a connected world on
the go by automating, optimizing and revolutionizing the way
people, vehicles and things move thr ough the world."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
          6916 West Linebaugh Avenue, Suite 101
          Tampa, FL 33625
          Phone: (813) 639-9366
          Fax: (813) 639-9376
          Email: Mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com


PETZL AMERICA: Wins Bid to Strike Class Claims in Faulhaber Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CRAIG FAULHABER, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PETZL AMERICA, INC. d/b/a business
as Petzl, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00102-CNS-SKC (D.
Colo.), Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado:

   a. grants in part and denies in part Petzl's Motion to Dismiss
      Plaintiff Craig Faulhaber's Amended Complaint; and

   b. grants Petzl's Motion to Strike the Class Action
      Allegations in Mr. Faulhaber's Amended Complaint.

As early as 1982, Petzl began manufacturing safety devices for rock
climbers called "shunts." The retail company REI advertised Petzl's
shunt as used for occasional self-belaying, a form of solo rock
climbing. Petzl's Shunt was popular in the rock climbing community
for self-belaying.

In 2001, Lyon Equipment Ltd., a British company, was commissioned
by the Health and Safety Executive, a United Kingdom governmental
agency, to investigate devices used for rock climbing, including
Petzl's Shunt. After conducting its investigation, the company
concluded that the Petzl Shunt had several shortfalls, including
the Shunt's potential safety failures when "only one rope is used"
in rock climbing. The Petzl Shunt failed "every minimum working
strength test" Lyon conducted during its safety investigation.
After this investigation, including a safety test conducted by the
International Rope Access Trade Association, and other incident
reports regarding the Shunt's safety effectiveness in arresting
climbers' falls, Petzl devised more specific guidance on how to use
the Shunt.

In 2012, Petzl was "still specifically indicating" that the Shunt
could be used for self-belaying. During sometime in 2017 or 2018,
Petzl stopped providing instructions for use of the Shunt for
self-belaying in its technical manuals. However, nowhere in the
Shunt's technical manuals did Petzl specify that climbers should
not use the Shunt for self-belaying due to any of its documented
shortfalls.

In 2017 or 2018, Petzl introduced a new version of the Shunt that
it claimed was "purely a sport device" for traditional two-person
belaying. REI later began marketing the Shunt's new version,
consistent with Petzl marketing. However, the "new" Shunt appeared
to be identical to the Shunt REI previously marketed and sold.

Petzl remains aware that the Shunt was still being used for solo
belaying. For instance, many online reviews and online climbing
forums of the Shunt described using it for top rope solo climbing.
One "Petzl-sponsored climber and author expressly recommended" the
Shunt as one of the best devices for self-belaying, noting that the
Shunt has been used for decades to self-belay, and previously
recommended by Petzl for this purpose. However, Petzl did not
expressly or specifically warn against using the Shunt for
self-belaying. It also provided general principles for solo
climbing with a fixed belay rope.

In August 2021, after consulting with a "Petzl Expert," who
positively discussed the Shunt on his website and recommended the
Shunt for fall arresting while top rope solo climbing, Mr.
Faulhaber purchased a Shunt specifically for use during top rope
solo climbing. Mr. Faulhaber relied on the recommendations of the
"Petzl Expert" and numerous online recommendations when deciding to
purchase the Shunt.

While climbing by himself in September 2021, Mr. Faulhaber fell 35
feet when the Shunt he used "completely failed." The Shunt's
failure was consistent with failures documented in earlier safety
reports: Mr. Faulhaber's Shunt was "likely subjected to forces in
excess of" of four kilonewtowns ("kN"), the amount of force Lyon
Equipment identified as capable of deforming the Shunt's body, and
an amount of force "consistent with normal fall arresting."

As a result of his fall, Mr. Faulhaber suffered serious injuries,
including bone fractures throughout his body and spine. The Shunt's
failure was the type documented by safety reports and
investigations regarding the Shunt. After falling, Mr. Faulhaber
attempted to contact several Petzl employees and executives about
the Shunt's failure. Petzl's Chief Operating Officer, Tom Adams,
claimed he did not know that climbers were using the Shunt for
climbing by themselves.

Mr. Faulhaber is not the only Colorado resident to have been
injured while using Petzl's Shunt. Mr. Trevor Stuart, a Colorado
resident, fell while using the Shunt in West Virginia in November
2021, incurring serious injuries.

Mr. Faulhaber initiated the class action lawsuit in January 2022.
After Petzl filed an initial motion to dismiss and the parties
conferred regarding Mr. Faulhaber's responses and amendments to his
complaint, Mr. Faulhaber filed his Amended Complaint in April 2022.
Petzl filed the instant Motion to Dismiss in May 2022. The Motion
is fully briefed.

Petzl contends that dismissal of Mr. Faulhaber's Amended Complaint
is warranted for three reasons. First, that Ms. Faulhaber has not
adequately pleaded claims under Colorado's products liability
statute because he fails to allege a "lack of misuse." Second, that
Mr. Faulhaber's Amended Complaint is "procedurally improper."  And
third, that Mr. Faulhaber fails to state claims for violation of
the Colorado Consumer Protection Act ("CCPA") and breach of implied
warranty.

Judge Sweeney grants Petzl's dismissal motion as to Mr. Faulhaber's
CCPA claim based on a theory of fraudulent misrepresentations, but
denies Petzl's dismissal motion as to the applicability of the
misuse defense, the procedural impropriety of Mr. Faulhaber's
Amended Complaint, the plausibility of his CCPA claim based on a
theory of material omissions, and the plausibility of his breach of
implied warranty claim.

Judge Sweeney finds that (i) under Colorado products liability law,
misuse is an affirmative defense, not an affirmative pleading
requirement, and that Petzl has not met its burden of showing that
the misuse defense bars Mr. Faulhaber's claims; (ii) Mr. Faulhaber
has pleaded sufficient factual content to demonstrate that Petzl
omitted material information regarding the Shunt's use for top rope
soloing that constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice
under the CCPA, and therefore dismissal of his CCPA claim based on
a theory of material omissions is inappropriate; and (iii) she
rejects the three arguments Petzl advances regarding the dismissal
of Mr. Faulhaber's claim for breach of the implied warranty of
fitness for a particular purpose.

Finally, Judge Sweeney is mindful that striking class allegations
is a "drastic remedy." Nonetheless, she says it is appropriate to
strike class allegations where it is apparent from the pleadings
that the class cannot be certified or that the definition of the
class is overbroad.

Judge Sweeney holds that Petzl has conclusively met its burden of
showing that the Purchaser Class is overbroad, and that the Injury
Class cannot be certified on the grounds that the Injury Class
fails Rule 23(b)(3)'s superiority requirement. Accordingly, and
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), she strikes Mr.
Faulhaber's class allegations from the Amended Complaint. Given
that motions to strike are generally disfavored in this context,
she strikes Mr. Faulhaber's class allegations without prejudice.

Consistent with her analysis, Judge Sweeney grants in part and
denies in part Petzl's Motion to Dismiss. She grants Petzl's Motion
to Strike. Mr. Faulhaber may, if he chooses to do so and believes
he can rectify the deficiencies, file an amended complaint within
14 days of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yw5ds9sd from Leagle.com.


PHILIP D. MURPHY: Court Narrow Claims in Marrara Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MARRARA and
MICHAEL DOTRO, v. PHILIP D. MURPHY, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-02056-ES-ESK (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Esther Salas entered
an order:

   1. granting-in-part and denying-in-part the Defendants'
      motion to dismiss;

   2. granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss to the extent
      that it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' federal Section
      1983 claims;

   3. dismissing the Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims against the
      Defendants with prejudice for failure to state a claim for
      relief;

   4. remanding the Plaintiffs' state law claims to the Superior
      Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County,
      Docket Number MID-L-6279-21; and

   5. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
      motion to appoint Pro Bono Counsel as moot and without
      prejudice to Plaintiff's ability to so move in state
      court.

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



PREFERRED FINANCIAL: Parties Must Confer on Revised Discovery Sched
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jordan, et al., v.
Preferred Financial Corporation, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00914
(M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Catherine C. Eagles entered an order
directing the parties shall meet and confer about a revised
discovery schedule in light of consolidation and class
certification and file an updated LR 16.2/Rule 26(f) report, or
reports if they do not agree, no later than February 28, 2023.

To the extent there are additional Initial Pre-trial disclosures in
22cv483 beyond what was exchanged in 21cv914 they shall be
exchanged no later than February 21, 2023.

The Magistrate Judge shall set a Status Conference in March to
review the scheduling order. In the meantime, the parties shall
proceed expeditiously with discovery in both cases.

The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]



PRISMA LABS: Flora Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Flora, Eric Matson, Nathan Stoner, Courtney Owens, and D.J., a
minor child, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. PRISMA LABS, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00680-VKD (N.D.
Cal., Feb. 15, 2023), is brought against the Defendant's violation
of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") as a
result of the Defendant's collection of biometric identifiers and
biometric information namely, scans of their face geometry, but it
does not disclose these practices to its users.

The company's "Lensa" app is specific to facial images, marketed to
allow users to upload their "selfies" (or other photos of
themselves) for editing and retouching. The Lensa app was first
introduced in 2018, but it exploded in popularity in November of
2022 with the launch of the "magic avatar" feature, which requires
a user to upload a number of selfies or facial images to function.
The app then processes the images to create an artistic image,
which the user can then post on social media. In the process of
creating the "magic avatars," Prisma collects the facial geometry
associated with the uploaded images. It then uses that facial
geometry not only to create the "magic avatar," but also to train
its neural network algorithms to, in Prisma's words, "perform
better and show the user better results."

The Defendant collects, possesses, stores, uses, and profits from
the Plaintiffs' biometric identifiers--namely, scans of their face
geometry. These identifiers are then tagged to their access devices
and used as biometric information. Prisma collects the photo
subject's biometric data (facial geometry) in an non-anonymized
fashion; offers a confusing and false disclosure of its collection
practices; retains the subject's biometric data in a non-anonymized
fashion, retains that data indefinitely for uses wholly unrelated
to the user's purpose for using Lensa, profits from the biometrics;
and has no public written policy for the deletion of that data.

Prisma purports to disclose its collection and capture of user
information through Lensa in its Privacy Policy. The Privacy Policy
fails to disclose the biometric data and other information Prisma
collects from its users and from the images uploaded through Lensa.
The Defendant has not established a written policy, made available
to the public, establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for
permanently destroying Plaintiffs' and the Class members' biometric
identifiers and biometric information when the initial purpose for
collecting or obtaining such identifiers or information has been
satisfied or within 3 years of the individual's last interaction
with the private entity, whichever occurs first.

To the contrary, Defendant's written policy for deletion of
information collected from Lensa users and otherwise, fails to
disclose that Prisma possesses the Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
biometric identifiers or information and expressly excludes
reference to biometric identifiers and biometric information in
discussing its retention practices. In other words, Defendant has
no written policy for deletion of Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
biometric identifiers and biometric information.

By failing to develop a publicly-available written policy for the
deletion of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' biometric identifiers
and biometric information, and by instead retaining such data
indefinitely, Defendant recklessly or intentionally (or, in the
alternative, negligently) violated the requirements of BIPA, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are individuals who have had their facial geometry
collected through the Lensa app.

Prisma Labs, Inc., is a company that develops mobile apps for
editing and stylizing digital images and videos.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas M. Hanson, Esq.
          Mike Kanovitz, Esq.
          Jordan Poole, Esq.
          LOEVY & LOEVY
          311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Floor
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Phone: (312) 243-5900
          Fax: (312) 243-5902
          Email: hanson@loevy.com
                 mike@loevy.com
                 poole@loevy.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Bounthon Sues Over Misleading Representations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Bounthon, Vivianna Rivera and Gina Allen, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE
COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00765-JCS (N.D. Cal., Feb. 21, 2023), is
brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of consumers who purchased
Tampax-branded Pure Cotton tampons (the "Tampon Products" or the
"Products") for personal hygiene purposes which contained false and
misleading representations.

As one of the biggest players in the very lucrative feminine
hygiene market, P&G is keenly aware of increased consumer demand
for products which limit unnecessary chemical exposure. In order to
capitalize on this demand, P&G designs, manufactures, advertises,
distributes, and sells personal care products, including the Tampon
Products that are the subject of this action.

