/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230602.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 2, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 111

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Knight Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Lowe Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Norwood Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Pranger Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Pringle Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams

450 HAYES VALLEY: Guillen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ABBOTT LAB: Bid to Dismiss LeGrand First Amended Complaint OK'd
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Judge Tosses Similac Recall Class Action
AERIN HOLDINGS LLC: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AIR ACADEMY FEDERAL: Solomon Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia

ALLIANCE DATA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 26
ALTERCARE INC: Savage Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
ALVARIA INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Scifo Suit Claims
AMAZON.COM INC: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 31, 2024
AMAZON.COM INC: Holt TCPA Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington

AMAZON.COM INC: Perry Sues Over Deceptive Sales and Marketing
AMICK FARMS: Seeks to Strike Diazes' Certification Bid
AREVO INC: Eisen Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
ARIZONA: Court Granted Class Certification in Gonzales Suit
ART MATERIALS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ATOSA USA INC: Borek-Allison Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
AUGUST SCHELL BREWING: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
B.O.A. INC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLUE DIAMOND: Cummings Bid for Class Certification Tossed as Moot
BLUE DIAMOND: Faces Wood Suit Over Almonds' "Smokehouse" Label

BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Plaintiffs Seek to File Suggestion Under Seal
BOTTOM LINE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Baughman Alleges
BULL BUSTER: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CALIFORNIA: Arenas Challenges DOMA in Family Immigration Class Suit
CALIFORNIA: Imbert Sues Over Fraudulent Trading of FTX Products

CANDLE DELIRIUM INC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CANOPY GROWTH: Turpel Sues Over Precipitous Decline Securities
CARLOTZ INC: Goodwin Attorneys Discuss Class Action Dismissal
CELEBRITY CRUISES: Maglana Reassignment to Complex Case Track Nixed
CHARLES RIVER: Coleman Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price

CHURCH & DWIGHT CO: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CIGNA HEALTH: Plaintiffs Seek to File Confidential Info Under Seal
CNY CONSTRUCTION: Denial of Facade's Bid to Certify Claim Affirmed
COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: Parties Seek to Vacate June 21 Hearing
CREDIT SUISSE: Must Oppose Set Capital Class Cert Bid by June 5

CREDIT SUISSE: Set Capital Seeks Certification of Two Classes
CREDIT SUISSE: Settlement in Fund Liquidation Suit Gets Initial Nod
DAVE AND BUSTERS: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
DELTA PACKING: Withdrawal of Carillo's Counsel in Perez Suit OK'd
DJR INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mora Suit Alleges

DNC PARKS: Declarations of Witnesses Stricken From Vega Class Suit
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Sends Unwanted Marketing Messages, Quintero Says
DRESSER LLC: Suit Seek to Certify Property-Related Claims Class
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Buechel Class Suit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Byers Class Suit

DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Carroll Class Suit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Crocker Class Suit
DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Cubbage Class Suit
EASTERN ENERGY: Fails to Properly Pay Operators, Warren Suit Says
ELDOR AUTOMOTIVE: Underpays Line Technicians, Jenkins Suit Alleges

EXCELA HEALTH: Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
FAMILY FIRST: Suescum "Robocalls" Suit Seeks Class Certification
FIRST COMMUNITY BANK: Cox Suit Transferred to S.D. West Virginia
FIRSTCREDIT INC: Garcia FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
FLOWERS FOODS: Wins Bids for Summary Judgment in Ash Class Suit

FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Court Stays Scheduling Order Deadlines in Eubanks
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Court Stays Scheduling Order Deadlines in Flowers
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Court Stays Scheduling Order Deadlines in Oliger
GATEWAY FIRST: Fails to Pay Officer Assistants' OT Wages Under FLSA
GENERAC POWER: Sells Defective Power Systems, Hufton Suit Claims

GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Canada Court Tosses Zantac Class Action
HANNA'S CANDLE: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HIGHLAND PARK: Rhodes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
HOLLYWOOD AT HOME: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HOME THREAD: Fails to Pay Clerks' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA

HUMANA INC: Court Tosses Coleman Amended Complaint
HUNTER WARFIELD: Evans Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
INSOMNIA COOKIES: Williams FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
IRISH TRADITIONS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
J4H LLC: Thomas Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

JD CLASSIC BUILDERS: Rodas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: Investigates Potential Securities Fraud Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Cert. of Epstein Survivors' Suit Possible
JUN YUP LEE: Shin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Patient Data Privacy Class Action

KIRKLAND'S INC: Standing Order Reversed; Gennock Suit Dismissed
KNS INTERNATIONAL: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LAZER SPOT: Must Oppose Conditional Cert. Bid by June 7
LENS.COM INC: Franks Files Suit in C.D. California
LETSGOBRANDON.COM FOUNDATION: Zigler Law Files Securities Suit

LIC SEAFOOD INC: Tolentino Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
LIC SEAFOOD: Tolentino Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
LIFE ALERT: Walker Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages
LIFECORE FITNESS: Valiente Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
LUCHARITOS CENTER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bulger Suit Alleges

LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due July 25
MAGNA INTERNATIONAL: Davis Bid to Name New Class Rep Partly OK'd
MARS INCORPORATED: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due March 13, 2024
MAZER APPLIANCE: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MDL 2827: $8.5K Appeal Bond Imposed on Feldman & Jan in Apple Suit

MDL 2972: Blackbaud Opposition to Cohen Class Cert Bid Due June 9
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Opposition to Duranko Class Cert Bid Due June 9
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Opposition to Estes Class Cert Bid Due June 9
MDL 2972: Blackbaud Opposition to Mandel Class Cert Bid Due June 9
MEDAVAIL PHARMACY: Bakir Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice

MEMORIALCARE MEDICAL: Mejia Sues Over Failure to Pay Hours Worked
MENTAL HEALTH: Dyous Bid to Certify Class Moot
MIZZEN AND MAIN: Derriman Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
MKS INSTRUMENTS: Suit Removed to C.D. California
MURAD LLC: Court Narrows Claims in Decoursey Class Action

NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: Guerrero Files Suit in S.D. Florida
NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: Wilson Files Suit in S.D. Florida
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: 3d Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Slupski Suit
NATIXIS SA: Class Deal in Bonds Antitrust Suit Wins Prelim. Nod
NEW YORK, NY: Marciano's Appeal From Dismissal of Claims Dismissed

NEW YORK: Plaintiffs Must Present Oral Argument by June 29
NEW-INDY CATAWBA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Kennedy Due Nov. 7
NEW-INDY CATAWBA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in White Due Nov. 7
NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Ross Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
NINTENDO OF AMERICA: N.A. Suit Removed to N.D. California

NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Turner Suit Removed to C.D. California
NUVO YOU: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Moore Suit Claims
OAK HARBOR: Titus Suit Transferred to N.D. California
ONCE UPON A TEE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ORCHID GALLERY: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: Winn-Henry Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
OUTER INC: Benjamin Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
PALACE INDUSTRIES: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PAPA INC: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to Oct. 19
PAPA TEXAS: Myers Sues Over Failure to Compensate Minimum Wages

PATIO SHOPPERS INC: Vachnine Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PAYPAL INC: Faces Class Suit Over Unjustifiably Blocked Accounts
PHILIPS RS: Scheduling Order Setting Class Cert Deadlines Sought
PITTSBURGH FURNITURE: Fails to Pay Straight, OT Wages Under FLSA
POLISH ART CENTER: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PRIME CLASSIC DESIGN: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PRINCE AND BOND: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PROMIX NUTRITION: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Court Partly OK's Bid for Reconsideration
QHCCS LLC: Smith FLSA Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee

QUADRILLE WALLPAPERS: Sanchez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Investigates Claims on Behalf of Investors
REGULATORY DATACORP: Carr Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
REGULATORY DATACORP: Carr Seeks to Seal Class Cert. Bid Documents
RING LLC: Denial of Motion to Compel Arbitration Upheld

RIVERMAID TRADING: Bastida Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ROBERT J. SPEYER: Garfield Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
ROCKET COMPANIES: Rayner Sues Over 17% Decline of Stock Price
ROCKPORT COMPANY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROMEO'S PIZZA: Status Conference Order Entered in Branning Suit

SANDRA HARWOOD: J.B. Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
SERVICE LIGHTING: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SHAMROCK FOODS: Acevedo Suit Removed to C.D. California
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Johnson Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
SIRIUS XM RADIO: Posternock Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme

SKYTHE INC: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPECTRUM OF CREATIONS: Maldonado Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Raymond Collective Action Gets Final Status
SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT: Merger Not Fair, Newman Suit Alleges
STEIN MART INC: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SYSCO CORPORATION: Pacheco Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
SYSCO CORPORATION: Rose Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information
TERI JON SPORTS: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Welfare Fund Suit Over Monopolization
TIBI LLC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

TIDAL WAVE: Muse Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
TPE ACQUISITION: Gonzalez Suit Removed to C.D. California
UKG INC: Navarrete Suit Removed to C.D. California
UNICREDIT BANK: Class Deal in Antitrust Suit Wins Prelim. Approval
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Denies Bids to Seal Without Prejudice

VANDERFORD AIR: Faces Flores Class Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
VERIDIAN CREDIT: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Drexler Alleges
VIRTU FINANCIAL: Hiebert Sues Over Inflated Price of Securities
VIRTU FINANCIAL: Robbins LLP Announces Securities Class Action
WASHINGTON: District Court Dismisses Pistrak Suit With Prejudice

WELLS FARGO: Class Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial Nod
WHALECO INC: Streater Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
WHOLE FOODS MARKET: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Hamburger Buns
XEROX CORPORATION: Cole Suit Removed to C.D. California
XTO ENERGY: Seeks Stay of Scheduling Order Deadlines in Bradley

YALE UNIVERSITY: Jury Selection in Class Action Set to Begin
YORK WALLCOVERINGS: Kunkle Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ZILLOW GROUP: Tuso Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Products Has 244 Pending Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 50 Pending Claims as of March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Int'l. Faces Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FG Group Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Reports 37,300 Pending Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Faces Personal Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Defends 16 Personal Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Defends 268 Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Defends 587 New Exposure Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Defends 536 PI Lawsuits as of March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Faces 112 PI Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Defends Numerous Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reading Int'l. Still Defends Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regal Rexnord Has 350 Pending Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Faces Product Liability Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Faces 242 Exposure Claims as of March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Defends 700 Personal Injury Claims


                            *********

3M COMPANY: Knight Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Knight, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK
EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;)
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDIE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No.
2:23-cv-01405-RMG (D.S.C., April 6, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with a
pituitary tumor, acromegaly, and/or other medical conditions as a
result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
          John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
          125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Phone: 732-855-6060
          Facsimile: 732-726-4860


3M COMPANY: Lowe Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donnie Lowe, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-01467-RMG (D.S.C., April 10,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a state police officer and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis
and prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
          Keith Jackson, Esq.
          Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
          RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
          3530 Independence Dr.
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Phone: 205-879-5000
          Facsimile: 205-879-5901


3M COMPANY: Norwood Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Norwood and Katherine Norwood, his wife, and other
similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE-FENWAL,
INC.; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No.
2:23-cv-01407-RMG (D.S.C., April 6, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
testicular cancer and/or other medical conditions as a result of
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
          John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
          125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Phone: 732-855-6060
          Facsimile: 732-726-4860


3M COMPANY: Pranger Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Pranger and Paula Pranger, his wife, and other similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:23-cv-01408-RMG (D.S.C., April 6,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer and/or other medical conditions as a result of
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
          John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
          125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Phone: 732-855-6060
          Facsimile: 732-726-4860


3M COMPANY: Pringle Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kennedy Roy Pringle, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDIE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case
No. 2:23-cv-01409-RMG (D.S.C., April 6, 2023), is brought for
damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer, bladder cancer and/or other medical conditions as
a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
          John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
          125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Phone: 732-855-6060
          Facsimile: 732-726-4860


450 HAYES VALLEY: Guillen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 450 Hayes Valley,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Hugo Guillen, an individual, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 450 Hayes
Valley, LLC, Adriano Paganini, Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. CGC23606588 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 17,
2023).

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

450 Hayes Valley, LLC is a condominium complex in San Francisco,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jose Garay, Esq.
          JOSE GARAY APLC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802-4899
          Phone: 949-208-3400
          Fax: 562-590-8400
          Email: jose@garaylaw.com


ABBOTT LAB: Bid to Dismiss LeGrand First Amended Complaint OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONDALISA LEGRAND, et al.,
v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 3:22-cv-05815-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Thomas S. Hixson entered an order granting motion to
dismiss:

  -- The Court grants Abbott's motion to dismiss LeGrand's First
     Amended Complaint to the extent it challenges the statement
"All-
     in-One blend to support your health."

  -- The Court denies leave to amend on the ground that it would be

     futile.

  -- The Court shall conduct a case management conference on June
15,
     2023 at 10:00 a.m. by Zoom video conference.

  -- The webinar link and instructions are located at
     https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/hixson-thomas-s-tsh/. This
     conference shall be attended by lead trial counsel.

  -- By June 8, 2023, the parties shall file a Joint Case
Management
     Statement containing the information in the Standing Order for

     All Judges in the Northern District of California, available
at:
     http://cand.uscourts.gov/tshorders.The Joint Case Management

     Statement form may be obtained at:
     http://cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms.

In sum, the Court finds LeGrands challenge to the statement
"All-in-One blend to support your health" must be dismissed because
she did not purchase Ensure (TM) Enlive (which is the only product
with that statement), the claim does not satisfy the substantial
similarity test, and she cannot avoid preemption by alleging that
an implied nutrient content claim is misbranded due to one nutrient
(fat), then challenge that same claim with respect to another
nutrient (sugar).

Condalisa LeGrand brings this putative class action against Abbott
Laboratories, alleging certain statements on the labels of Abbott's
Ensure (TM) nutrition drinks are false and misleading.

Abbott manufactures, markets, and distributes several different
"nutrition" shakes and drinks under its Ensure (TM) brand. Among
those Ensure products are six at issue in this case: Ensure (TM)
Original Nutrition Shake, Ensure (TM) Complete Nutrition Shake,
Ensure (TM) Compact Therapeutic Nutrition Shake, Ensure (TM) Clear
Nutrition Drink, Ensure (TM) Original Nutrition Powder, and Ensure
(TM) Enlive Advanced Nutrition Shake. LeGrand is a California
resident who purchased the Ensure Original Nutrition Shake.

the Plaintiffs brought the following causes of action: violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL); violation of
California's False Advertising Law (FAL), and violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).

A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WyvoHM at no extra charge.[CC]



ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Judge Tosses Similac Recall Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Irvin Jackson, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that the U.S.
District Judge presiding over all Similac recall lawsuits filed
over contaminated infant formula distributed nationwide last year
has dismissed economic loss claims raised in class action lawsuits,
but is allowing individual lawsuits to move forward over injuries
caused by cronobacter and salmonella in the powdered formula.

Abbott Laboratories recalled Similac, Alimentum and Elecare formula
products in February 2022, after it was confirmed that powdered
formula manufactured at a Michigan facility was contaminated with
Salmonella Newport and Cronobacter sakazakii bacteria.

At least two infant deaths and hundreds of illnesses have been
reported by parents who fed the recalled formula to their children,
and subsequent investigations have revealed Abbott ignored industry
safety standards and best practices at its facility for years,
endangering children for the sake of profits.

Shortly after the Similac recall, lawsuits were filed by families
of babies who experienced problems. However, a number of Similac
recall class action lawsuits were also filed, seeking economic
damages for all consumers who purchased the contaminated formula,
even if no injuries resulted from the contamination.

Given common questions of fact and law raised in the complaints,
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has
established centralized pretrial proceedings in the federal court
system, consolidating the lawsuits as part of an MDL before U.S.
District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly in the Northern District of
Illinois.

Similac Class Action Lawsuits Dismissed
In May, Judge Kennelly considered motions to dismiss filed by
Abbott Laboratories, which separately sought to dismiss certain
claims in the personal injury lawsuits, as well as the economic
loss class action lawsuits over the Similac recall.

Following a hearing on May 1, Judge Kennelly denied Abbott's
attempts to dismiss the individual claims, rejecting arguments that
plaintiffs could not establish that their children's food poisoning
illnesses, particularly cases of salmonella, were traceable to the
recalled infant formula products. While removing a few specific
claims from some cases, Judge Kennelly allowed those cases to move
forward en masse in a May 22 case management order (PDF).

However, regarding Similac recall class action lawsuits, plaintiffs
argued the recalled products failed to warn consumers of the risks
of cronobacter and salmonella food poisoning. Abbott's motion to
dismiss argued that plaintiffs failed to adequately prove standing,
meaning they suffered direct injury, and could not plausibly argue
that the products were defective.

Judge Kennelly agreed with Abbott and issued a separate case
management order (PDF) on May 22, dismissing the 10 Similac class
action lawsuits.

May 2023 Similac Recall Lawsuit Update
As part of the coordinated management for the remaining Similac
injury lawsuits, it is expected that Judge Kennelly will establish
a bellwether trial program, where small groups of representative
claims are prepared for early trial dates.

While the outcome of these bellwether trials will not be binding on
other cases, they will be used to help gauge how juries are likely
to respond to evidence and testimony which could be repeated in
hundreds of separate trials, and may help form the basis of a
Similac recall settlement agreement.

A similar process has been established in a separate federal MDL
established for all Similac lawsuits over NEC (necrotizing
enterocolitis) diagnosed among premature infants fed the cow's
milk-based infant formula.

Dozens of Similac NEC lawsuits and Enfamil NEC lawsuits have been
centralized before U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, as
part of a separate consolidated pretrial proceeding.

Each of the complaints raise similar allegations against Abbott and
Mead Johnson, the manufacturer of the competing cow's milk-based
formula Enfamil, indicating that the companies knew that premature
infants faced an increased risk of NEC from their formula, yet
false and misleading information has been provided to families and
the medical community.

Discovery was completed in a group of 12 bellwether claims brought
against the two infant formula manufacturers, which will soon be
reduced to a small group of four claims that will be eligible for
the first trial dates.

In advance of the firs trial, Judge Pallmeyer has ordered that the
parties engage in a series of infant formula NEC settlement talks,
to discuss potential resolution of the litigation. However, if
settlements are not reached, it is expected that the Court will
consider challenges to the admissibility of expert witness
testimony in early 2024, and trial schedules will be established at
a pretrial conference in March 2024. [GN]

AERIN HOLDINGS LLC: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aerin Holdings LLC.
The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Aerin Holdings LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-04196 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2023).

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

Aerin -- https://www.aerin.com/ -- offers a curated collection of
luxury products in home decor, beauty, fashion accessories through
online and offline stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


AIR ACADEMY FEDERAL: Solomon Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lisa Solomon, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Air Academy Federal Credit Union, Case
No. 23-C-100 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cabell County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia on May 19, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00398 to the
proceeding.

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

Air Academy Credit Union -- https://www.aacu.com/ -- is a credit
union in Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

          Michael Alexander Urban, Esq.
          Rodney Arthur Smith, Esq.
          ROD SMITH LAW
          108-1/2 Capitol Street, Suite 300
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: (304) 342-0550
          Email: aurban@lawwv.com
                 rod@LawWV.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brant T. Miller, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
          707 Grant Street, Suite 3800
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 316-2938
          Fax: (412) 347-5461
          Email: btmiller@grsm.com


ALLIANCE DATA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 26
--------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Journal reports that Rosen Law Firm, a global investor
rights law firm, reminds purchasers of common stock of Loyalty
Ventures Inc. (NASDAQ: LYLT) (OTC: LYLTQ) between November 8, 2021
and June 7, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the
important June 26, 2023 lead plaintiff deadline. Loyalty Ventures
was created as a result of a November 2021 spinoff from Alliance
Data Systems Corporation n/k/a Bread Financial Holdings, Inc., the
defendant company in this case. A class action lawsuit has already
been filed.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Loyalty Ventures class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6803 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 26, 2023. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Air Miles
program suffered from a lack of investment prior to the spinoff;
(2) as a result, Sobeys Inc., the second-largest supermarket chain
in Canada and the second-largest sponsor in the Air Miles program,
had informed defendants it was considering exercising its early
termination rights; (3) the threat of Sobeys' departure loomed
throughout 2021 including in the timeframe leading up to the
spinoff; (4) defendants expected the departure of any single large
sponsor, such as Sobeys, would have "network effect" on the value
of the entire Air Miles program; (5) the high leverage and debt
service obligations foisted upon Loyalty Ventures, in conjunction
with the "network effect" impact on the value of the Air Miles
business, threatened the Company's ability to continue operations;
and (6) as a result, defendants' positive statements about the
Company's financial guidance, business, operations, and prospects
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Loyalty Ventures class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6803 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

Contact Information:

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

ALTERCARE INC: Savage Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Hunter Savage and Alisa Cullen, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. ALTERCARE, INC., ALTERCARE OF OHIO, INC., and
THE SCHROER GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01727-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio,
May 23, 2023), is brought against Defendants for their failure to
pay employees wages seeking all available relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act ("the Ohio Wage Act"), and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act
("OPPA"), (the Ohio Wage Act and the OPPA will be referred to
collectively as "the Ohio Acts").

The Defendants require a daily meal break deduction from the
Plaintiff' and other healthcare employees' compensable hours worked
on each shift regardless of whether they actually took an
uninterrupted meal break ("Meal Break Deduction Policy").
Defendants' facilities were regularly understaffed, and the
Plaintiff and the Defendants' other healthcare employees were too
busy with substantive job duties to take a 30-minute, uninterrupted
meal break.

The Plaintiff and other healthcare employees complained that they
were not able to take their breaks. Nevertheless, the Defendants
required the meal break deductions and informed employees that they
were responsible for taking breaks. The Defendants did not have an
effective process or otherwise did not properly implement an
effective process for reporting a missed meal break and receiving
compensation for it.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated healthcare employees had
a meal break deduction in workweeks where they worked more than 40
hours, even though they were unable to take a full, uninterrupted
meal break. The Defendants suffered and permitted the the Plaintiff
and similarly situated healthcare employees to work overtime in
workweeks while not compensating them overtime premium for all such
hours worked because of Defendants' Meal Break Deduction Policy,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants.

The Defendants operate community-based senior living communities,
located throughout the states of Ohio and Michigan, that offer
short term rehabilitation, memory care, and long-term nursing care
to their residents.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
          Tristan N. Hendren, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Phone: 614-949-1181
          Fax: 614-386-9964
          Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                 agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
                 khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
                 takers@mcoffmanlegal.com


ALVARIA INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Scifo Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA SCIFO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALVARIA, INC. and CARRINGTON MORTGAGE
SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11143-ADB (D. Mass.,
May 22, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence and declaratory and injunctive relief.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to protect the
personally identifying information (PII) of customers, including
the Plaintiff, following a data breach on Alvaria's data systems on
March 9, 2023. The unauthorized access occurred due to the
Defendants' inadequate data security measures. Furthermore, after
the data breach, the Defendants failed to provide timely notice to
the affected customers, thereby exacerbating their injuries. The
Plaintiffs and Class members are now at a higher risk identity
theft and other crimes, says the suit.

Alvaria, Inc. is a a workforce management and call center
technology solution company, with its principal place of business
in Westford, Massachusetts.

Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC is a mortgage services company
with its principal place of business in Anaheim, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         David Pastor, Esq.
         PASTOR LAW OFFICE, PC
         63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 742-9700
         Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
         E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

                 - and -

         Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
         Michael J. Laird, Esq.
         Rachel K. Tack, Esq.
         ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
         1100 IDS Center
         80 South 8th Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 341-0400
         Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
         E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
                 michael.laird@zimmreed.com
                 rachel.tack@zimmreed.com

                 - and -

         Abbas Kazerouian, Esq.
         Mona Amini, Esq.
         KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC
         245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Telephone: (800) 400-6808
         Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
         E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                 mona@kazlg.com

AMAZON.COM INC: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 31, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON MACK and LINDSEY
FARROW, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01310-JCC (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Samantha Spraker entered an order setting
the following class certification schedule:

   -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class            Jan. 31, 2024
      certification shall be filed by:

   -- The Defendant's opposition shall            April 15, 2024
      be filed by:

   -- The Plaintiffs' reply shall be              May 31, 2024
      filed by:

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

A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WA7X0M at no extra charge.[CC]


AMAZON.COM INC: Holt TCPA Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jennifer Holt, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Amazon.com Inc., Case No.
6:23-cv-00104-GLJ was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington on May 17, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00752-JLR to the
proceeding.

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

Amazon.com, Inc. -- http://www.amazon.com/-- is an American
multinational technology company that focuses on e-commerce, cloud
computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel Hiraldo
          HIRALDO PA
          401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400
          Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 400-4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

The Defendants is represented by:

          Kenneth E Payson, Esq.
          Lauren Burdette Rainwater, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE (SEA)
          920 Fifth Ave., Ste. 3300
          Seattle, WA 98104-1610
          Phone: (206) 622-3150
          Fax: (206) 757-7700
          Email: kenpayson@dwt.com
                 laurenrainwater@dwt.com

               - and -

          John E. Harper, Jr., Esq.
          BARROW & GRIMM, PC
          110 W 7th St, Ste 900
          Tulsa, OK 74119-1044
          Phone: (918) 584-1600
          Fax: (918) 585-2444
          Email: harper@barrowgrimm.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Perry Sues Over Deceptive Sales and Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Perry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Amazon.com, Inc. Whole Foods Market IP, Inc., Case No.
3:23-cv-00951-JO-BLM (S.D. Cal., May 23, 2023), is brought
challenging the Defendant's practice of selling counterfeit
glucosamine sulfate supplements, for breach of express warranty,
unjust enrichment, violations of the California Unfair Competition
Law ("UCL"), the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"),
the California False Advertising Law ("FAL"), with regard to the
Defendants' unfair, unlawful, unethical fraudulent, misleading,
unconscionable, and/or deceptive sales and/or marketing of its
Glucosamine Sulfate containing Supplements.

Simply stated, the products are marketed as glucosamine sulfate
when, as a matter of fact, no glucosamine sulfate is found in the
products. The lab test did not simply show that there was less
Glucosamine Sulfate Potassium Chloride and less Glucosamine Sulfate
than the label claimed—the test showed that there was no
Glucosamine Sulfate Potassium Chloride; there was no Glucosamine
Sulfate in the pills that were tested.

The Defendant failed to disclose on its labels or otherwise that
the Affected Products do not contain the ingredients represented on
the Affected Products' labels or that the Affected Products contain
adulterants or undisclosed substances. The actual contents of the
Affected Products are important to Plaintiff and members of the
Class and Subclass. Defendant's failure to disclose that the
Affected Products do not contain the ingredients as represented on
the labels and that the Affected Products contain adulterants or
undisclosed substances affected Plaintiff's and Class and Subclass
members' purchasing decisions in that they would not have purchased
the Affected Products had Defendant disclosed the true facts
concerning their actual ingredients and composition. The Defendant
recognizes or should have recognized the materiality and importance
of the quality and safety of its products to its customers.

The Plaintiffs and the Class and Subclass were misled and deceived
by Defendant's material misrepresentations and/or omissions and
were damaged and injured as a result of Defendant's conduct
because: They would not have purchased the Affected Products had
they known that the Affected Products did not contain the
ingredients as represented on the labels, and/or contained
adulterants or undisclosed substance, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a bottle of Solimo brand Glucosamine
Sulfate 2KCl (Glucosamine Sulfate Potassium Chloride).

The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells various "Solimo",
"365 Whole Food Market" and "365 Everyday Value" brands glucosamine
supplements to consumers nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jingxin Li, Esq. (SBN 326105)
          LAW OFFICE OF JASON LI, P.C.
          820 S Garfield Ave, Ste 102,
          Alhambra, CA 91801-5838
          Phone: (626) 537-1403
          Fax: (626) 414-5627
          Email: jasonli@jasonlilaw.com


AMICK FARMS: Seeks to Strike Diazes' Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL DIAZ, JEAN-NICHOLE
DIAZ, and DIAZ FAMILY FARMS, LLC, on their own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. AMICK FARMS, LLC, Case No.
5:22-cv-01246-MGL (D.S.C.), Amick Farms requests that the Court
enter an order striking the Plaintiffs' certification motion,
thereby rendering any response thereto by Amick unnecessary.

In the alternative, Amick requests the Court deny the Certification
Motion because the pleadings do not support the Plaintiffs' request
for conditional certification of a nationwide class.

The Plaintiffs' Certification Motion is improper because it seeks
certification of a nationwide collective of Amick growers, which is
far broader than the defined collective of South Carolina growers
identified in the Plaintiffs' Complaint, Amick contends.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 16, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WC8AqB at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marguerite S. Willis, Esq.
          MAYNARD NEXSEN, PC
          1230 Main Street, Suite 700 (29201)
          Post Office Drawer 2426
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: (803) 253-8279
          Facsimile: (803) 727-1465
          E-mail: amacaulay@maynardnexsen.com
                  mwillis@maynardnexsen.com

               - and -

          Bridget A. Blinn-Spears, Esq.
          Maynard Nexsen, PC
          4141 Parklake Ave, Suite 200
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 755-1800
          Facsimile: (919) 880-4546
          E-mail: bblinn-spears@maynardnexsen.com

AREVO INC: Eisen Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN EISEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AREVO, INC.; and SONNY VU, Defendants, Case
No. 230501953 (Pa. Com. Pl., May 18, 2023) is an action against the
Defendants' deceptive, fraudulent, and illegal practices relating
to the national marketing and sale of Scotsman All-Carbon Fiber
Scooters (the "Scotsman Scooters" or the "Scooters").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants have
perpetrated a scam upon the fast-growing electric scooter-buying
community by duping consumers into purchasing Scotsman Scooters,
but never even delivering the Scooters at all. The Defendants have
placed in the marketplace for sale a product that does not live up
to its billing and have not delivered on their own express promises
in the most important of ways: Despite billing for and accepting
the payments from consumers, and billing separately for "Shipping
and Handling," Defendants are not providing the Scooters at all.
The Defendants' customer service department is non-existent, such
that it is now completely unresponsive to the hundreds of customer
complaints regarding the Scooters, says the Plaintiff.

AREVO, INC. provides software solutions. The Company develops
technology to enable direct digital additive manufacturing of
ultra-strong and lightweight composite parts for end use
applications in high volume. Arevo serves customers in the State of
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
         Kevin W. Fay, Esq.
         GOLOMB SPIRT GRUNFELD, P.C.
         1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 985-9177
         Email: rgolomb@golomblegal.com
                kgrunfeld@golomblegal.com
                kfay@golomblegal.com


ARIZONA: Court Granted Class Certification in Gonzales Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
LexisNexis reports that "In the latest victory on behalf of
unrepresented immigrants with mental disabilities held in
immigration detention facilities, a federal judge has ruled that
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) and partners have been
assigned to represent detainees in a three-state region as a class.
The ruling arises out of a class action lawsuit filed last year on
behalf of José Antonio Franco Gonzales, a severely schizophrenic
Salvadoran immigrant detained without a hearing for over four years
in federal immigration facilities, as well as six other named
immigrant plaintiffs. Some 33,400 immigrants are detained each day
by immigration officials. While the exact number of detainees with
severe mental disabilities is unclear, government estimates suggest
that there are over 1,000 such immigrants detained nationwide on
any given day. The federal immigration system has no standard
procedures to resolve cases against detainees with mental
disabilities, even those who are not competent to understand the
proceedings against them. On May 28, 2023 ruling will allow the
organizations to represent detainees with mental disabilities in
Washington, California and Arizona as a class, permitting hundreds
of unrepresented detainees with serious mental disabilities to
obtain their day in court. The District Court has already ordered
that the government find legal representation for the named
plaintiffs in this case. "The most important aspect of the ruling
granting class certification is that we are now in a position to
address this problem on a systemic level," said Matt Adams, Legal
Director of Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. "People with severe
mental disabilities who are locked up in immigration detention are
ground through this system without even understanding what is
happening to them. We can now focus on fighting for the right to
counsel so that they receive a fair hearing." "The sad fact is that
the government has no idea just how many detainees are languishing
in immigration detention centers, unable to represent themselves or
even to understand why they're there," said Ahilan Arulanantham, an
attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern
California. " on May 28, 2023's ruling will allow us to shed light
on this most vulnerable population within our broken immigration
detention system." Counsel in the case include Northwest Immigrant
Rights Project, ACLU of Southern California, Sullivan & Cromwell,
Public Counsel, Mental Health Advocacy Services Inc., the ACLU's
Immigrants' Rights Project, the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial
Counties, and the ACLU of Arizona. The case is Franco v.
Napolitano. - Click here for Unsealed Order Granting Class
Certification, Franco v. Napolitano [GN]

ART MATERIALS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Art Materials, LLC.
The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Art Materials, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-04102 (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2023).

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

Art Materials, LLC -- https://www.artmaterialsonline.com/ -- is an
online website for art and craft supplies, fine pens, airbrush
supplies and custom framing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ATOSA USA INC: Borek-Allison Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atosa USA Inc. The
case is styled as Bobbie Borek-Allison, on behalf of herself and
all other plaintiffs similarly situated v. Atosa USA Inc., d/b/a
Atosa Catering Equipment, Case No. 1:23-cv-03223 (N.D. Ill., May
22, 2023).

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

Atosa -- https://atosausa.com/ -- is a major manufacturer of
commercial kitchen equipment, with a breadth of offering including
refrigeration, cooking equipment, warming/holding equipment,
stainless steel fabrication equipment, and much more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 W Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (312) 853-1450
          Fax: (312) 853-1459
          Email: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


AUGUST SCHELL BREWING: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against August Schell Brewing
Company. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. August Schell Brewing Company,
Case No. 1:23-cv-04178 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2023).