Beginning with the name "Tampax Pure Cotton," along with the "100%
ORGANIC Cotton Core" representation, both of which are in large,
bold font on the front and center of the Tampon Products, Defendant
intentionally and knowingly leads consumers to believe that the
Tampon Products are a healthy product for absorbing menstrual
fluid, and that they do not contain any chemicals that are
potentially harmful to women's health. Similarly, on the back label
of the Tampon Products, P&G uniformly represents the Tampon
Products as being "THE BEST OF SCIENCE & NATURE" in capitalized
font, and reaffirms that the products contain "100% ORGANIC"
cotton.

The Defendant has intentionally designed the front and back label
representations on the Tampon Products, beginning with the name
"Tampax Pure Cotton," along with the "100% ORGANIC"
representations, as well as the "THE BEST OF SCIENCE AND NATURE"
representation (collectively, the "Pure and Organic
Representations"), in order to lead reasonable consumers to believe
that the Tampon Products do not contain any potentially harmful
chemicals. Reasonable consumers, therefore, fairly and reasonably
understand that a product marketed with the Pure and Organic
Representations would not contain chemicals known to be harmful to
humans or the environment.

However, despite P&G's consistent and pervasive marketing of the
Products as Pure and Organic, Plaintiffs' independent testing has
shown that the Tampon Products contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"), a category of human-made chemicals with a
toxic, persistent, and bioaccumulative nature which are associated
with numerous health concerns.

The presence of PFAS chemicals in the Tampon Products is entirely
inconsistent with P&G's uniform Pure and Organic Representations.
As a result of P&G's misconduct, Plaintiffs and members of the
putative classes, have suffered injury in fact in the form of
economic damages. The Plaintiffs bring this suit to halt P&G's
dissemination of false and misleading representations and to
correct the false and misleading perceptions that P&G's
representations have created in the minds of reasonable consumers,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased the Products for personal hygiene
purposes.

The Proctor & Gamble Company is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin E Shiftan, Esq.
          PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
          555 Montgomery St., Suite 1205
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 433-9000
          Email: bshiftan@pwfirm.com


QUALIA COLLECTION: Wallace Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Qualia Collection
Services. The case is styled as Carla Wallace, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Qualia Collection
Services, Case No. 7:22-cv-08084 (D.N.J., Feb. 20, 2023).

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

Qualia Collection Services --
https://www.qualiacollectionservices.com/ -- is a debt collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Thomas Yusko, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Discovery Ongoing in ERISA Class Suit in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2023, that the discovery is
ongoing for the ERISA class suit in the U.S. District Court of New
Jersey.
   
In 2020, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for New Jersey against the Company and other
defendants with respect to the Company's 401(k) plan. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the fiduciaries of the 401(k)
plan breached their duties by failing to disclose the expenses and
risks of plan investment options, allowing unreasonable
administration expenses to be charged to plan participants, and
selecting and retaining high cost and poor performing investments.


In October 2020, the court consolidated the two lawsuits under the
caption In re: Quest Diagnostics ERISA Litigation and plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint.

In May 2021, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint.

Discovery is proceeding.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is a healthcare company based in New
Jersey. [BN]

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Subsidiary Seeks Dismissal of Trouville Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2023, that ReproSource
Fertility Diagnostics, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company moves to
transfer the Trouville putative class suit from California state
court and/or dismiss the case.

A putative class action pertaining to data security incident,
Trouville v. ReproSource Fertility Diagnostics, Inc., was filed in
California state court.

The Company removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss
and/or transfer it to U.S. District Court for Massachusetts.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated and its subsidiaries uses its
extensive database of clinical lab results to derive diagnostic
insights that reveal new avenues to identify and treat disease,
inspire healthy behaviors and improve healthcare management.

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Unit Seeks Dismissal of Bickham, Gordon Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2023, that ReproSource
Fertility Diagnostics, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, moves to
dismiss the Bickham and Gordon putative class suits in the U.S.
District Court for Massachusetts.

ReproSource Fertility Diagnostics, Inc., a subsidiary of the
Company, is subject to two putative class action lawsuits in the
U.S. District Court for Massachusetts: Bickham v. ReproSource
Fertility Diagnostics, Inc. and Gordon v. ReproSource Fertility
Diagnostics, Inc.

The class actions are related to a data security incident that
occurred in August 2021 in which an unauthorized party may have
accessed or acquired protected health information and personally
identifiable information of ReproSource patients.

The complaints generally allege that ReproSource, among other
claims, failed to adequately safeguard customers' private
information. ReproSource has moved to dismiss both complaints.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated and its subsidiaries uses its
extensive database of clinical lab results to derive diagnostic
insights that reveal new avenues to identify and treat disease,
inspire healthy behaviors and improve healthcare management.

RACHEL ROSSIN: Essential Home Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rachel Rossin. The
case is styled as Essential Home Remodeling, Inc., individually,
and on behalf of all other similarly situated New York Lien Law
Article 3-A Trust Beneficiaries v. Rachel Rossin, Case No.
650871/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Feb. 16, 2023).

Rachel Rossin -- https://rossin.co/ -- is a multi-media and
installation artist based in New York City.[BN]

RANCHO MESQUITE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Charns at 8newsnow.com reports that a class-action lawsuit
filed alleges a southern Nevada casino's computer systems were left
vulnerable to a cyberattack, leaving the personal information of
more than 200,000 customers and employees exposed, court documents
said.

A hacker was able to access the sensitive information involving
Rancho Mesquite Casino over several days in November 2022,
documents said. Information accessed included full names and Social
Security numbers.

The company operates the Rising Star Sports Ranch Resort in
Mesquite and The Brook in Seabrook, New Hampshire, its website
said. Two of the company's properties were affected, documents
said.

The class action, filed in Las Vegas court, alleges the company
failed to provide "to provide timely and adequate notice" about the
breach. The originating plaintiff is a California resident who said
his computer was part of a ransomware attack, documents said.

A document in the filing, provided by authorities in Maine, said
the company mailed notices of the breach in December 2022. The
company was offered a dedicated phone line and one year of credit
monitoring.

"On November 9, 2022, Eureka experienced a cybersecurity incident
during which some of our systems were encrypted by an unauthorized
actor," a letter sent to those affected by the breach and included
in the filing said. "Upon discovering the incident, we immediately
took steps to secure our systems, began an investigation, and a
cybersecurity firm was engaged to assist. Although the
investigation is ongoing, we identified certain data that the
unauthorized actor accessed during the incident. We began a review
of the data and identified that the data included some of your
information. Specifically, the data included your name and Social
Security number."

The lawsuit alleges the company failed to encrypt the sensitive
information.

"Simply put, plaintiff and class members now face substantial risk
of out-of-pocket fraud losses such as loans opened in their names,
medical services billed in their names, tax return fraud, utility
bills opened in their names, credit card fraud, and similar
identity theft," documents said.

The lawsuit accuses the company of negligence, breach of contract
and other counts. It asks a jury to award class members monetary
damages and order the company to implement further security
measures.

The company did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Eureka Casino Las Vegas has separate ownership and data
infrastructure and was not affected, a company official said. [GN]


REALPAGE INC: Cheong Suit Alleges Housing Lease Monopoly
--------------------------------------------------------
KENNY LAI CHEONG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL
ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY; CUSHMAN &
WAKEFIELD, INC.; MID-AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; EQUITY
RESIDENTIAL; MORGAN PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT COMPANY; CAMDEN PROPERTY
TRUST; and TRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00222 (E.D. Va., Feb. 17, 2023) alleges violation of the
Sherman Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants entered
into an unlawful agreement facilitated by RealPage's property
management software platform to artificially inflate the price of
multifamily residential property leases across the United States.

The Defendants are engaged in the conspiracy to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize rental housing prices throughout the United
States, says the suit.

REALPAGE, INC. provides products and services to the multifamily
real estate industries. The Company offers applicant screening,
accounting, budgeting, property management, and compliance
reporting solutions. RealPage also develops and delivers
proprietary web-based applications that enhance client information
management capabilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Le, Esq.
          Timothy D. Battin, Esq.
          BOIES BATTIN, LLP
          4041 University Drive, 5th Floor
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 764-8700
          Email: tbattin@boiesbattin.com
                 cle@boiesbattin.com

RETSEL CORP: Court Denies Bid to Consolidate U.S. and NDN Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lawrence L. Piersol of the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Dakota, Western Division, denies the Parties'
motion to consolidate the case, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff
v. RETSEL CORPORATION, d/b/a GRAND GATEWAY HOTEL and d/b/a CHEERS
SPORTS LOUNGE AND CASINO, CONNIE UHRE, and NICHOLAS UHRE,
Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-5086 (D.S.D.), with NDN Collective v.
Retsel Corp., 5:22-cv-5027, for discovery purposes only.

In NDN Collective v. Retsel, 5:22-cv-5027, filed on March 23, 2022,
the Plaintiffs alleged in their first amended complaint claims of
discrimination by employees of Retsel in violation of 42 U.S.C.
Section 1981 seeking class action status, declaratory and
injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and other
appropriate relief. The Plaintiffs' second amended complaint
repeats the claims and adds claims for assault and battery.

All claims arise out of the Defendants' alleged discrimination
against the Plaintiffs on the basis of race in connection with
access to and the rental of rooms from the Grand Gateway Hotel and
Cheers Bar, Rapid City, S.D. The Defendants have denied the
Plaintiffs' allegations and filed a counterclaim alleging
intentional interference with business relations, defamation,
trespass, nuisance, and civil conspiracy against Plaintiff NDN
Collective.

The instant case, filed on Oct. 19, 2022, alleges discrimination in
violation of 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000a, et seq., and seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief and appropriate remedial action.
The case arises from many of the same incidents that are the
subject of the NDN Collective lawsuit, 5:22-cv-5027.

Pending before the Court is the joint motion of the Parties to
consolidate the instant case with NDN Collective for discovery
purposes only. NDN Collective has filed its Notice of No Opposition
to Consolidate. cv-5027). The Court held a hearing on the motion on
Feb. 3, 2023, to consider the arguments of the Parties in support
of the motion.

Judge Piersol states that the Parties have moved for consolidation
of 5:22-cv-5086 and 5:22-cv-5027 with respect to discovery only. As
was evident at the motion hearing on Feb. 3, 2023, the Parties know
they can stipulate to the use of the discovery gleaned in both
cases for use in both cases. They do not require a court order to
enter such a stipulation. The Parties also acknowledge they can
seek a ruling from the Court if any issue with discovery arises.

Judge Piersol recognizes the similarities in the claims and that
certain witnesses are common to both cases. It is evident, however,
that the Plaintiffs in NDN Collective have claims substantially
more far-reaching than those of the United States. The latter seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, while the former seeks similar
relief but also includes claims for actual and punitive damages
resulting from the alleged discrimination, as well as claims
sounding in tort. The counterclaims by Retsel against NDN
Collective are not lodged against the United States and the relief
sought, therefore, far exceeds any relief that potentially is
available between the United States and the Defendants.

These distinctions in the cases, according to Judge Piersol, will
require the Parties to engage in discovery that likely will differ
in length of time needed, avenues of inquiry and witnesses,
resulting in differing time frames for resolution of the claims at
issue. Therefore, because he finds consolidation of discovery
pursuant to the Court's order may not promote efficiency and
economy, and in fact, may have the opposite effect, he denies the
Parties' motion to consolidate for discovery, recognizing no
opposition from NDN Collective. Should the Parties choose to
stipulate to the use of discovery materials gleaned in one case for
use in the other, Judge Piersol encourages such actions.

Additional discussion during the motion hearing on Feb. 3, 2023,
centered on the common issues in the case and the schedule for
resolving them. Judge Piersol will consolidate the declaratory and
injunctive portion of the two cases for trial which will be
scheduled for the week of June 10, 2024. The remaining claims in
NDN Collective v. Retsel will be tried in October or November 2024.
The Parties in each case will propose scheduling orders.

Accordingly, the motion of the United States and Retsel to
consolidate the cases for discovery, with no opposition from NDN
Collective is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 15, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/b6mtws76 from Leagle.com.


RICH HOLDINGS: Flores Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rich Holdings, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Renato Flores, individually and on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Rich
Holdings, Inc., Rich Products Corporation, Treehouse Foods, Inc.,
Treehouse Private Brands, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0001425
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 17, 2023).