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

August Schell Brewing Company -- https://www.schellsbrewery.com/ --
is an established brewery known for German pilsners & lagers also
has an on-site museum & offers tours.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


B.O.A. INC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against B.O.A Inc. The case
is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. B.O.A Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04110 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 17, 2023).

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

BOA -- https://www.boausa.com/ -- offers running shorts & clothing
that are backed by a lifetime warranty and made in the USA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE DIAMOND: Cummings Bid for Class Certification Tossed as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIE CUMMINGS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS, Case No. 1:22-cv-00141-AW-HTC (N.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Allen Winsor entered an order denying as moot the
motion for class certification.

Accordingly, final judgment will enter consistent with the court's
order of dismissal. The clerk will enter judgment that says, "This
case was resolved on a motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's claims
for injunctive relief are dismissed without prejudice for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. the Plaintiff’s claims for damages
are dismissed on the merits." The clerk will close the file, the
Court says.

The court granted Blue Diamond’s motion to dismiss with leave to
amend. Cummings has provided notice that he will not amend.

Blue Diamond Growers is an agricultural cooperative and marketing
organization that specializes in California almonds. Founded in
1910 as the California Almond Grower's Exchange, the organization
claims to be the world's largest tree nut processing and marketing
company. Wikipedia

A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4238R7a at no extra charge.[CC]




BLUE DIAMOND: Faces Wood Suit Over Almonds' "Smokehouse" Label
--------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN WOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-01363-GLR (D. Md., May 22, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for fraud, unjust enrichment, violation of the
Maryland Consumer Protection Act, and breaches of express warranty,
implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular
purpose, and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
almonds. The Defendant advertised its almonds as made in a
smokehouse across a red ribbon with glowing orange borders,
coloring evocative of fire. The Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers believed the product's smoked taste was from being smoked
in a smokehouse and/or from being smoked over hardwoods. However,
the ingredients reveal that the product's smoke taste is
exclusively from "natural hickory smoke flavor," a form of liquid
smoke with no connection to a smokehouse or smoking over hardwoods.
As a result of the Defendant's false and misleading
representations, the product is sold at a premium price, the suit
alleges.

Blue Diamond Growers is an agricultural cooperative with a
principal place of business in Sacramento, Sacramento County,
California. [BN]

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

BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Plaintiffs Seek to File Suggestion Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAUNDRE LASKEY and
KIMBERLY LASKEY, v. BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED and RESORT TITLE
AGENCY, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-03194-MDH (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file under
seal their suggestions in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and Exhibits in support thereof.

   1. The Suggestions and supporting exhibits contain excerpts and

      references from documents that contain "Confidential
      Information" pursuant to the Protective Order entered in this

      Case.

   2. Pursuant to the Protective Order, any party that seeks to
file
      with the Court a document containing "Confidential
Information"
      may seek to do so under seal.

   3. The Plaintiffs' counsel has conferred with counsel for
Bluegreen
      Vacations Unlimited and Resort Title Agency, Inc., who has
      confirmed that the Defendants do not oppose this motion.

Bluegreen Vacations is a US-based vacation ownership company.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 16, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qfrFTg at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Raymond Salva, Jr., Esq.
          Mark E. Parrish., Esq.
          Joshua A. Sanders, Esq.
          Raymond Salva, Jr., Esq.
          Erica Collins., Esq.
          BOYD KENTER THOMAS & PARRISH, LLC
          221 West Lexington Avenue, Suite 200
          Independence, MO. 64051
          Telephone: (816) 471-4511
          Facsimile: (816) 471-8450
          E-mail: mparrish@bktplaw.com
                  jsanders@bktplaw.com
                  rsalva@bktplaw.com
                  ecollins@bktplaw.com

BOTTOM LINE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Baughman Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY CHARLES BAUGHMAN; and GEORGE SCHMIDT, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BOTTOM LINE
CONCEPTS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-21862-DPG (S.D. Fla., May
18, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls.

BOTTOM LINE CONCEPTS, LLC is a performance based financial
consulting firm, focused on saving money and obtaining refunds for
companies throughout the US. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Stefan Coleman, Esq.
         Coleman PLLC
         66 West Flagler Street Suite 900
         Miami, FL 33130
         Telephone: (877) 333-9427
         Email: law@stefancoleman.com

              - and -

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


BULL BUSTER: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bull Buster Products,
LLC. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Bull Buster Products, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-04105-GHW (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2023).

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

Bull Buster Products LLC is a buyer and importer of steel panel
trailer, plastic toys, in USA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CALIFORNIA: Arenas Challenges DOMA in Family Immigration Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LexisNexis reports that Arenas, et al. v. Napolitano, et al., Case
No. SACV12-1137-JVS(MLGx) (United States District Court for the
Central District of California)
"The 25-year old son of an immigrant from the Philippines, with his
mother and her U.S. citizen spouse, on May 28, 2023 filed a class
action lawsuit in federal court in Los Angeles challenging the
constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as applied
to deny immigration family benefits. The DOMA was enacted and
signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. For all federal
benefits based on marriage, including immigration benefits, DOMA
restricts the definition of marriage to unions between "one man and
one woman."" - CHRCL, July 12, 2012. [GN]

CALIFORNIA: Imbert Sues Over Fraudulent Trading of FTX Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
KENNY IMBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAMUEL BANKMAN-FRIED, ZIXIAO "GARY" WANG,
NISHAD SINGH, and CAROLINE ELLISON, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-02475 (N.D. Cal., May 19, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy, and
violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law and the
California's False Advertising Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in
fraudulent and deceptive practices in connection with the products
and operations of FTX Trading Ltd. To perpetuate their fraud, the
Defendants and the FTX entities adopted two primary strategies: (1)
demonstrate bona fide financial credentials by purportedly having
transparent accounting practices and reputable third-party audits
of said accounting statements; and (2) promote its services and
products vicariously through celebrity/institutional endorsements
and social media outreach. As a result of the Defendants'
misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages, says
the suit. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         William M. Audet, Esq.
         Ling (David) Kuang, Esq.
         Kurt D. Kessler, Esq.
         AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
         711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
         San Francisco, CA 94102-3275
         Telephone: (415) 568-2555
         Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
         E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com
                 lkuang@audetlaw.com
                 kkessler@audetlaw.com

CANDLE DELIRIUM INC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Candle Delirium, Inc.
The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Candle Delirium, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-04088 (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2023).

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

Candle Delirium -- https://www.candledelirium.com/ -- is a top
destination for all of candle needs offering luxury candles with
sultry scents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CANOPY GROWTH: Turpel Sues Over Precipitous Decline Securities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Turpel, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION, DAVID KLEIN, and
JUDY HONG, Case No. 1:23-cv-04302 (S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2023), is
brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Canopy Growth securities between May 31, 2022
and May 10, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), pursues claims
against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act"), as a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts
and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of
the Company's securities.

The Company conducts business through its subsidiaries and a
variety of joint ventures, including Tweed, Spectrum Therapeutics,
Martha Stewart CBD, and BioSteel Sports Nutrition Inc. BioSteel is
a sports nutrition and hydration brand originally formulated for
professional athletes.

On May 10, 2023, after the market closed, Canopy Growth announced
that its audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2022 and the quarters ended June 30, 2022,
September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2022 should no longer be relied
upon, and would need to be restated. The Company also disclosed
that it "identified certain trends in the booking of sales by the
BioSteel business unit for further review." The Company specified
that "although the BioSteel Review remains ongoing, the Company has
preliminarily identified material misstatements" and that "the
correction of the misstatements is expected to reduce certain
revenues previously recognized." On this news, Canopy Growth's
stock price fell $0.18, or 14.8%, to close at $1.04 per share on
May 11, 2023, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: that there were material weaknesses in the Company's
internal controls over accounting and financial reporting; that, as
a result, the Company improperly booked sales of its BioSteel
business unit; that, as a result, the Company's revenue was
overstated; and that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. 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 Canopy Growth securities during the Class
Period.

Canopy Growth produces, distributes, and sells a diverse range of
cannabis, hemp, and consumer packaged goods ("CPG") products for
recreational and medical use.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 358
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          Email: glinkh@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

               - and -

          Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 914-5007


CARLOTZ INC: Goodwin Attorneys Discuss Class Action Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Bellars, Esq., Angela Berkowitz, Esq., Brendan Blake, Esq.,
Roland Chang, Esq., Dorothy Hazan, Esq., Lauren Jackson, Esq.,
Jennifer Burns Luz, Esq., Maria Massimo, Esq., Ian Rogers, Esq.,
and Jonathan Shapiro, Esq., of Goodwin, in article for JDSupra,
disclosed that on March 31, 2023, U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams
of the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative
securities class action against CarLotz, Inc. (CarLotz), and
certain of its officers and directors on the grounds that
plaintiffs lacked standing to sue for losses allegedly arising from
false and misleading statements defendants made about CarLotz while
it was still a private company.

In 2021, CarLotz became a publicly traded corporation through a
de-SPAC transaction whereby it merged with, and assumed the public
registration of, the special purpose acquisition company (SPAC)
Acamar Partners Acquisition Corporation (Acamar). Plaintiffs had
purchased shares of Acamar prior to the de-SPAC transaction and
later purchased shares of the post-merger, public CarLotz following
the de-SPAC. They asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Sections
11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities
Act), alleging that prior to the de-SPAC transaction, defendants
had made false and misleading statements about CartLotz's
then-current business model and inventory. Defendants moved to
dismiss on multiple grounds, including that plaintiffs lacked
standing to sue.

The court dismissed plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims for lack of
standing, rejecting plaintiffs' theory that the pre-merger, private
CarLotz should be treated as no different than the post-merger,
public CarLotz entity. The court ruled that the private right of
action under Section 10(b) should be narrowly construed, and for
this reason applied the Second Circuit's "purchaser-seller rule"
rigidly such that plaintiffs could have standing only if they were
purchasers or sellers of the precise security that was the subject
of the alleged fraud. The court also dismissed plaintiffs'
Securities Act claims on standing grounds, rejecting plaintiffs'
argument that the court should treat the de-SPAC transaction as the
"real IPO." The court thus ruled that plaintiffs' purchases were
not traceable to a challenged registration statement (as required
for a Section 11 claim) or that they had purchased directly in a
public offering (as required for a Section 12(a)(2) claim), again
because they either purchased Acamar shares prior to the de-SPAC or
purchased CarLotz shares after the de-SPAC transaction.

The question of the proper application of standing requirements --
whether the rigid approach favored by this court or the more
generous analysis applied elsewhere -- is likely to be resolved by
the Supreme Court in Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani, which was
argued on April 17, 2023, and is awaiting ruling.

Southern District of Florida Denies Crypto Firm's Motion to
Dismiss, Holding Cryptocurrency Is a Security
On April 5, 2023, U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom of the Southern
District of Florida denied motions to dismiss claims brought by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that Arbitrade Ltd.,
Cryptobontix Inc. (Cryptobontix), SION Trading FZE, and each of
those issuers' control persons for an alleged pump-and-dump scheme
involving a Cryptobontix cryptocurrency called Dignity, or DIG,
rejecting the now-familiar argument that a crypto asset is not a
"security" within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
Securities Act).

The SEC's 17-count complaint alleged, inter alia, that the
defendants illegally and fraudulently acted, including through the
solicitation of investment and by forging purchase agreements and
other documentation, to promote DIG as backed by $10 billion in
gold bullion, and, therefore, redeemable for gold. As a result, the
complaint alleges, defendants were able to offer DIG tokens to
investors at artificially inflated prices, which they in turn
exploited by selling their own DIG tokens for an allegedly
ill-gotten gain of $36.8 million.

In denying motions to dismiss by two individual defendants, the
court rejected what has become a frequent, and frequently
unsuccessful, argument that the SEC lacked jurisdiction to sue
because DIG tokens were not "securities" under the Securities Act.
The court reasoned that Congress cast a broad definition of a
security, and that the sale of DIG tokens qualified as an
"investment contract" under the test set forth in SEC v. W.J.
Howey, i.e., that the offering involved (1) an investment of money;
(2) a common enterprise; and (3) expectations of profits to be
derived from defendants' efforts. The court also rejected
policy-based arguments against broad-brush categorization of all or
many digital assets as securities, noting that the complaint at
issue alleged that the "entire scheme" of DIG sales constituted an
investment contract.

Court Dismisses Stockholder Suit Against Silverback Therapeutics
On April 12, 2023, U.S. District Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the
Western District of Washington dismissed with prejudice a
stockholder class action against Silverback Therapeutics, Inc.
(Silverback), finding that investors failed to allege any
actionable misstatements in Silverback's IPO documents regarding
clinical trials of SBT6050, a new drug aimed at treating tumors.
The plaintiffs alleged that Silverback misled investors with its
offering documents in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act
of 1933 (the Securities Act) and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act).

According to the complaint, Silverback, a biopharmaceutical company
that went public in December 2020, allegedly negligently prepared
its offering documents and misled investors by failing to disclose
that SBT6050 was neither safe for consumers nor effective.
Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that, while Silverback reported
that early clinical data showed changes in certain biomarkers
associated with tumor regression, it failed to disclose other
issues that came to light as the trial unfolded, including negative
side effects and limited efficacy, as well as the fact that
Silverback would have to discontinue the clinical program for
SBT6050 -- and another, related drug candidate -- if certain
results were not achieved during Phase 1.

In dismissing these claims, the court found that plaintiffs alleged
nothing more than "fraud by hindsight," because they failed to
demonstrate that Silverback knew or had access to data undermining
the safety and efficacy of SBT6050 at the time of the IPO.
Furthermore, the court held that Silverback's statements about
promising early data "associated" with tumor regression were "a far
cry from an absolute statement declaring the drug efficacious."
Reasonable investors would not "mistake correlation for causation"
and be misled. Dismissing the claims based on the alleged failure
to disclose that another drug depended on SBT6050's success, the
court held that "there is no requirement that a company must draw
out all inferences in order to provide a complete and accurate
disclosure."

The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims with prejudice, having
already granted a prior motion to dismiss without prejudice in
November 2022, because they once again failed to allege actionable
misrepresentations regarding SBT6050's clinical trials.

Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Class Action as Time-Barred,
Applying More Generous Second Circuit Application of Statute of
Limitations
On April 11, 2023, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a
securities fraud class action brought against HP, Inc. (HP) and
certain of its officers under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act). Although the
district court had dismissed plaintiffs' claims as barred by the
applicable statute of limitations, the Ninth Circuit reversed and
reinstated the case, under a more forgiving application of the
two-year statute of limitations applicable to claims under of the
Exchange Act. The decision brings Ninth Circuit precedent in line
with that of the Second Circuit.

Plaintiffs' lawsuit followed the settlement in September 2020 of a
multi-year investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) into HP's disclosures from November 2015 through
June 2016, which the SEC claimed failed to disclose the impact of
certain sales practices on its quarterly financial reports. Shortly
after the announcement of the SEC settlement, plaintiffs filed a
class action complaint under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) based largely
on challenges to the same 2015 and 2016 public statements.
Defendants moved to dismiss because, among other arguments, the
claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations and
five-year statute of repose applicable to claims under the Exchange
Act. Under the statute of limitations, private actions under
Section 10(b) must be filed no later than "two years after the
discovery of the facts constituting the violation." Under the
statute of repose, such actions must be brought no more than five
years after the alleged securities law violation, without regard to
whether or when plaintiffs knew or ever discovered the underlying
facts.

The district court granted defendants' motion, ruling that the
claims were time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations
because the challenged statements were published, and the company's
declining profits and reductions in channel inventory that were
central to the plaintiffs' fraud theory were disclosed, and
therefore were discoverable by a reasonably diligent plaintiff, in
2016 -- i.e., more than two years prior to the filing of the
operative complaint in April 2021. Having dismissed the case on
that basis, the district court declined to address the statute of
repose and other alternative arguments that defendants made as
alternative bases for dismissal.

In reversing the district court's ruling, the Ninth Circuit found
that the two-year statute of limitations did not begin to run until
September 2020, and therefore less than a year before the case was
filed. The court reasoned that plaintiffs could not have discovered
the necessary facts to sue -- namely, facts supporting their
scienter allegations -- until after the September 2020 SEC order.
The Ninth Circuit adopted the Second Circuit's application of Merck
& Co., Inc. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. 633 (2010) to rule that although
the information available to plaintiffs in 2016 was important to
the case they later filed, those facts alone were not enough to
trigger the two-year filing clock. Applying the two-prong Merck
test, the court first identified April 21, 2019, as the "critical
date," which is the date two years prior to the filing of the
complaint. Next, the court determined which facts the complaint
alleged occurred both before and after that date, and considered
whether all of the facts constituting a violation of federal
securities law -- including materiality, falsity, causation, and
scienter -- were discoverable prior to the critical date. Under
that approach, the Ninth Circuit noted that the SEC announced its
settlement in September 2020, which was after the critical date and
was, according to the court, the first time there was a public
disclosure of the facts and context that the plaintiffs needed to
plead scienter. Thus, even though under Merck a "reasonably
diligent plaintiff" may have had the wherewithal years earlier to
discover many of the other facts necessary to file a complaint
"with sufficient detail and particularity to survive a . . . motion
to dismiss" with respect to some elements of the Section 10(b)
claim, the complaint was timely because it was not until much later
that the plaintiffs had the information available to plead the
also-necessary scienter prong of their claim.

This decision serves as a warning that the two-year statute of
limitations for securities fraud claims does not necessarily begin
to run immediately following a "corrective disclosure" or even when
an abundance of facts is available that would alert a reasonable
plaintiff to a meritorious claim. Instead, the two-year limitations
period arguably does not start until enough facts are available
that would allow the plaintiff to successfully plead every element
of their claim.

SEC Wins Partial Summary Judgment Against Investment Firm for
Failing to Disclose Conflicts of Interest
On April 7, 2023, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of the
District of Massachusetts granted a rare partial summary judgment
in favor of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as to
the liability of an investment adviser, Commonwealth Financial
Network (Commonwealth), for failure to disclose conflicts of
interest and failure to implement policies and procedures in
violation of Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
(the Act).

The SEC charged Commonwealth with failing to disclose a conflict
created by its revenue-sharing agreements with the clearing firm,
National Financial Services LLC (NFS), a subsidiary of Fidelity
Global Brokerage Group, Inc. (Fidelity), whereby Commonwealth
shared a portion of NFS's revenue related to clients invested in
certain non-Fidelity funds. The court ruled that there was no
dispute from the evidentiary record that Commonwealth knew that its
relationship with NFS posed a conflict of interest and knew that
lower-cost investment alternatives existed. For this reason, it
entered summary judgment because as a matter of law, Commonwealth
was required to disclose the conflict and the potential
alternatives to investors. The court further held that Commonwealth
had failed to adopt and implement written policies preventing those
precise violations of the Act.

The court's ruling is a clear reminder of the need for robust
internal controls and policies favoring transparency, and a warning
that disclosure of a known conflict of interest is warranted even
where investment decisions are unmotivated by that apparent
conflict of interest. [GN]

CELEBRITY CRUISES: Maglana Reassignment to Complex Case Track Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RYAN MAUNES MAGLANA and FRANCIS KARL BUGAYONG, on
their own behalf and as class representatives of all other
similarly situated Filipino crewmembers trapped aboard CELEBRITY
cruise vessels, Plaintiff v. CELEBRITY CRUISES INC., Defendant,
Case No. 20-22133-CIV-MARTINEZ-BECERRA (S.D. Fla.), Judge Jose E.
Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Miami Division, denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Expedited Motion to Reassign Case to Complex Case Track.

The Plaintiffs move to reassign the putative class action case to
the complex case management track due to the complexity of the
case, its procedural posture (on remand from the Eleventh Circuit),
and the lack of responsive pleading from Celebrity. In further
support of the Expedited Motion, they cite ongoing discovery
disputes regarding Celebrity's responses to interrogatories and a
request for production, which have caused delays. Celebrity does
not oppose placing the case on the complex case management track.

After careful consideration, Judge Martinez denies without
prejudice the Expedited Motion. The Plaintiff's may file a renewed
motion with proposed, extended deadlines for each of the deadlines
set forth in the Court's current Scheduling Order. The Plaintiff's
Motion for Status Conference is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 16, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/8fg40 from Leagle.com.


CHARLES RIVER: Coleman Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------------
SHARAN COLEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES INTERNATIONAL,
INC.; JAMES C. FOSTER; DAVID R. SMITH; and FLAVIA PEASE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11132 (D. Mass., May 19, 2023) is a
class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Charles River securities between May 5, 2020 and
February 21, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), the Plaintiff
seeks to pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
Charles River had engaged in illegal activity with respect to its
importation of non-human primates for research; (2) that, as a
result, Charles River was at a heightened risk of criminal and
regulatory investigation by, inter alia, the U.S. Department of
Justice; (3) that, as a result, Charles River would be forced to
suspend shipments of primates from Cambodia; and (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Charles River's stock price fell $24.51, or 10 per cent, to close
at $219.09 per share on February 22, 2023, on unusually heavy
trading volume, says the suit.

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

CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. provides products
and services to help expedite the discovery, early-stage
development and safe manufacture of novel drugs and therapeutics.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glen DeValerio, Esq.
          Daryl Andrews, Esq.
          ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP
          P.O. Box 67101
          Chestnut Hill, MA 02467
          Telephone: (617) 999-6473
          Email: glen@andrewsdevalerio.com
                 daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com

               - and -

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

               - and -

          Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 914-5007

CHURCH & DWIGHT CO: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Church & Dwight Co,
Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Church & Dwight Co, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-04111-ALC (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2023).

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

Church & Dwight -- https://churchdwight.com/ -- is an American
consumer goods company focusing on personal care, household
products, and specialty products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CIGNA HEALTH: Plaintiffs Seek to File Confidential Info Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RJ, et al., v. Cigna
Health & Life Insurance, Co., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-02255-EJD
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
granting their Application to File exhibits to the Modiano
Declaration and those portions of the Plaintiffs' Reply Brief that
cite confidential information under seal.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, the Plaintiffs RJ et
al. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated move
for administrative relief to file under seal certain materials
submitted with their Reply Brief in Support of the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

The parties have entered into a protective order in this action.
The Plaintiffs' Reply Brief refers to information designated by the
Defendants Cigna Health & Life Insurance, Co., and MultiPlan, Inc.
as "CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY" or "CONFIDENTIAL"
attached as Exhibits to the Declaration of Aaron R. Modiano in
Support of the Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

These documents include the Plaintiffs' experts' rebuttal reports;
transcripts for the depositions of named the Plaintiffs as well as
both parties' experts; exhibits to the depositions of the named the
Plaintiffs that contain personal health information; and excerpts
of data produced by the Defendants. The Reply Brief also refers to
information previously submitted under seal in the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification as well as in the Defendants'
Opposition to the Plaintiff' Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs seek to file under seal those exhibits to the
Modiano  Declaration as "CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY" or
"CONFIDENTIAL" as well as those portions of the Plaintiffs’ Reply
Brief that refer to the designated information.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 16, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oxUjP7 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew M. Lavin, Esq.
          Aaron R. Modiano, Esq.
          ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP
          E-mail: matt.lavin@agg.com
          aaron.modiano@agg.com
          2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 350S
          Washington, D.C. 20037
          Telephone: (202) 677-4030
          Facsimile: (202) 677-4031

               - and -

          David M. Lilienstein, Esq.
          Katie J. Spielman, Esq.
          DL LAW GROUP
          345 Franklin St.
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 678-5050
          Facsimile: (415) 358-8484
          E-mail: david@dllawgroup.com
                  katie@dllawgroup.com

CNY CONSTRUCTION: Denial of Facade's Bid to Certify Claim Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FACADE TECHNOLOGY, LLC, ETC., Plaintiffs-Appellant v.
CNY CONSTRUCTION 701 LLC ET AL., Defendants-Respondents, CNY GROUP
LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Index No. 653587/19, Appeal No.
276&M-1665, Case No. 2022-02575 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department,
unanimously affirmed, without costs, the Order of Judge Barry R.
Ostrager of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 13,
2022, which denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify the seventh
cause of action of its verified complaint as a class action.

The Plaintiff, a subcontractor at a construction project near Times
Square, seeks to recover unpaid amounts for the labor, materials,
equipment, and services it allegedly furnished to Defendant CNY,
the general contractor on the project. In the seventh cause of
action, it seeks to recover damages for alleged diversion of trust
funds in violation of Lien Law article 3-A.

The Appellate Division holds that the Supreme Court providently
exercised its discretion in denying the Plaintiff's motion to
maintain the seventh cause of action as a class action, as he
failed to establish, as necessary for certification of a class
action, that a "class action is superior to other available methods
for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy." On the
contrary, the putative class members already have appeared and are
represented in other pending related actions, pursuing their own
independent claims that do not appear to include claims asserting
diversion of trust funds.

Hence, the Appellate Division denies the motion for a stay of the
underlying proceedings pending resolution of the appeal. This
constitutes the Decision and Order of the Appellate Division.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 16, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/5svi1 from Leagle.com.

Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC, New York (Jason A.
Copley -- jcopley@cohenseglias.com -- of counsel), for the
Appellant.

Rich, Intelisano & Katz, LLP, New York (Robert J. Howard --
rhoward@riklawfirm.com -- of counsel), for the Respondents.


COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: Parties Seek to Vacate June 21 Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH McGRADY,
individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v.
COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS, INC., a Wyoming corporation, BARNEY &
GRAHAM LLC, WESTON T. GRAHAM, CHRISTOPHER COCCIMIGLIO, and DAVID C.
COCCIMIGLIO, Case No. 1:22-cv-00100-SWS (D. Wyo.), the Parties file
joint stipulated motion to stay/continue class certification
briefing and hearing:

   1. Vacating the May 19, 2023 deadline for the CPI and B&G the
      Defendants to object to class certification;

   2. Vacating the hearing on class certification set for June 21,

      2023, and

   3. Retaining the July 26, 2023, telephonic status conference as
a deadline for the parties to report back to the Court whether this
matter has settled in whole or in part.

  -- On January 17, 2023, the Court entered an Order modifying the

     initial scheduling order as it related to the issue of class
     certification.

  -- Under that Order, McGrady's initial memorandum on class
     certification was due April 19, 2023, the CPI and B&G the
     Defendants' responses would be due May 19, 2023, and the Court

     would hold a hearing on class certification on June 21, 2023.
The
     Court also set a telephonic status conference for July 26,
2023.

  -- McGrady timely filed his initial papers in support of class
     certification on April 19, 2023.

  -- On May 8, 2023, the CPI the Defendants after conducting an
     individual review of all its litigation files supplemented
their
     discovery responses such that the parties now have a better
idea
     of the total number of potential class members.

  -- With the information now available, the parties agree that
     meaningful settlement discussions are possible, and those
     discussions may result not only in settlement of the class
     certification issue, but also may result in settlement of the

     underlying claims.

  -- In addition, the parties agree that mediation/settlement
     conference would be beneficial and the parties are in the
process
     of discussing and determining whether to retain an outside
     independent mediator or request a settlement conference before

     the Court.

  -- The parties believe approximately 60 day stay or continuance
of
     the class certification deadlines would provide the parties
     enough time to engage in meaningful settlement discussions and

     complete any alternative dispute resolution process.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 16, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/428h3TF at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bret Allred, Esq.
          YELLOWSTONE LAW GROUP LLC
          117 N. Bent Street Suite C
          Powell, WY 82435
          E-mail: bret@yellowstonelawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lawrence J. Bartel, Esq.
          Christopher R. Jones, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          Three Logan Square
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 610
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          E-mail: lbartel@grsm.com
          crjones@grsm.com

CREDIT SUISSE: Must Oppose Set Capital Class Cert Bid by June 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SET CAPITAL LLC, et al.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, CREDIT SUISSE
INTERNATIONAL, TIDJANE THIAM, DAVID R. MATHERS, JANUS HENDERSON
GROUP PLC, JANUS INDEX & CALCULATION SERVICES LLC, and JANUS
DISTRIBUTORS LLC d/b/a JANUS HENDERSON DISTRIBUTORS, Case No.
1:18-cv-02268-AT-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres
entered an order that:

-- By June 5, 2023, the Defendants shall file their opposition
    papers.

-- By June 20, 2023, Lead the Plaintiffs and the Trust shall file

    their reply, if any.

On May 15, 2023, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a joint motion for class
certification.

Credit Suisse is a global investment bank and financial services
firm founded and based in Switzerland. Headquartered in Zürich, it
maintains offices in all major financial centers around the world
and provides services in investment banking, private banking, asset
management, and shared services.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qfItJS at no extra charge.[CC]

CREDIT SUISSE: Set Capital Seeks Certification of Two Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SET CAPITAL LLC, et al.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, CREDIT SUISSE
INTERNATIONAL, TIDJANE THIAM, DAVID R. MATHERS, JANUS HENDERSON
GROUP PLC, JANUS INDEX & CALCULATION SERVICES LLC, and JANUS
DISTRIBUTORS LLC d/b/a JANUS HENDERSON DISTRIBUTORS, Case No.
1:18-cv-02268-AT-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Lead Plaintiffs and Sudheera
Tripuraneni Trust U/A DTD 11/16/2015 jointly move the Court for an
Order:

   1. certifying the case as a class action pursuant to Rules
23(a),
      (b)(3) and (g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by
      certifying a Misrepresentation Class of:

      "all persons and entities that purchased or acquired the
      VelocityShares Inverse VIX Short Term Exchange Traded Notes
      between January 29, 2018 and February 5, 2018, inclusive, and

      who were damaged thereby;"

   2. certifying the case as a class action pursuant to Rules
23(a),
      (b)(3) and (g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by
      certifying a Manipulation Class of:

      "all persons and entities that sold or redeemed the XIV Notes
on
      or after February 5, 2018 and who were damaged thereby;"

   3. certifying Lead Plaintiffs as representatives of the
      Misrepresentation Class;

   4. certifying the Trust as the representative of the
Manipulation
      Class;

   5. appointing Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Levi &
      Korsinsky, LLP as Class Counsel for the Misrepresentation
Class;
      and

   6. appointing the Trust's choice of counsel, Slarskey, LLC as
Class
      Counsel for the Manipulation Class.

The Lead Plaintiffs include Set Capital LLC, Stefan Jager,
Aleksandr
Gamburg, and Apollo Asset Limited.

The Lead Plaintiffs filed motion for class certification on July 1,
2022.

Credit Suisse is a global investment bank and financial services
firm founded and based in Switzerland. Headquartered in Zürich, it
maintains offices in all major financial centers around the world
and provides services in investment banking, private banking, asset
management, and shared services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 16, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IJqsKC at no extra
charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Lead Plaintiffs, Class Counsel for the Securities
Act Class, and Proposed Class Counsel for the Misrepresentation
Class, are:

          Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq.
          Laura H. Posner, Esq.
          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Brendan Schneiderman, Esq.
          Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
          E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com
                  lposner@cohenmilstein.com
                  stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                  bschneiderman@cohenmilstein.com
                  cgilden@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Adam M. Apton, Esq.
          Alexander A. Krot III, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          Nicholas I. Porritt
          55 Broadway, 4th Floor, Suite No. 427
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: ek@zlk.com
                  nporritt@zlk.com
                  aapton@zlk.com
                  akrot@zlk.com

Additional Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff Apollo Asset Limited,
are:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

Counsel for the Trust and Proposed Class Counsel for the
Manipulation Class, are:

          Adam Hollander,Esq.
          SLARSKEY LLC
          767 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 658-0661
          E-mail: ahollander@slarskey.com

CREDIT SUISSE: Settlement in Fund Liquidation Suit Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FUND LIQUIDATION HOLDINGS
LLC, as assignee and successor-in-interest to SONTERRA CAPITAL
MASTER FUND LTD., FRONTPOINT EUROPEAN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT
FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT HEALTHCARE FLAGSHIP
ENHANCED FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT HEALTHCARE FLAGSHIP FUND, L.P.,
FRONTPOINT HEALTHCARE HORIZONS FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL
HORIZONS FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT UTILITY AND ENERGY FUND L.P.,
HUNTER GLOBAL INVESTORS FUND I, L.P., HUNTER GLOBAL INVESTORS
OFFSHORE FUND LTD., HUNTER GLOBAL INVESTORS SRI FUND LTD., HG
HOLDINGS LTD., HG HOLDINGS II LTD., RICHARD DENNIS, and the
CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CREDIT SUISSE
GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., NATWEST MARKETS
PLC, UBS AG, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DB GROUP SERVICES UK LIMITED, TP
ICAP PLC, TULLETT PREBON AMERICAS CORP., TULLETT PREBON (USA) INC.,
TULLETT PREBON FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC, TULLETT PREBON (EUROPE)
LIMITED, COSMOREX AG, ICAP EUROPE LIMITED, ICAP SECURITIES USA LLC,
NEX, GROUP LIMITED, INTERCAPIT AL CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, GOTTEX
BROKERS SA, VELCOR SA AND JOHN DOE NOS. 1-50, Case No.
1:15-cv-00871-SHS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sidney H. Stein
entered an order:

  -- Preliminarily approving class action settlement with TP ICAP
PLC
     (F/K/A TULLETT PREBON PLC AND NIK/ATP ICAP FINANCE PLC),
     TULLETT PREBON AMERICAS CORP., TULLETT PREBON (USA) INC.,
     TULLETT PREBON FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC, TULLETT PREBON (EUROPE)

     LIMITED, AND COSMOREX AG; GOTTEX BROKERS SA; AND VELCOR SA;

  -- Scheduling a hearing for final approval thereof; and

  -- approving the proposed form and program of notice to the
class.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MZo4BG at no extra charge.[CC]





DAVE AND BUSTERS: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Carlos Herrera, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Dave and Busters Entertainment, Inc.,
Case No. HUD-L-001156-23 was removed from the Superior Court of
Hudson County, New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on May 17, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02667 to the
proceeding.

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

Dave & Buster's -- http://ir.daveandbusters.com/-- is an American
restaurant and entertainment business headquartered in Dallas.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants is represented by:

          Sean J. Kirby, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          30 Rockefeller Plaza, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10112
          Phone: (212) 634-3023
          Email: skirby@sheppardmullin.com


DELTA PACKING: Withdrawal of Carillo's Counsel in Perez Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEJANDRA PEREZ, et al., Plaintiff v. DELTA PACKING
COMPANY OF LODI, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02228-DAD-JDP
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California grants the motion to withdraw as
counsel of record for Plaintiffs Martin Mendoza Carrillo and Miguel
Andres filed by attorneys Stanley Mallison, Hector Rodriguez
Martinez, and Gonzalo Quezada, Jr., on April 24, 2023.

The pending motion was taken under submission on the papers on
April 25, 2023.

On Nov. 4, 2019, 12 named Plaintiffs filed the putative wage and
hour class action against their employer, Delta, and three
individual farm labor contractors ("the FLC Defendants") based on
alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the federal
Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. Throughout
the litigation, the named Plaintiffs have been represented by
attorneys from the law firm Mallison & Martinez ("the M&M firm"),
including attorneys Stanley Mallison, Hector Rodriguez Martinez,
and Gonzalo Quezada, Jr., the only remaining attorneys of record
for the Plaintiffs.

All the Defendants were timely served with the summons and
complaint. Delta filed an answer to the complaint on Feb. 12, 2020.
The FLC Defendants did not respond to the complaint. The
Plaintiffs' counsel stated in a joint status report filed with the
Court on March 20, 2020 that the Plaintiffs anticipate seeking
default judgment against the FLC Defendants. Despite this
statement, the Plaintiffs did not thereafter file a request for the
entry of default nor a motion for default judgment. Accordingly,
Judge Drozd dismisses the FLC Defendants due to the Plaintiffs'
failure to prosecute this action as to those Defendants.

On Feb. 25, 2022, the parties filed a notice of settlement advising
the Court that the parties are currently in the process of reducing
their settlement to a written agreement and, upon execution of that
agreement, the Plaintiffs will request dismissal of the action.
That same day, the Court issued an order vacating all dates in this
matter and directing the parties to file dispositional documents
within 21 days.

Based on representations by the Plaintiffs' counsel that they
required additional time to obtain signatures from the named
Plaintiffs, the parties requested and received several extensions
of time in which to file dispositional documents with the Court,
the latest of which set a filing deadline of Aug. 15, 2022. That
deadline passed and the parties did not timely file dispositional
documents, file a request a further extension of time, or otherwise
communicate with the Court.

On Aug. 25, 2022, the case was reassigned to Judge Drozd. On April
3, 2023, the Court issued an order to the Plaintiffs requiring them
to show cause why the case should not be dismissed due to their
failure to prosecute. Attorney Martinez explained further that of
the 12 named Plaintiffs, nine Plaintiffs have approved the
settlement agreement, two Plaintiffs have been non-responsive, and
the last plaintiff, Augusto Pablo Chales informed M&M that he no
longer wishes to continue as a named Plaintiff and M&M will seek to
dismiss Chales. After the Court set a deadline for the Plaintiffs
to seek dismissal of Chales, on April 28, 2023, the parties filed a
stipulation for the dismissal of Chales, and the Court dismissed
Chales on May 1, 2023.

On April 24, 2023, the Plaintiffs' counsel filed the pending motion
to withdraw as counsel of record for the non-responsive Plaintiffs,
Carrillo and Andres. However, because the Plaintiffs' counsel
failed to comply with Local Rule 182(d), the Court issued a minute
order on April 25, 2023 directing the Plaintiffs' counsel to file a
supplemental declaration providing the last known addresses of
Carrillo and Andres, and describing their efforts to notify those
Plaintiffs of the motion to withdraw.

On May 2, 2023, the Plaintiff's counsel filed a supplemental
declaration in support of their motion to withdraw as counsel for
Carrillo and Andres. Therein, attorney Martinez declared that the
M&M firm sent letters to these Plaintiffs on May 31, 2022 directed
to their last known addresses of 1207 South Madison Street,
Stockton, California 95206 and 215 North Airport Way, Stockton,
California 95205, respectively. In those letters, the M&M firm
explained that they would request to withdraw as counsel of record
if these plaintiffs did not communicate with the M&M firm's office
by June 8, 2022.

Attorney Martinez further declared that the M&M firm placed several
calls to these Plaintiffs, which went unreturned, and these
plaintiffs did not respond to the letters sent by counsel on May
31, 2022. In addition, he declared that on April 26, 2023, the M&M
firm served a copy of the pending motion on these Plaintiffs at
their last known mailing addresses, and to date, the M&M firm has
not received any form of communication from these two Plaintiffs.

In the pending motion, the attorneys of the M&M firm request to be
relieved as counsel for Mendoza and Andres as M&M is unable to
contact them, and they have failed to respond to the counsel's
efforts to establish contact. The Plaintiffs' counsel argues that
these two Plaintiffs' failure to respond to M&M's communications,
or to otherwise make contact with the counsel's office, make it not
just unreasonably difficult but impossible to carry out any
effective representation.

Judge Drozd agrees that the failure of these two Plaintiffs to
communicate with their counsel renders effective representation
impossible under the circumstances. In addition, withdrawal of
counsel as to them will not cause prejudice to the other litigants
in this case. Finally, Judge Drozd finds that withdrawal under
these circumstances will not harm the administration of justice or
delay the resolution of the case; indeed, withdrawal will enable
the parties to proceed with effectuating their settlement
agreement.

For these reasons, Judge Drozd grants the pending motion to
withdraw as counsel of record for Carrillo and Andres. He directs
both Carrillo and Andres to individually inform the Court in
writing within 14 days of the service of the Order whether he
intends to continue prosecuting the action and, if so, whether he
intends to obtain substitute counsel or proceed pro se. Carrillo
and Andres are warned that their failure to respond to the Court's
order in this regard will result in their dismissal from the action
due to their failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the
Court's order.

For these reasons, the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate
attorneys Stanley Mallison, Hector Rodriguez Martinez, and Gonzalo
Quezada, Jr., as the counsel of record for Carrillo and Andres.
Attorneys Stanley Mallison, Hector Rodriguez Martinez, and Gonzalo
Quezada, Jr., will comply with all obligations under Rule 1.16(e)
of the California Rules of Professional Conduct regarding release
of a client's papers and property and return of unearned fees.

Carrillo and Andres are substituted in pro se and is directed to
comply with the rules of the Court.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter the following contact
information (i) as Carrillo's address of record: Martin Mendoza
Carrillo 1207 South Madison Street Stockton, CA 95206; and (ii) as
Andres' address of record: Miguel Andres 215 North Airport Way
Stockton, CA 95205

The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve the Order on Carrillo
and Andres by mail.

Defendants Jonny Diaz Flores, Pablo Diaz Flores, and Luciano Diaz
Bernabe are dismissed from the action due to the Plaintiffs'
failure to prosecute their claims brought against these named
Defendants.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect
that Defendants Jonny Diaz Flores, Pablo Diaz Flores, and Luciano
Diaz Bernabe have been terminated as named Defendants in the
action.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 16, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/2xpt2 from Leagle.com.


DJR INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mora Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
NICOLAS BAUTISTA MORA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DJR, INC. d/b/a ENCORE MECHANICAL;
DALE REEVES; and and TAMMI DANIELSON, Case No. 1:23-cv-00557-RP
(May 22, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Mora was employed by the Defendants as a general
laborer.

DJR, INC. d/b/a ENCORE MECHANICAL is a licensed, insured, and
bonded H.V.A.C. subcontractor. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Dore, Esq.
          JUSTICIA LABORAL LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski Road, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Tel: (773) 415-4898
          Email: jdore@justicialaboral.com


DNC PARKS: Declarations of Witnesses Stricken From Vega Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIA SOCORRO VEGA, Plaintiff v. DNC PARKS & RESORTS
AT ASILOMAR, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00484-ADA-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A.
Boone of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California strikes the declarations of Reina Oviedo, Alfredo
Marquez, Sandra Diaz, and Kalli Southwood.

The declarations will not be considered by the Court in connection
with the Plaintiff's motion for class certification or for any
other purpose.

The Plaintiff initiated the putative class action on April 12,
2029. Pursuant to the amended scheduling order, the
pre-certification discovery cutoff was set for Dec. 14, 2022. The
Plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class on Feb. 17, 2023. The
hearing on the motion was originally set for April 26, 2023.

On March 23, 2023, the Court continued the pre-certification
discovery deadline to June 9, 2023; granted the Defendant leave to
depose all 16 putative class witnesses who submitted declarations
in support of the Plaintiff's class certification motion; and
extended the briefing and hearing deadlines for the class
certification motion.

On May 10, 2023, the parties appeared by videoconference for an
informal discovery conference. Pursuant to the matters discussed at
the conference, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to
determine the propriety of a stipulation to strike some or all of
the declarations of witnesses Southwood, Oviedo, Marquez, and Diaz
from the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and required
the parties to file any such stipulation no later than the close of
business, May 16, 2023.

On May 16, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing that the
declarations of witnesses, which the Plaintiff filed in support of
her motion for class certification and has agreed to withdraw, are
to be stricken and not considered by the Court for any purpose.

Accordingly, Judge Boone strikes the declarations of Oviedo,
Marquez, Diaz, and Southwood, and will not be considered by the
Court in connection with the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification or for any other purpose.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 16, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/d3qoo from Leagle.com.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Sends Unwanted Marketing Messages, Quintero Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN QUINTERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOLLAR FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. dba The Check
Cashing Store, Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-60943 (S.D. Fla., May
22, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in unsolicited
text message marketing, including to individuals who have
registered their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call
Registry, and to those who have not provided the Defendant with
their prior express written consent. As a result of the Defendant's
unsolicited text message spam, the Plaintiff and Class members are
harmed, including violations of their statutory rights, trespass,
annoyance, nuisance, invasion of their privacy, and intrusion upon
seclusion, says the suit.

Dollar Financial Group, Inc., doing business as The Check Cashing
Store, is a financial services company, headquartered in
Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
         HIRALDO PA
         401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
         Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 400-4713
         E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

                 - and -

         Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
         110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
         Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301

DRESSER LLC: Suit Seek to Certify Property-Related Claims Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE BARTON and
William Barton Individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated, v. DRESSER LLC, et al, Case No. 1:22-cv-00263-DCJ-JPM
(W.D. La.), the Putative Class Representatives ask the Court to
enter an order:

   A. Certifying for litigation purposes only the following class
of
      persons:

      "All persons (natural and juridical), who (a) owned or leased

      property impacted by the contaminants emanating from the
      Facility, or (b) resided in an area impacted by the
contaminates
      emanating from the Facility; and who have suffered property-
      related damages, such as diminution in value, damage to the
      natural resources, loss of enjoyment and use of property,
      nuisance, and remediation costs, from the contaminants
emanating
      from the Facility;"

   B. Appointing Scott Bickford, Lawrence J. Centola, III, Jeremy
J.
      Landry, Jason Z. Landry and Neil F. Nazareth of Martzell,
      Bickford & Centola, APC, as well as Thomas B. Wahlder and
      Stephen J. Hecker, as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P.
      23(g) for purposes of representing the Class and Class
Members
      in this litigation; and

   C. Appointing Edward Hight, Jennifer Hight, Steven Hyatt, and
Stacy
      Hyatt as Class Representatives.

The Dresser Facility was historically owned and operated by the
Defendants Dresser, LLC and Baker Hughes Holdings, LLC and their
predecessors.

The Plaintiffs seek to hold Dresser liable for its conduct and the
conduct of its predecessors through successor liability for damages
caused by the toxic release of chlorinated compounds, such as
carcinogenic trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE),
from Dresser's manufacturing operations at the Facility into the
soil, groundwater, and air of the neighboring community.

While the Plaintiffs initially sought a class that encompasses
claims for personal injury, the Plaintiffs propose a subclass on
the issue of Dressers' liability for property-related damages and
punitive damages.

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, assert numerous claims against Dresser –
including claims for negligence, strict liability, trespass,
nuisance, and punitive damages -- arising from the contamination
impacting their properties. The relief sought includes
property-related damages, such as diminution in value, damage to
the natural resources, loss of enjoyment and use of property,
nuisance, and remediation costs, as well as punitive damages.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 16, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OEkOwS at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq.
          Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
          Neil F. Nazareth, Esq.
          Jason Z. Landry, Esq.
          Jeremy J. Landry, Esq.
          MARTZELL, BICKFORD, & CENTOLA
          E-mail: srb@mbfirm.com   
                  lcentola@mbfirm.com
                  nfn@mbfirm.com
                  jzl@mbfirm.com
                  jjl@mbfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas B. Wahlder, Esq.
          Stephen J. Hecker, Esq.
          1740 Jackson Street
          P.O. Box 7918
          Alexandria, LA 71306
          Telephone: (318) 442-9417

DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Buechel Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Buechel v. DST Systems
Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-09159 (W.D. Mo., Filed Oct 21, 2021), the
Hon. Judge  Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion
to stay the Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its
burden of proof.

The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."

DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.

DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.

On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.

On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."

DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pyxtah at no extra charge.[CC]

DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Byers Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Byers  v. DST Systems
Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-09141 (W.D. Mo., Filed Oct 20, 2021), the
Hon. Judge  Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion
to stay the Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its
burden of proof.

The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."

DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.

DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.

On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.

On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."

DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BqBZu2 at no extra charge.[CC]

DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Carroll Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carroll v. DST Systems
Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-09090 ( W.D. Mo., Filed Oct. 1, 2021), the
Hon. Judge  Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion
to stay the Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its
burden of proof.

The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."

DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.

DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.

On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.

On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."

DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BmZDYj at no extra charge.[CC]

DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Crocker Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crocker v. DST Systems
Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-09174 (W.D. Mo., Filed Oct. 29, 2021), the
Hon. Judge  Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion
to stay the Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its
burden of proof.

The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."

DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.

DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.

On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.

On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."

DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Iw7h71 at no extra charge.[CC]

DST SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Stay Injunction in Cubbage Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cubbage v. DST Systems
Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-09152 (W.D. Mo., Filed Oct 21, 2021), the
Hon. Judge  Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order denying DST motion
to stay the Court's injunction because it has failed to meet its
burden of proof.

The Court said, "Because DST has failed to show irreparable harm,
and the Judgment Creditors would be substantially harmed if the
injunction were lifted, and DST has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, and public interest considerations weigh
against lifting the injunction, a stay of the injunction is
inappropriate."

DST argues that because the Ferguson class includes 9,000 members,
it is in the public interest to facilitate settlement. DST
disregards the fact that several avenues for settlement remain open
to it. In any event, permitting DST to strip the Judgment Creditors
of a substantial portion of the value of judgments entered in their
favor without their express consent would undermine public
confidence in the predictability and reliability of the judicial
system.

DST Systems moves for stay of the injunction the Court entered on
April 10, 2023.

On March 31, 2023, the Court entered an order that confirmed
arbitration awards in favor of 55 plaintiffs (the "Judgment
Creditors") and entered a final judgment in each case.

On April 10, 2023, counsel for the Judgment Creditors moved on an
emergency basis, but with notice, for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction restraining and enjoining DST, the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, The Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems, Inc., and their
respective law firms, and anyone acting on their behalf or in
concert with them, "from settling, or attempting to settle, through
any class or representative action, the Confirmation Plaintiffs'
individual arbitration awards, or any part thereof, unless such
settlement is entered into individually and voluntarily by the
Confirmation Plaintiff and the attorneys to whom any related fees
and costs were awarded."

DST Systems is an American company that was acquired by SS&C
Technologies in 2018. The company provided advisory, technology and
operations outsourcing services to the financial services and
healthcare industries.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pREL9e at no extra charge.[CC]



EASTERN ENERGY: Fails to Properly Pay Operators, Warren Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE WARREN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EASTERN ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00226-JRG (E.D. Tex., May 22, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Warren has worked for Eastern Energy as an operator from
approximately November 2020 through the present.

Eastern Energy Services, Inc. is an oilfield services company,
headquartered in Laurel, Mississippi. [BN]

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

                 - and -

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

ELDOR AUTOMOTIVE: Underpays Line Technicians, Jenkins Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTIN JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELDOR AUTOMOTIVE POWERTRAIN USA LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-00297-MFU (W.D. Va., May 19, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay its
employees for all time worked in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Virginia Wage Payment Act and for
retaliation.

Mr. Jenkins worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt line
technician located at 888 International Parkway in Daleville,
Virginia.

Eldor Automotive Powertrain USA LLC is a provider of auto parts
based in Daleville, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Christopher E. Collins, Esq.
         Mia Yugo, Esq.
         YUGO COLLINS, PLLC
         25 Franklin Road, SW
         Roanoke, VA 24011
         Telephone: (540) 861-1529
         Facsimile: (540) 855-4791
         E-mail: chris@yugocollins.com
                 mia@yugocollins.com

EXCELA HEALTH: Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as John Doe I and John Doe II, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EXCELA HEALTH, EXCELA
HEALTH HOLDING COMPANY, INC., EXCELA HEALTH PHYSICIAN PRACTICES,
INC., LATROBE AREA HOSPITAL INC., WESTMORELAND REGIONAL HOSPITAL,
AND FRICK HOSPITAL, Case No. 23CI01410 was removed from the Court
of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
May 17, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00833-DSC.

The Plaintiffs allege that Excela engaged in unlawful wiretapping
and invaded their privacy by installing third-party source code for
the Meta Pixel on Excela's public website. Because the conduct
challenged by Plaintiffs was undertaken pursuant to the federal
government's extensive efforts to build a nationwide health
information technology infrastructure over the past two decades,
this case is removable under the Federal Officer Removal
statute.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Edward J. McAndrew, Esq.
          1735 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501
          Phone: 215.568.3100
          Facsimile: 215.568.3439
          Email: emcandrew@bakerlaw.com


FAMILY FIRST: Suescum "Robocalls" Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REYNALDO SUESCUM and
FRANCISCO BASERVA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. FAMILY FIRST LIFE, LLC, Case No.
6:21-cv-01769-WWB-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion for class certification.

The putative class action alleges that the Defendant violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act (FTSA) by (1) sending text messages to telephone
numbers registered on the national do-not-call registry; (2)
sending text messages to consumers who opted out of further
communications; and (3) sending text messages to Florida residents
without having prior express written consent.

The Plaintiffs move under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) to:

    (1) certify three classes with respect to their claims against
the
        Defendants;

    (2) to designate the Plaintiffs as class representatives; and

    (3) to designate the Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiff Suescum brings this case on behalf of a Class defined
as follows:

     -- No Consent Class:

        "All persons within Florida who, (1) were sent a telephonic

        sales call regarding the Defendant's goods and/or services,

        (2) using the same equipment or type of equipment utilized
to
        call the Plaintiff."

     -- Internal Do Not Call Class:

        "All persons within the United States who, within the four

        years prior to the filing of this Complaint, were sent a
text
        message from the Defendant or anyone on the Defendant's
        behalf, to said person's cellular telephone number after
        making a request to the Defendant to not receive future
text
        messages."

The Plaintiff Baserva brings this case on behalf of a Class defined
as follows:

     -- Do Not Call Registry Class:

        "All persons within the United States who from four years
        prior to the filing of this action (1) were sent a text
        message by or on behalf of the Defendant; (2) more than one

        time within any 12-month period; (3) where the person's
        telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not
Call
        Registry for at least thirty days; (4) for the purpose of
        promoting the Defendant's products and services; and (5)
for
        whom the Defendant claims (a) it did not obtain prior
express
        written consent, or (b) it obtained prior express written
        consent in the same manner as the Defendant claims it
        supposedly obtained prior express written consent to call
the
        Plaintiff.

On September 29, 2021, the Defendant sent the first of a series of
unsolicited text messages to Suescum's cellular telephone number
ending in 1246. This message, like the Defendant’s subsequent
messages, failed to include any instructions on how to opt-out of
receiving future messages.

Family First specializes in mortgage protection life insurance,
final expense life insurance, retirement planning through universal
life policies and retirement protection.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 16, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BVmJpd at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  gberg@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          321 N Mall Drive. Suite R108
          St. George, UT 84790
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          E-mail: jason@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Christopher Gold, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          2875 NE 191st St., Suite 703
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                  chris@edelsberglaw.com

FIRST COMMUNITY BANK: Cox Suit Transferred to S.D. West Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tracy Cox, Dennis Cox, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. First Community Bank, Case No.
5:22-cv-00170 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia on May 17, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00392 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

First Community Bank -- https://www.firstcommunitybank.com/ -- is a
locally owned and operated bank with twenty locations throughout
Arkansas and Southern Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rodney Arthur Smith, Esq.
          ROD SMITH LAW
          108-1/2 Capitol Street, Suite 300
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: (304) 342-0550
          Email: rod@LawWV.com

The Defendants is represented by:

          Floyd E. Boone, Jr., Esq.
          BOWLES RICE
          P. O. Box 1386
          Charleston, WV 25325-1386
          Phone: (304) 347-1100
          Fax: (304) 343-2867
          Email: fboone@bowlesrice.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Proctor, Esq.
          BOWLES RICE
          1800 Main Street, Suite 200
          Canonsburg, PA 15317
          Phone: (724) 514-8934
          Fax: (724) 514-8954
          Email: mproctor@bowlesrice.com


FIRSTCREDIT INC: Garcia FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Julio Garcia, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. FirstCredit, Inc. doing business as:
FirstCredit International Corp., Case No. 2023-CA-955 was removed
from the Circuit Court, Hernando County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida on May 17, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01089-JSM-AEP to
the proceeding.

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

First Credit Services -- https://www.firstcreditonline.com/ -- is a
leading debt collection agency with over 25 years of
experience.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
          110 S.E. 6TH Street, Suite 1700
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 628-5793
          Fax: (954) 507-9974
          Email: jen@jibraellaw.com

               - and -

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 907-1136
          Fax: (855) 529-9540
          Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com

The Defendants is represented by:

          Peter Hernandez, Esq.
          Barbara Fernandez, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd 4th Flr
          Coral Gables, FL 33134-6044
          Phone: (305) 358-7747
          Fax: (305) 577-1063
          Email: pahernandez@hinshawlaw.com
                 bfernandez@hinshawlaw.com


FLOWERS FOODS: Wins Bids for Summary Judgment in Ash Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH ASH, ET AL, v.
FLOWERS FOODS, INC., ET AL, Case No. 1:21-cv-03566-DCJ-JPM (W.D.
La.), the Hon. Judge David C. Joseph entered an order granting the
Defendants' motions for summary judgment.

The Court further ordered that all the Plaintiffs' claims against
the Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.

The Court said, "The undisputed facts indicate that the Defendants
regularly deducted warehouse rent, administrative fees, shrink
costs, and stale costs from the Plaintiffs' wages without regard
for the Plaintiffs' work performance or behavior."

The Defendants are companies that produce and sell wholesale baked
goods to large retailers and grocery chains throughout the country.


The Plaintiffs are three deliverymen formerly employed by the
Defendants. All three the Plaintiffs participated in a collective
action initiated on January 16, 2017, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42ockxr at no extra charge.[CC]

FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Court Stays Scheduling Order Deadlines in Eubanks
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eubanks, et al., v.
Flywheel Energy Production LLC, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00329
(E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky entered an order
granting unopposed motion to stay scheduling order deadlines
pending decision on class certification.

  -- The deadlines in the operative scheduling order are hereby
stayed
     until the Court resolves the pending class-certification
motion.

  -- After resolution of the class-certification motion, the Court

     will hold a status conference and then issue a new scheduling

     order.

The nature of suit states Breach of Contract.

Flywheel Energy is a private exploration and production company
formed to acquire and operate large, producing onshore U.S. oil and
gas assets.[CC]



FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Court Stays Scheduling Order Deadlines in Flowers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Flowers, et al., v.
Flywheel Energy Production LLC, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00330
(E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky entered an order
granting unopposed motion to stay scheduling order deadlines
pending decision on class certification.

  -- The deadlines in the operative scheduling order are hereby
stayed
     until the Court resolves the pending class-certification
motion.

  -- After resolution of the class-certification motion, the Court

     will hold a status conference and then issue a new scheduling

     order.

The nature of suit states Breach of Contract.

Flywheel Energy is a private exploration and production company
formed to acquire and operate large, producing onshore U.S. oil and
gas assets.[CC]



FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Court Stays Scheduling Order Deadlines in Oliger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Oliger, et al., v.
Flywheel Energy Production LLC, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-01146
(E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky entered an order
granting unopposed motion to stay scheduling order deadlines
pending decision on class certification.

  -- The deadlines in the operative scheduling order are hereby
stayed
     until the Court resolves the pending class-certification
motion.

  -- After resolution of the class-certification motion, the Court

     will hold a status conference and then issue a new scheduling

     order.

The nature of suit states Breach of Contract.

Flywheel Energy is a private exploration and production company
formed to acquire and operate large, producing onshore U.S. oil and
gas assets.[CC]

GATEWAY FIRST: Fails to Pay Officer Assistants' OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTA FEENEY and MONICA RODRIGUEZ, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GATEWAY FIRST BANK, Case No.
2:23-cv-02730 (D.N.J., May 19, 2023) alleges that the Defendant has
maintained an unlawful scheme to avoid its overtime pay obligations
to a class of hundreds of Loan Officer Assistants, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

As part of this scheme, the Defendant maintained a de facto policy
of commanding and pressing Loan Officer Assistants to underreport
hours worked and to submit inaccurate and unreliable time sheets.
The Loan Officer Assistants were precluded from reporting more than
eight hours per day and 40 hours for the week no matter how many
additional hours they worked, notwithstanding the fact that the
Defendant knew or should have known that the Loan Officer
Assistants were working more hours than they actually recorded.
Accordingly, when Plaintiffs complained of the inability to
complete all job duties within a 40-hour work week, including
working on weekends and outside the office hours during the week,
the Plaintiffs' manager made it clear to the Plaintiff that the
Plaintiff had to either complete all the work off the clock or
suffer disciplinary action, says the suit.

Plaintiff Feeney worked for the Defendant as a Loan Officer
Assistant from January 26, 2015, through October 26, 2021. Feeney
worked at the Defendant's mortgage center located in Cranford, New
Jersey. Plaintiff Rodriguez worked for Defendant as a Loan Officer
Assistant at Defendant's Cranford Branch from in or about October
2021 through in or about April 2022.

Gateway is an Oklahoma-chartered banking corporation with its
designated main office in Jenks, Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin P. Kolbenschlag, Esq.
          PASHMAN STEIN WALDER HAYDEN
          Bell Works
          101 Crawfords Corner Road, Suite 4202
          Holmdel, NJ 07733
          Telephone: (732) 852-2481
          Facsimile: (732) 852-2482
          E-mail: jkolbenschlag@pashmanstein.com

GENERAC POWER: Sells Defective Power Systems, Hufton Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
GARY HUFTON and ARAMIE MCDONALD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS,
INC. and GENERAC HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-02462-TSH (N.D. Cal., May 19, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty, unjust enrichment at common law, and violations
of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Song Beverly Consumer Warranties
Act, California Unfair Competition Law, California False
Advertising Law, and the Oregon Unfair Trade Practices Act.

According to the complaint, Generac designed, manufactured, sold,
and installed solar energy management systems, containing the
SnapRS 801 switch, a solar energy component that is defective and
malfunctions by turning on and off repeatedly, eventually melting
or deforming and causing total system failure. The defect has
caused a number of reported fires, putting entire homes and
families at risk of catastrophic fire. As a result of the
Defendants' breaches of warranties, and unfair, deceptive, and/or
fraudulent business practices, Power System owners, including the
Plaintiffs, have suffered an ascertainable loss of money and/or
property and/or loss in value, says the suit.

Generac Power Systems, Inc. is a manufacturer of home and business
power solutions based in Waukesha, Wisconsin.

Generac Holdings Inc. is an energy technology company based in
Waukesha, Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Jennifer A. Lenze, Esq.
         LENZE LAWYERS, PLC
         999 Corporate Drive, Suite 100
         Ladera Ranch, CA 92694
         Telephone: (310) 322-8800
         Facsimile: (310) 322-8811
         E-mail: jlenze@lenzelawyers.com

                 - and -

         Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
         Megan E. Shannon, Esq.
         FEGAN SCOTT LLC
         150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 741-1019
         Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
         E-mail: beth@feganscott.com
                 megan@feganscott.com

GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Canada Court Tosses Zantac Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtruth. reports that following a December 2022 decision that
dismissed tens of thousands of federal lawsuits in the U.S., a
provincial high court in Canada dismissed a proposed class-action
Zantac lawsuit, Market Watch reported. Plaintiffs alleged that they
developed cancer after prolonged usage of the popular,
now-discontinued heartburn drug, Zantac.

The Supreme Court of British Colombia (B.C.) ruled on May 12 that a
Vancouver man's lawsuit against former Zantac manufacturers,
including Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline, lacked the evidence necessary
to convince the court that ranitidine, the active ingredient in
Zantac, showed any causation to cancer.

The main alleged connection between Zantac and cancer is that, when
stored at room temperature, the active ingredient ranitidine breaks
down into the carcinogenic compound N-nitrosodimethylamine, known
to cause cancer in laboratory animals. In April 2020, the U.S. FDA
called for all ranitidine-containing products to be pulled from the
U.S. market.

Neither the decision by the Supreme Court in B.C. nor the December
2022 decision affects Zantac lawsuits filed in American states. A
Zantac trial in California is expected to begin in July.

According to a March 24 statement by GlaxoSmithKline, since 2019,
there have been 13 epidemiological studies conducted looking at
human data regarding the use of ranitidine, "and the scientific
consensus is that there is no consistent or reliable evidence that
ranitidine increases the risk of any cancer."

The statement by GSK adds that despite the decision to allow the
California Zantac trial to proceed, the litigation is still at an
early stage, and the judge who allowed the trial to proceed has
only ruled on whether the plaintiff's experts can testify at trial.
The judge's ruling "does not mean that the Court agrees with the
plaintiff's experts' scientific conclusions or their
litigation-driven science. GSK will press additional defences and
the plaintiff still needs to prove his case at trial."

Zantac was allowed back on the market under the brand name Zantac
360, which features the active ingredient famotidine instead of
ranitidine. [GN]

HANNA'S CANDLE: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hanna's Candle
Company. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Hanna's Candle Company, Case
No. 1:23-cv-04086 (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2023).

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

Hanna's Candle Company -- https://candlemart.com/ -- is a wholesale
company specializing in candles and home fragrance products.
Fayetteville, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HIGHLAND PARK: Rhodes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Rhodes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HIGHLAND PARK EMERGENCY CENTER, LLC (d/b/a/ Highland
Park Emergency Center), Case No. 3:23-cv-01189-N (N.D. Tex., May
23, 2023), is brought pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act (collectively "FLSA")
for the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the putative
collective action members time and one-half their respective
regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each
seven-day workweek as employees of the Defendant.

In addition to hourly pay as a RN and LRN, Defendant also paid
Plaintiff night shift differential pay, weekend shift differential
pay, and weekend night shift differential pay (the "Shift
Differential Pay"). theThe Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of
40 hours per seven-day workweek while employed by Defendant as an
RN and LRN. Although Defendant generally paid Plaintiff time and
one-half his hourly rate of pay for weekly hours worked over 40,
Defendant did not include Shift Differential Pay in calculating
Plaintiff's FLSA regular rate of pay which resulted in an
underpayment of the overtime wages Defendant should have paid
Plaintiff.

The Defendant employs and employed numerous other hourly paid RNs
and hourly paid LRNs who, like Plaintiff, regularly work and/or
worked more than 40 hours per seven-day workweek, receive and/or
received Shift Differential Pay, and are and/or were underpaid the
FLSA overtime wages they are and/or were owed due to Defendant not
including Shift Differential Pay in their respective regular rates
of pay when calculating the FLSA overtime wages they should be paid
and/or should have been paid, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was an hourly paid registered nurse ("RN") employed
by the Defendant from August 2019 to November 2022.

The Defendant provides emergency room related services at three
locations in Dallas County, Texas and two locations in or around
Harris County, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen R. Vaught
          VAUGHT FIRM, LLC
          1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (972) 707-7816
          Facsimile: (972) 591-4564
          Email: avaught@txlaborlaw.com


HOLLYWOOD AT HOME: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hollywood At Home,
Inc. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Hollywood At Home, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-04100 (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2023).

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

Hollywood At Home, Inc. -- https://www.hollywoodathome.com/ -- is a
destination for textiles, bespoke furnishings, one-of-a-kind
lighting, accessories, and vintage pieces.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOME THREAD: Fails to Pay Clerks' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO GARCIA DIAZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. HOME THREAD INC. (D/B/A MAX DEALS) and MUHAMMAD U
ANDHA, Case No. 1:23-cv-04190 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2023) seeks to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the N.Y. Labor Law including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and cost.

The Defendants allegedly maintained a policy and practice of
requiring Plaintiff Garcia and other employees to work in excess of
40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and regulations.

From July 2021 until December 6, 2021, the Plaintiff Garcia worked
from 10:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m., 6 days a week (typically 60 hours
per week). From December 7, 2021, until March 6, 2023, the
Plaintiff Garcia worked from 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m., 4 days a
week, and from 9:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m., 2 days a week (typically
64 hours per week).