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

Rich Holdings Inc. -- https://www.richs.com/ -- operates as a
frozen baked food wholesaler. The Company offers cakes, sweet
starters, bakery, pizza, beverages, and desserts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RIVERWAY BUSINESS: Fobbs Sues Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------
Latesa Fobbs, Latoya Collins, Ricky Stevens, and Deontre Lowery,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
RIVERWAY BUSINESS SERVICES INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00624 (S.D. Tex.,
Feb. 21, 2023), is brought arising from Defendant's willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and for common
law claims of breach of contract or (in the alternative) unjust
enrichment seeking unpaid wages, an award of liquidated damages,
injunctive and declaratory relief, attendant penalties and an award
of attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendant compensates its hourly employees using a time
rounding system, in which the employees time is rounded to the
nearest quarter of an hour. As explained herein, the time rounding
policy is unlawful because, when examined in conjunction with
Defendant's other policies and practices (i.e. as applied), it is
not a neutral time rounding policy. Defendant's rounding policy
only results in the rounding down of hours and virtually never
results in the rounding up of hours. Specifically, under
Defendant's written attendance and schedule adherence policies,
hourly employees are either expressly prohibited or discouraged
from recording their time in a way that allows them to benefit from
the time rounding policy.

The time rounding policy routinely results in hourly employees
losing time and rarely results in them gaining time. Additionally,
Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to include non-discretionary
bonuses (incentive pay) in the calculation of the CSAs' overtime
rates. The Defendant requires its CSAs to work a full-time
schedule, plus (when approved) overtime, however, the Defendant
does not compensate CSAs for all work performed. The Defendant knew
or should have known how long it takes CSAs to complete their
off-the-clock work, and Defendant could have properly compensated
Plaintiffs and the putative Collective and Class for this work but
did not, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as hourly remote customer
service agents (hereinafter "CSAs") who perform customer support
services for NRG Energy Inc.'s customers.

The Defendant "is a leading full-service staffing company."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Phone: (954) 327-5355
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com

               - and –

          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          ASH LAW, PLLC
          402 W. Liberty St.
          Ann Arbor, MI 48178
          Phone: (734) 234-5583
          Email: cash@nationalwagelaw.com

               - and –

          Oscar Rodriguez, Esq.
          HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C.
          126 Main St
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1903
          Phone: (734) 662-4426
          Email: orod@hooperhathaway.com


S M CONSTRUCTION: Mateo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Mateo, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. S M CONSTRUCTION USA, INC., a New York corporation, and
SAFDAR MUHAMMAD, an individual, Case 1:23-cv-01338 (S.D.N.Y., Feb.
16, 2023), is brought for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), for violations of the
N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and for violations of the "spread of
hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of
Labor (the "Spread Of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Plaintiff was initially paid a flat rate of $25.00 per hour,
and after approximately eight months, his hourly rate was reduced
to per hour. On weeks when Plaintiff worked Monday through Friday,
he worked approximately 42 hours per week, and on weeks when he
worked Monday through Saturday, he worked approximately 48 hours
per week. Work on Saturdays occurred roughly every second
Saturday.

The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff any overtime premium
(time and a half) for hours worked over 40 in each workweek. As
part of their regular business practice, the Defendants
intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly harmed the Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals by engaging in a pattern, practice,
and/or policy of violating the FLSA and the NYLL, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as a construction worker on Defendants'
various projects from July 2021 through August 2022.

The Defendant is a construction company headquartered in Queens,
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nolan Klein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
          5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: (954) 745-0588
          Email: klein@nklegal.com
                 amy@nklegal.com
                 melanie@nklegal.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Bennett Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Bennett, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-05540 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey on Feb. 21, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01019 to the
proceeding.

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

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:

          Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq.
          Robert W. Harrer, Esq.
          CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, P.C.
          33 N. Dearborn St., Suite 400
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 858-3239

The Defendant is represented by:

          Julie B. Porter, Esq.
          SALVATORE PRESCOTT PORTER & PORTER PLLC
          1010 Davis Street
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Phone: (312) 283-5711


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Wenzel Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Steven Wenzel, Harold Nyanjom, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-02323 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, 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-00915 to the
proceeding.

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

Samsung Electronics -- http://www.samsung.com/us-- leads the
global market in high-tech electronics manufacturing and digital
media.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave., Ste. 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Phone: (813) 224-0431
          Fax: (813) 229-8712

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


SAN DIEGO SIGN: Thomas Sues Over Unlawful Employment Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randol Thomas, individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated v. SAN DIEGO SIGN COMPANY, INC. dba WS DISPLAY,
Case 1:23-cv-00283-CCC (M.D. Pa., Feb. 16, 2023), is brought under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), Title I of
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, ("Section 1981") to correct unlawful
employment practices and to provide appropriate relief to a class
of Black / African American applicants who were adversely affected
by such practices.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has engaged in discrimination
against a class of Black / African American applicants at its
location on Pine Hill Drive in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, by failing
or refusing to hire them because of their color and/or race since
at least 2019.

Evidence of this unlawful practice, implemented by Chief Operating
Officer Zachary Miller and Human Resources Representative Hazel
Thompson, and enforced by other managers in the workplace such as
Harry Santiago includes, for example, screening qualified Black /
African American candidates based on their color and/or race in
order to not offer said applicants employment or interview
opportunities; refusing to offer Mr. Thomas an opportunity to
interview for the position of Print Operator Associate after Mr.
Miller was advised by another employee, Dan Strayer, that Mr.
Thomas was Black / African American; referring to an African
American temp worker as a "dumb ass nigger"; only offering jobs in
the print room to Caucasian individuals; only offering jobs in the
warehouse to Hispanic individuals; refusing to directly hire any
Black / African American individuals who were assigned to work for
WS through a temporary staffing agency, while other temporary
workers were hired directly by WS; failing to employ one Black /
African American individual in a company of almost 100 employees;
and terminating an employee, Alden Myers, after Mr. Myers made a
good faith report to WS's management about discriminatory hiring
practices.

The effect of the practices complained has been to deprive a class
of Black / African American applicants of equal employment
opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status of
applicants because of their color and/or race. The unlawful
employment practices complained were intentional. The unlawful
employment practices complained were done with malice or with
reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of a class
of Black / African American applicants, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a Black / African American adult male residing in
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.

WS specializes in wholesale portable trade show displays, banner
stands and large format digital printing, and employes
approximately 93 employees between its locations in California and
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
          Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
          Steve T. Mahan, Esq.
          Michael J. Bradley, Esq.
          WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
          2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Phone: (717) 238-5707
          Facsimile: (717) 233-8133
          Email: lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com
                 dcummings@weisbergcummings.com
                 smahan@weisbergcummings.com
                 mbradley@weisbergcummings.com


SEALED AIR: Settlement in UA Class Suit Wins Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 21, 2023, that the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted final approval
of the settlement of UA Local class suit on January 20, 2023.

On November 1, 2019, purported Company stockholder UA Local 13 &
Employers Group Insurance Fund filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers.

On June 4, 2020, the complaint was amended to remove all individual
defendants other than the Company's former CFO and to add a
plaintiff, and on July 13, 2020, the complaint was further amended
to identify a total of four plaintiffs.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions concerning the Company's hiring
of Ernst & Young LLP as its independent auditors and concerning the
Company's corporate policies and procedures.

The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between November 17, 2014 and June 20, 2019.


The complaint sought, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, including interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 4, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, and on June 1, 2021, the court issued a ruling that
granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.

The Company filed its answer to the complaint on July 15, 2021.

On September 9, 2022, the parties signed a settlement agreement
including a proposed settlement amount of $12.5 million and
submitted it to the court for preliminary approval.

On September 14, 2022, the Court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement.

In the third quarter of 2022, the Company recorded a liability of
$12.5 million in Other current liabilities and a corresponding
$12.5 million insurance receivable in Other receivables on the
Consolidated Balance Sheets.

On January 20, 2023, the Court certified a settlement class and
issued an order granting final approval of the settlement. The
settlement was funded by the Company's insurance carriers.

Headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, Sealed Air Corp. (NYSE:
SEE) is a global manufacturer of automated packaging equipment,
services and sustainable materials for various food, e-commerce,
and industrial applications. Sealed Air reports in two segments,
Food and Protective as of the twelve months that ended September
2022.


SEQUOIA CAPITAL: Rabbitte Sues Over Unfair & False Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick J. Rabbitte, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS, LLC, THOMA BRAVO,
LP, and PARADIGM OPERATIONS LP, Case No. 3:23-cv-00655 (N.D. Cal.,
Feb. 14, 2023), is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased,
deposited, and/or transacted in fiat currency or digital assets in
accounts with West Realm Shires Services Inc. d/b/a FTX US ("FTX
US") or FTX Trading LTD. d/b/a FTX ("FTX or "the Company")
(collectively, the "FTX Entities") between July 20, 2021 and
November 11, 2022 (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages
and other equitable and appropriate relief as a result of the
Defendants' violations of the California Unfair Competition Law,
the California False Advertising Law, the California Corporations
Code, and various common law causes of action.

FTX was a cryptocurrency exchange started in 2019 by Samuel Bankman
Fried, who served as its Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") at all
relevant times. FTX's U.S. affiliate, FTX US, was founded in 2020.
The FTX Entities offered a range of trading products to
cryptocurrency investors, including derivatives, options,
volatility products, and leveraged tokens. The FTX Entities also
provided spot markets in more than 300 cryptocurrency trading
pairs, including the native token FTT/USDT ("FTT Tokens"), thereby
enabling FTX customers to trade with leverage and short certain
markets by borrowing from other FTX users. Importantly, however,
each of the FTX Entities' terms of service expressly stated that
customer assets belonged solely to the customer and would not be
transferred to FTX trading.

The FTX Entities constituted one half of Bankman-Fried's
cryptocurrency empire, the other being a crypto-trading firm called
Alameda Research, which Bankman-Fried founded in 2017 in
California. Bankman-Fried served as CEO of Alameda until 2021, when
he was succeeded by Caroline Ellison. After stepping down as CEO of
Alameda and at all relevant times thereafter, Bankman-Fried
consistently maintained that the FTX Entities and Alameda were
separate and distinct.

From 2019 to 2022, the FTX Entities and Bankman-Fried undertook a
major promotional marketing campaign. The campaign, which included
social media posts, interviews, sports partnerships, internet and
television advertisements, and naming rights deals, rapidly
increased the FTX Entities' valuation, which grew from $1.2 billion
to $32 billion in only three years.

FTX's campaign to build trust relied on significant financial
support from Defendants. A key component of the highly lucrative
promotional marketing campaign included the air of legitimacy lent
by Defendants Sequoia, Thoma Bravo, and Paradigm--U.S.-based
venture capital and private equity firms--who claimed to have
conducted significant due diligence of the FTX Entities' operations
and vouched that the use of the FTX platforms was safe and secure
for crypto investors. These Defendants were part owners of the FTX
Entities and had a significant financial interest in promoting the
use of the FTX platforms so as to increase the returns on their
investments.

On July 20, 2021, Defendants partook in a media campaign to tout
the fact that they had invested hundreds of millions of dollars in
the FTX Entities. By the time the FTX Entities declared bankruptcy
on November 11, 2022, Sequoia had invested over $200 million, Thoma
Bravo had invested more than $100 million, and Paradigm had
invested more than $250 million in the FTX Entities. All told,
Defendants invested well over half a billion dollars in the
fraudulent FTX scheme. As a result of Defendants' significant
investments in the FTX Entities, each was incentivized to leverage
their professional reputations and media outreach capabilities to
portray FTX as a trustworthy and legitimate crypto exchange, as
reflected by each defendant's participation in promotional efforts
from the very beginning of their investments in the FTX Entities.
Defendants intended to drive users to the exchange in order to
increase the valuation of the FTX Entities, with the goal of
increasing the return on Defendants' investments.

The Defendants knew that their investments in the FTX Entities
would be used to promote the platforms as credible and trustworthy.
Defendants bolstered these marketing campaigns with their own
promotional materials, which sought to gain public trust and
distinguish FTX as the most trusted brand in the crypto industry.
Throughout the Class Period and as detailed herein, Defendants made
numerous deceptive and misleading statements about the FTX
Entities' business, finances, operations, and prospects for the
purpose of inducing customers to invest, trade, and/or deposit
assets with the FTX Entities. Defendants portrayed FTX as a
fast-growing tech startup that had revolutionized the crypto space
through innovation, reliability, and a focus on the greater good.
Defendants claimed that this transformative business could be, and
in fact was already, being applied to a host of interconnected
platforms that would forever change cryptocurrency markets, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased, deposited, and transacted assets with FTX

Sequoia is a venture capital firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          Hadiya K. Deshmukh, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415/288-4545
          Fax: 415/288-4534
          Email: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
                 hdeshmukh@rgrdlaw.com

               – and –

          Eric I Niehaus, Esq.
          Brian E Cochran, Esq.
          Kenneth P Dolitsky, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Phone: 619/231-1058
          Fax: 619/231-7423
          Email: ericn@rgrdlaw.com
                 bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
                 kdolitsky@rgrdlaw.com


SILVERGATE BANK: Keane Sues Over Fraud and Corporate Malfeasance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Keane, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public v. SILVERGATE BANK, and SILVERGATE CAPITAL
CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-00670 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2023), is
brought concerning Silvergate's conduct regarding the now-infamous
cryptocurrency trading exchange, FTX, which spectacularly imploded
in early November 2022, entering into Chapter 11 bankruptcy as the
result of rampant fraud and corporate malfeasance that has
seemingly left over a million creditors with losses in the billions
of dollars.

Because of the risks attendant to its lack of regulation and ease
of use for fraud and crime, most banks have steered clear of any
involvement in cryptocurrency industry. But Silvergate Bank gambled
that getting deeply involved in this burgeoning industry would pay
off big. Today, Silvergate is known as one of the most
"crypto-friendly" banks in the U.S., in part because it offers a
bespoke payments product, called the Silvergate Exchange Network
(SEN), to facilitate its cryptocurrency clients' conversion of fiat
currencies to digital assets and vice versa (what is known as
"on-ramping" and "off-ramping" in crypto).

Until recently, FTX was one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges
in the world. Its spectacular implosion in early November 2022 has
been widely publicized. A number of persons involved in the fraud
have been indicted or pleaded guilty to wire fraud, money
laundering, and other financial crimes. At the heart of the FTX
fraud was the misappropriation of customer deposits intended for
FTX into bank accounts controlled by Alameda Research, a
cryptocurrency hedge fund sharing common ownership with FTX, where
they were embezzled.

Silvergate had actual knowledge of and substantially assisted the
fraud by permitting FTX to divert its customer's funds to Alameda
Research, a cryptocurrency hedge fund that was a wholly-separate
entity but commonly owned by FTX's owner, Sam Bankman-Fried.
Plaintiff brings this action to recover compensation for the
damages she and others sustained as a result of Silvergate's
malfeasance, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff placed funds in an FTX account in anticipation of
executing cryptocurrency trades.

Silvergate Bank is a California chartered commercial bank with its
principal place of business in La Jolla, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Paul K Joseph, Esq.
          Melanie Persinger, Esq.
          Trevor M Flynn, Esq.
          Caroline S Emhardt, Esq.
          FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP
          2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Phone: (619) 215-1741
          Email: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                 paul@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                 melanie@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                 trevor@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                 caroline@fitzgeraldjoseph.com

               - and -

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'reardon II, Esq.
          James M. Davis, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 338-1100
          Email: tblood@bholaw.com
                 toreardon@bholaw.com
                 jdavis@bholaw.com


SILVERGATE BANK: Magleby Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matson Magleby and Golam Sakline, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SILVERGATE BANK and SILVERGATE CAPITAL CORPORATION,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00669-SK (N.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2023), is brought
concerning Silvergate's knowing aiding and abetting of the
misconduct that caused Plaintiffs' losses as a result of the
Defendants' investment fraud and breaches of fiduciary duty.

The Plaintiffs invested their savings in cryptocurrency, digital
assets purportedly secured by anti-counterfeiting cryptography.
Plaintiffs entrusted their investments to FTX, a cryptocurrency
exchange founded by Samuel Bankman-Fried. FTX promised investors
that they could store assets securely as they gained in value, cash
them out, or trade them for other assets or financial products.

In November 2022, FTX declared bankruptcy amid reports that it had
transferred FTX customer funds to a separate company also owned by
Bankman-Fried, which had suffered massive losses and was unable to
repay the funds. With FTX's recent collapse, Plaintiffs and other
FTX investors are unable to recover their investments and face
years of uncertainty and catastrophic losses.

Bankman-Fried not only ran FTX's exchange and affiliated companies
but also co-founded Alameda Research LLC, a cryptocurrency trading
firm. Alameda was a separate company from FTX with no affiliation
other than co-ownership, and it had a separate business model.
Unlike FTX, which purported to allow investors to store, trade, or
cash out their "tokens" and other crypto assets, Alameda executed
cryptocurrency trades on its own behalf, including on the FTX
platform. But unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and the other investors,
Alameda and FTX diverted FTX customer funds to Alameda accounts.
Billions of dollars of deposits, both in fiat currency (e.g., U.S.
dollars) and in cryptocurrency, which FTX undertook to store for
trading or potential investment, were diverted to and commingled
with Alameda's assets.

Alameda used FTX investor funds for a variety of unauthorized
purposes, including proprietary, speculative trading on other
digital asset exchanges, funding risky crypto investments,
operations, marketing, political contributions, luxury real estate
purchases, and funding hundreds of millions of dollars in loans to
Bankman-Fried and other FTX executives. Some of the funds also
simply went missing. The new CEO of FTX, who took over after the
company declared bankruptcy in November 2022, stated: "Never in my
career have I seen such a complete failure of corporate controls
and such a complete absence of trustworthy financial information as
occurred here."

Silvergate, a publicly traded and federally regulated bank catering
to cryptocurrency customers, maintained both FTX and Alameda
accounts. It directly aided and abetted FTX's fraud and breaches of
fiduciary duty via first-hand participation in the commingling of
funds, improper transfers, and lending out of customer money.
Silvergate processed billions in transfers from FTX's client
account at Silvergate to the Alameda accounts. Silvergate also
accepted deposits from FTX investors—intended to be stored,
traded, or cashed out—that at Bankman-Fried's direction were
wired straight to Alameda bank accounts and misused. Bankman-Fried
explained that he "forgot" about the improper transfers until the
company imploded, telling a reporter "it looks like people wired
$8b to Alameda and 'oh god we basically forgot about the stub
account that corresponded to that so it was never delivered to
FTX.'"

Silvergate is liable for its role in furthering FTX's investment
fraud and breaches of fiduciary duty and is obligated under common
law to make Plaintiffs and the other investors whole, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs committed funds to FTX in anticipation of executing
cryptocurrency trades.

Silvergate was founded in 1988 as a small industrial loan company
with three branches in Southern California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          Tom Watts, Esq.
          Makenna Cox, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 981-4800
          Email: dgirard@girardsharp.com
                 apolk@girardsharp.com
                 tomw@girardsharp.com
                 mcox@girardsharp.com

               - and -

          Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
          Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
          HARTLEY LLP
          101 West Broadway, Suite 820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 400-5822
          Email: hartley@hartleyllp.com
                 lindner@hartleyllp.com


SILVERSUN TECHNOLOGIES: Jones Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Jones, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. SILVERSUN TECHNOLOGIES, INC., MARK MELLER, KENNETH E.
EDWARDS SR., JOHN SCHACHTEL, and STANLEY WUNDERLICH, Case No.
2023-0219- (Del. Chancery Ct., Feb. 21, 2023), is brought on behalf
of the public stockholders of SilverSun Technologies, Inc. against
SilverSun and the members of SilverSun's Board of Directors (the
"Board" or the "Individual Defendants"), for breaches of fiduciary
duties in connection with the Board's efforts to combine the
Company with privately-held Rhodium Enterprises, Inc., a holding
corporation for Rhodium Technologies LLC ("Technologies") (the
"Proposed Transaction").

On September 29, 2022, SilverSun issued a press release announcing
that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
September 29, 2022 (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which
SilverSun and Rhodium will combine (together, the "Combined
Company"),1 with SilverSun stockholders receiving (i) a cash
dividend of at least $1.50 per share, or $8.50 million in the
aggregate, and (ii) a stock dividend of one share of the Company's
recently established subsidiary SWK Technologies Holdings, Inc.
("SilverSun Holdings"); and ontinuing to retain their current
SilverSun shares which will collectively represent approximately
3.2% of the Combined Company's equity ownership, with Rhodium's
current stockholders owning the remaining 96.8%. SilverSun
Holdings' sole assets will include the Company's legacy businesses,
SWK Technologies, Inc. and Secure Cloud Services, Inc. ("SCS" and,
together with SWK, "Legacy SilverSun"). Following completion of the
Proposed Transaction, SilverSun Holdings will continue to operate
the Legacy SilverSun businesses consistent with current SilverSun
practices under SilverSun management and the SilverSun Board.

Rhodium, which had been pursuing an initial public offering, will
go public via the Proposed Transaction and will continue operating
the pre-Mergers business of Rhodium through its management of
Technologies. Following the completion of the Proposed Transaction,
the Combined Company will have a 51% interest in Technologies and
Rhodium's controlling stockholder, Imperium Investment Holdings
LLC, will have a 49% interest in Technologies. Imperium, which is
controlled by current Rhodium management who will continue to
manage the Combined Company,4 will also own 100% of the Combined
Company's class B common stock, representing an approximate 49%
interest in the voting power of the Combined Company's outstanding
common stock.

On October 19, 2022, the Company filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement (as amended on January 9, 2023 and February 14, 2023, the
"Registration Statement") with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") to, among other things, recommend that
SilverSun stockholders vote to approve the Share Issuance and the
change of control resulting from the Proposed Transaction. The
Registration Statement fails to provide the Company's shareholders
with material information and/or provides them with materially
misleading information thereby rendering the shareholders unable to
make an informed decision on whether to vote in favor of the Share
Issuance and change of control.

Critically, the Registration Statement completely omits any
financial projections for Rhodium, including the financial
forecasts for Rhodium provided to the Board's financial advisor The
Benchmark Company, LLC by SilverSun management (the "Rhodium
Projections") and the most critical metric for SilverSun
stockholders--Rhodium's unlevered free cash flow
projections--relied upon by Benchmark in connection with the
financial analyses underlying its fairness opinion. The
Registration Statement further fails to disclose material
information regarding Benchmark's potential conflicts of interest.
In facilitating the Proposed Transaction and disseminating the
incomplete and misleading Registration Statement, each of the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties.

The special meeting of stockholders to vote on the Share Issuance
and change of control ("Special Meeting") will soon be scheduled.
It is imperative that the material information that has been
omitted from the Registration Statement is disclosed to the
Company's stockholders prior to the Special Meeting so they can
properly determine whether to vote in favor of the Share Issuance
and change of control. If this material information is not timely
disseminated, Plaintiff and all other public stockholders of
SilverSun will suffer the irreparable injury of an uninformed
voting decision and SilverSun's public stockholders may not receive
the true value of their investment.

For these reasons and as set forth in detail herein, Plaintiff
seeks to enjoin the Proposed Transaction unless and/or until
defendants cure their breaches of fiduciary duty, or, in the event
it is consummated, recover damages resulting from the Defendants'
violations of their fiduciary duties, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a continuous stockholder of SilverSun.

SilverSun is a Delaware corporation, a business application,
technology and consulting company providing strategies and
solutions to meet its clients' information, technology and business
management needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          LONG LAW, LLC
          3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Phone: (302) 729-9100

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Kelly K. Moran, Esq.
          Alexandra E. Eisig, Esq.
          ACOCELLI LAW, PLLC
          33 Flying Point Road, Suite 131
          Southampton, NY 11968
          Phone: (631) 204-6187


SKYLAR BODY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skylar Body, LLC. The
case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Skylar
Body, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01383 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2023).

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

Skylar -- https://skylar.com/ -- offer clean perfumes that are
hypoallergenic, cruelty-free and vegan with at-home sampling.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


SKYWAY CLAIMS: Johnson Sues Over Failure to Provide Advance Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------
April Johnson, Kristina Bowles, and Samantha Hogge, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SKYWAY
CLAIMS SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-00373 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 17,
2023), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act") by
failing to provide Plaintiffs with the 60 days advance written
notice.

This is a class action for the recovery by the Plaintiffs seeking
to recover damages in the amount of 60 days' compensation and
benefits for each of them by reason of the Defendant's violation of
their rights under the WARN Act. The Plaintiffs and the Putative
Class Members were employees of Defendant who were terminated
without cause on their part on February 15, 2023, as part of or as
the reasonably expected consequence of a mass layoff or plant
closing, which was effectuated by Defendant on that date. The
Defendant failed to provide Plaintiffs with the 60 days advance
written notice that is required by the WARN Act. The Plaintiffs are
entitled under the WARN Act to recover from the Defendant their
wages and benefits for 60 days, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked remotely for Defendant.