From July 2021 until December 8, 2021, Plaintiff Garcia was not
required to keep track of his time, nor to his knowledge, did the
Defendants utilize any time tracking device that accurately
reflected his actual hours worked during this time period.
Plaintiff Garcia started utilizing a punching machine on December
9, 2021, but he does not know if the system tracked his hours
correctly. Accordingly, the Defendants' pay practices resulted in
Plaintiff Garcia not receiving payment for all his hours worked,
and resulted in Plaintiff Garcia's effective rate of pay falling
below the required minimum wage rate. The Defendants willfully
disregarded and purposefully evaded recordkeeping requirements of
the FLSA and NYLL by failing to maintain accurate and complete
timesheets and payroll records, the suit claims.

Plaintiff Garcia was employed by the Defendant as a stock clerk at
Max Deals from July 2021 until on March 26, 2023.

The Defendants operate a discount store located in a neighborhood
in Manhattan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catalina Sojo, Esq.
          CSM LEGAL, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

HUMANA INC: Court Tosses Coleman Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES COLEMAN, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, V. HUMANA, INC., Case
No. 5:22-cv-00321-BO (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Terrence W. Boyle
entered an order:

   -- Denying as moot Humana's motion to dismiss the original
      complaint.

   -- Granting Humana's motion to dismiss the and/or strike the
      amended complaint.

The amended complaint is dismissed, and the Clerk is directed to
close the case.

The Plaintiff specifically alleges that he received automated calls
from Humana multiple times between January 31, 2022, and May 24,
2022.

He also alleges that he received calls from live pharmacists
multiple times between February 11, 2022, through June 4, 2022. the
Plaintiff alleges that he repeatedly advised the callers that he
was not interested and asked to be removed from the calling lists.
He does not, however, provide any date on which he revoked consent
to receive MTM calls.

Humana is a for-profit American health insurance company based in
Louisville, Kentucky. In 2021, the company ranked 41 on the Fortune
500 list, which made it the highest ranked company based in
Kentucky. It is the fourth largest health insurance provider in the
U.S.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MXnUuR at no extra charge.[CC]

HUNTER WARFIELD: Evans Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hunter Warfield Inc.
The case is styled as Brandon M. Evans, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Hunter Warfield Inc., Case No.
5:23-cv-00998-SL (N.D. Ohio, May 17, 2023).

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

Hunter Warfield Inc. -- https://cp.hunterwarfield.com/ -- is
operating as a debt collection company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Love, Esq.
          LOVE CONSUMER LAW
          2500 Northwinds Parkway, Ste. 330
          Alpharetta, GA 30009
          Phone: (404) 855-3600
          Email: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY
          440 Premier Circle, Ste. 240
          Charlottesville, VA 22901
          Phone: (434) 328-3100
          Fax: (434) 328-3101
          Email: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com

               - and -

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER - FORT LAUDERDALE
          425 North Andrews Avenue,Ste. 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 323-2076
          Fax: (954) 524-2822
          Email: seth@epllc.com


INSOMNIA COOKIES: Williams FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Williams, Jonn Gibson, on their own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Insomnia
Cookies, LLC, d/b/a Insomnia Cookies; Serve U Brands, Inc.; and
Seth Berkowitz, Case No. 2:22-cv-01929 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on May 19,
2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00669-RLW to the
proceeding.

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

Insomnia Cookies -- http://insomniacookies.com/-- is a chain of
bakeries in the United States that specializes in delivering warm
cookies, baked goods, and ice cream.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
          Tiffany Troy, Esq.
          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Phone: (718) 762-1324
          Email: troylaw@troypllc.com
                 tiffanytroy@troypllc.com
                 johntroy@troypllc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Douglas J. Klein, Esq.
          Alex Jay Seidenberg, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS PC - New York
          666 Third Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 545-4000
          Email: doudlas.klein@jacksonlewis.com
                 alex.seidenberg@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Andrew D. Kinghorn, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS PC - St. Louis
          1 N. Brentwood Boulevard, Suite 1150
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: (314) 827-3939
          Fax: (314) 827-3940
          Email: andrew.kinghorn@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Noel P. Tripp, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS PC - Melville
          58 S. Service Road, Suite 250
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (631) 247-0404
          Fax: (631) 247-0417
          Email: noel.tripp@jacksonlewis.com


IRISH TRADITIONS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Irish Traditions,
LLC. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Irish Traditions, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-04187 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2023).

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

Irish Traditions offers an extensive variety of gifts, jewelry,
apparel, kilts & Highland wear and kilt rental.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

J4H LLC: Thomas Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Nichole Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. J4H, L.L.C., JUST 4 HIM ZACHARY, L.L.C., JUST 4 HIM
PRAIRIEVILLE, L.L.C., JUST 4 HIM BRUSLY LLC, JUST 4 HIM BREAUX
BRIDGE, LLC, JUST 4 HIM COURSEY LLC, JUST 4 HIM CENTRAL LLC, JUST 4
HIM MADISONVILLE LLC, JUST 4 HIM COVINGTON LLC, JUST 4 HIM
DIAMONDHEAD LLC, JUST 4 HIM HAMMOND LLC, JUST 4 HIM GONZALES, LLC,
JUST 4 HIM DENHAM SPRINGS LLC, JUST 4 HIM BURBANK, LLC, JUST 4 HIM
GRETNA LLC, JUST 4 HIM WALKER LLC, AND DEAN RIVERE, Case No.
3:23-cv-00387-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La., May 18, 2023), is brought pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), seeking to recover the
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and other damages owed
to these workers, together with attorneys' fees, interest, and
costs of these proceedings.

The Defendant employ barbers/hair stylists, store managers, and/or
area managers, and pay them a regular hourly rate for all hours
worked, including hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The
Defendants misclassify their direct employees as "independent
contractors." Although these workers regularly work more than 40
hours in a workweek, Defendants do not pay them overtime. The
Defendants' policy of paying these employees straight-time for all
hours worked with no overtime pay violates the FLSA, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a barber/hair
stylist from September 2015 to May 2020, and as a
manager/barber/hair stylist from April 2016 to June 2019.

The Defendants provide barber, hair care and grooming services to
men.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          A. Todd Caruso, Esq.
          TODD CARUSO, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
          233 Capitol Street
          Denham Springs, LA 70726
          Phone: (225) 271-4941
          Facsimile: (225) 271-4961
          Email: todd@carusolawllc.com


JD CLASSIC BUILDERS: Rodas Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Julio Orlando Bonilla Rodas and Nery Arnulfo Ramirez Alvarez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JD
CLASSIC BUILDERS CORP. and GEORGE ROTH, as an individual, Case No.
2:19-cv-06147 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., May 17, 2023), is
brought against the Defendants to recover damages for egregious
violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of
the Plaintiff's employment under the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") as
a result of the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages.

The Plaintiffs were regularly required to work 60 hours or more
hours per week, during the relevant statutory period. Although the
Plaintiffs regularly worked 60 hours or more hours each week,
during the relevant statutory period, the Defendants did not pay
the Plaintiffs at a wage rate of time and a half for their hours
regularly worked over 40 in a work week, a blatant violation of the
overtime provisions contained in the NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as carpenters.

JD CLASSIC BUILDERS CORP. is a New York domestic business
corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Phone: 718-263-9591
          Fax: 718-263-9598


JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: Investigates Potential Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP of Bakersfield reports that Pomerantz LLP is
investigating claims on behalf of investors of JinkoSolar Holding
Co., Ltd. ("JinkoSolar" or the "Company") (NYSE: JKS).   Such
investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

The investigation concerns whether JinkoSolar and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.

On May 8, 2023, federal agents executed a search warrant at
JinkoSolar's solar panel manufacturing plant in Jacksonville,
Florida.  Federal authorities did not disclose the specific reason
for the search warrant.

On this news, JinkoSolar's stock price fell $3.91 per share, or
8.25%, to close at $43.47 per share on May 9, 2023.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. On May 28, 2023, more than 85 years
later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established,
fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has
recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of
class members. See www.pomlaw.com.
CONTACT:

Robert S. Willoughby

Pomerantz LLP

rswilloughby@pomlaw.com

888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Cert. of Epstein Survivors' Suit Possible
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Law & Crime, reports that a federal
judge appeared poised on May 26 to let a Jeffrey Epstein survivor
have hundreds of her peers join her lawsuit accusing JPMorgan Chase
of "complicity" in the late predator's sex-trafficking scheme.

"There can be no case more worthy of class certification than this
case," attorney Sigrid McCawley said in court on May 26.

Senior U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff noted to JPMorgan's attorney
that Epstein's crimes largely weren't disputed by the bank.

"You do not dispute that Mr. Epstein was engaged in a longtime sex
trafficking venture that involved innumerable young women and
required money to make it work," said Rakoff, a longtime critic of
Wall Street during the time of the 2008 financial crisis.

Rakoff also noted that JPMorgan doesn't dispute that the bank was
the source of that money.

Put together, Rakoff said, the survivor's lawsuit seems like it
"easily satisfies" the requirements of class certification. The
only remaining question, the judge added, was whether the bank
knowingly profited from the bank's sex-trafficking scheme.

Class action lawsuits must meet and show four common features:
numerosity, i.e. having enough plaintiffs; commonality, i.e.
regarding matters of law and fact; typicality, i.e. containing
similar legal arguments; and adequacy, i.e. meeting common
interests.

On the first requirement, the survivors say, the numerosity is
self-evident.

"Jeffrey Epstein will go down in history as the world's most brazen
and serial sex offender who, with the assistance of a money-hungry
bank, JPMC, ran a decades-long sex-trafficking operation and
destroyed the lives of literally hundreds of young females," the
survivor's attorney wrote in the preliminary statement of their
motion. "The crucial element that allowed Jeffrey Epstein to
perpetrate these crimes for years was his access to loads of cash
from a bank that knew exactly what he was doing and helped him
avoid regulators' scrutiny so that the bank could have its take.
JPMC was Epstein's secret weapon that made decades of sexual abuse
and trafficking possible."

Since originally filed late last year, the lawsuit against JPMorgan
has been pursued by a single anonymous plaintiff: Jane Doe, who has
made alarming allegations against the bank's highest-ranking
officials. Doe accused its former senior executive Jes Staley of
sexual assault, and her lawsuit details some of the 1,200 emails
that Staley exchanged with Epstein during a four-year period.
Staley has not faced any criminal charges.

JPMorgan filed a separate lawsuit against Staley, claiming he
"concealed his personal activities" with Epstein from the bank.
Staley led the personal finance and investment divisions of the
bank during his tenure.

Counsel for the survivors allege that knowledge of Epstein's scheme
went even higher.

Epstein was a JPMorgan customer between 1998 and 2013, and the
lawsuit claims that JPMorgan's top officials, all the way up to CEO
Jamie Dimon, knowingly profited from his sex trafficking. In 2008,
Epstein became a registered sex offender after pleading guilty to
soliciting prostitution from a minor, and the survivor's lawsuit
alleges that Dimon reviewed his account months later. Epstein
remained a customer for five more years before JPMorgan severed
ties with him.

Dimon's deposition in the case also had been scheduled for May 26.

Former sex trafficking prosecutor Mitchell Epner said that class
certification could multiply JPMorgan's legal woes.

"If Judge Rakoff grants class certification, as it appears he will,
that greatly ratchets up the financial pressure on JPMorgan as a
defendant," said Epner, a partner on Rottenberg Lipman Rich PC.
"The case, at that point, could only be settled on a class wide
basis, which could require payments to far more people than the
individuals who filed suit."

Judge Rakoff signaled that he would try to issue a ruling by June
20. [GN]

JUN YUP LEE: Shin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Yongsuk Shin on behalf of herself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs v.
JUN YUP LEE and JY LEE CHIROPRACTIC LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02694
(D.N.J., May 18, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL");
the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"); and the New Jersey Wage
and Hour Regulations ("NJWHR") (collectively "NJ State Wage Laws"),
to recover from Defendants: unpaid overtime wages; unpaid wages due
to Defendants failure to pay the prevailing minimum wage; statutory
penalties; liquidated damages; and attorney's fees and costs.

During the course of the Defendants employment of the Plaintiff,
the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 8 hours per day and 40
hours per week. The Defendants knowingly, willfully, and
intentionally failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of
the FLSA and NJ State Wage Laws. During certain periods of her
employment, Defendants have knowingly, intentionally, and willfully
failed to compensate Plaintiff at least the minimum wage rate
provided by NJ State Wage Laws. As a result of the aforementioned
pay practices by Defendants, Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs were illegally under-compensated for their work, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired as a receptionist/assistant/secretary and
was employed by the Defendants until or about April 15, 2022.

The Defendant Lee is a doctor of chiropractic with Defendant
JYL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eun Suk Yang, Esq.
          THE CHOI LAW GROUP, LLC
          100 Challenger Road, Suite 302
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Phone: (201) 438-0200
          Fax: (201) 623-5888
          Email: eyang@choilawgroup.com


KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Patient Data Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that an John
Doe plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan Inc.

Why: Doe claims Kaiser intercepts and discloses the website
interactions of its patients with third parties such as Google,
Bing and Twitter, among others.

Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal
court.

Kaiser Permanente discloses the website interactions and
communications of its patients with third parties such as Google,
Twitter, and Bing, among others, a new class action lawsuit
alleges.

A John Doe plaintiff claims Kaiser allows the third parties to
"intercept" its patients' statuses, choices made, identifying
information, medical topics researched, and the information they
shared and communicated with their medical providers.

Doe argues Kaiser allegedly shares the private information in
defiance of a "reasonable expectation" among patients that such
data would be kept private, and that doing so "constitutes an
egregious invasion of . . . privacy."

"Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered harm and injury as a
direct and proximate result of Kaiser Permanente's invasion of
their privacy," the Kaiser class action states.  

Doe wants to represent a nationwide class and California subclass
of individuals who have used the Kaiser Permanente website, and
nationwide and California breach of contract subclasses of
individuals who have used the Portal on the Kaiser Permanente
website.

Kaisers 'transmits and redirects' patients' website interactions
with third parties, says class action

Doe claims Kaiser has embedded a code into its website that
"transmits and redirects" the interactions of its website users to
the third parties "from the very moment that a user first loads
Kaiser Permanente's website."

The data transmitting then continues as the patient "navigates
through the website researching and sharing sensitive information,"
the Kaiser class action alleges.

"Once the website loads, the Third Party Wiretappers continue to
intercept the content of patients' communications with Kaiser
Permanente in real time as the patient navigates the website," the
Kaiser class action states.

Doe claims Kaiser is guilty of breach of implied and express
contract, invasion of privacy, common law invasion of privacy via
intrusion upon seclusion, and of violating the California
Constitution, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

Plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory and
injunctive relief along with an award of nominal, statutory, and
punitive damages for themselves and all class members.

Similar class action lawsuits have been filed against companies
such as Ulta, Spirit Airlines, and Papa John's, among others, for
allegedly unlawfully intercepting the electronic communications of
website visitors.

The plaintiff is represented by Jennifer L. Joost, Joseph H.
Meltzer, Melissa L. Yeates, Tyler S. Graden, and Jordan E. Jacobson
of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.

The Kaiser health class action lawsuit is Doe, et al. v. Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan Inc., et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-02207, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN]

KIRKLAND'S INC: Standing Order Reversed; Gennock Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ASHLEY GENNOCK AND JORDAN BUDAI, INDIVIDUALLY AND
DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v.
KIRKLAND'S INC. Appellant, Case No. 462 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super.),
Judge Mary Jane Bowes of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania:

   a. reverses the order entered on Aug. 20, 2020, determining
      that the Plaintiffs had standing to assert a cause of
      action based on Kirkland's violation of the federal Fair
      and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA"), 15 U.S.C.
      Section 1681c(g); and

   b. dismisses the Plaintiffs' complaint.

Congress enacted FACTA in 2003, as an amendment to the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, to prevent identity theft. To achieve this, FACTA
requires, in relevant part, that debit and credit card numbers be
truncated on printed receipts. FACTA provides that any person who
is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed
under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to
that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of (1) any actual
damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure as
well as (2) the costs and attorney fees for the successful action.
To remedy willful violations, FACTA provides for actual damages or
statutory damages, plus punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

Between February 18 and April 8, 2017, the Plaintiffs patronized
Kirkland retail stores and made purchases with their debit and/or
credit cards. Each time they received a paper receipt, it displayed
the first six and the last four digits of the credit and/or debit
cards used for payment.

The Plaintiffs filed a class action federal suit against Kirkland,
alleging that Kirkland had willfully violated FACTA. They did not
allege that the violation resulted in their identities being stolen
or their card numbers being misappropriated. Instead, they argued
that the FACTA violation placed them at greater risk of such an
occurrence. The federal district court, applying the holding in Kee
Kamal v. J. Crew Grp., Inc., 918 F.3d 102, 106 (3d Cir. 2019), that
a bare procedural violation does not create Article III standing,
dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint.

Thereafter, the Plaintiffs transferred the complaint to state court
pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. Section 5103. Kirkland filed preliminary
objections alleging that the Plaintiffs lacked standing and failed
to allege facts sufficient to establish a willful violation of
FACTA. Simultaneously, a nearly identical case brought by the
Plaintiffs and Andrea Sciola against Country Fair, Inc., was
pending before the same trial court, with Country Fair also
challenging the plaintiffs' standing therein. Plaintiffs, Kirkland,
Sciola, and Country Fair agreed to be bound by a joint ruling as to
standing in both cases.

The trial court initially found that the plaintiffs in Country
Fair's case had statutory standing under FACTA. However, after
granting Country Fair's motion for reconsideration, it determined
that FACTA did not confer statutory standing, but the plaintiffs
had nonetheless pled sufficient facts to attain standing under
Pennsylvania's traditional standing principles. Based upon the
reasoning set forth in the opinion overruling Country Fair's
preliminary objections, the trial court overruled Kirkland's
preliminary objections.

The timely appeal followed. Kirkland presents a single issue for
the Superior Court's consideration: "Whether the trial court erred
when it held that Plaintiffs had standing to assert a violation of
FACTA, when the only harm they alleged was a bare technical
violation of the statute and where no actual harm, or substantial
risk of harm, was alleged?"

Judge Bowes notes that the Third Circuit interpreted the Supreme
Court's precedent as follows: "an alleged procedural violation
manifests concrete injury if the violation actually harms or
presents a material risk of harm to the underlying concrete
interest. If the violation does not present a material risk of harm
to that underlying interest, however, a plaintiff fails to
demonstrate concrete injury."

Judge Bowes holds that the Plaintiffs have alleged neither
third-party access of the information, nor that the receipt
included enough information to likely enable identity theft. All
the Plaintiffs have alleged is the same interest of all customers
in receiving receipts in compliance with FACTA, namely, that they
be properly truncated when printed. The Plaintiffs' speculative
chain of events that the receipts placed them at heightened risk
for identity theft solely based on their existence simply does not
amount to an interest that is substantial, direct, and immediate,
which the Supreme Court identified as the foundational components
of standing. Stated simply, Judge Bowes holds that Kirkland's
conduct has not adversely affected them.

Based on the foregoing, the core concept of the Superior Court's
standing doctrine has not been satisfied and the trial court erred
in overruling Kirkland's preliminary objection as to standing.
Since Judge Bowes concludes that the Plaintiffs lack standing under
Pennsylvania law, she reverses the order overruling Kirkland's
preliminary objection and dismisses the complaint. She dismisses
the complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 16, 2023 Decision is available
at https://rb.gy/1klc7 from Leagle.com.


KNS INTERNATIONAL: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KNS International
LLC. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. KNS International LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-04140 (S.D.N.Y., May 18, 2023).

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

KNS International -- https://www.knsint.com/ -- is a retailer of
clothes and accessories for men and women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LAZER SPOT: Must Oppose Conditional Cert. Bid by June 7
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned CORNELIUS JOHNSON AND JAMES
STRICKLAND, v. LAZER SPOT, INC., A GEORGIA CORPORATION, Case No.
1:22-cv-01852-MHC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Mark H. Cohen entered
an order granting consent motion for extension of time for
defendant to file its brief in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification.

The Court grants Defendant's motion and extends the deadline for
Defendant to file its brief in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification up to and through June 7, 2023.

Lazer Spot provides yard management services.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OK9rU9 at no extra charge.[CC]

LENS.COM INC: Franks Files Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lens.com, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Oren Franks, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Lens.com, Inc., Does 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-03870-JLS-AGR (C.D. Cal., May 19,
2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Trademark for Trademark
Infringement (Lanham Act).

Lens.com, Inc. -- https://www.lens.com/ -- is a leading online
destination for contact lenses since 1995.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amir J. Goldstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF AMIR J. GOLDSTEIN
          7304 Beverly Boulevard Suite 212
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Phone: (323) 937-0400
          Fax: (866) 288-9194
          Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com


LETSGOBRANDON.COM FOUNDATION: Zigler Law Files Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zigler Law Group, LLC, a national class action firm announced on
May 26 that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
Letsgobrandon.com Foundation and LGBCoin, Ltd, James Koutoulas,
Patrick Horsman, and the National Association for Stock Car Auto
Racing.

The action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida and captioned De Ford et. al. v.
Koutoulas et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-652, asserts claims under
Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act") and under Section 517.07 of the Florida Securities and
Investment Protection Act for the sale of unregistered securities,
as well as other Florida State law claims (including conspiracy,
unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and promissory
estoppel), on behalf of investors who purchased the LGBCoin
unregistered securities, which were sold as LGBCoins on various
cryptocurrency exchanges from November 2, 2021 through March 15,
2022 inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby.

The complaint alleges that Letsgobrandon.com Foundation, LGBCoin,
Ltd, Koutoulas, and Horsman sought to capitalize on the publicity
surrounding the "Let's Go Brandon" chant and conspired to violate
provisions of the Securities Act and its Florida State law analog
by selling the unregistered LGBCoins. Further the complaint alleges
that Koutoulas and Horsman (and their agents) solicited sales of
LGBCoins by making false and misleading statements concerning
NASCAR's approval of the LGBCoin sponsorship of Brandon Brown, the
digital asset's growth prospects, and financial benefits for
LGBCoin investors, as well as using celebrity promoters to lure in
unsuspecting investors so that Koutoulas, Horsman, and other
insiders could sell the unregistered LGBCoin securities in
violation of federal and state securities laws.

On January 5, 2022, NASCAR announced it would not approve LGBCoin's
sponsorship of NASCAR driver Brandon Brown. In the wake of this
news, the price of LGBCoin fell to Class Period lows.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from the date of this notice. Any member of the
proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and
remain a member of the proposed class.

What You Can Do

If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Plaintiffs' counsel, Aaron Zigler of Zigler Law Group, at (312)
673-8427 or via email at aaron@ziglerlawgroup.com.

                About Zigler Law Group, LLC

Zigler Law Group attorneys have successfully litigated countless
complex cases across multiple industries including consumer fraud,
securities fraud, breach of contract, breach of warranty, breach of
fiduciary duties, and wage and hour violations, among others. Our
experience litigating some of the nation's biggest cases enables us
to quickly implement time-tested strategies and gives us the wisdom
to know when only a novel approach will do.

CONTACT:
Aaron Zigler
Zigler Law Group
(312) 673-8427
aaron@ziglerlawgroup.com [GN]

LIC SEAFOOD INC: Tolentino Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LIC Seafood, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Leonardo Tolentino, individually on
behalf of others similarly situated v. LIC Seafood, Inc. doing
business as: Psari, John Vullis also known as: Yanni, Case No.
1:23-cv-04223 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2023).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Acts for the Denial of Overtime Compensation.

LIC Seafood, Inc. doing business as Psari with a specialty of
delicious seafood with a Greek twist.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catalina Sojo, Esq.
          CSM LEGAL P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street #4510
          New York, NY 10128
          Phone: (212) 317-1200
          Fax: (212) 317-1620
          Email: catalina@csm-legal.com


LIC SEAFOOD: Tolentino Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LEONARDO TOLENTINO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIC SEAFOOD, INC. (D/B/A PSARI)
and JOHN VULLIS AKA YANNI, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03809
(E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to
provide accurate wage statements.

Mr. Tolentino was employed by the Defendants as a food preparer at
Psari in Astoria, New York from approximately April 2019 until on
or about March 17, 2023.

Lic Seafood, Inc. is an operator and owner of a Greek Restaurant
under the name Psari, located at 32-10 36th Avenue, Astoria, New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Catalina Sojo
         CSM LEGAL, PC
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 317-1200
         Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

LIFE ALERT: Walker Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Walker, individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved
employees v. LIFE ALERT EMERGENCY RESPONSE, INC., and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23VECV02182 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., May 17, 2023), is brought pursuant to California
Labor Code as a result of the Defendants' failure to provide
employment records; failure to pay overtime and double time;
failure to provide rest and meal periods; failure to pay minimum
wage; failure keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized
wage statements; failure to pay reporting time wages; failure to
pay split shift wages; failure to pay all wages earned on time;
failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation;
failure to reimburse necessary, business-related expenses; failure
to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual; failure to create
and provide a written contract describing how commissions are
computed and paid; unlawful collection of earned wages/commissions;
all in violation of Labor Code, the California Code of Regulations,
and the applicable Wage Orders.

During the relevant time period, the Plaintiff and other Aggrieved
Employees regularly worked in excess of 8, and in excess of 12,
hours workday and/or 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants
routinely required the Plaintiff and the other Aggrieved Employees
to perform work tasks before and/or after their scheduled shifts,
and/or during off-the-clock meal breaks, and/or during rest breaks.
As a consequence, the Defendants willfully failed to pay the
Plaintiff and the other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES all of the wages to
which they were entitled, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of
Representative on November 01, 2019.

The Defendants are a medical alert system provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
          Melissa Robinson, Esq.
          HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: 1-818-696-2306
          Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307
          Email: haig@hbklawyers.com
                 melissa@hbklawyers.com


LIFECORE FITNESS: Valiente Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LifeCore Fitness,
LLC. The case is styled as Heriberto Valiente, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. LifeCore Fitness, LLC
doing business as: Assault Fitness, Case No. 3:23-cv-00915-GPC-WVG
(S.D. Cal., May 18, 2023).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

LifeCORE Fitness is a leading fitness equipment designer and
manufacturer located in Carlsbad, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LUCHARITOS CENTER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bulger Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JASMINE BULGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LUCHARITOS CENTER MORICHES, INC. d/b/a
LUCHARITOS; LUCHARITOS NATIONAL, LLC. d/b/a LUCHARITOS; LUCHARITOS
BURRITO BAR, INC., d/b/a LUCHARITOS; BUTTA CAKES INC. d/b/a
LUCHARITOS; JENNIFER LAMAINA; and MARC LAMAINA, Defendants, Case
No. 2:23-cv-03765 (E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2023) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage
statements.

Plaintiff Bulger was employed by the Defendants as a server.

LUCHARITOS CENTER MORICHES, INC. d/b/a LUCHARITOS owns and operates
four Tex-Mex restaurants on Long Island, New York. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amit Kumar, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
          108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
          New York, NY 10018
          Tel: (212) 583-7400
          Email: AKumar@Cafaroesq.com

LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due July 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on May 26 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Luminar Technologies, Inc. ("Luminar" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: LAZR), and certain officers. The class action,
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, and docketed under 23-cv-00982, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Luminar securities between February
28, 2023 and March 17, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against Defendants.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Luminar securities during the Class Period, you have until July 25,
2023 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Luminar is an automotive technology company that provides sensor
technologies and software for passenger cars and commercial trucks
in domestic and international markets. The Company purports to
develop, inter alia, photonic integrated circuits ("PICs") -- a
type of chip that contains photonic components, as opposed to
merely electronic components -- for its semiconductor products.

PICs are an important component of light detection and ranging
("LIDAR") technologies, which have become useful for a variety of
industries, including the automotive industry in which Luminar
operates. LIDAR technology has become particularly useful in the
development of autonomous vehicles. Accordingly, the development of
sleeker, simpler, and smaller LIDAR components, including PICs, has
become a core focus for managing costs and economies of scale in
the mass production of these technologies.

In February 2023, Luminar held its "Luminar Day" investor
conference. In discussing the Company's chip strategy as part of
the event, Luminar displayed an image of its purported PIC
technology, which was elegant, simple in design, and appeared
poised for driving economies of scale and cost reduction in the
industry.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Luminar had misappropriated an image of a
competitor's PIC to market the Company's own products and
capabilities; (ii) the foregoing conduct subjected the Company to a
heightened risk of, inter alia, litigation and/or regulatory
enforcement action; (iii) all the foregoing, once revealed, was
likely to negatively impact Luminar's business and reputation; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 17, 2023, Forbes reported that the semiconductor developer
Lidwave had accused Luminar of attempting to pass off a Lidwave PIC
as Luminar's own technology after showing an image of the PIC at
the Company's Luminar Day investor conference and in materials on
its website, threatening Luminar with legal action.

On this news, Luminar's stock price fell $0.78 per share, or 9.09%,
over two consecutive trading days to close at $7.80 per share on
March 20, 2023.

Notably, after Lidwave threatened Luminar with legal action, the
Company removed the offending image of Lidwave's PIC from its
investor presentation and website, as well as removed a YouTube
video that included the image of Lidwave's PIC. In updating the
Luminar Day investor presentation, the Company conspicuously
replaced what was originally a colorful picture of Lidwave's
PIC—which presented an elegant, sleek, and simple design—with a
microscopic, black-and-white photo of the Company's own PIC
technology, which could have been a picture of either the entire
PIC or an individual microscopic section of the chip, and which
was, in any event, a far less appealing and bulkier image to market
to investors.

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

CONTACT:

Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

MAGNA INTERNATIONAL: Davis Bid to Name New Class Rep Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELVIN DAVIS, et al., v.
MAGNA INTERNATIONAL OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-11060-NGE-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Nancy G. Edmunds
entered an order granting in part plaintiffs' motion to name new
class representatives:

   -- The Plaintiffs' motion to name new class representatives is
      granted in part and the Plaintiffs may file a First Amended
      Complaint naming these four additional parties.

   -- The motion is denied to the extent that it prematurely seeks
a
      determination that these individuals are adequate
      representatives under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The parties shall
      submit within 3 days a joint scheduling order for expedited
      discovery and briefing related to these new plaintiffs, with
all
      discovery, motion for class certification and response to be

      completed by June 30.

On March 27, 2023, the court issued an opinion and order denying
without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
and granting the Plaintiffs 30 days to name new class
representatives.

The Plaintiffs now move to amend their complaint to name the four
new class representatives: Scott E. Vollmar, Cory L. Harris, Bobby
R. Garrett, III, and Gracie Mercer.

The Plaintiffs submitted declarations by each proposed plaintiff in
support of their adequacy to be a named representative.

The Defendants do not oppose amending the Complaint to join these
four new plaintiffs. They do, however, oppose a determination prior
to discovery that these four individuals are adequate
representatives pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). The Court
agrees that the parties should conduct discovery as to these
individuals.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/429jiGl at no extra charge.[CC]

MARS INCORPORATED: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due March 13, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENT SCRUGGS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MARS,
INCORPORATED, Case No. 2:22-cv-05617-JAK-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order approving joint
stipulation to request order changing time as follows:

   1. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due March
13,
      2024.

   2. The Defendant's opposition to the motion for class
certification
      is due April 3, 2024.

   3. The Plaintiff's reply to the motion for class certification
is
      due May 7, 2024.

   4. The hearing on the Motion for Class Certification shall be
reset
      to May 20, 2024, with the precise time to be confirmed when
the
      calendar for that date issues.

   5. The Last Day to File Motions is March 13, 2024.

Mars, Incorporated is an American multinational manufacturer of
confectionery, pet food, and other food products and a provider of
animal care services.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IIZ27o at no extra charge.[CC]

MAZER APPLIANCE: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mazer Appliance, Inc.
The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Mazer Appliance, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-04142 (S.D.N.Y., May 18, 2023).

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

Mazer Appliance, Inc. -- https://mazer.com/ -- is a warehouse
featuring new & blemished refrigerators, dishwashers, laundry
machines & other appliances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2827: $8.5K Appeal Bond Imposed on Feldman & Jan in Apple Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: APPLE INC. DEVICE PERFORMANCE LITIGATION, Case
No. 5:18-md-02827-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Jose Division, grants in part the Plaintiffs' motion for appeal
bond.

The Plaintiffs move for an appeal bond pursuant to Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure 7 to ensure payment of the expenses the
settlement class will accrue during appeal. Objectors Kendrick Jan
and Sarah Feldman oppose the Plaintiffs' request.

The Court granted final approval of class action settlement and
awarded attorneys' fees on March 23, 2021. Several objectors,
including Feldman and Jan, appealed both Orders. The Ninth Circuit
vacated the Orders and remanded with directions on appeal.

The parties jointly moved for final approval and the Class Counsel
renewed their motion for attorneys' fees, expenses, and incentive
awards. The Court heard oral arguments on Jan. 11, 2023, and
approved final settlement and granted the Class Counsel's renewed
fee request on Feb. 17, 2023. Feldman and Jan again appealed this
Court's Order granting the renewed motions. They were not joined by
any of the previous appellants on the second appeal.

The Plaintiffs now move for an appeal bond pursuant to Fed. R. App.
P. 7 to ensure payment of the expenses the settlement class will
accrue during appeal. The Class Counsel requests an appeal bond in
the amount of $122,100, apportioned $8,500 in taxable costs and
$113,600 in administrative costs.

Judge Davila states that district courts have articulated three
relevant factors a court should consider in determining whether to
require an appeal bond: (1) appellant's financial ability to post a
bond, (2) the risk that appellant will not pay the costs if the
appeal loses, and (3) an assessment of the likelihood that
appellant will lose the appeal and be subject to costs. Upon
review, he finds that the posting of an appellate bond is
warranted.

Regarding financial ability, Feldman and Jan have not contended
that they are unable to post bond or provided any evidence
indicating a financial inability to pay. As to the second factor,
the merits of Feldman and Jan's appeal heavily favors granting a
bond. With respect to the third factor, there is a high likelihood
that the Appellants will not prevail on appeal, particularly given
that this is their second attempt at raising arguments addressed by
the Ninth Circuit or the Court.