The Defendant is an American property and casualty insurance
company with headquarters in Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 337-7992
          Fax: (813) 229-8712
          Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
                 lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                 aheystek@wfclaw.com
                 gdesane@wfclaw.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Grove Sues Over Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------
Matt Grove, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 3:23-cv-00306-AJB-AGS
(S.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2023), is brought for breach of contract
damages or, in the alternative, specific performance of the
contract's refund terms, is based on Defendant's breaches of its
Contract of Carriage and/or Customer Service Plan by failing to
provide refund.

Beginning Friday, December 23, 2022, Southwest Airlines began
cancelling flights nationwide blaming the failure on a
weather-driven issue. Subsequently, Southwest continued to cancel
flights blaming weather through Wednesday, December 28, 2022,
resulting in more than 14,500 flights cancelled since the prior
Friday. On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 alone, Southwest cancelled
2,500 flights. Southwest CEO Bob Jordan confirmed the airline
needed to upgrade its legacy systems. The Department of
Transportation also confirmed that the cancellations came about as
a result of Southwest's decision and actions.

Southwest's response to the internally created crisis was to
suggest customers could submit receipts for flight cancellations
from December 24, 2022 through January 2, 2023 for consideration of
reimbursement. Southwest's Contract of Carriage mandates refunds in
this situation as well as full compensation for incurred costs and
resultant cancellations for the failure of the carriage contract.
Southwest's failure to provide prompt refunds for cancelled flights
violates not only its own Contract of Carriage, but also federal
law.

On December 23, 2022, Plaintiff was at the airport waiting for the
delayed flight until Southwest cancelled Plaintiff's flight. He
waited for over 1.5 hours before Southwest cancelled the flight.
Southwest was unable to rebook him on a same day flight. Plaintiff
was forced to rent a car and then drive from Oakland to San Diego
in a rental car at a cost of $200.00. The Defendant did not issue
Plaintiff a refund of the price of Plaintiff's ticket. Instead,
Southwest issued a flight credit. The Defendant did not reimburse
Plaintiff for his out-of-pocket expenses caused by cancelling his
ticket within hours of the flight during the holiday season, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased from Southwest a ticket for a flight on
December 23, 2022 from Oakland, California to San Diego,
California.

Southwest Airlines Company is one of the largest domestic air
carrier in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin F. Ruf, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (301) 201-9150
          Fax: (301) 201-9160
          Email: kruf@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 358
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: (212) 682-5340
          Fax: (212) 884-0988
          Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com

SPICE SAIGON: Second Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Wang FLSA Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms the
judgment of the district court dismissing the case, MING EN WANG,
ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. HAIYING REN, AKA MICHAEL REN, AKA MICHAEL
CHEN, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-4216 (2d Cir.), as
duplicative of Wang v. Yong Lee Inc., No. 17-cv-9582 (JPO), 2022 WL
17756593, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2022) ("Wang I").

In 2017, Ming En Wang filed a putative class-action lawsuit, Wang
I, against his former employer, Yong Lee Inc. (d/b/a Spice Saigon);
Spice Saigon's manager and sole shareholder, Jing Yang; and two
unnamed defendants identified as John Doe and Jane Doe
(collectively, the "Wang I Defendants") for alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and
New York labor law.

Two weeks before trial was set to begin, Wang moved to amend his
complaint to substitute Defendant John Doe with his former
supervisor, Haiying Ren. The district court denied Wang's motion as
untimely, noting that Wang had known Ren's identity for at least
three months but nevertheless waited until the eve of trial to make
the request. Rather than wait for a final judgment in Wang I from
which to appeal the denial of leave to amend, Wang filed a
separate, nearly identical class-action lawsuit, naming only Ren as
a defendant ("Wang II").

Wang II was assigned to the same district judge as Wang I, who
dismissed Wang II as duplicative of the then-pending Wang I. Wang
now appeals from the district court's dismissal of Wang II, arguing
that the two suits are not, in fact, duplicative because they
involve different defendants.

The Second Circuit holds that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing this action as duplicative of Wang I. For
starters, both suits involve the same set of facts concerning the
terms of Wang's employment at Spice Saigon, where he alleges (among
other things) that he was neither paid the minimum wage nor
compensated for overtime. The two suits assert substantially
identical claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
labor law. And while it is true that the two suits name different
defendants, there can be no doubt that Ren has a "sufficiently
close relationship" with Spice Saigon and Jing Yang to meet the
privity requirement.

In his Wang II complaint, Wang alleges that Ren was the "boss" at
Spice Saigon, and as such, Ren was in privity with one or both of
the Wang I Defendants. The Second Circuit has found privity in
similar situations and see no reason to reach a different
conclusion.

Wang does not dispute any of these facts. Instead, he argues, in
essence, that in a joint employer FLSA action a plaintiff who is
unhappy with a district court's denial of an eleventh-hour motion
to add a defendant has an unfettered right to bring a new action
against that very defendant, effectively neutralizing the district
court's ruling on the motion to amend.

That, of course, is not the law, the Second Circuit holds. Contrary
to Wang's assertion, he had a choice other than filing Wang II.
Wang was -- and perhaps still is -- free to challenge the district
court's denial of his motion to amend from the final judgment in
Wang I. Were he to avail himself of that avenue for relief -- and
prevail -- he would have the opportunity to bring his claims
against Ren as part of Wang I. But he is not entitled to engineer
an end-run around the district court's ruling in Wang I by filing a
virtually identical complaint just days after the district court
had indicated from the bench that it would deny the motion to
amend.

For all these reasons, the Second Circuit concludes that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Wang II
as duplicative of Wang I. It has considered Wang's remaining
arguments and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, it
affirms the judgment of the district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2023 Summary Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2b4wysms from Leagle.com.

AARON SCHWEITZER -- troylaw@troypllc.com -- (Tiffany Troy, on the
brief), Troy Law, PLLC, Flushing, NY, for the Plaintiff-Appellant.

DAVID S. HALSBAND -- david@halsbandlaw.com -- Halsband Law Offices,
Hackensack, NJ, for the Defendant-Appellee.


SPIRIT AIRLINES: Court Won't Review Class Certification in Cox Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS COX, JULIE FEINER, SUSAN HOTT, SUSY
KOSHKAKARYAN, YULIUS MUSTAFA, GRETA SCHOENEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs
v. SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-5172(EK)(VMS)(
E.D.N.Y.), Judge Eric Komitee of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York denies Spirit's motion for
reconsideration his order denying Spirit's motion for summary
judgment and granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

On March 29, 2022, Judge Komitee issued an order denying Spirit's
motion for summary judgment and granting the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. Spirit moved for reconsideration shortly
thereafter, and he held oral argument on the reconsideration motion
and solicited supplemental briefing from the parties on certain
discrete issues.

Judge Komitee now amends the Opinion in three ways: He deletes
footnote 12; deletes two references to the online travel agents'
("OTAs") having acted as Spirit's agents; and amend a statement
(taken from Spirit's own briefing, but which it now disavows)
concerning the dates that Spirit's contract of carriage was posted
in airports. Judge Komitee denies reconsideration on all other
grounds.

Spirit argues (again) that predominance should be found lacking,
and no class can be certified, if even one putative class member
"knew that Spirit charged separately for carry-on bags."

Judge Komitee holds that the law is clear that a defendant must
offer something more than speculation to defeat class
certification. Against this standard, Spirit has not established
that the Court will need to conduct individualized inquiries about
what news stories a class member read, or what they may have heard
from relatives, about flying on Spirit.

In its motion for reconsideration, Spirit surfaced a new theory
about how putative class members might have known of Spirit's
practice: they might have been employed by Spirit. In response, the
Plaintiffs indicate that they do not oppose modifying the class
definition to exclude people who were employed by Spirit at the
time of their first Spirit flight during the Class Period. Despite
the fact that new arguments are generally disfavored on motions for
reconsideration, the class definition will be amended to exclude
such individuals, given the absence of any opposition.

Spirit now contends that the claims of four named Plaintiffs (Brua,
Hott, Koshkakaryan, and Mustafa) are time-barred.

Judge Komitee says this argument is both (a) waived for
summary-judgment purposes, and (b) without merit. First, Spirit is
incorrect that the Plaintiffs only belatedly "confirmed" that they
were "proceeding on an implied-in-fact contract theory." Because
the briefing on this point has been confused (at times), however,
Judge Komitee goes on to consider this argument on the merits.
Second, a jury should decide the question of whether the price term
must be read to include carry-ons. Accordingly, there is no basis
to dismiss the claims of any named Plaintiff on
statute-of-limitations grounds at this point.

Next, Judge Komitee declines to order subclasses at this point in
the case. He says Spirit fails to explain convincingly why
subclasses need to be instituted now.

In his prior order, Judge Komitee said, in footnote 12, that
evidence of custom and usage comes into play in determining whether
contract language is ambiguous, rather than in resolving ambiguity.
That statement was imprecise at best, and wrong at worst.
Accordingly, the footnote will be stricken. Nevertheless, the
change has no effect on the outcome of the issues decided in the
present Order.

The original order also stated that the online travel agents at
issue functioned as Spirit's agents. This characterization was
predicated on both parties' agreement that the plaintiff-passengers
entered into a binding contract with Spirit despite never having
interacted with it directly. If a passenger can enter a binding
contract by clicking a "Book It" button on an OTA's website, it
must have been (the Opinion assumed) because the OTA had the
authority to bind Spirit. In its motion for reconsideration,
however, Spirit says this is incorrect: that the OTAs acted as the
passengers' agents, not the airline's. In the end, the Opinion's
characterization of the agency relationship was immaterial to any
holding contained therein. As such, and given Spirit's argument,
Judge Komitee orders it stricken.

Finally, Spirit argues that its contract of carriage document was
posted in May 2012, not 2017. The Opinion used the latter date,
citing Spirit's own submissions. Spirit now says that this date
"regrettably" appeared in the statement of material facts as a
"typo." At Spirit's request, Judge Komitee amends the order to
reflect the 2012 date.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9yy9ak from Leagle.com.


STERLING JEWELERS: S.D. California Dismisses McCormack Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California directs the Clerk of the Court to
close the case, AMY McCORMACK et al., Plaintiffs v. STERLING
JEWELERS, INC. et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00525-AJB-DDL
(S.D. Cal.).

The parties have filed a stipulation to dismiss the class action
without prejudice. All parties have agreed to the dismissal. In
light of the stipulation, the case has been dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mrd4fnnj from Leagle.com.


SUNWING AIRLINES: ACTA Calls Amendment in Class Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Association of Canadian Travel Agencies (ACTA), as well as
other industry stakeholders, have engaged in extensive advocacy,
meeting with Sunwing senior leadership to amend a recent class
action settlement in Quebec that bypasses travel advisors in the
booking process.

Early this month, a Quebec judge issued a ruling accepting the
settlement offered by Sunwing to resolve a Quebec consumer
class-action lawsuit where it was alleged that Sunwing breached
consumer protection law by advertising that Sunwing travellers
would receive a complimentary glass of champagne when travelling.

(What was allegedly served was sparkling wine that does not hold
the protected champagne designation).

This lawsuit, dating back to 2017, has been before the courts for
several years. Late last year, there was an agreed-upon settlement
that would negatively impact travel agencies and independent travel
agents because it required consumers to book direct with Sunwing
with a discount code, bypassing travel agents.

The approved settlement gives select consumers in Quebec who
purchased travel with Sunwing between Feb. 10, 2014 and April 30,
2017 - approximately 1.45M customers - access to a seven per cent
discount code (valid on discounted travel and with no blackouts),
with unlimited use for up to five travellers, for any Sunwing trip
leaving any airport in Quebec or Ottawa.

Agents left out
"Many of the original bookings would have been travel agent clients
and notably, consumers do not need to furnish proof of having
purchased earlier travel with Sunwing," said Wendy Paradis, ACTA's
president. "So, the potential here could be huge in terms of how
many people might try to use this code to book over the next three
years, as per the terms of the settlement."

"Currently, the discount specifically excludes travel agencies and
independent travel agents because the code is only valid on the
consumer website."

Consumers have three years to book, and to be clear, the discount
is not available to all consumers. It is specific to class members
only.

A website will be set up for class members, who will be required to
register on the website and Sunwing will then verify if the
registrant is a class member.

Once verified, Sunwing will email the class member a user account
and password to access the website.

ACTA says it will continue to advocate to Sunwing leadership and
calls for Sunwing to respect its trade partners and allow travel
agents to make bookings for their clients - and to pay commission
on bookings using the discount code. [GN]

SYNGENTA CANADA: Ontario Court Certified Corn Prices Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2015, a class proceeding was commenced seeking damages
against Syngenta Canada Inc. and Syngenta AG (collectively
"Syngenta") alleging that Syngenta prematurely commercialized its
Viptera and Duracade corn seeds containing a genetically modified
trait (MIR-162) prior to obtaining full important approval from
China. The action alleges that subsequent to the commercialization,
on November 18, 2013, China rejected North American corn imports
creating a glut of corn on the North American market which resulted
in significantly depressed corn prices.

On September 29, 2021, the action was certified as a class action
by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of a class of
"all Canadian corn growers (excluding those in Quebec) who priced
their corn for sale after November 18, 2013". Darmar Farms Inc. was
appointed as the representative Plaintiff. This means that the
action will proceed as a class action. The court has not ruled on
the merits of the claims made by the class and the class has the
burden of proving all allegations in court.

McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP of London, Ontario is Class Counsel
representing the Plaintiff and all Class Members.

Class Members who fall within the class definition and want to
participate in the class action are automatically included and need
not do anything at this time. The Ontario Class Proceedings Act
provides that no Class Member, other than the representative class
member, will incur liability for legal costs if the action is
dismissed.

Class Members who fall within the class definition and do wish to
opt-out of participating in the class action must complete an
opt-out form by April 25, 2023. Each Class Member who does not opt
out of the class action will be bound by the terms of any judgment
or settlement and will not be allowed to pursue or continue an
independent action with respect to these issues. If the class
action is successful, Class Members may be entitled to share in the
amount of any award or settlement recovered.

All information and documents related to the class action,
including the Notice of Certification, are included at the
following link: https://www.mckenzielake.com/syngenta-corn/

SYNGENTA CORN SEED CLASS ACTION

NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION

To all persons:
All corn growers in Canada (excluding those in Quebec) who priced
their corn for sale after November 18, 2013 ("Class Members").

Class Action Lawsuit

In December 2015, a class proceeding was filed against Syngenta
Canada Inc. and Syngenta AG (collectively "Syngenta") alleging that
Syngenta prematurely commercialized its Viptera and Duracade corn
seeds containing a genetically modified trait, namely MIR-162,
prior to obtaining full import approval from China. The action
alleges that subsequent to the commercialization, on November 18,
2013, China rejected North American corn imports.

This class action seeks damages for all corn growers in Canada
(excluding those in Quebec) who priced their corn for sale after
the November 18, 2013 Chinese rejection and the resulting alleged
market decline. McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP represents the Plaintiff
and Class Members.   

Certification

On September 29, 2021, the action was certified by the Honourable
Justice Rady of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of
all Canadian corn growers (excluding those in Quebec) who priced
their corn for sale after November 18, 2013. Darmar Farms Inc. was
appointed as the representative plaintiff.  

As part of the certification, the Court found that several disputed
issues are common to all Class Members and therefore can be tried
on behalf of all Class Members.  These common issues include the
following:

Whether Syngenta owed a duty of care to the Class to use reasonable
care in how it commercialized the genetically modified seeds;
Whether Syngenta breached that duty of care; Whether any alleged
failure to meet the standard of care caused a negative impact on
the price of corn; and

If any breaches are found, whether Class Members are entitled to
damages.

Certification is a procedural step. There has not been any
determination on the merits. The fact that the claim was certified
and this notice does not mean that the Court has taken a position
as to the likelihood of recovery on the part of any class member,
or as to the merits of the claims or defences asserted by either
side.  The claims must be proven in Court.  Syngenta denies these
claims.


Participation in Class Action

Class Members who want to participate in the class action are
automatically included and need not do anything at this time.  The
Ontario Class Proceedings Act provides that no Class Member, other
than the representative class member, will incur liability for
legal costs if the action is dismissed.  Each Class Member who does
not opt out of the class action will be bound by the terms of any
judgment or settlement and will not be allowed to pursue or
continue an independent action with respect to these issues.  If
the class action is successful, Class Members may be entitled to
share in the amount of any award or settlement recovered.

Opting Out

Class Members who do not wish to participate in the class action
must opt out. A Class Member who opts out will not be bound by any
result in the class action.  If you wish to pursue or continue to
pursue an individual action against Syngenta with respect to this
issue, then you must opt out of the class action.  If you would
like to opt out of the class action, you must complete and return
the opt-out form by April 25, 2023.

A copy of the opt-out form can be obtained at

https://www.mckenzielake.com/syngenta-corn/or by contacting Class
Counsel using the telephone number or e-mail address listed below.

No person may opt out a minor (person under 18 years of age) or a
mentally incapable Class Member without permission of the Court
after notice to The Children's Lawyer and/or the Public Guardian
and Trustee, as appropriate.

A Class Member who opts out will not be entitled to participate in
the class action.  Their right to pursue a claim in a separate
proceeding will not be affected.

This Notice was approved by order of the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice. [GN]

T-MOBILE USA: Williams Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against T-Mobile USA, Inc.
The case is styled as Tera Williams, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons and on behalf of the general public
v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00116-RK (W.D. Mo., Feb.
17, 2023).

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

T-Mobile US, Inc. -- http://www.t-mobile.com/-- is an American
wireless network operator headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas
and Bellevue, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lucy McShane, Esq.
          Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
          MCSHANE & BRADY LLC
          1656 Washington Street, Suite 140
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 888-8010
          Fax: (816) 332-6285
          Email: lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com
                 mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com


TACTILE SYSTEMS: $5MM Mart Securities Suit Settlement for Court OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tactile Systems Technology 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
$5 million settlement of Mart securities class suit is subject to
agreement of parties involved and approval of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.

The Company and certain of its present or former officers have been
sued in a purported securities class action lawsuit that was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
on September 29, 2020, and that is pending under the caption Brian
Mart v. Tactile Systems Technology, Inc., et al., File No.
0:20-cv-02074-NEB-BRT (the "Mart Lawsuit").

On April 19, 2021, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against
us and eight of our present and former officers and directors.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of investors who
purchased our common stock in the market during the time period
from May 7, 2018 through June 8, 2020 ("alleged class period").

The Amended Complaint alleges the following claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"):
(1) that the Company and certain officer defendants made materially
false or misleading public statements about its business,
operational and compliance policies, and results during the alleged
class period in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act; (2)
that the Company and the individual defendants engaged in a scheme
to defraud investors in order to allow the individual defendants to
sell our stock in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act;
(3) that the individual defendants engaged in improper insider
trading of our stock in violation of Section 20A of the Exchange
Act; and (4) that the Company and the individual defendants are
liable under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act because each
defendant is a controlling person.

On June 18, 2021, the Company and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

On March 31, 2022, the court granted in part, and denied in part,
the defendants' motion to dismiss.

All claims against three individual defendants were dismissed, and
most claims against four other individual defendants were
dismissed.

On November 21, 2022, the company announced that it entered a
Memorandum of Understanding to settle this matter.

The Company does not expect to fund any portion of cash payments
made in connection with the $5 million settlement amount. The
settlement does not constitute an admission of liability or
wrongdoing by the Company.

The settlement is subject to the parties reaching agreement on
various non-monetary terms and court approval of the final terms
will be required.

Tactile Systems Technology, Inc., a medical technology company that
develops and provides innovative medical devices for the treatment
of chronic diseases. The company is based in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.


TCF CO: Curd Sues Over Wiretapping of Electronic Communication
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frances Curd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TCF CO. LLC, d/b/a The Cheesecake Factory, Case No.
1:23-cv-00472-JMC (D. Md., Feb. 21, 2023), is brought against TCF
for wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors to its
website, www.thecheesecakefactory.com, in violation of the Maryland
Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act and constitutes an
invasion of the privacy rights of website visitors.

TCF procures third party vendors, such as Microsoft Corporation, to
embed snippets of JavaScript computer code ("Session Replay Code")
on TCF'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 TCF 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 TCF's request.

After intercepting and capturing the Website Communications, TCF
and the Session Replay Providers use those Website Communications
to recreate website visitors' entire visit to
www.thecheesecakefactory.com. The Session Replay Providers create a
video replay of the user's behavior on the website and provide it
to TCF for analysis. TCF'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 TCF website for the entire duration of their website
interaction.

While visiting TCF's website, Plaintiff fell victim to Defendant's
unlawful monitoring, recording, and collection of Plaintiff's
Website Communications with www.thecheesecakefactory.com. Unknown
to Plaintiff, TCF procures and embeds Session Replay Code on its
website. During her visit to TCF's website, the Session Replay Code
instantaneously captured Plaintiff's Website Communications
throughout her visit. Indeed, through TCF's procurement of Session
Replay Code, Plaintiff's Website Communications were automatically
and secretly intercepted while using TCF's website.

Further, without her consent, TCF procured Session Replay Providers
to obtain certain information about her device, browser, and create
a unique ID and profile for her. Plaintiff and Class Members did
not provide prior consent to TCF's interception of their Website
Communications, nor could they, as the interception begins
immediately upon arriving at www.thecheesecakefactory.com, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff has visited www.thecheesecakefactory.com and certain
of its subpages on her computer while in Maryland.

The Cheesecake Factory is a restaurant that operates over 300
locations across the United States and Canada.[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 10034
          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


TEMASEK HOLDINGS: Sued Over Cryptocurrency Exchange Conspiracy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Cheng at channelnewsasia.com reports that Singapore's state
investment firm Temasek, along with 17 other banks, venture
capitalists and accounting firms, is being sued for allegedly
conspiring with cryptocurrency exchange FTX to defraud investors.

Venture capital firms Sequoia Capital and SoftBank Vision Fund were
also named in the lawsuit.

The 83-page class action lawsuit was filed in Miami, Florida on
Wednesday (Feb 22) by Connor O'Keefe, an FTX customer whose funds
have been frozen in his FTX account since the collapse of the
cryptocurrency exchange.

The Mississippi resident claimed the 18 defendants knew about the
alleged fraud occurring at FTX, but "did not care" because they had
"money to make in the scheme".

He had filed the lawsuit "on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated", seeking compensatory and punitive damages for
the defendants' "knowing and substantial assistance in furtherance"
of FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried's fraud.

The defendants had "wielded their power, influence, and deep
pockets to launch FTX's house of cards to its multi-billion dollar
scale", and "provided critical groundwork for the FTX fraud",
claimed the lawsuit.

According to the document, the due diligence checks that the
defendants had conducted would have allowed them to acquire
knowledge of FTX's "omissions and untruthful conduct" and
misappropriation of investor funds.

Each defendant also allegedly stood to gain financially from said
misconduct despite this knowledge, and "agreed, at least impliedly,
to assist that unlawful conduct", it claimed.

The lawsuit also stated that the defendants had "full view" that
Sam Bankman-Fried was misappropriating their deposits on "vice,
vanity, and speculative personal investments".

"Through diligence on FTX and close ties with (Sam Bankman-Fried),
Defendants learned that FTX was operated as (Sam Bankman-Fried)'s
personal piggy bank, that as quickly as FTX customer funds flowed
into FTX, they flowed back out to other entities (Sam
Bankman-Fried) separately owned or controlled, and that FTX lacked
the most basic internal controls, such that the enterprise was in
fact a house of cards," alleged the lawsuit.

"But Defendants did not care. They, too, had money to make in the
scheme, and their interests aligned with (Sam Bankman-Fried)'s."

In response to CNA's query, Temasek Holdings said: "As this is an
ongoing legal matter, we decline to comment."[GN]

TESORO REFINING: Bid to Certify Classes in McGhee Suit Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEREK L. McGHEE, Plaintiff v. TESORO REFINING &
MARKETING COMPANY LLC, ANDEAVOR; ANDEAVOR LOGISTICS LP; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05999-JSW (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Jeffrey S. White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion to certify
classes.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify the classes and subclasses of
unionized hourly non-exempt employees employed by Tesoro at its
California refineries who were not paid at least the minimum wage
for all the hours they worked because the Defendant rounded their
scheduled shift time punches and/or required them to perform
off-the-clock shift turnovers; who the Defendant discouraged from
taking off-premises meals breaks by extending their shifts if they
did; and who the Defendant required to remain on-duty and/or on
premises during their rest breaks to monitor for and respond to
emergencies.