Having concluded that a bond is appropriate, Judge Davila must
determine the amount of the bond. Rule 7 "costs" include the costs
identified in Rule 39(e). Rule 39(e) provides that the following
costs may be taxed: "(1) the preparation and transmission of the
record; (2) the reporter's transcript, if needed to determine the
appeal; (3) premiums paid of a supersedeas bond or other bond to
preserve rights pending appeal; and (4) the fee for filing the
notice of appeal."

Judge Davila declines to include $113,600 in administrative costs
in the appeal bond. He agrees with the Objectors that in the
absence of a statutory right to recover administrative costs, costs
recoverable in the appeal of the case are limited those set forth
in Fed. R. App. P. 39(e). However, he finds that Plaintiffs'
request of $8,500 in Rule 39 costs reasonable.

Accordingly, Judge Davila grants in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Appeal Bond. He imposes, pursuant to Appellate Rule 7, a bond
requirement in the amount of $8,500 jointly and severally on
Feldman and Jan. Within 14 days of entry of the Order, Feldman and
Jan will either: (1) file with the Court and serve on the Appellees
proof of satisfaction of the bond requirement, or (2) file a notice
of dismissal of their appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 16, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/z3ihc from Leagle.com.


MDL 2972: Blackbaud Opposition to Cohen Class Cert Bid Due June 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cohen v. Blackbaud Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00948 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F.
Anderson, Jr., entered a corrected amended scheduling order as
follows:

                    Event                         Deadline

  -- Blackbaud's opposition to class            June 9, 2023
     Certification:

  -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class                 June 9, 2023
     certification expert disclosure:

  -- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on              June 9, 2023
     Plaintiffs' class certification
     Experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a             Aug. 3, 2023
     motion seeking leave to submit
     rebuttal expert information with
     reply brief:

  -- Plaintiffs' response in opposition         Sept. 11, 2023
     to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on
     Plaintiffs' class certification
     Experts:

  -- Blackbaud's reply in support of its        Oct. 20, 2023
     Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class
     certification experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their      Oct. 20, 2023
     motion for class certification:

  -- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on             Oct. 20, 2023
     Blackbaud rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Blackbaud's response in opposition         Dec. 18, 2023
     to the Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion on
     Blackbaud's rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' reply in support on            Jan. 22, 2024
     their Daubert Motions on
     Blackbaud's rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Hearing on class certification:            TBD
     and Daubert Motions:

The Cohen case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer
Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.

The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach
notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for
the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life
Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child
and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire;
WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music.

The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly
received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of
Education; Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard
College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Childrenss Museum; Lower
East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest
Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson
University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial
Medical Center.

The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities,
healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected
by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal
information compromised by the breach includes user names, email
addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers,
credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles,
passwords, and health information.

The common factual questions include:

    (1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the
practices
        met industry standards;

    (2) how the unauthorized access occurred;

    (3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach;

    (4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach;

    (5) the investigation into the breach; and

    (6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud
        clients and affected consumers.

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

A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OvuutL at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2972: Blackbaud Opposition to Duranko Class Cert Bid Due June 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Duranko v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00054 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson,
Jr., entered a corrected amended scheduling order as follows:

                    Event                         Deadline

  -- Blackbaud's opposition to class            June 9, 2023
     Certification:

  -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class                 June 9, 2023
     certification expert disclosure:

  -- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on              June 9, 2023
     Plaintiffs' class certification
     Experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a             Aug. 3, 2023
     motion seeking leave to submit
     rebuttal expert information with
     reply brief:

  -- Plaintiffs' response in opposition         Sept. 11, 2023
     to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on
     Plaintiffs' class certification
     Experts:

  -- Blackbaud's reply in support of its        Oct. 20, 2023
     Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class
     certification experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their      Oct. 20, 2023
     motion for class certification:

  -- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on             Oct. 20, 2023
     Blackbaud rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Blackbaud's response in opposition         Dec. 18, 2023
     to the Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion on
     Blackbaud's rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' reply in support on            Jan. 22, 2024
     their Daubert Motions on
     Blackbaud's rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Hearing on class certification:           TBD
     and Daubert Motions:

The Duranko case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer
Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.

The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach
notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for
the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life
Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child
and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire;
WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music

The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly
received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of
Education; Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard
College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Childrenss Museum; Lower
East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest
Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson
University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial
Medical Center.

The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities,
healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected
by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal
information compromised by the breach includes user names, email
addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers,
credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles,
passwords, and health information.

The common factual questions include:

    (1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the
practices
        met industry standards;

    (2) how the unauthorized access occurred;

    (3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach;

    (4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach;

    (5) the investigation into the breach; and

    (6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud
        clients and affected consumers.

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

A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45BY3Qu at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2972: Blackbaud Opposition to Estes Class Cert Bid Due June 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mamie Estes et al v.
Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04357 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., entered a corrected amended scheduling
order as follows:

                    Event                         Deadline

  -- Blackbaud's opposition to class            June 9, 2023
     Certification:

  -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class                 June 9, 2023
     certification expert disclosure:

  -- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on              June 9, 2023
     Plaintiffs' class certification
     Experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a             Aug. 3, 2023
     motion seeking leave to submit
     rebuttal expert information with
     reply brief:

  -- Plaintiffs' response in opposition         Sept. 11, 2023
     to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on
     Plaintiffs' class certification
     Experts:

  -- Blackbaud's reply in support of its        Oct. 20, 2023
     Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class
     certification experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their      Oct. 20, 2023
     motion for class certification:

  -- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on             Oct. 20, 2023
     Blackbaud rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Blackbaud's response in opposition         Dec. 18, 2023
     to the Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion on
     Blackbaud's rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' reply in support on            Jan. 22, 2024
     their Daubert Motions on
     Blackbaud's rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Hearing on class certification:           TBD
     and Daubert Motions:

The Estes case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer
Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.

The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach
notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for
the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life
Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child
and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire;
WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music

The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly
received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of
Education; Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard
College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Childrenss Museum; Lower
East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest
Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson
University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial
Medical Center.

The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities,
healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected
by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal
information compromised by the breach includes user names, email
addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers,
credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles,
passwords, and health information.

The common factual questions include:

    (1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the
practices
        met industry standards;

    (2) how the unauthorized access occurred;

    (3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach;

    (4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach;

    (5) the investigation into the breach; and

    (6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud
        clients and affected consumers.

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

A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45oUeOe at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2972: Blackbaud Opposition to Mandel Class Cert Bid Due June 9
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mandel v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-03534 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson,
Jr., entered a corrected amended scheduling order as follows:

                    Event                         Deadline

  -- Blackbaud's opposition to class            June 9, 2023
     Certification:

  -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class                 June 9, 2023
     certification expert disclosure:

  -- Blackbaud's Daubert Motion on              June 9, 2023
     Plaintiffs' class certification
     Experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a             Aug. 3, 2023
     motion seeking leave to submit
     rebuttal expert information with
     reply brief:

  -- Plaintiffs' response in opposition         Sept. 11, 2023
     to Blackbaud's Daubert Motions on
     Plaintiffs' class certification
     Experts:

  -- Blackbaud's reply in support of its        Oct. 20, 2023
     Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class
     certification experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' reply in support of their      Oct. 20, 2023
     motion for class certification:

  -- Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions on             Oct. 20, 2023
     Blackbaud rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Blackbaud's response in opposition         Dec. 18, 2023
     to the Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion on
     Blackbaud's rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Plaintiffs' reply in support on            Jan. 22, 2024
     their Daubert Motions on
     Blackbaud's rebuttal class
     certification experts:

  -- Hearing on class certification:           TBD
     and Daubert Motions:

The Mandel case is consolidated in the Blackbaud, Inc., Customer
Data Breach. The Lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.

The Plaintiffs in the actions allegedly received data breach
notices from the following organizations: Atrium Health; Bread for
the World; Crystal Stairs; Episcopal High School; Light of Life
Rescue Mission; Planned Parenthood; St. David's Center for Child
and Family Development; University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire;
WakeMed Foundation; and Manhattan School of Music

The Plaintiffs in the potential tag-along actions allegedly
received notices from Allina Health; Bank Street College of
Education; Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota; Harvard
College; Inova Health System; KidsQuest Childrenss Museum; Lower
East Side Tenement Museum; Mt. Sinai Health System; Northwest
Memorial Healthcare; Nuvance Health; Planned Parenthood; Stetson
University; Stony Brook University Hospital; and UMass Memorial
Medical Center.

The actions allege that numerous other schools, universities,
healthcare institutions, and non-profit organizations were affected
by the data breach. The Plaintiffs allege that the personal
information compromised by the breach includes user names, email
addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social security numbers,
credit card numbers, bank account numbers, financial profiles,
passwords, and health information.

The common factual questions include:

    (1) Blackbaud's data security practices and whether the
practices
        met industry standards;

    (2) how the unauthorized access occurred;

    (3) the extent of personal information affected by the breach;

    (4) when Blackbaud knew or should have known of the breach;

    (5) the investigation into the breach; and

    (6) the alleged delay in disclosure of the breach to Blackbaud
        clients and affected consumers.

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

A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oto8QX at no extra charge.[CC]

MEDAVAIL PHARMACY: Bakir Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARY ABU BAKIR; and ALEXANDRA ENGELKE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MEDAVAIL PHARMACY,
INC. dba SpotRx; MEDAVAIL TECHNOLOGIES (US) INC.; MEDAVAIL
TECHNOLOGIES INC.; MEDAVAIL HOLDINGS, INC.; and MEDAVAIL, INC.,
Defendants, Case 2:23-cv-00885-MTM (D. Ariz., May 19, 2023) alleges
violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
("Warn Act") wherein Plaintiffs seek to recover from the Defendants
up to 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the Warn Act.

According to the complaint, in violation of the WARN Act, MedAvail
failed to provide the Plaintiffs and the SpotRx Layoff Employees 60
days' notice of the layoff prior to their termination, nor did they
provide Plaintiffs and the SpotRx Layoff Employees 60 days worth of
wages and benefits they would have received had they been given the
proper notice period.

MEDAVAIL PHARMACY INC. an Arizona corporation, is a wholly owned
subsidiary of MedAvail, and does business under the trade name
"SpotRx Pharmacy." Under SpotRx, MedAvail operates the SpotRx
Pharmacy business through deployment of its M4 MedCenter in medical
clinics providing onsite dispensing of prescriptions, which
significantly improves access and convenience for the medical
clinic's patients. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
          YEN PILCH ROBAINA & KRESIN PLC
          6017 N. 15th Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85014
          Telephone: (602) 682-6450
          Email: TDF@yprklaw.com

               - and -

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          YEN PILCH ROBAINA & KRESIN PLC
          9655 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92123
          Telephone: (619) 756-7748
          Email: PNS@yprklaw.com

MEMORIALCARE MEDICAL: Mejia Sues Over Failure to Pay Hours Worked
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arianna Mejia, an individual, on behalf of herself, all aggrieved
employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys
General v. MEMORIALCARE MEDICAL FOUNDATION, a California non-profit
corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV11580 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 23, 2023), is brought pursuant to
the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), and as a result
of the Defendant's failure to comply with California Labor Code
requirements due to erroneous, willful and intentional employment
practices and policies by failing to pay for all hours worked,
including overtime hours worked.

The Defendant has had a consistent policy and/or practice of:
failing to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours
worked; failing to provide rest breaks; failing to provide
uninterrupted meal breaks and second meal breaks; failing to
reimburse for required business expenses; failing to pay wages due
upon termination; (6) failing to provide accurate itemized wage
statements. Defendant is therefore liable for civil penalties under
the Cal. Labor Code, including the PAGA, Labor Code, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of California and started
working for the Defendant a Medical Assistant from October of
2022.

MEMORIALCARE MEDICAL FOUNDATION is a California non-profit
authorized to do business and doing business in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
          KOUL LAW FIRM
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 761-5484
          Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
          Email: nazo@koullaw.com


MENTAL HEALTH: Dyous Bid to Certify Class Moot
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dyous v. Mental Health and
Addiction Services, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01518 (D. Conn.), the
Hon. Judge Sarala V. Nagala entered an order finding as moot motion
to certify class.

  -- Since the motion for class certification was filed, the
Plaintiff
     has received permission to, and has, filed an amended
complaint.

  -- The amended complaint modifies allegations from the original
     complaint relevant to class certification, including by adding

     new allegations regarding the named plaintiffs and changing
     certain allegations concerning the questions of law and fact
     common to all potential class members.

  -- As the presently pending motion for class certification is
based
     on a complaint that is no longer the operative one, the Court

     denies the motion as moot.

  -- For avoidance of doubt, this order says nothing about the
merits
     of the motion for class certification.

  -- The Plaintiffs may file another motion for class certification

     based on the allegations of the amended complaint.

The suit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities
Act.[CC]

MIZZEN AND MAIN: Derriman Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ryan Derriman, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Mizzen and Main LLC, Case No.
23-CA-011599 was removed from the Hillsborough County Circuit
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on May 22, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01132-CEH-MRM to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Arbitration Other Statutes for
Account Receivable.

Mizzen and Main -- http://www.mizzenandmain.com/-- is an American
clothing company that specializes in performance menswear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
          KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
          2110 West Platt Street
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Phone: (813) 422-7782
          Fax: (813) 422-7783
          Email: ben@thekrfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Dennis D. Leone, Esq.
          Joshua Ryan Kersey, Esq.
          SHANKMAN LEONE, PA
          707 N Franklin St Ste 500
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 223-1099
          Fax: (813) 223-1055
          Email: dleone@shankmanleone.com
                 jkersey@shankmanleone.com

               - and -

          Bradley W. Foster, Esq.
          Carrington M. Giammittorio, Esq.
          Timothy Newman, Esq.
          HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
          2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Phone: 214-651-500


MKS INSTRUMENTS: Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Doe, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MKS INSTRUMENTS, INC., DOE DEFENDANTS
1-100, Case No. 30-02023-01310217-CU was removed from the Orange
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on May 18, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-00868 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

MKS Instruments, Inc. -- https://www.mks.com/ -- is an American
process control instrumentation company.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Teresa Harrold Michaud, Esq.
          BAKER AND MCKENZIE
          10250 Constellation Boulevard Suite 1850
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-4728
          Fax: (310) 201-4721
          Email: teresa.michaud@bakermckenzie.com


MURAD LLC: Court Narrows Claims in Decoursey Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA DECOURSEY and
GRACE SIT, on behalf of themselves and a class of all others
similarly situated, v. MURAD, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00353-AMN-ML
(N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Anne Nardacci centered an order that the
Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in
part:

  -- The Court further orders that the Defendant's motion to
dismiss
     for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted as it pertains to

     the Plaintiff Sit and the Missouri Subclass and the Plaintiff

     DeCoursey's claims as to purchases she made in Pennsylvania;
and
     is denied as it pertains to the nationwide class.

  -- The Court further orders that the following claims are
dismissed:

     (a) Breach of implied warranty (Count I);

     (b) Violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act
(Count
         IV);

     (c) Negligence -- failure to warn (Count V);

     (d) Unjust enrichment (Count VI).

The Court finds the reasoning of the Morales, Campbell, and
Davidson cases persuasive. The Second Circuit's decision in Nicosia
v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2016), is not to the
contrary. In that case, the district court concluded that the
plaintiff lacked standing to seek an injunction for failure to
establish he was in danger of being wronged again, and the Second
Circuit affirmed that conclusion.

The Plaintiffs Jessica DeCoursey and Grace Sit bring this proposed
class action under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d) against the Defendant
Murad, LLC, seeking compensatory and other monetary relief,
injunctive, declaratory, and other equitable relief, and costs and
attorneys' fees.

The proposed classes are comprised of consumers who purchased at
least one of the Affected Murad Products, each of which contain at
least one color additive that the FDA has prohibited in cosmetics
intended for use in the eye area.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant "designs, formulates,
manufactures, markets, advertises, distributes, and sells the
Affected Murad Products both directly, and through authorized
sellers, to consumers throughout the United States."

A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OGvknh at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
          Gary I. Ishimoto, Esq.
          55 Broadway, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10006

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael Duvall, Esq.
          Grant J. Ankrom, Esq.
          Michael E. Harriss, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          211 N. Broadway, Suite 3000
          St. Louis, MO 63102

NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: Guerrero Files Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NationsBenefits, LLC.
The case is styled as Jessica Guerrero, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. NationsBenefits, LLC, Case No.
0:23-cv-60951-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 22, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

NationsBenefits -- https://www.nationsbenefits.com/ -- is a
supplemental benefits company that provides managed care
organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas Anthony Colella, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Email: NickC@lcllp.com


NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: Wilson Files Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationsbenefits, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Wanda Wilson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationsbenefits, LLC,
Case No. 0:23-cv-60949-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 22, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Motion to Enforce Subpoena and
Compel.

NationsBenefits -- https://www.nationsbenefits.com/ -- is a
supplemental benefits company that provides managed care
organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Winston Spencer Hudson, Esq.
          JOHNSON FIRM
          27296 Bonterra Loop
          Wesley Chapel, FL 33544
          Phone: (501) 372-1300
          Email: winston@yourattorney.com

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: 3d Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Slupski Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANK SLUPSKI, Appellant v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 22-2171 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit affirms the District Court's grant of
Nationwide's motion for summary judgment and several rulings on
related motions.

Slupski was injured in an accident while driving a car owned by a
customer of his employer Phoenixville Tire and Service. Because the
driver that hit him was underinsured, Slupski sought underinsured
motorist ("UIM") coverage from Nationwide, Phoenixville's insurer.
But Nationwide denied his claim because Phoenixville's policy
covered only employer-owned vehicles.

Slupski sued Nationwide alleging that the Policy ran afoul of
Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.
C.S. Sections 1701 et seq. (the "MVFRL"). First, because the Policy
did not extend to third-party vehicles and, second, given the
general liability limit of $1,000,000 and UIM limit of $500,000.
The District Court dismissed Slupski's claim after finding that he
was not an insured under the Policy, but the Third Circuit
reversed, holding the Policy could not be enforced because it
violated the MVFRL's "strict and clear provisions" requiring that
UIM coverage "be provided coextensively with the general liability
coverage provided" unless waived in writing.

Back in the District Court, Nationwide offered to settle for less
than Slupski's UIM claim in exchange for Slupski releasing his
bad-faith and class action claims. Slupski initially declined but
the parties eventually settled the coverage claim only, allowing
Slupski to pursue the bad faith claims. The District Court granted
Nationwide partial summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of
material fact as to Slupski's statutory bad faith claim under 42
Pa. C.S. Section 8371. Although the common law bad-faith claim
survived the summary judgment determination to the extent Slupski
targeted Nationwide's conduct after our initial reversal, the
District Court later held Slupski could not obtain compensatory and
consequential damages for that claim. This ended the case, and
Slupski now appeals.

As to the summary judgment, the Third Circuit opines that Slupski's
contention that Nationwide had no reasonable basis for denying his
claim must fail since an insurer does not act in bad faith when its
claim denial is based on a reasonable legal position in an
unsettled area of the law. Moreover, Slupski has not carried his
burden to show through clear and convincing evidence that
Nationwide knew or recklessly disregarded that it lacked a
reasonable basis to contest his damages. He has not surmounted the
high bar for statutory bad-faith claims and has not proved that
Nationwide's negotiating terms and tactics amounted to bad faith.

Slupski also appeals the District Court's orders on several motions
surrounding the summary judgment disposition. First, he argues that
the District Court should have recused because it was "unable to
impartially and fairly adjudicate the remaining dispute" following
the Third Circuit's decision reversing the motion to dismiss. But,
the District Court's impartiality cannot reasonably be questioned,
and recusal was not required.

Second, Slupski contends, without authority, that the District
Court should have granted his motion to file an amended class
action complaint. While delay alone is an insufficient ground to
deny leave to amend, the Third Circuit finds that the motion was
filed nearly two years after the initial complaint and several
months after the Third Circuit had revived the suit. So the
District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion
as untimely and prejudicial.

Finally, Slupski argues that the District Court erred in granting
Nationwide's motion to preclude his claim for emotional distress.
The Third Circuit opines that Slupski has not shown that the
District Court's conclusion was erroneous.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 16, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://rb.gy/7gjqk from Leagle.com.


NATIXIS SA: Class Deal in Bonds Antitrust Suit Wins Prelim. Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2601 (VM) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Victor Marrero of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants
the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement.

Plaintiffs Ohio Carpenters' Pension Fund, Electrical Workers
Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W., and San Bernardino County
Employees' Retirement Association, on behalf of themselves and the
other members of the Settlement Class, and Natixis, together with
its affiliates and subsidiaries ("Natixis") have determined to
settle all claims asserted against Natixis and its predecessors,
successors, assigns, subsidiaries, and affiliates in the Action
with prejudice on the terms and conditions set forth in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement between Plaintiffs and
Natixis dated May 9, 2023, subject to approval of the Court.

The Plaintiffs have made applications, pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order preliminarily
approving the Settlement in accordance with the Stipulation, and
approving notice of the Settlement to the Settlement Class.

Judge has considered: (i) the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of the Settlement and the papers filed and arguments made
in connection therewith; and (ii) the Stipulation and the exhibits
attached thereto. He finds that the proposed forms of Class notice
and the proposed Class notice plan are adequate and reasonable, and
the proposed Distribution Plan is reasonable and rational and
should be sent to the Class Members for their review prior to the
Settlement Hearing.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1)(B), Judge
Marrero preliminarily approves the Settlement, as embodied in the
Stipulation, and directs notice in a reasonable manner to all class
members who would be bound by the proposals.

The Court will hold a settlement hearing on Nov. 3, 2023, at 10:00
a.m. at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500
Pearl St., New York, NY 10007, Courtroom 15B. The Court may adjourn
the Settlement Hearing without further notice to the Settlement
Class and may approve the proposed Settlement with such
modifications as are agreed to, if appropriate, without further
notice to the Settlement Class.

The Co-Lead Counsel (consisting of Kristen M. Anderson (Scott+Scott
Attorneys at Law LLP), Gregory S. Asciolla (DiCello Levitt LLC),
Vincent Briganti (Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.), and Todd A. Seaver
(Berman Tabacco) are authorized to retain A.B. Data, Ltd. (the
"Claims Administrator") to disseminate notice to the Settlement
Class, process Claims, and administer the Settlement.

The Notice of the Settlement and the Settlement Hearing will be
given as follows:

     (a) Commencing no later than 75 business days after the date
of entry of the Order (the "Notice Date"), the Claims Administrator
(and/or, if Natixis so opts, Natixis's third-party notice agent)
will cause a copy of the Notice and the Claim Form to be mailed to
the members of the Settlement Class who can be identified through
reasonable effort;

     (b) Contemporaneously with the mailing of the Notice Packet,
the Claims Administrator will cause copies of the Notice and the
Claim Form to be posted on the website developed for this Action,
www.europeangovernmentbondssettlement.com, from which copies of the
Notice and Claim Form can be downloaded;

     (c) As soon as practicable after the mailing of the Notice
Packet, the Claims Administrator will cause the Publication Notice
to be published, at minimum, once each in IBD Weekly, Stocks &
Commodities, The Financial Times, The New York Times, and The Wall
Street Journal; and

     (d) Prior to the Settlement Hearing, the Co-Lead Counsel will
file with the Court proof, by affidavit or declaration, of such
mailing and publication.

Judge Marrero approves, as to form and content, the Notice, the
Claim Form, and the Publication Notice.

The Co-Lead Counsel and the Claims Administrator will use
reasonable efforts to give notice to nominee owners, such as
brokerage firms and other persons or entities who or which
transacted for the beneficial interest of persons or organizations
other than themselves, but not as beneficial owners. The Nominees
will be requested to either: (i) within seven days of receipt of
the Notice, request from the Claims Administrator sufficient copies
of the Notice to forward to all such beneficial owners, and within
seven calendar days of receipt of those Notices, forward them to
all such beneficial owners; or (ii) within seven days of receipt of
the Notice, provide a list of the names and addresses of all such
beneficial owners to the Claims Administrator for prompt
distribution.

     (a) For Nominees who chose the first option (i.e., elect to
mail the Notice Packets directly to beneficial owners), the Claims
Administrator will forward the same number of Notice Packets to
such Nominees, and request that the Nominees, within seven calendar
days of receipt of the Notice Packets, mail the Notice Packets to
their beneficial owners;

     (b) For Nominees who chose the second option (i.e., provide a
list of names and addresses of beneficial owners to the Claims
Administrator), the Claims Administrator will promptly mail a copy
of the Notice Packet to each of the beneficial owners whose names
and addresses the Nominee supplied, provided the Claims
Administrator did not previously mail Notice to such beneficial
owners;

     (c) Upon full and timely compliance with the Order, Nominees
who mail the Notice Packets to beneficial owners may seek
reimbursement of their reasonable expenses actually incurred in
complying with this Order by providing the Claims Administrator
with proper documentation supporting the expenses for which
reimbursement is sought. Such properly documented expenses incurred
by Nominees in compliance with the terms of this Order will be paid
from the Settlement Fund.

As provided in the Stipulation, pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1715 et seq. ("CAFA"), no later
than 10 days following the filing of the Stipulation with the
Court, Natixis, at its own cost, will serve proper notice of its
proposed Settlement upon those who are entitled to such notice
pursuant to CAFA. No later than seven days before the Settlement
Hearing, Natixis will cause to be filed with the Court proof, by
affidavit or declaration, regarding compliance with CAFA Section
1715(b).

Settlement Class Members who wish to receive a distribution from
the Net Settlement Fund must complete and submit a Claim Form in
accordance with the instructions contained therein. Unless the
Court orders otherwise, all Claim Forms must be submitted within 84
days after the Notice Date.

Any member of the Settlement Class who or which wishes to exclude
himself, herself, or itself from the Settlement Class must request
exclusion in writing and in the manner set forth in the Notice
such that it is received no later than 68 days after the Notice
Date. The Request for Exclusion will be invalid and have no legal
or binding force or effect unless it provides the following
required information and is received no later than the date stated,
or the Request for Exclusion is otherwise accepted by the Court.

Any person or entity who or which requests to be and is excluded
from the Settlement Class will not be entitled to receive any
payment out of the Net Settlement Fund as described in the
Stipulation and Notice. No Settlement Class Member will be heard
unless that person or entity has filed a written objection with the
Court by 68 days after the Notice Date, or as the Court may
otherwise direct, and served copies of such objection on Co-Lead
Counsel and Natixis's Counsel at the addresses set forth below.

All reasonable Notice and Administration Costs up to $300,000 will
be paid as set forth in the Stipulation without further order of
the Court. Any Notice and Administration Costs in excess of
$300,000 may be paid from the Settlement Fund only with the
approval of the Court.

The contents of the Settlement Fund held by Huntington National
Bank (which the Court approves as the "Escrow Agent"), will be
deemed and considered to be in custodia legis of the Court, and
will remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, until such
time as they will be distributed pursuant to the Stipulation and/or
further order(s) of the Court.

The Co-Lead Counsel are authorized and directed to prepare any tax
returns and any other tax reporting form for or in respect to the
Settlement Fund, to pay from the Settlement Fund any Taxes owed
with respect to the Settlement Fund, and to otherwise perform all
obligations with respect to Taxes and any reporting or filings in
respect thereof without further order of the Court in a manner
consistent with the Stipulation.

If the Settlement is terminated as provided in the Stipulation, the
Settlement is not approved, or the Effective Date of the Settlement
otherwise fails to occur, the Order will be vacated, rendered null
and void, and be of no further force and effect, except as
otherwise provided by the Stipulation, and the Order will be
without prejudice to the rights of Plaintiffs, the other Settlement
Class Members, and Natixis, and the Parties will revert to their
respective positions in the Action as of March 22, 2023, as
provided in the Stipulation.

All proceedings in the Action with respect to Released Parties are
stayed until further order of the Court, except as may be necessary
to implement the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation or comply
with the terms thereof.

The Co-Lead Counsel will file the opening papers in support of
final approval of the proposed Settlement, the Distribution Plan,
and the application for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement
of Litigation Expenses, and any service awards for the Plaintiffs
no later than 54 days after the Notice Date, and reply papers, if
any, will be filed no later than 98 days after the Notice Date.

The Settlement, as preliminarily approved in the Order, will be
administered according to its terms pending the Settlement
Hearing.

Deadlines arising under the Settlement and the Order include, but
are not limited to, the following:

     a. Notice: to commence not later than 75 business days after
entry of the Order (Notice Date);

     b. Application for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses
(Fee Application): to be filed 54 days after the Notice Date;

     c. Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement (Final Approval
Motion): to be filed 54 days after the Notice Date;

     d. Objection Deadline: 68 days after the Notice Date;

     e. Opt-Out Deadline: 68 days after the Notice Date;

     f. Claims Deadline: 84 days after the Notice Date;

     g. Replies in Support of Final Approval Motion and Fee
Application: to be filed 98 days after the Notice Date; and

     h. Settlement Hearing: Nov. 3, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.

If any date or deadline set forth falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or
federal or state legal holiday, such date or deadline will be
deemed moved to the first Business Day thereafter that is not a
federal or New York state holiday.

The Court retains jurisdiction to consider all further applications
arising out of or connected with the proposed Settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 16, 2023 Preliminary Approval
Order is available at https://rb.gy/0cz2z from Leagle.com.


NEW YORK, NY: Marciano's Appeal From Dismissal of Claims Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY MARCIANO, individually and on behalf of all
other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ERIC
ADAMS, Mayor of the City of New York, in his official capacity;
ASHWIN VASAN, Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene, in his
official capacity; KEECHANT SEWELL, Police Commissioner, in her
official capacity; THE NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF HEALTH; and THE CITY
OF NEW YORK, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-570-cv (2d Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismisses
Marciano's appeal from judgment of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Rakoff, J.) dismissing his claims
against the City and certain of its agencies and officers.

Marciano, a New York City Police Department detective, argues that
the Defendants' decision to mandate that employees of the City
receive a vaccination against COVID-19 was ultra vires, preempted
by state and federal law, and in violation of the federal
Constitution. The Defendants move to dismiss this appeal as moot.

The Second Circuit states that under the general rule of mootness,
courts' subject matter jurisdiction ceases when an event occurs
during the proceedings or on appeal that makes it impossible for
the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to a prevailing
party. Accordingly, a plaintiff's personal stake in the outcome of
the litigation must be extant at all stages of review, not merely
at the time the complaint is filed. Typically, no live controversy
remains where a party has obtained all the relief she could receive
on the claim through further litigation.

Marciano seeks declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting the
Defendants from enforcing their mandate that City employees receive
a vaccination against COVID-19. But the Defendants have repealed
that mandate, and the Second Circuit cannot enjoin what no longer
exists. Nor can it award declaratory relief, which requires an
ongoing, "real and substantial" underlying dispute to confer
subject matter jurisdiction.

In the case, the Second Circuit finds no exception to the mootness
doctrine applies. It finds that the case does not fit within the
"capable of repetition yet evading review" mootness exception,
which applies only in exceptional situations, where (1) the
challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully
litigated prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a
reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be
subject to the same action again. Marciano offers only
"speculation" that he personally could be subject to another
similar vaccine mandate; such a "theoretical possibility" "does not
rise to the level of a reasonable expectation or demonstrated
probability of recurrence. And even were the Defendants to reimpose
this same vaccine mandate, Marciano does not dispute that, after
filing the suit, he has now received the COVID-19 vaccine, and
would therefore now be compliant with that mandate. He therefore
cannot show, as he must, that the same controversy will recur
involving the same complaining party.

The Second Circuit holds that the voluntary cessation exception is
likewise inapplicable because there is no reasonable expectation
that the alleged violation will recur and because the Defendants'
repeal of the vaccination mandate has completely and irrevocably
eradicated the effects of the alleged violation, given that
Marciano seeks only injunctive and declaratory relief. And, again,
even were the Defendants to reinstate the mandate, Marciano's
undisputed vaccination status ensures that such a decision would no
longer have any effect on his employment status.

Accordingly, Marciano's appeal is moot. When a civil case becomes
moot pending appellate adjudication, the established practice in
the federal system is to reverse or vacate the judgment below and
remand with a direction to dismiss. The Second Circuit follows that
practice because there is no suggestion that Marciano intended to
escape the collateral consequences of the decision by deliberately
mooting the appeal when he received the COVID-19 vaccine.

The Second Circuit has considered Marciano's remaining arguments
and concludes that they are without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
appeal is granted, the appeal is dismissed, and the case is
remanded with instructions to the District Court to vacate its
order and judgment and dismiss the case as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 16, 2023 Summary Order is
available at https://rb.gy/5ww51 from Leagle.com.

PATRICIA A. FINN -- patriciafinnattorney@gmail.com -- Patricia Finn
Attorney, P.C., Nanuet, NY, for the Plaintiff-Appellant.

JESSE A. TOWNSEND, Of Counsel (Richard Dearing, Claude S. Platton,
Of Counsel, on the brief), for Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation
Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for the
Defendants-Appellees.


NEW YORK: Plaintiffs Must Present Oral Argument by June 29
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Disability Rights New York
v. The State of New York, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-06965
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Marcia M. Henry entered an
order that the parties shall be prepared to present oral argument
on the referred motion for class certification1 at the June 29,
2023, conference.