Based on these claims, the Plaintiff requests that the Court
certifies the following classes:

     Minimum Wage Class

          a. Minimum Wage Rounding Class: All current and former
unionized hourly non-exempt employees employed by Defendant in
California at its Carson refinery whose scheduled hours were
rounded from August 17, 2014, through June 4, 2019.

          b. Minimum Wage Turnover Time Class: All current and
former unionized hourly non-exempt employees employed by Defendant
at its Carson, Wilmington, and Martinez refineries and Martinez
chemical plant from August 17, 2014, to January 1, 2018, who worked
at least one rotating 12-hour shift.

          c. Discouraged Meal Break Class: All current and former
unionized hourly non-exempt employees employed by Defendant in
California at its Carson Refinery from August 17, 2014, through
April 20, 2020.

          d. On-Duty Rest Class: All current and former unionized
hourly non-exempt lab technicians employed by Defendant at its
Carson, Wilmington, and Martinez refineries and Martinez chemical
plant from August 17, 2014, through April 20, 2020, who worked at
least one shift over 3.5 hours.

          e. Waiting Time Class: All former unionized hourly
non-exempt employees employed by Defendant in California at its
Carson, Wilmington, and Martinez refineries and Martinez chemical
plant from August 17, 2015, through April 20, 2020, who, by virtue
of their membership in any other class or subclass herein, were not
paid all wages owed to them at the time of separation of their
employment.

Judge White explains that class certification is governed by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and the decision to grant or
deny class certification is within the Court's discretion. The
Plaintiff bears the burden to show that they can satisfy each
factor set forth in Rule 23(a) and at least one of the factors set
forth in Rule 23(b).

Rule 23(a) requires the Plaintiff to demonstrate (1) the class is
so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there
are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) their claims
or defenses are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and
(4) they will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class.

Judge White finds that (i) the total number of unionized employees
at Defendant's California refineries is 1,766; (ii) the commonality
requirement is satisfied because there are common questions of law
and fact arising out the Defendant's allegedly unlawful employment
practices that affected all putative class members who worked for
the Defendant during the same time period; (iii) the Plaintiff's
claims all challenge a course of conduct that applied to all
putative class members, and therefore, all members allegedly
suffered the same or similar injury; and (iv) the proposed class
representative and class counsel appear to be adequate
representatives of the class.

Rule 23(b)(3) requires establishing the predominance of common
questions of law or fact and the superiority of a class action
relative to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of the controversy.

Judge White finds that the issues likely to be presented by the
claims in the case are common to the class. First, the claims are
premised upon common policies or practices employed by the
Defendant to round off the hours worked, to discourage meal breaks
and on-duty rest breaks. Without any adjudication of the merits of
any of Plaintiff's contentions, the claims concern a predominance
of common questions of law or fact and a class action is therefore
superior relative to other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of the controversy.

For these reasons, the motion to certify the classes is granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yb823b4n from Leagle.com.


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: M&A Continues Investigating BP Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

TravelCenters of America Inc. (NASDAQ: TA), relating to its
proposed sale to BP plc. Under the terms of the agreement, TA
shareholders are expected to receive $86.00 in cash per share they
own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/travelcenters-america-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

                 About Monteverde & Associates PC

We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation
law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders
and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from
corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr.
Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super
Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and
2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a
particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell
as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes
include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the
standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in
the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this
victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as
improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex
Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years
the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds
for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.[GN]

U.S. NURSING CORP: Guthrie Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Nursing
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Ebony Guthrie, Monique
Lewis, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
U.S. Nursing Corporation, Does 1-20, inclusive, Case No.
CGC23604731 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 21, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

U.S. Nursing -- https://www.usnursing.com/ -- is the premier strike
nurse agency provider of job action services in the US.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ashkan Shakouri, Esq.
          SHAKOURI LAW FIRM
          11601 Wilshire Blvd Fl 5
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: (310) 575-1827


UNITED STATES: Appeals Final Judgment in Deanda Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Secretary of
Health and Human Services, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Final Judgment dated December 20, 2022, entered in
the lawsuit entitled ALEXANDER R. DEANDA, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALEX M. AZAR II, in his
official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services; DIANE
FOLEY, in her official capacity as Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Population Affairs; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00092-Z, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Amarillo.

The class action complaint is filed by the Plaintiff on April 10,
2020 against Defendants for their alleged violations of the Texas
Family Code Section 151.001(6), the Constitutional Right of Parents
to direct the upbringing of their children, and the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act.

The Plaintiff is a father of three daughters under the age of 18
and raising each of his daughters in accordance with Christian
teaching on matters of sexuality requiring his daughters to
practice abstinence and refrain from sexual intercourse until
marriage. According to the complaint, Defendants administered a
federal program that offers prescription of contraceptive and other
family-planning services to Plaintiff's daughters and the children
of every other parent in Texas, without their knowledge or any
parental consent. Because of that, Defendants are allegedly
inflicting injury on every parent in the U.S., including Plaintiff.


As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
asked the Court to certify two classes under Rule 23(b)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on July 26, 2021.

On February 15, 2022, Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk entered an order
denying Plaintiff's motion to certify class without prejudice.

On July 25, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion for summary
judgment.

On August 19, 2022, the Defendants filed a cross motion for summary
judgment and response.

On December 8, 2022, Judge Kacsmaryk granted Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment and denied Defendants' cross motion for summary
judgment.

On December 20, 2022, Judge Kacsmaryk entered a final judgment
wherein:

-- Judgment was rendered in favor of Plaintiff and against
Defendants on claims that the latter are violating Plaintiff's
rights under Section 151.001(a)(6) of the Texas Family Code and the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in their
administration of the Title X program; and

-- Judgment was rendered in favor of Defendants against Plaintiff
on Plaintiff's claim that Defendants are violating his rights under
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in their administration of
the Title X program.

The appellate case is captioned as Deanda v. Becerra, Case No.
23-10159, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, filed on Feb. 20, 2023.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as
Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., are represented
by:

          Amber Justine Richer, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          1100 L. Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 514-3489

Plaintiff-Appellee Alexander R. Deanda, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Charles William Fillmore, Esq.
          FILLMORE LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          201 Main Street
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 332-2351

               - and -

          W. Heath Hendricks, Esq.
          UNDERWOOD LAW FIRM, P.C.
          500 S. Taylor Street
          Amarillo, TX 79101
          Telephone: (806) 379-0316

               - and -

          Douglas Bryan Hughes, Esq.
          110 N. College Avenue
          Tyler, TX 75702-0000
          Telephone: (903) 581-1776

               - and -

          Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
          111 Congress Avenue
          Austin, TX 78701-0000
          Telephone: (512) 686-3940

UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Detainees' Retaliation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Five people detained at the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center in
Bakersfield, Calif., and the Golden State Annex in McFarland,
Calif., have filed a class action lawsuit against Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) and GEO Group, the private, for-profit
prison company that owns and operates the detention centers. They
allege that they and other detained people have faced retaliation,
including threats of solitary confinement and bans on family
visitation, for engaging in a collective hunger strike to demand
their release from immigration custody and the shutdown of both
facilities.

The plaintiffs -- Milton Mendez, Guillermo Medina Reyes, Cruz
Leandro Martinez Leiva, and two individuals referred to as "R.H.M."
and "E.O.A.R." in court documents to protect their privacy -- are
among the approximately 82 detained people who declared a hunger
strike on Feb. 17, 2023. They argue that retaliation against any
striker violates their right to peacefully speak out against their
mistreatment and violates their right to petition the government
for redress of their grievances.

In the lawsuit filed on Feb. 23, 2023, plaintiffs report that,
since the hunger strike began, ICE and GEO Group have harassed them
by threatening to place them in solitary confinement, making the
temperature of the dorms painfully cold, and taunting them with
food. The strikers also say officials have denied them family
visitation, access to worship services, and access to the detention
center yard, among other recreational activities.

"We are hunger striking because we see the pain that everyone in
here is going through. When I look at everyone and how much they
believe in the fact that putting themselves through this can make a
change, it gives me hope," said plaintiff Guillermo Medina Reyes.
"We are all humans. There are people here who are fathers,
brothers, husbands. They deserve a real chance to fight their case
and to have a chance at liberty as well. That's why we started the
strike and this lawsuit."

Plaintiffs are represented by four members of the Mesa Verde-Golden
State Annex (MV-GSA) Hunger Strike Support Coalition, a group of
civil rights and legal organizations supporting the strike -- ACLU
Foundation of Northern California, Asian Americans Advancing
Justice–Asian Law Caucus, Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights of
the San Francisco Bay Area, and Pangea Legal Services -- as well as
the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, and Jenner & Block LLP.


"The people detained in these horrific detention centers have
undeniable First Amendment rights to speak out against their
abuse," said the attorneys in a joint statement. "ICE detains
people indefinitely under hideous living conditions, including
facilities rife with black mold, while GEO Group profits from their
labor by paying workers in custody $1 a day. We will do everything
possible to protect their constitutional right to peacefully
protest the injustice of their detention."

The hunger strike follows years of peaceful advocacy by people
detained at Mesa Verde and the Golden State Annex to demand fair
wages, better conditions, and humane treatment by GEO Group staff
through the filing of grievances and administrative complaints with
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It also follows a
10-month-long, ongoing refusal by some detained people to
participate in the facilities' supposedly voluntary work program,
in which ICE and GEO Group rely on detained people to provide
cleaning and sanitation services for only $1 a day.

In a separate lawsuit challenging the meager pay for detained
workers at another immigration detention facility in Adelanto,
Calif., also run by GEO Group, a court expert calculated that the
private prison company has made an extra $26.7 million dollars in
profit between 2011 and 2019 due to low-wage work performed by
detained immigrants.

For years, peaceful protests at Mesa Verde and the Golden State
Annex have been met with retaliation, as documented in complaints
filed with DHS in 2021, 2022, and 2023 on behalf of detained
people. The 2022 complaint prompted sixteen members of the
California Congressional Delegation to send a letter to DHS
regarding the allegations of disturbing conditions and retaliation.
They called on DHS to shut down the facilities if the allegations
prove to be true. The 2023 complaint concerns widespread reports
from detained people that they have been subject to sexually
abusive pat-downs in retaliation for engaging in constitutionally
protected, free speech activity.

On Feb. 23, members of the MV-GSA Hunger Strike Support Coalition
met with members of the California Congressional Delegation to draw
attention to the strikers' demands for release and the shutdown of
Mesa Verde and Golden State Annex, given ICE's well-documented
history of abuse within detention facilities nationwide, and the
impunity bred by its contracts with for-profit companies like GEO
Group. [GN]

USAA FEDERAL: Compelled to Produce Docs in Bulls Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHILIP BULLS, et al., Plaintiffs v. USAA FEDERAL
SAVINGS BANK and USAA SAVINGS BANK, Defendants, Case No.
5:21-CV-488-BO (E.D.N.C.), Judge Terrence W. Boyle of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western
Division grants the Plaintiffs' motion to compel and the
Defendants' motion for return of inadvertently produced non-public
information.

The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action alleging claims
against the Defendants for violations of the Servicemembers Civil
Relief Act (SCRA), 50 U.S.C. Sections 3901, et seq.; the Military
Lending Act (MLA), 10 U.S.C. Section987; and the Truth in Lending
Act (TLA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1637(b). They also allege state law
claims for, inter alia, breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have breached their
statutory and contractual duties to military members by charging
interest rates and fees greater than what is permitted, which in
turn improperly inflated servicemembers' principal balances on
which compound interest was charged. They allege that the
Defendants have committed wholesale violations of the SCRA and
other military benefits which caused damages to thousands of
military families.

The Defendants have answered the complaint and the case is
proceeding through discovery. On Oct. 13, 2022, they moved for the
return of information inadvertently produced to the Plaintiffs.
They contend that a certain document containing non-public, Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) information was
inadvertently turned over to the Plaintiffs as a part of early
mediation discussions. They contend that the Plaintiffs have
refused to return or destroy their copy of this document,
necessitating the motion.

In their motion, the Plaintiffs seek to compel the following from
the Defendants: responses to their Interrogatories 4 and 14 and
Requests for Production 14 and 15, which concern discrete lists of
class-wide information; responses to their Interrogatories 1, 2,
and 3, which concern the Defendants' audits; and documents withheld
by the Defendants based upon potential Office of the OCC concerns.
At the hearing, the scope of some of these requests was narrowed
based upon disclosures made following the filing of the motion.
However, the Plaintiffs request that the Court grants their motion
in full to prevent additional motions practice as to any remaining
disclosures.

As to Interrogatories 4 and 14 and Requests for Production 14 and
15, the material concerns spreadsheets of class-wide data. At the
hearing, the Plaintiffs' counsel indicated that the Defendants had
withdrawn objections to production of this material to some extent.
To the extent an objection has not been withdraw, Judge Boyle has
considered the arguments presented and defendants' objections are
overruled. They are ordered to serve supplemental responses to
Interrogatories 4 and 15 and to produce spreadsheets containing
information requested in Requests for Production 14 and 15. Such
disclosures and production will be completed within 14 days of the
date of entry of the Order.

As to Interrogatories 1, 2, and 3, Judge Boyle finds that the
Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the Defendants should be required
to supplement these interrogatory responses regarding audits for
those reasons outlined in their supporting memoranda. He overrules
the Defendants' objections, and the Defendants will provide
supplementary responses to these interrogatories within 14 days of
the date of entry of his Order.

The Plaintiffs seek from defendants approximately 18,500 documents
which defendants contend may contain non-public OCC information or
material subject to the bank examination privilege. Judge Boyle
orders the Defendants to timely produce documents withheld based on
actual or potential non-public OCC or bank examination privilege
(BEP) content. Documents will be produced without redactions except
where required on other grounds, such as attorney-client privilege.
Productions will remain subject to the Court's protective order.

Judge Boyle turns to the Defendants' motion for leave to file a
reply in support of this motion and grants it. He says it is
undisputed that the document at issue, a supervisory letter from
the OCC, was inadvertently provided to the Plaintiffs and is
subject to the protective order. To the extent this document is
subject to the BEP, the Court has overridden the BEP in this case
for these purposes. The Defendants do not appear at this time to
agree to the use of this inadvertently produced document for any
use other than mediation or alternative dispute resolution.

The terms of the Court's protective order control, Judge Boyle
holds. Because it was inadvertently produced and produced only for
purposes of dispute resolution, the Plaintiffs will return their
remaining copy of the subject document to defendants. Importantly,
though, whether this particular document is discoverable on other
grounds or as responsive to any of the listed discovery requests
has not been briefed in detail, and Judge Boyle therefore does not
decide that issue at this time.

Finally, the Defendants seek to seal certain documents filed in
connection with the motions, and to file redacted versions of the
same. The Plaintiffs have agreed to the Defendants' proposed
redactions for DE 46. The Defendants seek to meet and confer with
the Plaintiffs regarding redactions to DE 48 and DE 49.

Judge Boyle finds that the Defendants have satisfied the
appropriate standard for filing documents under seal, as outlined
in their brief, and have proposed an alternative less drastic than
maintaining an entire document under seal. Their motion is
therefore granted. The agreed-upon redacted version of DE 46 will
be filed within 10 days of the date of entry of the Order. The
parties will meet and confer regarding redactions for the remaining
documents and file such redactions within 14 days of the date of
entry of the Order.

Therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, Judge Boyle grants the
Plaintiffs' motion to compel; the Defendants' motion for return of
inadvertently produced document; the Defendants' motion to seal;
and the Defendants' motion for leave to file a reply.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3smpn6ua from Leagle.com.


VERIFF INC: Agrees to Settle BIPA Class Action Suit for $4-M
-------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that Veriff agreed to pay $4 million to
resolve claims that it violated Illinois' Biometric Information
Privacy Law (BIPA) by collecting facial geometry scans without
consent.

The settlement benefits individuals whose biometrics were
collected, captured, purchased or otherwise obtained by Veriff for
identity verification in Illinois between Nov. 12, 2016, and Dec.
5, 2022.

According to plaintiffs in the biometric privacy class action
lawsuit, Veriff failed to comply with BIPA when collecting facial
geometry scans for identity verification. The company allegedly
failed to obtain consent before collecting this biometric data.

Veriff is an identity verification software that helps prevent
fraud through facial recognition.

Veriff hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $4 million
class action settlement to resolve these allegations.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive an
equal share of the net settlement fund.

According to the settlement website, each class member will receive
between $300 and $600. However, these are only estimates, and exact
payments may be higher or lower.

Veriff has also agreed to comply with BIPA regulations by obtaining
consent for the biometric data collection and developing a public
retention schedule.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 31, 2023.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for May
4, 2023.

To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by April 21, 2023.

Who's Eligible
Individuals whose biometrics were collected, captured, purchased or
otherwise obtained by Veriff for identity verification in Illinois
between Nov. 12, 2016, and Dec. 5, 2022

Potential Award
$300-$600 (estimated)

Proof of Purchase
N/A

Claim Form

NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
04/21/2023

Case Name
McGowan, et al. v. Veriff Inc., et al., Case No. 2021-cv-06706, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Final Hearing
05/04/2023

Settlement Website
BIPAVeriffSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
BIPA Veriff Settlement
c/o Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 5206
Portland, OR 97208-5206
claims@BIPAVeriffSettlement.com
800-380-7654

Class Counsel
Evan M Meyers
Timothy P Kingsbury
Andrew T Heldut
Colin P Buscarini
MCGUIRE LAW PC

Defense Counsel
Debra R Bernard
PERKINS COIE LLP[GN]

WERNER ENTERPRISES: $750K Class Deal in Ellis Suit Wins Prelim. OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEBORAH ELLIS, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 8:18CV238 (D. Neb.), Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska grants the parties'
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of a Class Action
Settlement.

The matter comes before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval. It is a certified FLSA collective action and
putative Rule 23 class action. The parties' proposed settlement
resolves the federal and state claims of Named Plaintiff Ellis and
the Opt-In Plaintiffs, except for Christopher Midgett's individual
claims, for a total payment of $750,000.

Upon consideration of the Brief and Index in Support of Preliminary
Approval submitted by the parties, Judge Bataillon, being fully
advised in the premises, finds that a settlement on the terms set
forth in the proposed Settlement Agreement is a fair and reasonable
resolution of the parties' bona fide dispute. Accordingly, he
grants the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval.

Within 14 days after the date of the Order, Named Plaintiff Ellis
will send a Notice of Settlement to the Opt-In Plaintiffs. The
Opt-in Plaintiffs will have 45 days after the date on which the
Notice of Settlement is mailed (i.e., 45 days after the "Mailing
Date") within which to exclude themselves from the Settlement or
serve written objections thereto.

A Final Fairness Hearing is set for May 25, 2023, at 2:30 p.m., in
Courtroom 3 at the Roman L. Hruska Courthouse in Omaha, Nebraska,
111 S. 18th Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5atrmj2w from Leagle.com.


WEST COAST UNDERCOVER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gonzales Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEST COAST UNDERCOVER, INC. dba
4PLAY THE GENTLEMEN'S CLUB; FRANK GRUNDEL; DOE MANAGERS 1- 3; and
DOES 4-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case 2:23-cv-01259 (C.D. Cal.,
Feb. 29, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal
and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as dancer.

COAST UNDERCOVER, INC. dba 4PLAY THE GENTLEMEN'S CLUB operates an
adult-oriented entertainment facility located Los Angeles,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          Gabriel Minsal, Esq.
          CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN
          8827 W. Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          8827 W. Olympic Blvd
          Telephone: (310) 273-1230
          Email: kristensen@cz.law
                 gminsal@cz.law
                 kristensenteam@cz.law

WORLD PRIVATE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bryant Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLYN D. BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WORLD PRIVATE SECURITY, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 23STCV03520 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., Feb.
17, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and
rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Bryant was employed by the Defendant as security guard.

WORLD PRIVATE SECURITY INC. is a security company based in
Northridge California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq. (SBN 209776)
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. (SBN 276483)
          Danielle E. Montero, Esq. (SBN 333945)
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                 vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                 dmontero@lelawfirm.com
                 wht2@lelawfirm.com

WYNDHAM VACATION: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Continued
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OLIVIA ROSE RAMIREZ and
KRYSTAL PECORARO, as individuals and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 2:20-cv-03528-CJC-JC
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order
granting joint stipulation to continue class certification briefing
schedule and other deadlines, as follows:

          Event                    Current         New Proposed
                                   Deadline        Deadline

  Deadline to File and Have      Apr. 2, 2023     May 8, 2023
  Motion for Class
  Certification Heard

  Deadline to Complete           Jun. 1, 2023     Jul. 3, 2023
  Discovery, and to File and
  Have Discovery Motions
  Heard

  Deadline to File and Have      Jul. 30, 2023    Aug. 30, 2023
  All Other Motions Heard

Wyndham Vacation operates as a club. The Club provides gaming,
lodging, restaurant and leisure services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YLr8F4 at no extra charge.[CC]

[*] Federal Court OKs Class Suit Against Valsartan Manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------------
forthepeople.com reports that thanks to a federal court in New
Jersey, victims of the drug Valsartan have now been given the green
light to participate in a class action lawsuit against several
manufacturers of generic valsartan after millions were exposed to
cancer-causing chemicals. As of February 2023, all federal court
proceedings associated with these lawsuits have been consolidated
into the Valsartan MDL class action, which is now underway in New
Jersey, and as of January 2023, there are over 1,100 cases pending
in federal court.

Valsartan is a popular prescription drug used to treat high blood
pressure, heart disease, and specific kidney disease. In July 2018,
one of the leading manufacturers of generic Valsartan, the Chinese
company Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals, first discovered that the
raw Valsartan it was producing was dangerously contaminated with
cancer-causing chemicals known as nitrosamines—specifically,
"NDMA" and "NDEA."

Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals is a wholesale pharmaceutical
production lab that manufactures Valsartan and distributes it
through U.S. affiliates Prinston, Huahai, and Solco. Once the
discovery came to light, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and
European health officials immediately issued a global safety recall
of the millions of contaminated valsartan products distributed
between 2018 and 2021. Following the recall, thousands of people
filed lawsuits against those drug companies that manufactured
Valsartan pills, linking their cancer diagnoses to the contaminated
drugs.

What Exactly Is Needed to File a Class Action Lawsuit?
Since the recall, over 1,000 Valsartan lawsuits have been filed by
victims, who developed cancer after taking the drug, against drug
manufacturers, retailers, drug stores, and other parties involved
in manufacturing, distributing, and selling Valsartan. Other class
actions were brought up on behalf of those patients who purchased
the defective drugs and did not develop cancer. Their lawsuits were
made by "third-party payers," typically the health insurance plans
that paid the costs of the contaminated drugs.

The plaintiffs in these class action lawsuits are seeking to
recover their financial payments after unnecessarily buying those
potentially harmful drugs, as well as compensation to cover medical
monitoring and regular cancer screenings and treatments for any
injuries related to Valsartan.

If you are looking to join in the class action lawsuit, simply
taking Valsartan alone is enough to make you eligible for a case.
The established standards require those with injuries to have taken
a drug containing Valsartan manufactured or sold from one of the
named defendants for at least a year, with a specific illness or
damage resulting from use. However, for more specific information
regarding how you may be eligible to join the class action lawsuit,
we highly recommend you seek out an attorney.

Valsartan Victims Are Eligible for Compensation
Those individuals who the contaminated drug has injured may sustain
physical, emotional, and financial damages. Typically in these
cases, victims are entitled to compensation for economic damages,
which can include the cost of past and future medical treatment and
care, the loss of income, benefits, and any future lost wages and
expenses related to personal care and household services. Victims
can also expect to recover non-economic damages for the pain and
suffering they experience because of the defective drug, including
the loss of enjoyment of life, decreased quality of life, permanent
disabilities and impairments, disfigurement and scarring, mental
and emotional distress, and trauma.

If you believe you or someone you know has suffered an illness or
has taken Valsartan for treatment, you may be entitled to
compensation. However, due to the statute of limitations, victims
are urged to seek legal counsel as soon as possible. At Morgan &
Morgan, we are looking to help victims of the Valsartan drug get
the justice they deserve. Don't wait to connect with us.

To follow along with this lawsuit or to see if you are eligible to
participate in the class action lawsuit, you can connect with
Morgan & Morgan today by completing our free, no-obligation case
evaluation form. [GN]


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***