The nature of suit states American with Disabilities Act.[CC]


NEW-INDY CATAWBA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Kennedy Due Nov. 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kennedy v. New-Indy
Catawba LLC, et al., Case No. 0:21-cv-01704-SAL (D.S.C.), Hon.
Judge Sherri A. Lydon entered an order:

the Hon. Judge Sherri A. Lydon entered an amended scheduling order
as follows:

   1. Counsel shall file and serve affidavits      Sept. 18, 2023
      of records custodian witnesses proposed
      to be presented by affidavit at trial
      no later than:

   2. Discovery has commenced and shall be         Dec. 1, 2023
      completed no later than:

   3. All fact discovery shall be completed        Nov. 1, 2023
      by:

   4. All fact discovery requests shall be         Nov. 1, 2023
      served in time for the responses
      thereto to be served by:

   5. The Plaintiffs shall file and serve          Aug. 28, 2023
      a document identifying by full name,
      address, and telephone number each
      person whom the Plaintiffs expect to
      call as an expert at trial by:

   6. The Plaintiffs shall also provide            Aug. 28, 2023
      proposed dates for the deposition of
      each person whom they expect to call
      as an expert at trial by:

   7. The Defendants shall file and serve a        Sept. 5, 2023
      document identifying by full name,
      address, and telephone number each
      person whom each the Defendant expects
      to call as an expert at trial by:

   8. The Defendants shall also provide            Sept. 5, 2023
      proposed dates for the deposition
      of each person whom they expect to
      call as an expert at trial by:

   9. The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion       Nov. 7, 2023
      for Class Certification and all
      supporting materials by:

  10. The Defendant(s) shall file their           Nov. 28, 2023
      Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion
      for Class Certification and all
      supporting materials by:

  11. The Plaintiffs shall file their Reply       Dec. 8, 2023
      in Support of their Motion for
      Class Certification and all
      supporting materials by:

  12. All dispositive motions, Daubert            Nov. 28, 2023
      motions, and all other motions,
      except those to complete discovery,
      those nonwaivable motions made
      pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12,
      and those relating to the
      admissibility of evidence at trial
      (other than Daubert motions), shall
      be filed on or before:

New-Indy is an independent, privately-owned manufacturer and
supplier of corrugated boxes, recycled containerboard and virgin
linerboard.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MDLLOE at no extra charge.[CC]

NEW-INDY CATAWBA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in White Due Nov. 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as White v. New-Indy Catawba
LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-01480-SAL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Sherri A.
Lydon entered an amended scheduling order as follows:

   1. Counsel shall file and serve affidavits      Sept. 18, 2023
      of records custodian witnesses proposed
      to be presented by affidavit at trial
      no later than:

   2. Discovery has commenced and shall be         Dec. 1, 2023
      completed no later than:

   3. All fact discovery shall be completed        Nov. 1, 2023
      by:

   4. All fact discovery requests shall be         Nov. 1, 2023
      served in time for the responses
      thereto to be served by:

   5. The Plaintiffs shall file and serve          Aug. 28, 2023
      a document identifying by full name,
      address, and telephone number each
      person whom the Plaintiffs expect to
      call as an expert at trial by:

   6. The Plaintiffs shall also provide            Aug. 28, 2023
      proposed dates for the deposition of
      each person whom they expect to call
      as an expert at trial by:

   7. The Defendants shall file and serve a        Sept. 5, 2023
      document identifying by full name,
      address, and telephone number each
      person whom each the Defendant expects
      to call as an expert at trial by:

   8. The Defendants shall also provide            Sept. 5, 2023
      proposed dates for the deposition
      of each person whom they expect to
      call as an expert at trial by:

   9. The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion       Nov. 7, 2023
      for Class Certification and all
      supporting materials by:



  10. The Defendant(s) shall file their           Nov. 28, 2023
      Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion
      for Class Certification and all
      supporting materials by:

  11. The Plaintiffs shall file their Reply       Dec. 8, 2023
      in Support of their Motion for
      Class Certification and all
      supporting materials by:

  12. All dispositive motions, Daubert            Nov. 28, 2023
      motions, and all other motions,
      except those to complete discovery,
      those nonwaivable motions made
      pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12,
      and those relating to the
      admissibility of evidence at trial
      (other than Daubert motions), shall
      be filed on or before:

New-Indy is an independent, privately-owned manufacturer and
supplier of corrugated boxes, recycled containerboard and virgin
linerboard.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OCwznL at no extra charge.[CC]



NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Ross Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NextGen Healthcare
Inc. The case is styled as Christah Ross, on behalf of her minor
daughter, Carter Bundy, on behalf of his minor son, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NextGen
Healthcare Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02296-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 22,
2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.

NextGen Healthcare -- https://www.nextgen.com/ -- offers EHR and
Practice Management solutions that help ambulatory care providers.
NextGen Enterprise. Mid-size to enterprise practices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amber Love Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          2001 Union St Ste 200
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Phone: (415) 788-4220
          Fax: (415) 788-0161
          Email: aschubert@sjk.law

               - and -

          MaryBeth Vassil Gibson, Esq.
          N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
          THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
          Building 14, Suite 230
          3535 Piedmont Road
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Phone: (404) 320-9979 ext 202
          Fax: (404) 320-9978
          Email: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
                 njackson@thefinleyfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER KOLBE & KRALOWEC LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 788-4220
          Fax: (415) 788-0161
          Email: rschubert@sjk.law


NINTENDO OF AMERICA: N.A. Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as N.A., by and through his Guardian Bruce Alls,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v.
NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC., Case No. C23-00609 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa,
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on May 17, 2023, and assigned Case No.
3:23-cv-02424-DMR.

N.A. alleges deceptive and misleading practices in connection with
the marketing and sale to minors of "Spotlight Pipes" in Nintendo's
Mario Kart Tour video game. N.A. claims that minors were allowed
"to pay real-world currency to gamble on winning in game items" via
the Spotlight Pipes and Nintendo "refused to provide refunds" for
those purchases. N.A. asserts claims for declaratory judgment on
minors' rights to disaffirm their purchases and contracts with
Nintendo; monetary and injunctive relief based on alleged
violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA");
monetary and injunctive relief based on alleged violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and restitution or
unjust enrichment in the alternative.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Susan D. Fahringer, Esq.
          Nicola C. Menaldo, Esq.
          Eric J. Weiss, Esq.
          Mallory Gitt Webster, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101-3099
          Phone: 206.359.8000
          Facsimile: 206.359.9000
          Email: SFahringer@perkinscoie.com
                 NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com
                 EWeiss@perkinscoie.com
                 MWebster@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Kim Y. Ng, Esq.
          3150 Porter Drive
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
          Phone: 650.838.4300
          Facsimile: 650.838.4350
          Email: KNg@perkinscoie.com


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Turner Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Judy Turner, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the State of
California and other aggrieved persons v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. 23STCV04404 was removed from the Los Angeles
Superior Court, State of California, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on May 17, 2023, and
assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03756.

In her Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges four causes of action
against the Defendants: failure to timely pay final wages at
termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
unfair business practices.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jesse A. Cripps, Esq.
          Virginia P. Baldwin, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213.229.7000
          Facsimile: 213.229.7520
          Email: JCripps@gibsondunn.com
                 VBaldwin@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Matthew T. Sessions, Esq.
          Amber D. Mckonly, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612-4412
          Phone: 949.451.3800
          Facsimile: 949.451.4220
          Email: MSessions@gibsondunn.com
                 AMcKonly@gibsondunn.com



NUVO YOU: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Moore Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
SHAKIRA AGUSTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NUVO YOU, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-23-01386 (Fla., Cir., Broward Cty., May 18, 2023) seeks to
stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

NUVO YOU, INC. is a medical spa located on Indian Creek Drive in
Miami Beach. This health spa is an IV drip therapy, NAD IV Therapy,
hydration clinic, and med spa. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy Dover, Esq.
          DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC
          1650 SE 17th Street,Suite 100
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (866) 954-6673
          Facsimile: (954)916-8499
          Email: Jdover@attorneysoftheinjured.com

OAK HARBOR: Titus Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Justin Titus, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc., Case
No. 2:22-cv-01929 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on May 19, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-02448-VC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights.

Oak Harbor -- https://www.oakh.com/ -- is a Family owned and
operated LTL Freight carrier servicing the Western six states
Direct and all the US and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J Wassermann, Esq.
          Vladimir J Kozina, Esq.
          MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
          2453 Grand Canal Boulevard
          Stockton, CA 95207-8253
          Phone: (209) 477-3833
          Facsimile: (209) 473-4818
          Email: rwassermann@mayallaw.com
                 vjkozina@mayallaw.com
          Website: www.mayallaw.com

               - and -

          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Phone: (310) 277-0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
          Email: cja@ackermanntilajef.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Drew R. Hansen, Esq.
          Seth Michael Goldstein, Esq.
          NOSSAMAN LLP
          18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Phone: (949) 833-7800
          Fax: (949) 833-7878
          Email: dhansen@nossaman.com
                 sgoldstein@nossaman.com


ONCE UPON A TEE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Once Upon a Tee, LLC.
The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Once Upon a Tee, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-04113-LGS (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2023).

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

Once Upon a Tee -- https://www.onceuponatee.net/ -- is a website
that features work from artists around the world in the form of
awesome t-shirts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ORCHID GALLERY: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orchid Gallery, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Nana Queenie Lawrence, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Orchid Gallery, LLC, 168
Johnson, LLCCase No. 1:23-cv-03796 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2023).

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

The Orchid Gallery -- https://orchidgallery.biz/ -- is an online
orchid and tropical plant business located near Chattanooga,
Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: Winn-Henry Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Winn-Henry, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-04280 (S.D.N.Y., May 23, 2023), is brought to recover
unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated and statutory
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and
violations of Articles 6 and 19 of the New York State Labor Law
("NYLL") and their supporting New York State Department of Labor
regulations.

At Outback Steak House, the Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of
40 hours per week. The Defendant had a policy and practice commonly
known as "time shaving." Specifically, the Defendant would only pay
the Plaintiff for some--but not all hours worked, by forcing the
Plaintiff to "clock-in" at around 10:00 a.m., i.e., 30 minutes
later each morning, despite the fact that the Plaintiff would start
their morning shifts at approximately 9:30 a.m. In addition, the
Defendant would force the Plaintiff to clock-out at around 4:00
p.m. (if Plaintiff was working a morning shift) or at around 10:00
p.m. (if Plaintiff was working an evening shift), despite the fact
that Plaintiff would actually end his shifts at approximately 8:00
p.m. (if Plaintiff was working a morning shift), and approximately
around 12:00 a.m. (if Plaintiff was working an evening shift).

As a result, Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees,
were forced to work off the clock, without pay, during this period.
Plaintiff was required to work in excess of 40 hours per week, but
never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times her
regular rate of pay for those hours, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a host at Defendant's Restaurant from
January 2023 through and including April 2023.

The Defendant operates a restaurant known as "Outback Steak House"
located in Bronx, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 792-0046
          Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com


OUTER INC: Benjamin Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Serena Benjamin, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Outer, Inc., was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 19,
2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:23-cv-60938-XXXX to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute.

Outer -- https://liveouter.com/ -- is a direct-to-consumer outdoor
furniture brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leandra Lucia Lopez, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          1 Alhambra Plaza, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 390-4624
          Email: leandra.lopez@dentons.com


PALACE INDUSTRIES: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Palace Industries
Public Benefit Corporation. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Palace
Industries Public Benefit Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-04163
(S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2023).

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

Palace Industries Public Benefit Corporation doing business as
Rogue Creamery -- https://roguecreamery.com/ -- is an American
cheese maker based in Central Point, Oregon founded in 1933.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PAPA INC: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to Oct. 19
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jennifer Pardo and
Evangeline Matthews, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Papa, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-06326-RS (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order that the
class certification hearing currently scheduled for July 13, 2023,
be continued by about three months to October 19, 2023.

Papa, Inc. designs and develops software solutions. The Company
offers platform that connects college students to senior citizens
for companionship and assistance.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43nesGv at no extra charge.[CC]




PAPA TEXAS: Myers Sues Over Failure to Compensate Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Myers, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
PAPA TEXAS, LLC; GUILLERMO PERALES; DOE CORPORATION 1-10; and JOHN
DOE 1-10; Case No. 2:23-cv-00429-DLM-JHR (D.N.M., May 18, 2023),
seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based
on Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff with minimum
wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New
Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA") and for unjust enrichment.

The Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the Plaintiff's
the FLSA rights by failing to adequately reimburse him for his
delivery related expenses, thereby failing to pay him the legally
mandated minimum wages for all hours worked. The Defendants
repeatedly and willfully violated the NMMWA by failing to
adequately reimburse Plaintiff and similarly situated current and
former delivery drivers in New Mexico for their delivery-related
expenses, thereby failing to pay the delivery drivers the legally
mandated minimum wages for all hours worked. The Defendants have
been unjustly enriched by their New Mexico delivery drivers when
the delivery drivers use their personal vehicles for the benefit of
Defendants, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked at the Papa John's store located in Las
Cruces, New Mexico from July 2021 through June 2022 and then again
from January 2023 through the present.

The Defendants operate 210 Papa John's locations in New Mexico,
Texas, Michigan, North Dakota, West Virginia, Georgia, Kentucky,
Indiana, and Louisiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Moody, Esq.
          MOODY & STANFORD, P.C.
          4169 Montgomery Blvd., NE
          Albuquerque, NM 87109
          Phone: 505-944-0033
          Fax: 505-944-0034
          Email: moody@nmlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Emily Hubbard, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Phone: 513-202-0710
          Fax: 614-340-4620
          Email: abiller@billerkimble.com
                 akimble@billerkimble.com
                 ehubbard@billerkimble.com
          Web: www.billerkimble.com


PATIO SHOPPERS INC: Vachnine Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Patio Shoppers, Inc.
The case is styled as Ness-Lee Vachnine, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Patio Shoppers, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-04220 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2023).

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

Patio Shoppers, Inc. -- https://www.patioshoppers.com/ -- is an
outdoor furniture store in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PAYPAL INC: Faces Class Suit Over Unjustifiably Blocked Accounts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caporaso & Partners Law Office reports that the lawsuit,
originating in California and Illinois, sees a number of users
charging the company with the arbitrary freezing of their assets.
The law firm Caporaso & Partners, having represented numerous
clients affected by PayPal's heavy-handed account suspensions,
holds that a positive judgment in this case could set a valuable
precedent for future claims.

In the digital era, PayPal has amassed millions of users worldwide,
being a pioneer in facilitating digital transactions. However, its
credibility has been marred by controversial policies and
questionable practices.

Furthermore, the company has come under scrutiny for its
exceptionally high transfer fees. In regions such as Latin America,
commissions can reach up to 5.4% of the total amount sent, plus an
additional 30 cents per transaction.

PayPal Faces a New Scandal
This time, the payment processing platform has received a federal
class action lawsuit, filed in California and Chicago. The affected
individuals are demanding the company to unfreeze their funds and
also demand financial compensation for the damages suffered.

In addition, PayPal has committed more than a few abuses against
its customers. Among the company's most common actions are account
blocking and freezing funds. Users complain that these measures
arrive without prior notice and, above all, without any
explanation. This is not a new problem, but it has increased in
recent times.

This problem has multiplied with the implementation of new and
restrictive Anti-Money Laundering (AML) rules. Binance, for
example, has massively practiced this.

Three individuals lead the lawsuit against PayPal. However, they
hope that more customers will join this claim. One of the affected
is Shbadan Akylbekov. She asserts that PayPal froze $172,000 from
her account that she used to receive payments for the online sale
of products.

Akylbekov clarifies that PayPal only told her that this was a
measure supposedly violating the platform's usage rules. Nothing
more. Six months later and after several claims, Akylbekov could
access her account again. But it was empty.

PayPal's response to this theft was that those funds were
confiscated for "damages resulting from the violation of acceptable
use policies."

Wallets or Banks Have No Legal Right to Confiscate Funds
Another woman who has now sued PayPal is Roni Shemtov. She had
$42,000 confiscated from her account without prior notice. She sold
clothes through eBay.

Like Akylbekov, 180 days later, she was able to access her account,
but found it was empty. One of PayPal's justifications for this
action was that she had sold clothes at prices below the market.

The lack of explanation or absurd justifications for freezing
users' accounts is a central part of the class-action lawsuit. The
affected people claim their right to know the reasons for PayPal's
decisions, especially when the company confiscates balances.

PayPal now faces a lawsuit for misappropriation of third-party
assets, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of
federal law. Will the plaintiffs win?

If you have your account blocked on PayPal or another wallet, bank,
or financial institution, contact us. [GN]

PHILIPS RS: Scheduling Order Setting Class Cert Deadlines Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IN RE: PHILIPS RECALLED
CPAP, BI-LEVEL PAP, AND MECHANICAL VENTILATOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, Case No. 2:21-mc-01230-JFC (W.D. Pa.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter a scheduling order setting discovery and class
certification deadlines for the economic loss and medical
monitoring tracks.

   1. On April 17, 2023, the Plaintiffs and the Philips the
Defendants
      submitted to the Court two proposed discovery and case
      management schedules. See ECF Nos. 1800-01. As reflected in
      those submissions, the parties have agreed to all discovery
and
      class certification deadlines in the Economic Loss and
Medical
      Monitoring tracks.

   2. At the April 20, 2023, case management conference, the Court

      instructed the parties to submit for the Court's signature a

      proposed scheduling order setting out the dates to which the

      parties have agreed.

Accordingly, the parties jointly request that the Court enter the
attached proposed scheduling order setting agreed-upon deadlines
for discovery and class certification in the Economic Loss and
Medical Monitoring tracks.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 16, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BTgmTD at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER &
          DONALDSON-SMITH
          361 Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19401
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          E-mail: steveschwartz@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Sandra L. Duggan, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: sduggan@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: kelly@lcllp.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          John P. Lavelle, Jr., Esq.
          Lisa C. Dykstra., Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Telephone: 215.963.5000
          E-mail: john.lavelle@morganlewis.com
                  lisa.dykstra@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Wendy West Feinstein, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Oxford Center, 32nd Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-6401
          Telephone: (412) 560-3300
          E-mail: wendy.feinstein@morganlewis.com

Counsel for the Defendant Philips RS North
America LLC, are:

          Michael H. Steinberg, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          1888 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone (310) 712-6670
          E-mail: steinbergm@sullcrom.com

               - and -

          Tracy Richelle High, Esq.
          William B. Monahan, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-4000
          E-mail: hight@sullcrom.com
                  monahanw@sullcrom.com

Counsel for the Defendants Koninklijke Philips
N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips
Holding USA Inc., and Philips RS North
America Holding Corporation, are:

          Eric Scott Thompson, Esq.
          FRANKLIN & PROKOPIK
          500 Creek View Road, Suite 502
          Newark, DE 19711
          Telephone: (302) 594-9780
          E-mail: ethompson@fandpnet.com

PITTSBURGH FURNITURE: Fails to Pay Straight, OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER HAMMOND, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PITTSBURGH FURNITURE RENTAL CO., d/b/a, PITTSBURGH
FURNITURE LEASING AND SALES, and JAMES R. SCHOMAKER, both jointly
and severally, Case No. 2:23-cv-00844-PLD (W.D. Pa., May 19, 2023)
seeks to recover unpaid wages, including straight wages and
overtime wages, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Wage Payment and Collection Law,
or, alternatively, the common law of Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover back wages, liquidated damages,
emotional distress, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs of this
action from the Defendants. Accordingly, the Defendants did not
possess a time-keeping system to log actual time spent working. The
Defendants deducted 30 minutes of time each day regardless of
whether employees took their lunch time, ate while working or were
unable to eat lunch at all. The unpaid wages, including straight
time and overtime, consist of 2.5 hours per week for the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals, says the Plaintiff.

Additionally, Mr. Hammond's supervisor, Mr. Schomaker, regularly
used racially charged language at work in reference to African
American employees. The Defendants were made aware of Mr.
Schomaker's use of racially charged language by Mr. Hammond, yet
his reports fell on deaf ears and no investigative or corrective
action was taken. On January 11, 2023, Mr. Hammond was subjected to
the ultimate adverse employment action when he was terminated and
therefore deprived of the same right to make and enforce contracts
as is enjoyed by white citizens, in violation of the Civil Rights
Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. section 198, the suit claims.

Mr. Hammond initiated employment with Pittsburgh Furniture around
February 2020 as a Warehouse Worker and Truck Driver. He was
eventually promoted to the position of Dock Manager in May of 2022.
Mr. Hammond is an African American and member of a protected
class.

PITTSBURGH FURNITURE RENTAL CO. is a furniture rental service
provider in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua P. Ward, Esq.
          J.P. WARD & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          The Rubicon Building
          201 South Highland Avenue, Suite 201
          Pittsburgh, PA 15206

POLISH ART CENTER: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Polish Art Center,
LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Polish Art Center, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-04175 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2023).

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

Polish Art Center -- https://www.polartcenter.com/ -- offers
curated collection of Polish folk art, gifts, and goods imported
from Poland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PRIME CLASSIC DESIGN: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prime Classic Design,
Inc. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Prime Classic Design, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-04098 (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2023).

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

Prime Classic Design, Inc. -- https://www.primeclassicdesign.com/
-- is a sophisticated retailer offering high-end Italian furniture
plus interior design services..[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PRINCE AND BOND: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prince and Bond, LLC.
The case is styled as Omar Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Prince and Bond, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-04201-MKV (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2023).

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

Prince & Bond -- https://www.princeandbond.com/ -- is a lifestyle
brand for men's luxury swimwear, swim trunks, swim shorts, tailored
swim shorts, men's resort wear & men's beach wear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROMIX NUTRITION: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Promix Nutrition,
Inc. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Promix Nutrition, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-04093 (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2023).

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

Promix Nutrition -- https://promixnutrition.com/ -- offers natural
supplements containing only the purest ingredients.[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


PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Court Partly OK's Bid for Reconsideration
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLINE ANGULO, et al.,
v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES -- WASHINGTON, et al., Case No.
ROBERT M. ILLMAN (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James L. Robart
entered an order granting in part and denying in part Providence's
motion for reconsideration:

  -- The court modifies its March 17, 2023, order by vacating the
deadlines
     and methods for jurisdictional discovery set forth in Section

     III.D, and ORDERS the parties to meet and confer and file a
joint
     statement consistent with this order by June 16, 2023.

The Plaintiffs propose that the court mail notice apprising
proposed class members of the lawsuit and the need for
jurisdictional discovery. (Resp. at 7.) Counsel for the Plaintiffs
would wait 14 days after the mailing date before contacting
proposed class members.

Providence counter-proposes that the court appoint a third-party
administrator to inform proposed class members of the lawsuit by
sending a notice and an information form requesting the personal
details relevant to jurisdictional discovery.

Providence removed this action from King County Superior Court to
this court on June 30, 2022, asserting diversity jurisdiction under
the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

The Plaintiffs later moved to remand the case, arguing the court
lacks jurisdiction because at least one of CAFA’s exceptions
applies.

The court concluded that it was unable to determine whether any of
the CAFA exceptions applied without knowing the citizenship of the
members of the proposed classes, denied the Plaintiffs' motion
without prejudice, and ordered jurisdictional discovery.

Providence Health is a not-for-profit, Catholic health care system
operating multiple hospitals and medical clinics across seven
states.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/426ZUcQ at no extra charge.[CC]





QHCCS LLC: Smith FLSA Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Scott Smith, individually and for others
similarly situated v. QHCCS, LLC d/b/a QUORUM HEALTH, Case No.
1:23-cv-00321 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee on May 19, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00495 to the
proceeding.

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

Quorum -- https://quorumhealth.com/ -- is a healthcare services
provider that owns and/or operates 17 hospitals and 15 outpatient
centers across 13 states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
          Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
          Sue L. Robinson, Esq.
          FARNAN LLP
          919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 777-0300
          Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
          Email: mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
                 bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
                 srobinson@farnanlaw.com

               - and -

          Alyssa J. White, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: awhite@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ronald P. Golden, III, Esq.
          Stephen B. Brauerman, Esq.
          BAYARD, P.A.
          600 N. King Street, Ste. 400
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 429-4238
          Fax: (302) 658-6395
          Email: rgolden@bayardlaw.com
                 sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com

               - and -

          Zachary B. Busey, Esq.
          BAKER DONELSON (MEMPHIS)
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Phone: (901) 577-8164
          Fax: (901) 531-8494
          Email: zbusey@bakerdonelson.com


QUADRILLE WALLPAPERS: Sanchez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. Quadrille Wallpapers and Fabrics, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-03679 (E.D.N.Y., May 17, 2023), is brought against the
Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
persons.

The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Madcadi provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.quadrillefabrics.com (hereinafter
"Quadrillefabrics.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of
full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its
products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA").

The Plaintiff browsed and intended to analyze and use services
provided by the Defendant on Quadrillefabrics.com. However, unless
the Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its website,
Plaintiff and Class members will continue to be unable to
independently navigate, browse and use Quadrillefabrics.com.
Because the Defendant's website, Quadrillefabrics.com, is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Quadrille Wallpapers and Fabrics' policies, practices, and
procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint
also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for
having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the
complaint.

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

Quadrille Wallpapers and Fabrics specializes in products such as
wallpapers and fabrics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor A. Saab, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB, ESQ.
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: 718-740-5060
          Fax: 718-709-5912
          Email: NoorASaabLaw@gmail.com


REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Investigates Claims on Behalf of Investors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP of WDRB.com reports that Pomerantz LLP is
investigating claims on behalf of investors of Reata
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Reata" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RETA).  
Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

The investigation concerns whether Reata and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.

On May 10, 2023, Reata issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the first quarter of 2023.  Among other
items, Reata announced its decision to discontinue studies for its
kidney disease candidate bardoxolone, which the Company had
previously advanced as one of its lead assets in partnership with
Blackstone Life Sciences and Kyoma Kirin.

On this news, Reata's stock price fell $14.99 per share or 14.23%,
to close at $90.38 per share on May 10, 2023.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. On May 28, 2023, more than 85 years
later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established,
fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has
recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class
members. See www.pomlaw.com.

CONTACT:

Robert S. Willoughby

Pomerantz LLP

rswilloughby@pomlaw.com

888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

REGULATORY DATACORP: Carr Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY N. CARR, SR., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. REGULATORY
DATACORP, INC. and BUREAU VAN DIJK ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING, INC.,Case
No. 2:22-cv-02139-MRP (E.D. Pa.), the the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,
certifying the action as a class action.

Regulatory DataCorp provides comprehensive risk and compliance
protection services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 16, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MwWqLb at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.  
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, PC
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Justin T. Holcombe, Esq.
          James M. Feagle, Esq.
          SKAAR &FEAGLE, LLP
          133 Mirramont Lake Drive
          Woodstock, GA 30189
          Telephone: (770) 427-5600
          E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
                  jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com

               - and -

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          909 Davis Street, Suite 500
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Telephone: (312) 729-5288
          E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com

REGULATORY DATACORP: Carr Seeks to Seal Class Cert. Bid Documents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY N. CARR, SR., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. REGULATORY
DATACORP, INC. and BUREAU VAN DIJK ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING, INC.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02139-MRP (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff seeks leave to
file under seal portions of the Memorandum of Law in Support of the
forthcoming Motion for Class Certification, as well as Exhibits
1-10 and 17 thereto.

   -- Exhibits 1, 3-10, and 17 are each documents the Defendants
      produced in discovery in this matter, and marked as
      "Confidential" pursuant to the Confidentiality Stipulation
and
      Protective Order in this matter.

   -- Exhibit 2 is excerpts of the transcript of the April 28,
2023,
      deposition of Bonnie Liggett, who served as a corporate
      representative of the Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

      30(b)(6). The transcript was delivered on May 5, 2023, and
      pursuant to the Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective
Order
      must be treated as "Confidential" for 14 calendar days, until

      May 19, 2023, to permit parties to make specific
confidentiality
      designations. the Plaintiff therefore submits all excerpts of

      the transcript under seal. To the extent any portions are not

      marked as confidential, the Plaintiff will withdraw this
motion
      with respect to those portions.

Regulatory DataCorp provides comprehensive risk and compliance
protection services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 16, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45zGbWc at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          Lauren KW Brennan
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, PC
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone:(215) 735-8600
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com


               - and -

          Justin T. Holcombe, Esq.
          James M. Feagle, Esq.
          SKAAR &FEAGLE, LLP
          133 Mirramont Lake Drive
          Woodstock, GA 30189
          Telephone: (770) 427-5600
          2374 Main Street, Suite B
          Tucker, GA 30084
          Telephone: (404) 373-1970
          E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
          jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com

               - and -

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          909 Davis Street, Suite 500
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Telephone: (312) 729-5288
          E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com

RING LLC: Denial of Motion to Compel Arbitration Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a California appellate court
upheld the denial of video doorbell company Ring's motion to compel
arbitration in a class action alleging that it did not inform
customers that basic recording, playback and screenshotting
features were only usable if buyers paid an additional fee. Ring
could not identify which of 10 versions of its terms of service
governed and cited different exhibits inconsistently; inconsistent
arguments should be rejected. [GN]

RIVERMAID TRADING: Bastida Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rivermaid Trading
Company. The case is styled as Elitania Bastida, on behalf of the
State of California, and others similarly situated and aggrieved v.
Rivermaid Trading Company, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0005100 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 18, 2023).

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

Rivermaid Trading Company -- https://www.rivermaid.com/ -- is a
family farming business with expertise in agriculture, operations,
consumer marketing, logistics and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary Crosner, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
          9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Phone: (310) 496-5818
          Fax: (310) 510-6429
          Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com


ROBERT J. SPEYER: Garfield Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Garfield, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
current and former stockholders of TS Innovation Acquisitions Corp.
v. ROBERT J. SPEYER, PAUL A. GALIANO, JENNY WONG, JOSHUA KAZAM,
JENNIFER RUBIO, NED SEGAL, MICHELANGELO VOLPI, TS INNOVATION
ACQUISITIONS SPONSOR, L.L.C., TISHMAN SPEYER PROPERTIES, L.P., and
TISHMAN SPEYER PROPERTIES, INC., Case No. 2023-0540-LWW (Del.
Chancery Ct., May 23, 2023), is brought asserting: (i) breach of
fiduciary duty claims arising from the Company's merger (the
"Merger") with Latch Systems, Inc. ("Legacy Latch") against (a)
Speyer, Galiano, Wong, Kazam,  Rubio, Segal, and Volpi
(collectively, the "Director Defendants") in their capacities as
members of TSIA's board of directors (the "Board"); (b) TSIA's
Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Speyer, TSIA's Chief Operating
Officer ("COO") and Chief Financial Officer ("CFP") Galiano, and
TSIA's Chief Investment Officer ("CIO") Wong (collectively, the
'Officer Defendants"), in their capacities as TSIA's officers; and
(c) TS Innovation Acquisitions Sponsor, L.L.C. (the "Sponsor"),
Speyer, Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. ("TSPLP"), and Tishman
Speyer Propelties, Inc. ("TSPI") (collectively, the "Controlling
Stockholder Defendants") in their capacities as TSIA's controllers;
and (ii) unjust enrichment claims against all Defendants.
Defendants' actions described herein impaired stockholders' ability
to exercise their redemption rights on a fully infonned basis.

TSIA, now renamed Latch, Inc., is a Delaware corporation that was
formed as a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC") by the
Controller Defendants. The Controller Defendants took TSIA public
as a shell company and subsequently merged it with private company
Legacy Latch in the Merger. TSIA's history is part of a disturbing
trend of SPAC transactions in which financial conflicts of interest
of sponsors and insiders override good corporate governance and the
interests of public stockholders. TSIA failed to observe the most
basic principle of Delaware corporate governance--namely, that a
corporation's governance structure should be designed to protect
and promote the interests of public stockholders, not the financial
interests of its insiders and controllers. Instead, Defendants
granted themselves financial interests in the SPAC that diverged
from those of public stockholders and allowed their financial
interests to oven-ide their
fiduciary duties and responsibilities as controlling stockholders,
directors, and/or officers of a Delaware corporation by forcing
through a value destroying merger with Legacy Latch which was
accomplished through the provision of false and misleading
disclosures.

TSIA's structure created an inherent conflict of interest between
the Defendants and the public stockholders. If TSIA succeeded in
consummating a business combination, Defendants would hold shares
and warrants in the combined company. But if TSIA liquidated,
Defendants' shares and warrants would be worthless, and the Sponsor
would lose its entire investment. Thus, the interests of Defendants
in getting any deal done to avoid liquidation provided them with a
perverse incentive to complete a merger regardless of whether it
was in the best interests of the Company's public stockholders.
TSIA's negotiations with Legacy Latch were infected by these
substantial financial conflicts and dominated by Speyer, Galiano,
Wong, and other undisclosed members of TSIA 's management. The
Board provided no meaningful oversight, serving instead as a
Illbberstamp. There was no special committee or fairness opinion.

Given Defendants' extensive financial conflicts that were tied to
closing a business combination, it was no stuprise, then, that
after the Board approved the Merger they disseminated a false and
misleading Proxy Statement (the "Proxy") that omitted material
information as to the value of public stockholders' investment in
the Merger. The Proxy withheld critical information from TSIA's
public stockholders concerning the high degree of dilution of TSIA
shares that would occur in connection with the Merger. While not
disclosed to stockholders, the actual net cash TSIA would
contribute to the Merger, assuming no redemptions, was less than
$7.50 per share—not the $10.00 per share that the merger
agreement and the Proxy explicitly attributed to the merger
consideration. The Proxy also contained materially false and
misleading representations about Legacy Latch's value and
prospects, including financial that purported to be projections
disclosed in the Proxy (the "Proxy Projections") compiled
standalone by Legacy Latch management and based on Legacy Latch's
prospects.

Due to the conflicts of interest on the part of all Defendants, the
Merger requires judicial review for entire fairness. The Merger
cannot meet the exacting entire fairness test, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a TSIA/New Latch public stockholder who purchased
shares of TSIA Class A common stock on March 5, 2021, and has held
those shares since that date.

Robert Speyer served as TSIA's Chairman and CEO since its inception
in September 2020 through the Merger.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Barry, Esq.
          Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
          Edward M. Lilly, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 S. Justison St., 7th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-622-7000
          Email: ktucker@gelaw.com


ROCKET COMPANIES: Rayner Sues Over 17% Decline of Stock Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELE RAYNER-ALTENBERND, derivatively on behalf of Nominal
Defendant ROCKET COMPANIES, INC., Plaintiff v. DANIEL GILBERT, JAY
FARNER, JENNIFER GILBERT, MATTHEW RIZIK, SUZANNE SHANK, NANCY
TELLEM, and JONATHAN MARINER, Defendants, and ROCKET COMPANIES,
INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-11207-DML-KGA (E.D.
Mich., May 22, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty, and waste of corporate assets.

The Plaintiff brings this shareholder derivative action on behalf
of Rocket against certain officers and members of the Company's
Board for breaches of their fiduciary duties between at least
February 9, 2021, and May 5, 2021, inclusive. Throughout the
relevant period, Individual Defendants issued several false and
misleading statements indicating that the Company was seeing
"strong consumer demand" and that rising interest rates would not
impact its mortgage business, despite their knowledge that starting
in November 2020, the total demand for loans began to decline, and
the Company's less profitable Partner Network began accounting for
a higher proportion of the Company's loans. Further, beginning in
February 2021, rising interest rates began to adversely impact the
Company's profitability and sales by compressing the
primary-secondary spread and reducing the demand for refinancing
loans. As a result of the foregoing, the price of Rocket common
stock issued in the initial public offering (IPO) was artificially
inflated.

When the truth emerged, the price of Company stock declined
approximately 17 percent to close at $19.01 on May 6, 2021 before
hitting a low of $16.48 per share on May 11, 2021, damaging
investors, the suit says.

Rocket Companies, Inc. is an online mortgage origination company
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Anthony L. DeLuca, Esq.
         ANTHONY L. DELUCA, PLC
         14950 East Jefferson Avenue, Ste. 170
         Grosse Pointe Park, MI 48230
         Telephone: (313) 821-5905
         E-mail: anthony@aldplc.com

                 - and -

         Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
         Gina M. Serra, Esq.
         Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
         RIGRODSKY LAW, PA
         825 East Gate Blvd., Suite 300
         Garden City, NY 11530
         Telephone: (516) 683-3516

                 - and -

         Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
         GRABAR LAW OFFICES
         One Liberty Place
         1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (267) 507-6085
         E-mail: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com

ROCKPORT COMPANY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Rockport Company,
LLC. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. The Rockport Company, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-04109-VEC (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2023).

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

The Rockport Group -- http://www.rockport.com/-- is an American
shoe manufacturer based in Newton, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROMEO'S PIZZA: Status Conference Order Entered in Branning Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW BRANNING, et al.,
v. ROMEO'S PIZZA, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02092-SO (N.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. entered a status
conference order as follows:

   -- The Parties articulated three central issues impeding
      the discovery process:

       1) disagreement over whether, following the removal of joint

          employer allegations from an Amended Complaint, the
          Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that the Defendant
Rose
          is an employer as defined under the Fair Labor Standards
Act
          (FLSA);

       2) disagreement over whether, for purposes of establishing
          the relevant time period, claims raised in the Amended
          Complaint relate back to the filing of the initial
          Complaint; and

       3) defense counsel's delay in producing documents related to

          the Defendant Rose which he has already agreed to
produce.
          Counsel for the Defendants indicated that he would
provide
          the latter documents by May 19, 2023.

   -- The Plaintiff shall brief the former two issues in a Motion
to
      Compel by May 26, 2023. The Defendants will have ten days
      following the Plaintiff's filing to submit a Response.

   -- After ruling on that Motion, the court will set an updated
      schedule for the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.


Romeo's Pizza is a company that operates several pizza chain
restaurants.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 15, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45rJy1w at no extra charge.[CC]

SANDRA HARWOOD: J.B. Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Honorable Sandra
Stabile Harwood. The case is styled as J.B., a minor, by her father
and next friend and all others similarly situated v. Honorable
Sandra Stabile Harwood, in her official capacity as the
Administrative Judge of the Trumbull County Common Pleas Court,
Juvenile Division, Case No. 4:23-cv-01015-JRA (N.D. Ohio, May 19,
2023).

The nature of suit is stated as other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.

Judge Sandra Stabile Harwood was elected to the Trumbull County
Court of Common Pleas Domestic/Juvenile Division in 2012.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David L. Engler, Esq.
          181 Elm Road, NE
          Warren, OH 44483
          Phone: (330) 729-9777
          Fax: (484) 970-1580
          Email: paralegal@davidengler.com


SERVICE LIGHTING: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Service Lighting and
Electrical Supplies, Inc. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Service
Lighting and Electrical Supplies, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04106
(S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2023).

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

Service Lighting and Electrical Supplies, Inc. retails lighting
products. The Company offers LED bulbs, tubes, batteries, landscape
and emergency lighting, ballasts, rope lights, and fixtures.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SHAMROCK FOODS: Acevedo Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jose Acevedo, Angel Geigel, Jose Ochoa,
Richard Chillon, as individuals, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. SHAMROCK FOODS COMPANY, an Arizona
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
CVRI2301994 was removed from the Superior Court for the County of
Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on May 19, 2023, and assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-03886.

The Complaint purports to state causes of action on behalf of
Plaintiffs and the putative class members for: disability
discrimination in violation of Cal. Gov. Code ("FEHA"); failure to
provide (sic) a reasonable accommodations in Violation of FEHA;
failure to engage in good faith interactive process in violation of
FEHA; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and
violation of California Business and Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew J. Sommer, Esq.
          Joel Moon, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 330-4500
          Facsimile: (213) 330-4501
          Email: asommer@fisherphillips.com
                 jmoon@fisherphillips.com


SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Johnson Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brandon Johnson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Siemens Industry, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-01562-JST (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying
a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of the following
class:

   "All individuals classified as exempt from overtime who worked
for
   or work for Siemens Industry, Inc. as a commissioned employee
   nationwide at any time from three years before the filing of
this
   motion through resolution of this action.

The Plaintiff moves the Court to enter an order:

    (1) conditionally certifying the FLSA class for purposes of
notice
        and discovery;

    (2) approving that judicial notice be sent to all putative FLSA

        collective action members;

    (3) approving the form and content of the Plaintiff's proposed

        judicial notice, consent form, and reminder notice;

    (4) authorizing a ninety day notice period for the putative
        plaintiffs to join the case;

    (5) ordering the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff’s
counsel
        the contact information for each putative FLSA collective
        action member who opts in within ten days in Excel format;
and

    (6) tolling the statute of limitations while this motion is
        pending.

Siemens is a German multinational conglomerate corporation and the
largest industrial manufacturing company in Europe. It is
headquartered in Munich and has several foreign branch offices.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 16, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MYlj3S at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
          Shigufa K. Saleheen, Esq.
          Brielle D. Edborg, Esq.
          LEBE LAW, APLC
          777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90021
          Telephone: (213) 444-1973
          E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com
                  Shigufa@lebelaw.com
                  Brielle@lebelaw.com

SIRIUS XM RADIO: Posternock Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robyn Posternock, Muriel Salters and Philip Munning, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. SIRIUS XM RADIO
INC., Case 2:23-cv-02680 (D.N.J., May 17, 2023), is brought
challenging a deceptive pricing scheme whereby SiriusXM falsely
advertises its music plans at lower prices than it actually
charges.

Specifically, SiriusXM fails to include in its advertised and
promised prices the amount of its invented "U.S. Music Royalty Fee"
(the "Fee"), which increases the true plan price by a whopping
21.4% above the advertised and promised price for each plan.
SiriusXM intentionally does not disclose the Fee to its New Jersey
customers. SiriusXM even goes so far as to not mention the words
"U.S. Music Royalty Fee" in any of its advertising, not even in the
fine print. SiriusXM's sole advertising disclaimer is that "Fees
and taxes apply," but in reality the U.S. Music Royalty Fee and
state taxes are the only components of "Fees and Taxes."

Once consumers have been lured to sign up, SiriusXM prevents them
from learning about its scheme by never thereafter sending its
customers periodic bills or payment receipts. All the while,
SiriusXM silently and automatically renews their subscriptions
month after month and year after year. And, as the price of its
customers' music plans increase--e.g., when a promotional rate
expires—the U.S. Music Royalty Fee, being a flat 21.4% charge,
also increases.

Notably, none of SiriusXM's competitors charge a separate royalty
fee over and above their advertised music plan prices. SiriusXM
knows that reasonable consumers would not expect SiriusXM to charge
the U.S. Music Royalty Fee, let alone call it "Fees and Taxes."
Even the name of the U.S. Music Royalty Fee is deceptive. SiriusXM
misleadingly calls it a "U.S." fee to falsely indicate to consumers
(i.e., to those few consumers who learn about its existence) that
it is a government related fee when in fact it is not. In the event
that a subscriber happens to notice that he or she has been charged
the U.S. Music Royalty Fee and then contacts SiriusXM to inquire
about the Fee, SiriusXM has a policy and practice of falsely
telling the subscriber that the Fee is a government-related fee
and/or that it is outside of SiriusXM's control.

SiriusXM's U.S. Music Royalty Fee scheme has been the source of all
of SiriusXM's profits for the past several years. For example, in
2022, SiriusXM collected $1.36 billion in U.S. Music Royalty Fee
charges, while the entire company had net profits of $1.21 billion.
In other words, in 2022, U.S. Music Royalty Fee revenues were equal
to 122% of the net profits for the entire company.

SiriusXM falsely advertised the prices of its music plans to
Plaintiffs and Class members, and SiriusXM never adequately
disclosed to them that the U.S. Music Royalty Fee would be charged
on top of its advertised prices, increasing those prices by a flat
21.4% for each customer. Nor did SiriusXM ever disclose to its
customers the true nature of the Fee--i.e., a profit center for
SiriusXM. Meanwhile, SiriusXM's sign-up process, automatic renewal
process, and policy of not sending periodic billing notices or
payment receipts are deliberately designed to prevent subscribers
from learning of the U.S. Music Royalty Fee.

The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit individually and as private
attorneys general seeking public injunctive relief to protect the
general public by putting an end to SiriusXM's unlawful advertising
and overcharging scheme, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
          Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq.
          Shane T. Prince, Esq.
          DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Phone: (856) 797-9951

               - and -

          Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
          Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
          HATTIS & LUKACS
          11711 SE 8th St, Ste 120
          Bellevue, WA 98005
          Phone: (425) 233-8650


SKYTHE INC: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skythe, Inc. The case
is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Skythe, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04198
(S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2023).

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

Skythe, Inc. operates clothing Stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


SPECTRUM OF CREATIONS: Maldonado Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Maldonado, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SPECTRUM OF CREATIONS, INC. d/b/a FOOD TRENDS CATERING,
Case No. 154623/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., May 22, 2023),
is brought to remedy violations of New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and
the tort of conversion for unpaid compensation.

When ordering through the Seamless application, the Defendant's
customers are allowed to provide a tip or gratuity for the delivery
workers, such as Plaintiff and the putative Class. However, the tip
or gratuity for the delivery worker Defendant's customer chose to
provide through the Seamless application are not distributed to the
delivery workers, such as Plaintiff and the putative Class.
Instead, Defendant, through its agent (the Seamless application),
returns the tip or gratuity that its customer provided to the
delivery workers to the customer. As a result, delivery workers,
such as Plaintiff and the putative Class, have been deprived of
tips and gratuities that Defendant's customer chose to provide
them, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has worked as a delivery worker for Defendant in New
York County, New York.

Spectrum Of Creations, Inc. d/b/a Food Trends provides meal
catering services for personal events and businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin S. Clark, Esq.
          LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4020
          New York, NY 10118
          Phone: (212) 967-3000
          Fax: (212) 967-3010
          Email: jclark@levineblit.com

               - and -

          Erik M. Bashian, Esq.
          BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU P.C.
          500 Old Country Road, Suite 302
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 279-1554
          Fax: (516)213-0339
          Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com

               - and -

          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


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Raymond Collective Action Gets Final Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONETTA RAYMOND, et al.,
v. SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC., and SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS, INC.,
Case No. 6:16-cv-01282-JWB (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge John W.
Broomes entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final
certification of a collective action.

  -- The Defendants' motion to strike the collective claims and to

     decertify is denied.

  -- The Defendants' motion to exclude testimony of Dr. Toni
Locklear
     is granted.

  -- The Defendants' motion to exclude testimony of Elizabeth Pendo
is
     granted in part and denied in part.

  -- The Defendants' motion to exclude testimony of Dr. Lance
Kaufman
     is denied as moot.

  -- The Defendants' motion to exclude testimony of Dr. Kevin
Cahill
     is granted and its motion to strike is granted.

  -- The Defendants' motion to exclude testimony of Dr. Robert
     Bardwell is denied as moot.

  -- The Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is
granted.

  -- The Plaintiffs' collective ADEA claims are dismissed on the
     merits. The Plaintiffs' individual claims are not at issue in

     this ruling and remain pending.

The case arises from a 2013 reduction-in-force (RIF) at Spirit
Aerosystems, Inc. As part of a company-wide effort to reduce costs,
Spirit laid off 271 employees from its manufacturing facility in
Wichita, Kansas, where it employed more than 4,000 workers. The
Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA)
represents two separate bargaining units – the Wichita
Engineering Unit (WEU) and Wichita Technical and Professional Unit
(WTPU) – both with their own collective bargaining agreement
(CBA) with Spirit.

The Plaintiffs were Spirit employees in Wichita represented by
SPEEA who lost their jobs in the layoffs. After the layoffs, some
the Plaintiffs tried to get rehired into positions at Spirit but
were not rehired.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oFxWY1 at no extra charge.[CC]


SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT: Merger Not Fair, Newman Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
DYLAN NEWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT ACQUISITION HOLDINGS
LLC; JOHN COLLINS; ERIC GRUBMAN; NATARA HOLLOWAY BRANCH; TIMOTHY
GOODELL; and CHRIS SHUMWAY, Defendants, Case No. 2023-0538 (Del.
Ch., May 18, 2023) alleges that the Defendants issued a materially
false and misleading Proxy in connection with the Sports
Entertainment Acquisition Corp. ("SEAC") merger with SGHC Limited
and Super Group (SGHC) Limited (together, "Legacy Super Group"),
creating Super Group (SGHC) Limited ("Super Group" or "Company")
("Merger").

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Proxy induced
Class A stockholders to vote for the Merger, ensuring the
Defendants would receive a windfall from the conversion of their
Founder Shares and minimizing the depletion of the Trust by
stockholders exercising their redemption rights.

The Proxy overstated the value of the shares of special purpose
acquisition company ("SPAC") as consideration in the Merger. The
Proxy valued each SEAC share to be invested in Super Group as a
result of the Merger at $10 per share. Due to dilution and
dissipation of cash, however, those shares actually contributed
less than $6.72 net cash per share. Moreover, Defendants knew there
were likely to be substantial redemptions, as was becoming
increasingly common in SPAC business combinations at this time.
These redemptions would significantly reduce the per share cash
contribution. Indeed, when factoring in actual redemptions, the
cash contribution per share from SEAC was likely less than $4 per
share. In deciding whether to redeem, a reasonable SEAC stockholder
would have considered it important to know the substantial delta
between the value per share public stockholders were told to expect
and the SPAC's net cash per share, says the suit.

The Defendants obtained their desired result through the materially
false and misleading Proxy. Over 61% of SEAC's stockholders voted
to approve the Merger on January 26, 2022. Because the Controller
and Director Defendants received unique benefits in the Merger, to
the detriment of the Class A stockholders, the Merger is subject to
entire fairness review. Defendants cannot show the Merger was
entirely fair, the suit alleges.

SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT ACQUISITION CORP. operates as a blank check
company. The Company aims to acquire one and more businesses and
assets, via a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition,
stock purchase, and reorganization. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Sborz, Esq.
          Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
          Craig J. Springer, Esq.
          Andrew J. Peach, Esq.
          Jackson E. Warren, Esq.
          ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
          4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 504-4957

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq.
          Mario D. Valdovinos, Esq.
          ROBBINS LLP
          5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990

               - and -

          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          Benny C. Goodman III, Esq.
          Erik W. Luedeke, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058

STEIN MART INC: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stein Mart, Inc. The
case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Stein Mart, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-04141
(S.D.N.Y., May 18, 2023).

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

Stein Mart -- http://www.steinmart.com/-- was an American discount
men's and women's department store chain based in Jacksonville,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SYSCO CORPORATION: Pacheco Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carmelo Pacheco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SYSCO CORPORATION, Case No. 4:23-cv-01831 (S.D. Tex.,
May 18, 2023), is brought for against Defendant for their failure
to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's personally
identifiable information stored within Defendant's information
network, including without limitation name, Social Security number,
and account numbers (these types of information, inter alia, being
hereafter referred to, collectively, as "personally identifiable
information" or "PII).

The Defendants failed to properly secure and safeguard the
Plaintiff's PII stored within Defendants' information network. With
this action, the Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants responsible for
the harms they caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff and
countless other similarly situated persons in the massive and
preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendants on
March 5, 2023, by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendants'
inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly
sensitive PII, which was being kept unprotected (the "Data
Breach").

While Defendants claims to have discovered the breach as early as
March 5, 2023, Defendant failed to inform the Plaintiff until May
5, 2023, vis-a-vis a mailed letter. Defendants acquired, collected
and stored the Plaintiff's PII in connection with their provision
of food services. Therefore, at all relevant times, Defendants knew
or should have known that the Plaintiff and Class Members would use
Defendants' networks to store and/or share sensitive data,
including highly confidential PII. By obtaining, collecting, using
and deriving a benefit from the Plaintiff's PII, Defendant assumed
legal and equitable duties to those individuals. These duties arise
from state and federal statutes and regulations as well as common
law principles.

The Defendants disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that the Plaintiff's 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 PII of the Plaintiff and Class
Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and
unauthorized third party--an undoubtedly nefarious third party that
seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding the Plaintiff and
Class Members in the future. the Plaintiff and Class Members have a
continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and
remains safe, and they are entitled to injunctive and other
equitable relief, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach.

Sysco Corporation is a corporation headquartered and has its
principal
place of business in Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Phone: (214) 744-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
          Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Daniel Srourian, Esq.
          SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 474-3800
          Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
          Email: daniel@slfla.com


SYSCO CORPORATION: Rose Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Rose and Ashly Sigmon, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SYSCO CORPORATION, Case No.
1:23-cv-00534-UNA (D. Del., May 17, 2023), is brought for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' and other
similarly situated current and former employees' personally
identifying information from hackers, which may have included
names, Social Security numbers, and account numbers, or similar
information (the "Private Information") for, upon information and
belief, at least 71,000 Class Members, though the exact number of
individuals impacted has not yet been revealed.

On March 5, 2023, Sysco suffered a cyberattack that began on or
around January 14, 2023 and allowed a threat actor to gain access
to Sysco's systems and acquire the Private Information belonging to
Plaintiffs and Class Members (the "Data Breach").

Through the Data Breach, the cybercriminals were able to access and
exfiltrate files containing current and former employees' (along
with customers' and suppliers') Private Information. As a result of
the Data Breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members are at a substantial
and imminent risk of identity theft and various other forms of
personal, social, and financial harm. This risk will remain for
their respective lifetimes.

The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included
highly sensitive data that represents a gold mine for data thieves,
including but not limited to, Social Security numbers that Sysco
collected from its current and former employees and maintained in
its system for longer than necessary. Compounding the damage done
by the Data Breach, Sysco failed to notify affected Class Members
until nearly four months after it discovered the Data Breach, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs provided their Private Information to Sysco.

Sysco is a global food distributor the largest of its kind in North
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
          DELEEUW LAW LLC
          1301 Walnut Green Road
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Phone: (302) 274-2180
          Facsimile: (302) 351-6905
          Email: brad@deleeuwlaw.com

               - and -

          Mason A. Barney, Esq.
          Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, New York 10151
          Phone: (212) 532-1091
          Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
                 tbean@sirillp.com


TERI JON SPORTS: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teri Jon Sports Inc.
The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Teri Jon Sports Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-04139 (S.D.N.Y., May 18, 2023).

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

Teri Jon -- https://www.terijon.com/ -- seeks to be the leading
brand of quality clothing, providing a range of well-fitting
daytime dresses, cocktail dresses, and evening dresses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Welfare Fund Suit Over Monopolization
----------------------------------------------------------------
IRON WORKERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF NEW ENGLAND HEALTH AND WELFARE
FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS
R&D, INC.; and NORTON (WATERFORD) LTD., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-11131 (D. Mass., May 19, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for monopolization under state antitrust laws,
unfair competition, violations of state consumer protection laws,
unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief.

According to the complaint, Teva willfully and unlawfully
maintained its market power by engaging in an overarching scheme to
exclude competition. Teva designed this scheme to delay competition
on the merits, for the anticompetitive purpose of thwarting, or at
least delaying, competition against its QVAR product franchise, a
line of brand name asthma inhalers. Teva's overarching
anticompetitive scheme consisted of seven parts: (1) as the expiry
over its lawful patent monopoly approached, Teva wrongfully listed
two device-only patents in the Orange Book to buy it more time to
(2) execute a hard-switch product hop from QVAR to QVAR Redihaler.
Then Teva (3) stuffed the Orange Book with improper patent listings
for both QVAR Redihaler (ten patents) and QVAR (nine patents). It
next (4) leveraged those patents in sham litigation against Cipla
and Aurobindo; (5) exploited a loophole in the forfeiture
provisions to enable Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to park its
exclusivity indefinitely. And Teva (6) formed an illicit agreement
with Amneal to delay generic QVAR competition to take advantage of
that loophole in the hopes of (7) executing another product hop
that would prolong its wrongful monopoly for another two decades.
As a result of the scheme, Teva was able to maintain
supracompetitive prices for QVAR and QVAR Redihaler, says the
suit.

Iron Workers District Council of New England Health and Welfare
Fund is a multi-employer health and welfare plan headquartered in
Massachusetts.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a pharmaceutical company,
with its principal place of business in Tel Aviv, Israel.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a subsidiary of Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., with its principal place of
business in Parsipanny, New Jersey.

Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. is a subsidiary of
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., with its principal place of
business in Montvale, New Jersey.

Norton (Waterford) Ltd. is a subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceuticals
Industries Ltd., with its registered office in Waterford, Ireland.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Kathleen M. Donovan-Maher, Esq.
         Leslie R. Stern, Esq.
         Steven L. Groopman, Esq.
         Kristie A. LaSalle, Esq.
         Christina L. Gregg, Esq.
         BERMAN TABACCO
         One Liberty Square
         Boston, MA 02109
         Telephone: (617) 542-8300
         Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
         E-mail: kdonovanmaher@bermantabacco.com
                 lstern@bermantabacco.com
                 sgroopman@bermantabacco.com
                 klasalle@bermantabacco.com
                 cgregg@bermantabacco.com

                 - and -

         Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
         Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
         Matthew D. Pearson, Esq.
         Colleen Cleary, Esq.
         BERMAN TABACCO
         425 California St., Suite 2300
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 433-3200
         Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
         E-mail: jtabacco@bermantabacco.com
                 tseaver@bermandetabacco.com
                 mpearson@bermantabacco.com
                 ccleary@bermantabacco.com

                 - and -

         Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
         Eamon Kelly, Esq.
         Martin V. Sinclair, Jr., Esq.
         David Lesht, Esq.
         SPERLING & SLATER, LLC
         55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3200
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Telephone: (312) 641-3200
         E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com
                 ekelly@sperling-law.com
                 msinclair@sperling-law.com
                 dlesht@sperling-law.com

TIBI LLC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tibi, LLC. The case
is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Tibi, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03684 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 17, 2023).

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

Tibi, LLC -- https://tibi.com/ -- was founded in 1997. The
company's line of business includes the retail sale of specialized
lines of apparel and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TIDAL WAVE: Muse Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Lynn Muse, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TIDAL WAVE MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No.
8:23-cv-01095-SDM-AEP (M.D. Fla., May 18, 2023), is brought against
the Defendant for the Defendant's violations of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA") as a result of the Defendant's
unsolicited telephonic sales calls.

To promote its products and services, the Defendant engages in
telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior
express written consent as required by the FTSA. To promote its
products and services, the Defendant engages in telephonic sales
calls to consumers from a telephone number: 1) made available
through a caller identification service, and; 2) not capable of
receiving telephone calls. The Plaintiff and the Class members have
been aggrieved by the Defendant's unlawful conduct, which adversely
affected and infringed upon their legal rights not to be subjected
to the illegal acts at issue. Through this action, the Plaintiff
seeks an injunction and statutory damages on behalf of herself and
the Class members and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual and a "called party."

The Defendant is a consumer goods and services retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
          KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
          2110 West Platt Street
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Phone: (813) 422–7782
          Facsimile: (813) 422–7783
          Email: ben@theKRfirm.com


TPE ACQUISITION: Gonzalez Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Adam Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TPE ACQUISITION, INC. d/b/a
WHIPLASH; PORT LOGISTICS GROUP; RYDER SYSTEMS, INC.; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 23STCV04374 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on May 22, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03935.

The Complaint is a purported class action alleging the following
causes of action: failure to pay wages including overtime and
minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; waiting time
penalties; issuing payment of wages in the form of a non-Labor Code
compliant instrument; failure to provide day of rest; failure to
indemnify
necessary business expenses; and violations of unfair competition
law.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mara D. Curtis, Esq.
          Brittany M. Hernandez, Esq.
          Tanner J. Hendershot, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
          Phone: +1 213 457 8000
          Facsimile: +1 213 457 8080
          Email: mcurtis@reedsmith.com
                 bmhernandez@reedsmith.com
                 thendershot@reedsmith.com


UKG INC: Navarrete Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Celia Navarrete, an individual, on behalf of
herself and on behalf and all others similarly situated v. UKG
INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Case No. 30-2023-01318758-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on May 17, 2023, and assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-00862.

The Complaint asserts seven causes of action as follows: "Failure
to Pay Overtime"; "Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Compensation
in Lieu of"; "Failure to Provide Rest Breaks or Compensation in
Lieu of"; "Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment"; "Failure
to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements"; "Waiting Time
Penalties"; and "Violations of the Unfair Business Practices
Act."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yoonis Han, Esq.
          Sam Kim, Esq.
          VERUM LAW GROUP, APC
          360 N. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 1025
          Ek Segundo, CA 90245
          Phone: (424) 320-2000

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jon D. Meer (SBN 144389)
          David Rosenberg (SBN 292094)
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Phone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          Email: jmeer@seyfarth.com
                 drosenberg@seyfarth.com


UNICREDIT BANK: Class Deal in Antitrust Suit Wins Prelim. Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2601 (VM) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Victor Marrero of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants
the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement.

Plaintiffs Ohio Carpenters' Pension Fund, Electrical Workers
Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W., and San Bernardino County
Employees' Retirement Association, on behalf of themselves and the
other members of the Settlement Class, and UniCredit Bank AG
together with its affiliates and subsidiaries have determined to
settle all claims asserted against UniCredit and its predecessors,
successors, assigns, subsidiaries, and affiliates in the Action
with prejudice on the terms and conditions set forth in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement between Plaintiffs and
UniCredit dated May 5, 2023, subject to approval of the Court.

The Plaintiffs have made applications, pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order preliminarily
approving the Settlement in accordance with the Stipulation, and
approving notice of the Settlement to the Settlement Class.

Judge Marrero has considered: (i) the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the Settlement and the papers filed and
arguments made in connection therewith; and (ii) the Stipulation
and the exhibits attached thereto. He finds that the proposed forms
of Class notice and the proposed Class notice plan are adequate and
reasonable, and the proposed Distribution Plan is reasonable and
rational and should be sent to the Class Members for their review
prior to the Settlement Hearing.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1)(B), Judge
Marrero preliminarily approves the Settlement, as embodied in the
Stipulation, and directs notice in a reasonable manner to all class
members who would be bound by the proposals.

The Court will hold a settlement hearing on Nov. 3, 2023, at 10:00
a.m. at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500
Pearl St., New York, NY 10007, Courtroom 15B. It may adjourn the
Settlement Hearing without further notice to the Settlement Class
and may approve the proposed Settlement with such modifications as
are agreed to, if appropriate, without further notice to the
Settlement Class.

Co-Lead Counsel (consisting of Kristen M. Anderson (Scott+Scott
Attorneys at Law LLP), Gregory S. Asciolla (DiCello Levitt LLC),
Vincent Briganti (Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.), and Todd A. Seaver
(Berman Tabacco) are authorized to retain A.B. Data, Ltd. (the
"Claims Administrator") to disseminate notice to the Settlement
Class, process Claims, and administer the Settlement.

The Notice of the Settlement and the Settlement Hearing will be
given as follows:

     (a) Commencing no later than 75 business days after the date
of entry of the Order (the "Notice Date"), the Claims Administrator
(and/or, if UniCredit so opts, UniCredit's third-party notice
agent) will cause a copy of the Notice and the Claim Form to be
mailed to the members of the Settlement Class who can be identified
through reasonable effort;

     (b) Contemporaneously with the mailing of the Notice Packet,
the Claims Administrator will cause copies of the Notice and the
Claim Form to be posted on the website developed for this Action,
www.europeangovernmentbondssettlement.com, from which copies of the
Notice and Claim Form can be downloaded;

     (c) As soon as practicable after the mailing of the Notice
Packet, the Claims Administrator will cause the Publication Notice
to be published, at minimum, once each in IBD Weekly, Stocks &
Commodities, The Financial Times, The New York Times, and The Wall
Street Journal; and

     (d) Prior to the Settlement Hearing, Co-Lead Counsel will file
with the Court proof, by affidavit or declaration, of such mailing
and publication.

Judge Marrero approves, as to form and content, the Notice, the
Claim Form, and the Publication Notice. The date and time of the
Settlement Hearing will be included in the Notice before it is
mailed and the Publication Notice before it is published.

The Co-Lead Counsel and the Claims Administrator will use
reasonable efforts to give notice to nominee owners, such as
brokerage firms and other persons or entities who or which
transacted for the beneficial interest of persons or organizations
other than themselves ("Nominees"), but not as beneficial owners.
Nominees will be requested to either: (i) within seven days of
receipt of the Notice, request from the Claims Administrator
sufficient copies of the Notice to forward to all such beneficial
owners, and within seven calendar days of receipt of those Notices,
forward them to all such beneficial owners; or (ii) within seven
days of receipt of the Notice, provide a list of the names and
addresses of all such beneficial owners to the Claims Administrator
for prompt distribution.

     (a) For Nominees who chose the first option (i.e., elect to
mail the Notice Packets directly to beneficial owners), the Claims
Administrator will forward the same number of Notice Packets to
such Nominees, and request that the Nominees, within seven (7)
calendar days of receipt of the Notice Packets, mail the Notice
Packets to their beneficial owners;

     (b) For Nominees who chose the second option (i.e., provide a
list of names and addresses of beneficial owners to the Claims
Administrator), the Claims Administrator will promptly mail a copy
of the Notice Packet to each of the beneficial owners whose names
and addresses the Nominee supplied, provided the Claims
Administrator did not previously mail Notice to such beneficial
owners;

     (c) Upon full and timely compliance with this Order, Nominees
who mail the Notice Packets to beneficial owners may seek
reimbursement of their reasonable expenses actually incurred in
complying with this Order by providing the Claims Administrator
with proper documentation supporting the expenses for which
reimbursement is sought. Such properly documented expenses incurred
by Nominees in compliance with the terms of this Order will be paid
from the Settlement Fund.

As provided in the Stipulation, pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1715 et seq. ("CAFA"), no later
than 10 days following the filing of the Stipulation with the
Court, UniCredit, at its own cost, will serve proper notice of its
proposed Settlement upon those who are entitled to such notice
pursuant to CAFA. No later than seven days before the Settlement
Hearing, UniCredit will cause to be filed with the Court proof, by
affidavit or declaration, regarding compliance with CAFA Section
1715(b).

Settlement Class Members who wish to receive a distribution from
the Net Settlement Fund must complete and submit a Claim Form in
accordance with the instructions contained therein. Any person or
entity who or which requests to be and is excluded from the
Settlement Class will not be entitled to receive any payment out of
the Net Settlement Fund as described in the Stipulation and Notice.
No Settlement Class Member will be heard unless that person or
entity has filed a written objection with the Court by 68 days
after the Notice Date, or as the Court may otherwise direct, and
served copies of such objection on the Co-Lead Counsel and
UniCredit's Counsel.

All reasonable Notice and Administration Costs up to $300,000 will
be paid as set forth in the Stipulation without further order of
the Court. Any Notice and Administration Costs in excess of
$300,000 may be paid from the Settlement Fund only with the
approval of the Court.

The contents of the Settlement Fund held by Huntington National
Bank (which the Court approves as the "Escrow Agent"), will be
deemed and considered to be in custodia legis of the Court, and
will remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, until such
time as they will be distributed pursuant to the Stipulation and/or
further order(s) of the Court.

The Co-Lead Counsel are authorized and directed to prepare any tax
returns and any other tax reporting form for or in respect to the
Settlement Fund, to pay from the Settlement Fund any Taxes owed
with respect to the Settlement Fund, and to otherwise perform all
obligations with respect to Taxes and any reporting or filings in
respect thereof without further order of the Court in a manner
consistent with the Stipulation.

If the Settlement is terminated as provided in the Stipulation, the
Settlement is not approved, or the Effective Date of the Settlement
otherwise fails to occur, the Order will be vacated, rendered null
and void, and be of no further force and effect, except as
otherwise provided by the Stipulation, and the Order will be
without prejudice to the rights of the Plaintiffs, the other
Settlement Class Members, and UniCredit, and the Parties will
revert to their respective positions in the Action as of March 8,
2023, as provided in the Stipulation.

The Co-Lead Counsel will file the opening papers in support of
final approval of the proposed Settlement, the Distribution Plan,
and the application for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement
of Litigation Expenses, and any service awards for the Plaintiffs
no later than 54 days after the Notice Date, and reply papers, if
any, will be filed no later than 98 days after the Notice Date.

The Settlement, as preliminarily approved in the Order, will be
administered according to its terms pending the Settlement
Hearing.

Deadlines arising under the Settlement and the Order include, but
are not limited to, the following:

     a. Notice: to commence not later than 75 business days after
entry of this Order (Notice Date);

     b. Application for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses
(Fee Application): to be filed 54 days after the Notice Date;

     c. Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement (Final Approval
Motion): to be filed 54 days after the Notice Date;

     d. Objection Deadline: 68 days after the Notice Date;

     e. Opt-Out Deadline: 68 days after the Notice Date;

     f. Claims Deadline: 84 days after the Notice Date;

     g. Replies in Support of Final Approval Motion and Fee
Application: to be filed 98 days after the Notice Date; and

     h. Settlement Hearing: Nov. 3, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.

If any date or deadline set forth falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or
federal or state legal holiday, such date or deadline will be
deemed moved to the first Business Day thereafter that is not a
federal or New York state holiday.

The Court retains jurisdiction to consider all further applications
arising out of or connected with the proposed Settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 16, 2023 Preliminary Approval
Order is available at https://rb.gy/71auk from Leagle.com.


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Denies Bids to Seal Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANTZ SAMSON, v. UNITED
HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00175-MJP (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Marsha J. Pechman entered an order on the Parties'
motions to seal:

   -- The Court finds United has failed to demonstrate with
      specificity that compelling interests outweigh the public's
      right to access the information contained in the parties'
      supporting exhibits and declarations for the class
certification
      briefings.

   -- The Court denies the Motions to Seal without prejudice to
United
      to refile a motion, along with a supporting declaration that

      contains adequate information.

In the course of the case, the Court previously granted the
parties' Stipulated Motion and Amended Protective Order due to the
likelihood that discovery in this case would produce confidential,
proprietary or private information.

The Plaintiff moved for class certification, he filed most of his
supporting exhibits under seal pursuant to the Amended Stipulated
Protective Order and the Defendant United’s request. However, the
Plaintiff's motions make clear he does not believe these documents
warrant sealing.

United Healthcare was founded in 1974. The company's line of
business includes providing hospital, medical, and other health
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IHVgvj at no extra charge.[CC]

VANDERFORD AIR: Faces Flores Class Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Flores, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Vanderford Air, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-01857 (S.D.
Tex., May  21, 2023) contends that the Defendant promotes and
markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited
prerecorded calls to wireless phone users without the requisite
express written consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful
conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf
of the Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies.

On August 15, 2022, the Defendant caused a prerecorded voice
message to be transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number
ending in 8378 from the telephone number 713-565-0164. The
prerecorded messages included a prerecorded voice which identified
"Vanderford" and stated that the call was about a summer special
promotion and AC tuneup for $99 and to call the Defendant at
281-724-5364, the suit asserts.

The Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of the Class defined as
follows:

        "All persons in the United States who, within four years
        prior to the filing of this action through the date of
        class certification, were sent a prerecorded voice call on

        their cellular telephone regarding Defendant's property,
        goods, or services."

Vanderford Air is an air conditioning, Heating and Commercial
Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

VERIDIAN CREDIT: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Drexler Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY DREXLER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VERIDIAN CREDIT UNION, Case No. 6:23-cv-02040 (D. Iowa,
May 19, 2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to invest in
adequate data security, thereby allowing hackers to exfiltrate the
highly-sensitive personally identifying information (PII) of
approximately 12,996 individuals, including the Plaintiff and Class
members, that include names, Social Security numbers, addresses,
dates of birth, and financial account numbers and loan information
at other financial institutions including the loan balance.

According to the complaint, between March 14, 2023 and April 2,
2023, the Defendant's customers' sensitive personal and/or
financial data was compromised when unauthorized actors were able
to breach Defendant's online membership application process. The
Defendant allegedly failed to detect the breach until April 3, 2023
-- almost three weeks after the breach began -- and failed to
notify affected individuals until May 3, 2023 --over seven weeks
after unauthorized individuals accessed Plaintiff's and other
Veridian customers' highly sensitive PII that is stored on
Defendant's systems.

The Defendant's failure to promptly notify Plaintiff and Class
members virtually ensured that the unauthorized third parties who
exploited those security lapses could monetize, misuse and/or
disseminate that PII before the Plaintiff and Class members could
take affirmative steps to protect their sensitive information. As a
result, the Plaintiff and Class members will suffer indefinitely
from the substantial and concrete risk that their identities will
be (or already have been) stolen and misappropriated, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff and Class members suffered injuries as a result of
the Defendant's conduct including, lost or diminished value of
their PII; out-of-pocket expenses associated with the prevention,
detection, and recovery from identity theft, tax fraud, and/or
unauthorized use of their PII; lost opportunity costs associated
with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data
Breach, including but not limited to the loss of time needed to
take appropriate measures to avoid unauthorized and fraudulent
charges; time needed to change usernames and passwords on their
accounts; time needed to investigate, correct and resolve
unauthorized access to their accounts; time needed to deal with
spam messages and e-mails received subsequent to the Data Breach;
charges and fees associated with fraudulent charges on their
accounts; and the continued and increased risk of compromise to
their PII, which remains in the Defendant's possession and is
subject to further unauthorized disclosures so long as the
Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to
protect their PII. These risks will remain for the lifetimes of the
Plaintiff and the Class, the suit claims.

Plaintiff Mary Drexler is a resident and citizen of Iowa, residing
in Waterloo, Iowa.

Veridian is a financial institution providing a wide range of
banking, insurance, and loan services to individuals in Iowa,
including checking and savings accounts, mortgages, student loans,
auto loans, personal and business loans, home insurance, auto
insurance, life insurance, health insurance, investment and
retirement planning and a multitude of other services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
          & SPRENGEL LLP
          135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
          E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
                  nhagman@caffertyclobes.com

VIRTU FINANCIAL: Hiebert Sues Over Inflated Price of Securities
---------------------------------------------------------------
LINDSAY HIEBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VIRTU FINANCIAL, INC., DOUGLAS CIFU, JOSEPH
MOLLUSO, ALEX IOFFE, and SEAN GALVIN, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-03770 (E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Virtu Financial's business,
operations, and prospects in order to trade Virtu securities at
artificially inflated prices between March 1, 2019 and April 28,
2023. Specifically, the Defendants allegedly made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company maintained deficient policies and procedures with respect
to its information access barriers; (ii) accordingly, Virtu had
overstated the Company's operational and technological efficacy as
well as its capacity to block the exchange of confidential
information between departments or individuals within the Company;
(iii) the foregoing deficiencies increased the likelihood that the
Company would be subject to enhanced regulatory scrutiny; and (iv)
as a result, the Defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

When the truth emerged, Virtu's stock price fell $1.13 per share,
or 5.68 percent, to close at $18.77 per share on May 3, 2023. As a
result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.

Virtu Financial, Inc. is a financial services company with
principal executive offices located at 1633 Broadway, New York, New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
         J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
         Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 661-1100
         Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
         E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com
                 tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com

VIRTU FINANCIAL: Robbins LLP Announces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Virtu Financial, Inc. (NASDAQ: VIRT) securities between
March 1, 2019 and April 28, 2023. Virtu is a financial services
company.

For more information, submit a form, email Aaron Dumas, Jr., or
give us a call (800) 350-6003.

What is this Case About: Virtu Financial, Inc. (VIRT) Misled
Investors Regarding its Operational and Technological Efficacy

According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose that: (i)
the Company maintained deficient policies and procedures with
respect to its information access barriers; (ii) accordingly, Virtu
had overstated the Company's operational and technological efficacy
as well as its capacity to block the exchange of confidential
information between departments or individuals within the Company;
(iii) the foregoing deficiencies increased the likelihood that the
Company would be subject to enhanced regulatory scrutiny; and (iv)
as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times.

On February 17, 2023, Virtu reported that "the Company has been
responding to requests for information from the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with an investigation of aspects
of the Company's information access barriers." On this news,
Virtu's stock price fell 1.60%, to close at $19.69 per share on
February 21, 2023.

On April 28, 2023, Virtu reported that it had been responding to
requests for information from the SEC in connection with an
investigation of aspects of the Company's information access
barriers, and added, in relevant part, "[i]n the absence of a
settlement, the Company currently believes it may receive a Wells
Notice from the SEC[,]" and "[t]he proposed action would be
expected to allege violations of federal securities laws with
respect to the Company's information barriers policies and
procedures for a specified time period in and around January 2018
to April 2019 and related statements made by the Company during
such period." On this news, Virtu's stock price fell 5.68%, to
close at $18.77 per share on May 3, 2023.

What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to
participate in the class action against Virtu Financial, Inc.
Shareholders who want to act as lead plaintiff for the class should
contact Robbins LLP. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be
eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can
remain an absent class member.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.

About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.

To be notified if a class action against Virtu Financial, Inc.
settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage
in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.

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

View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230526005284/en/

CONTACT: Aaron Dumas, Jr.

Robbins LLP

5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]

WASHINGTON: District Court Dismisses Pistrak Suit With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EVGENY PISTRAK and JANE DOE, Plaintiffs v. STATE OF
WASHINGTON, Defendant, Case No. C23-362 MJP (W.D. Wash.), Judge
Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle:

   a. grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and dismisses the
      action with prejudice; and

   b. denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint and Motion to
      Substitute.

Appearing pro se, Pistrak brings a declaratory judgment action
against the State of Washington, which he identifies as the "The
Judicial Branch of the Washington State Government." He alleges
that as part of his divorce between an authorized immigrant (him)
and an unauthorized immigrant (his ex-wife), the Washington Court
ordered financial support of ('awarded spousal maintenance to') the
unauthorized immigrant spouse on the sole basis of lack of work
authorization.

Pistrak appealed the court's determination, and the Washington
State Court of Appeals affirmed the maintenance order. His efforts
to have the Washington Supreme Court take review proved fruitless
and he exhausted his appellate avenues for relief. Pistrak alleges
that the court's order requiring spousal maintenance solely on the
unauthorized immigrant's status impermissibly intrudes on the
federal government's exclusive authority to regulate immigration.

Pistrak seeks a declaratory judgment recognizing that the
Constitution protects residents from being coerced by States into
paying for immigration status of unauthorized immigrants. And he
seeks to represent a class of similarly situated individuals, who
he identifies as "Plaintiff Jane Doe"--"a stand in for any Class
Member" whose "case illustrates the minimal factual requirements of
the Class case."

The matter comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss, the Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint, and the Plaintiff's
Motion to Substitute.

Having reviewed the Motions, the Responses, the Replies, and all
the supporting materials, Judge Pechman concludes that Pistrak's
complaint improperly seeks an advisory opinion and the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction to issue such relief. And to the extent
that Pistrak identifies a live controversy, he improperly seeks a
ruling that would overturn his spousal maintenance order in
violation of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. She therefore grants the
Motion and dismisses the action with prejudice because no amendment
could save Pistrak's claim, which also cannot proceed on a class
basis.

Judge Pechman also denies Pistrak's Motion to Appoint, given that
he has not identified any viable claims. And she denies the Motion
to Substitute, which would not provide relief sufficient to cure
the defects in the complaint that require dismissal.

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of the Order to the
Plaintiff and all counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 16, 2023 Order is available at
https://rb.gy/m5cvl from Leagle.com.


WELLS FARGO: Class Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IN RE WELLS FARGO &
COMPANY SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-04494-GHW-SN
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gregory H. Woods entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement of the case.

The order entered by the Court deviated modestly from the parties'
proposed order: it removed the clause stating "and all other
applicable law and rules" from the end of the penultimate sentence
of section 8 of the proposed order and made a conforming
grammatical change to that sentence.

The Court notes that prior to entering the proposed judgment, in
addition to satisfaction of all other preconditions, it will
require the parties and their counsel to submit affidavits or other
evidentiary support for the proposed finding in paragraph 13 of the
proposed judgment.

Because the parties have presented a proposed settlement of this
action to the Court, the Court treats the pending motion for class
certification as having been withdrawn. The motion may be
resubmitted in the event that the settlement is not approved by the
Court.

Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company
with a significant global presence.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 16, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MYlzjm at no extra charge.[CC]

WHALECO INC: Streater Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whaleco, Inc. The
case is styled as Tyler Streater, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Whaleco, Inc. doing business as: Temu, Case No.
6:23-cv-00162-JAR (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2023).

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

Whaleco, Inc. doing business as Temu -- https://www.temu.com/ -- is
an American-based online marketplace, and a subsidiary of
Chinese-based PDD Holdings Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel Hiraldo
          HIRALDO PA
          401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400
          Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 400-4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

WHOLE FOODS MARKET: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Hamburger Buns
-------------------------------------------------------------
SUBASHINI CHANDRASEKERA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-03767 (E.D.N.Y., May 19, 2023) alleges
that the Defendant markets and sells in systematically misleading
manner by misrepresenting that the "Whole Foods Market Brioche
Whole Grain Hamburger Buns" (the "Product") is made with "Whole
Grain."

According to the complaint, because the Defendant's sales are
driven by health-conscious consumers seeking wholesome flour bread,
the Defendant prominently displays on the front label of the
Product that it consists of "WHOLE GRAIN HAMBURGER BUNS."
Unbeknownst to consumers, however, Defendant's Product is not
exclusively, or at least predominately, made with "whole grain"
flour.

Instead, the Product's back panel lists "enriched wheat flour" as
the Product's primary ingredient—a well-known substitute to
"whole grain" wheat. As a result of the Defendant's deceptive
practices, the Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class members suffered
an economic injury because they would not have purchased, or paid a
premium for, the Product had they known the veracity of Defendant's
misrepresentations, says the suit.

WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC. owns and operates a chain of natural
and organic foods supermarket. The Company offers grocery, meat and
poultry, seafood, bakery, prepared foods, coffee and tea, beer and
wine, cheese, nutritional supplements, vitamins, body care, pet
foods, and household goods. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
          GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC
          630 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
          New York, NY 10111
          Telephone: (212) 884-4230
          Email: adrian@gr-firm.com


XEROX CORPORATION: Cole Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Barry Cole, on behalf of himself and on behalf
of all similarly situated individuals v. Xerox Corporation, Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV06525 was removed from the
Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on May 18, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03846-AB-RAO to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Employment
Discrimination.

Xerox Corporation is an American global corporation that sells
print and digital document products and services in more than 160
countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
          Alex P Katofsky, Esq.
          Evan Simon Gaines, Esq.
          GAINES & GAINES, APLC
          4550 E Thousand Oaks Blvd., Ste. 100
          Westlake Village, CA 91362-3824
          Phone: 818-703-8985
          Fax: 818-703-8984
          Email: daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
                 alex@gaineslawfirm.com
                 evan@gaineslawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Janice P Brown, Esq.
          Janine M. Braxton, Esq.
          MEYERS NAVE
          600 B Street Suite 1650
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 330-1700
          Fax: (619) 330-1701
          Email: jbrown@meyersnave.com
                 jbraxton@meyersnave.com


XTO ENERGY: Seeks Stay of Scheduling Order Deadlines in Bradley
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY S. BRADLEY and
REBECCA J. BRADLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. XTO ENERGY INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00079-BSM
(Court), XTO files an unopposed motion for stay of scheduling order
deadlines pending decision on class certification:

XTO, with the agreement of the Plaintiffs, respectfully requests
the Court to stay all remaining deadlines in the Amended Final
Scheduling Order until after the Court enters its order on the
Motion for Class Certification or, alternatively, for an extension
of the remaining pre-trial deadlines until a date after the Court
enters its order on the Motion for Class Certification.

   1. The Court entered the current Amended Final Scheduling Order
on
      August 19, 2022.  The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class

      Certification and Brief in Support on October 28, 2022.

   2. XTO responded to the Plaintiffs' Motion on December 21, 2022.

      The Plaintiffs filed their Reply in Support of Motion for
Class
      Certification on March 31, 2023.

   3. The Court granted XTO leave to file its Sur-Reply on April
17,
      2023 and XTO immediately did so. Thus, the Plaintiffs' motion

      for class certification has only been fully briefed for
      relatively short time.

   4. However, under the Amended Final Scheduling Order, pre-trial

      deadlines are rapidly approaching. Pretrial disclosures are
due
      by July 14, 2023 and motions in limine and proposed jury
      instructions are due by August 4, 2023.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 16, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/437J670 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Elizabeth L. Tiblets, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          301 Commerce Street, Suite 3000
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 347-5270
          Facsimile: (817) 347-5299
          E-mail: elizabeth.tiblets@klgates.com

               - and –


          Robert M. Honea, Esq.
          HARDIN, JESSON & TERRY, PLC
          5000 Rogers Avenue, Suite 500
          Fort Smith, AR 72917
          Telephone: (479) 452-2200
          Facsimile: (479) 452-9097
          E-mail: honea@hardinlaw.com

YALE UNIVERSITY: Jury Selection in Class Action Set to Begin
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Steele, writing for Law360, reports that jury selection in a
lawsuit that accuses Yale University of mismanaging employees'
retirement funds was set to begin on Tuesday, 30, nearly seven
years after beneficiaries filed a federal class action in the
District of Connecticut claiming millions of dollars in overall
losses.5 days ago [GN]

YORK WALLCOVERINGS: Kunkle Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against York Wallcoverings,
Inc. The case is styled as Frank Kunkle, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. York Wallcoverings, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-04095-JGK (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2023).

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

York Wallcoverings -- https://www.yorkwallcoverings.com/ --
designs, manufactures, markets, sells and distributes its products
in over 80 different countries.[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


ZILLOW GROUP: Tuso Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD TUSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZILLOW GROUP INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00949-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal., May 22, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's practice of by making
telemarketing calls to consumers without consent including calls to
phone numbers that are registered on the National Do Not Call
registry (DNC) and to consumers who have expressly requested that
the calls stop. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief
for all persons injured by the Defendant's alleged conduct.

Zillow Group Inc. is a real estate company, headquartered in
Seattle, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman, Esq.
         KAUFMAN PA
         237 S. Dixie Hwy., 4th Floor
         Coral Gables, FL 33133
         Telephone: (305) 469-5881
         E-mail: Rachel@kaufmanpa.com

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Products Has 244 Pending Cases at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc., has been named a defendant in numerous
personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, alleging that
certain talc products the Company sold in the past were
contaminated with asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Many of these actions involve a number of
co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including
manufacturers of cosmetics and manufacturers of other products
that, unlike the Company's products, were designed to contain
asbestos. As of March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, there were
244 and 227 individual active cases pending against the Company,
respectively, for which associated costs and estimated liabilities
have been included in current liabilities of discontinued
operations on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. During the three
months ended March 31, 2023, 42 new cases were filed and 25 cases
were dismissed, settled or otherwise resolved."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/goHJP


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 50 Pending Claims as of March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Partners Holdings L.P.'s majority owned subsidiary, BNS Sub,
has been named as a defendant in multiple alleged asbestos-related
toxic-tort claims filed over a period beginning in 1994 through
December 31, 2022, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "In many cases these claims involved more than
100 defendants. There remained approximately 50 pending asbestos
claims as of March 31, 2023. BNS Sub believes it has significant
defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the merits. None
of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and, therefore, there
can be no assurance that these defenses will prevail. BNS Sub has
insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims for years
beginning 1974 through 1988. BNS Sub annually receives retroactive
billings or credits from its insurance carriers for any increase or
decrease in claims accruals as claims are filed, settled or
dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate settlement costs for the
then-existing claims are revised. As of both March 31, 2023 and
December 31, 2022, BNS Sub has accrued $1,418 relating to the open
and active claims against BNS Sub. This accrual includes the amount
of unpaid retroactive billings submitted to the Company by the
insurance carriers and also the Company's best estimate of the
likely costs for BNS Sub to settle these claims outside the amounts
funded by insurance. There can be no assurance that the number of
future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or
judgments will be consistent with the experience to-date of
existing claims and that BNS Sub will not need to significantly
increase its estimated liability for the costs to settle these
claims to an amount that could have a material effect on the
consolidated financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/bfuKR

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Int'l. Faces Product Liability Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related product liability claims continue to be filed
against two of CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiaries: CIRCOR
Instrumentation Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a Hoke, Inc.) ("Hoke"), the
stock of which the Company acquired in 1998, and Spence Engineering
Company, Inc., the stock of which the Company acquired in 1984,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "The Hoke subsidiary was divested in January
2020 through the sale of the I&S business. However, the Company has
indemnified the buyer for asbestos-related claims that are made
against Hoke. Due to the nature of the products supplied by these
entities, the markets they serve and the Company's historical
experience in resolving these claims, the Company does not expect
that these asbestos-related claims will have a material adverse
effect on the financial condition, results of operations or
liquidity of the Company.

"During the second quarter of 2021, the Company was notified of a
contract termination by one of its Industrial segment customers.
The basis for termination is under dispute and the ultimate outcome
of this matter is uncertain. During the fourth quarter of 2021, the
Company recorded a full allowance against the outstanding
receivables resulting in a charge of $6.3 million. The Company also
has outstanding guarantees of its performance under the contract in
the aggregate amount of $3.4 million. Further, the Company is
exposed to claims from sub-contractors for contract termination.
During the fourth quarter of 2022, a settlement agreement was
reached resulting in a total of $4.5 million to be paid in the
first half of 2023. The Company has accrued the unpaid portion of
the settlement amount as of April 2, 2023."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/jnqrz


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FG Group Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
FG Group Holdings Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries are named as
defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing materials, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "A majority of the cases involve product
liability claims based principally on allegations of past
distribution of commercial lighting products containing wiring that
may have contained asbestos. Each case names dozens of corporate
defendants in addition to us. In our experience, a large percentage
of these types of claims have never been substantiated and have
been dismissed by the courts. We have not suffered any adverse
verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and
intend to continue to defend these lawsuits. As of March 31, 2023,
the Company has a loss contingency reserve of approximately $0.2
million, which represents our estimate of our potential losses
related to the settlement of open cases. During 2022 and the first
quarter of 2023, we settled three cases, which resulted in payments
totaling $53 thousand. When appropriate, we may settle additional
claims in the future. "

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/yJKR4


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Reports 37,300 Pending Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, for the three months ended
March 31, 2023, had 37,300 claims pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company states, "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits
alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to
result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products
manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities.
Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and federal courts. To date, we have disposed
of approximately 157,700 claims by defending, obtaining the
dismissal thereof, or entering into a settlement. The sum of our
accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date,
including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled approximately
$575 million through March 31, 2023 and $570 million through
December 31, 2022."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/pqxGJ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc and certain of its subsidiaries,
along with numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in
personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos
containing materials, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

These cases have typically involved product liability claims based
primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of
industrial products that either contained asbestos or were used
with asbestos containing components.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/bcfs1


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Faces Personal Injury Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC, as successor by merger to other entities, and
D/C have been named as defendants in personal injury actions
allegedly based on exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.


While there are relatively few cases that name Kaanapali Land,
there were a substantial number of cases that were pending against
D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California). Cases against
Kaanapali Land (hereafter, "Kaanapali Land asbestos cases") are
allegedly based on its prior business operations in Hawaii and
cases against D/C are allegedly based on sale of
asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business
operations primarily in California. Each entity defending these
cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against these
actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
these cases. The defense of these cases had a material adverse
effect on the financial condition of D/C as it has been forced to
file a voluntary petition for liquidation as discussed below.
Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has liability, directly or
indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those cases. Kaanapali Land
does not presently believe that the cases in which it is named will
result in any material liability to Kaanapali Land; however, there
can be no assurance in that regard.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/qxBMN


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Defends 16 Personal Injury Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary, Liggett, was a defendant in 16
multi-defendant personal injury cases in Maryland alleging claims
arising from asbestos and tobacco exposure ("synergy cases"),
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "In June 2017, after the Court of Appeals
(Maryland's highest court) ruled that joinder of tobacco and
asbestos cases may be possible in certain circumstances and then
remanded the case, the trial court dismissed all synergy cases
against the tobacco company defendants, including Liggett, without
prejudice. Plaintiffs may seek appellate review or file new cases
against the tobacco companies.

"In December 2022, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore sued
Liggett and others, claiming, among other things, that defendants'
failure to use biodegradable filters on their cigarette products
resulted in littering by smokers of the city's streets, sidewalks,
beaches, parks, lawns and waterways, which in turn resulted in
contamination of the soil and water, increased costs of clean-up
and disposal of this litter, as well as the reduction of property
values and tourism to the city. Plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages, punitive damages, penalties, fines, disgorgement of
profits and equitable relief."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/uxNSZ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Met-Pro Defends 268 Cases at March 31
------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp.'s subsidiary, Met-Pro Technologies LLC
("Met-Pro"), beginning in 2002, has been named in asbestos-related
lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies
including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling
industries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Based upon the most recent information
available to the Company regarding such claims, there were a total
of 268 cases pending against the Company as of March 31, 2023 with
Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the
largest number of cases, as compared with 247 cases that were
pending as of December 31, 2022. During the three months ended
March 31, 2023, 46 new cases were filed against the Company, and
the Company was dismissed from 21 cases and settled four cases.
Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages
of discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading
to or scheduled for trial. The Company believes that its insurance
coverage is adequate for the cases currently pending against the
Company and for the foreseeable future, assuming a continuation of
the current volume, nature of cases and settlement amounts.
However, the Company has no control over the number and nature of
cases that are filed against it, nor as to the financial health of
its insurers or their position as to coverage.

"In management's opinion, the complaints typically have been vague,
general and speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the
numerous other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing
products and engaged in other related actions which caused injuries
(including death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised
that more recent cases typically allege more serious claims of
mesothelioma. The Company's insurers have hired attorneys who,
together with the Company, are vigorously defending these cases.
Many cases have been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce
evidence of exposure to Met-Pro's products. In those cases, where
evidence has been produced, the Company's experience has been that
the exposure levels are low and the Company's position has been
that its products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. The
Company has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these
cases. Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through March 31,
2023 for cases involving asbestos-related claims were $6.2 million
which together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel
expenses have substantially been paid by the Company's insurers.
The average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was
approximately $40,000."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/dilDJ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Defends 587 New Exposure Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, for the three months ended
March 31, 2023 and 2022, has received approximately 587 and 721 new
asbestos-related claims, respectively, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has
been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed
primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the
plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from
exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the
business of manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products,
nor has Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued liability or
workers' compensation insurance to companies in the business of
manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits
principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain
research, publication and other activities of one or more of
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the period
from the 1920s through approximately the 1950s and allege that
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have learned
of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things,
improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should not
have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos
litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by
numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in
various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors
unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted
against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/muvPR


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Defends 536 PI Lawsuits as of March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc., as of March 31, 2023, is named a defendant in
approximately 536 lawsuits involving approximately 1,101 claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits that
plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries that
exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their family
members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of
defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture,
distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos
containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly
caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs
typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of
third-party manufactured products that our MRC Global (US) Inc.
subsidiary purportedly distributed. No asbestos lawsuit has
resulted in a judgment against us to date, with a majority being
settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third-party
insurance has substantially covered these claims, and insurance
should continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and
anticipated future claims. Accordingly, we have recorded a
liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of
asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable. It is not possible to predict the outcome of
these claims and proceedings. However, in our opinion, the
likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of these claims and
legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial statements is remote."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/nsuD7




ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Faces 112 PI Cases
------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is a co-defendant in 112 cases asserting
claims on behalf of 162 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "In every asbestos case in which we are named
as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named
defendants. Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos
cases.  We intend to vigorously defend these cases and believe we
will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.


"While it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation, and although
our results of operations and cash flows for a particular period
could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims
and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution
of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, liquidity or results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Mabjmt


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Defends Numerous Product Liability Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. is a defendant in numerous cases, related to its
pharmaceutical and other products wherein these cases seek damages
and other relief on various grounds for alleged personal injury and
economic loss, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned
American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured
and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety
clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982,
Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain
liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims.
Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Pfizer. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the
defense of, and will continue to explore various means of
resolving, these claims.

"Numerous lawsuits against American Optical, Pfizer and certain of
its previously owned subsidiaries are pending in various federal
and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from
exposure to products allegedly containing asbestos and other
allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and certain of its
previously owned subsidiaries.

"There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to
asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its
subsidiaries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/cenJ8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reading Int'l. Still Defends Exposure Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reading International, Inc., from time to time, receives claims
relating to the exposure of former employees to asbestos and/or
coal dust, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "These are generally covered by an insurance
settlement reached in September 1990 with our insurance providers.
However, this insurance settlement does not cover litigation by
people who were not employees of our historic railroad operations
and who may claim direct or second-hand exposure to asbestos, coal
dust and/or other chemicals or elements now recognized as
potentially causing cancer in humans. Our known exposure to these
types of claims, asserted or probable of being asserted, is not
material.

"Certain of our subsidiaries were historically involved in railroad
operations, coal mining, and manufacturing.  Also, certain of these
subsidiaries appear in the chain-of-title of properties that may
suffer from pollution.  Accordingly, certain of these subsidiaries
have, from time to time, been named in and may in the future be
named in various actions brought under applicable environmental
laws. Also, we are in the real estate development business and may
encounter from time to time environmental conditions at properties
that we have acquired for development and which will need to be
addressed in the future as part of the development process.  These
environmental conditions can increase the cost of such projects and
adversely affect the value and potential for profit of such
projects. We do not currently believe that our exposure under
applicable environmental laws is material in amount."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/dxOX4





ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regal Rexnord Has 350 Pending Claims at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regal Rexnord Corporation, is from time to time, party to
litigation and other legal or regulatory proceedings that arise in
the normal course of its business operations and the outcomes of
which are subject to significant uncertainty, including product
warranty and liability claims, contract disputes and environmental,
asbestos, intellectual property, employment and other litigation
matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 350
claimants) are pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches
previously manufactured by the Rexnord PMC business' Stearns brand
of brakes and clutches and/or its predecessor owners. Invensys and
FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have paid 100% of the
costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits. Similarly, the
Rexnord PMC business' Prager subsidiary is the subject of claims by
multiple claimants alleging personal injuries due to the alleged
presence of asbestos in a product allegedly manufactured by Prager.
However, all these claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district
Litigation inactive docket, and the Company does not believe that
they will become active in the future. To date, the Rexnord PMC
business' insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs related
to the Prager asbestos matters. We believe that the combination of
the Company's insurance coverage and the Invensys indemnity
obligations will cover any future costs of these matters.

The Company's products are used in a variety of industrial,
commercial and residential applications that subject the Company to
claims that the use of its products is alleged to have resulted in
injury or other damage. Many of these matters will only be resolved
when one or more future events occur or fail to occur. Management
conducts regular reviews, including updates from legal counsel, to
assess the need for accounting recognition or disclosure of these
contingencies, and such assessment inherently involves an exercise
in judgment."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/pEKNR


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Faces Product Liability Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company has been named as a defendant in a
number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted
from exposure to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on
its historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.  

The Company states, "In many of these cases, the complaints are not
specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its
products. The cases vary, but complaints in these cases generally
seek unspecified monetary damages (actual, compensatory,
consequential and punitive) from multiple defendants. The Company
believes that the claims against it are without merit and is
vigorously defending against them. No accruals have been recorded
in the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements as the
likelihood of a loss is not probable at this time; and the Company
does not believe a reasonably possible loss would be material to,
nor does it expect the ultimate resolution of these cases will have
a material adverse effect on, the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows. There can be no assurance that
future developments related to pending claims or claims filed in
the future, whether as a result of adverse outcomes or as a result
of significant defense costs, will not have a material effect on
the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/pAGX5

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Faces 242 Exposure Claims as of March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Univar Solutions Inc. is subject to liabilities from claims
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "The claims result primarily from an
indemnification obligation related to Univar Solutions USA Inc.'s
("Univar") 1986 purchase of McKesson Chemical Company from McKesson
Corporation ("McKesson"). Univar is pursuing insurance coverage for
certain matters under McKesson's historical insurance coverage to
partially offset the impact of any fees, settlements, or judgments
that Univar is obligated to pay because of its obligation to
McKesson. As of March 31, 2023, there were approximately 242
asbestos-related cases for which Univar has the obligation to
defend and indemnify; however, this number tends to fluctuate up
and down over time. Historically, the vast majority of these
asbestos cases have been dismissed without payment or with a
nominal payment. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome
of these matters, it does not believe, based upon currently
available facts, that the ultimate resolution of any of these
matters will have a material effect on its overall financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/couI5


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Defends 700 Personal Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
WestRock Company, as of March 31, 2023, is a defendant in
approximately 700 asbestos-related personal injury litigation,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "We believe that we have substantial insurance
coverage, subject to applicable deductibles and policy limits, with
respect to asbestos claims. We also have valid defenses to these
asbestos-related personal injury claims and intend to continue to
defend them vigorously. Should the volume of litigation grow
substantially, it is possible that we could incur significant costs
resolving these cases. We do not expect the resolution of pending
asbestos litigation and proceedings to have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash
flows. In any given period or periods, however, it is possible such
proceedings or matters could have an adverse effect on our results
of operations, financial condition or cash flows. At March 31,
2023, we had $12.2 million reserved for these matters."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://shorturl.at/rvzIS



                            *********

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 ***