/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230913.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, September 13, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 184

                            Headlines

ADS ALLIANCE: Class Deal in Stephens Suit Has Prelim. Approval
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Haley Parties Signed Deal to Arbitrate Issues
ALTMAN LUGGAGE CO: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
AMERICAN HONDA: Vehicles' Windshield "Defective," McIntyre Says
ARIZONA: Transgender Persons Class Certified in Roe v. Herrington

AT&T INC: General Retirement Sues Over Share Price Drop
ATHENS OUTDOORS: Santana Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
ATLAS FIELD: Court Denies Black's Bid for Leave to Amend Complaint
ATOMIC PROVISIONS: Lucero Seeks Unpaid Wages for Servers/Bartenders
BANK OF AMERICA: Schak Sues Over Unauthorized Credit Card Issuance

BARILLA AMERICA: Tomato Sauces Contain Preservatives, Long Claims
BARK INC: Faces Vernon Suit Over Illegal Waiver Provision
C3.AI INC: Hearing on Bids to Toss Reckstin Suit Cont'd to Nov. 2
CALIBER AEROSPACE: Underpays Machine Operators, Vasquez Suit Says
CINCINNATI LUBES: Williams Sues Over Employees' Unpaid Overtime

CLIMATE PROS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Fordyce Says
COSTA FARMS: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COSTWAY.COM INC: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COUNTY COMFORT: Faces Montes Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
CRAB STOP: Loses Bid to Compel Discovery Responses in EEOC Suit

DAK RESOURCES: E.D. California Refuses to Remand Vigil Class Suit
DATA MEDIA ASSOCIATES: Valdivia Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Securities Suit Over Distributor Pricing Ongoing
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Securities Suit Over Merger Ongoing

DENTSPLY SIRONA: Settles 3 Labor Suits Filed in Cal. Sup.
EASTERN FRUITS: Underpays Supermarket Workers, Rodriguez Suit Says
ELEGANZA 1 INC: Fails to Properly Pay Deli Workers, Tapia Claims
FCA US: Court Dismisses Destination Charge Class Suit
GANNON UNIVERSITY: Engel Seeks Refund of Unused Tuition Fees

GILEAD SCIENCES: Court Dismisses 2nd Amended Jacksonville Complaint
GREEN DOT: Faces Class Suit Over Clients' Inaccessible Funds
GSK CONSUMER: Jernigan Sues Over Beverage Mix's Misleading Label
HARTFORD LIFE: Matheson Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access
ILLINOIS: Court Denies Cleveland's Bid for Leave to Amend Complaint

IMAGINE 360: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Seebach Suit Alleges
JONESBORO, AR: Court Refuses to Approve Trullinger's Class Deal
KING ACES: Faces Morgan Suit Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
LIFEMD INC: Marden Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Health Info
MARQETA INC: Smith Sues Over Directors' Breach of Fiduciary Duty

MCDONALD'S CORP: Court Revives Ex-Staff's No-Poach Antitrust Suit
MDL 3025: Court Denies Mikhail's Bid to Transfer Suit to E.D.N.Y.
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY: Certification Bid in Tuition Suit Pending
MORNING CHEF: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Staff, Thomas Claims
MSP RECOVERY: Pignatelli Sues Over 18% Drop of Securities Price

NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Court OK's Settlement Deal in Davidson
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Final Approval Hearing for Settlement Set Nov 17
NATIONAL GENERAL: King Reply to Opposition Due Oct. 26
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Lemus Suit Removed to E.D. California
NEOCORTEXT INC: AI Face-Swapping App Class Suit Continues

NEOGENOMICS INC: Faces Goldenberg Shareholder Suit in NY Court
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Consolidated Ads Price-Rigging Suit Ongoing
NORTH STAR INSURANCE: Bente Sues Over Unlawful Wages
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Poe Loses Bid for Class Certification
NOVAVAX INC: Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing on COVID Vax Ongoing

NPAS SOLUTIONS: Court Confirms Prohibition of Class Incentive Award
OCEAN CLUB: Zappettini Suit Seeks Sales Clerks' Unpaid Overtime
PRIMARK US: Fails to Timely Pay Sales Associates, Swain Alleges
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Must Answer Hightower Complaint by Oct. 27
SCARPA NORTH: Santana Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store

SECURITAS SECURITY: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Ulloa Suit
SLEEPY'S LLC: Court Dismisses Gundell's Third Amended Complaint
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Colorado
SPECIALTYCARE INC: Dorta Sues Over Training Repayment Agreement
SUGAR RUSH: St. Louis Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages

TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL: Simon Suit Seeks Unpaid OT for Employees
UPHOLD HQ: Damages Claims Trimmed, Crypto Theft Suit Continues
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Bostard Sues Over Toxic Lead-Covered Cables
WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP: Sued Over Patients' Privacy Rights Violations
YALE UNIVERSITY: Settles Mental Health Discrimination Class Suit


                            *********

ADS ALLIANCE: Class Deal in Stephens Suit Has Prelim. Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael H. Watson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants the Plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary approval of a class action settlement in the
lawsuit entitled Tammy Stephens, Plaintiff v. ADS Alliance Data
Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02152-MHW-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio).

Plaintiffs Cathy Howard and Brenda Parsons and Defendant ADS
Alliance Data Systems, Inc., move for preliminary approval of a
class action settlement (the "Motion"), related to the Plaintiffs'
claims against ADS. The Court has considered the Motion, the Third
Amended Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release, the proposed
Notice of Class Action Settlement, and proposed Claim Form, and the
submissions of counsel.

The Court finds pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1 )(A) that the
Parties have provided sufficient information for the Court to
determine whether to give notice of the settlement to the
Settlement Class.

The Court finds pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1 )(B)(i) that
the terms of the Settlement Agreement appear to be fair,
reasonable, and adequate such that it will likely be able to
finally approve the Settlement Agreement under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(e)(2) after the hearing on final approval of the Settlement
Agreement.

The Court further finds pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(e)(1 )(B)(ii) that it will likely be able to certify the
Settlement Class for settlement purposes after the hearing on final
approval of the Settlement Agreement. Further, the class action
device is superior to other methods of resolving the issues in this
litigation, including thousands of individual lawsuits.

Therefore, pursuant to Rule 23, the Court preliminarily certifies,
for settlement purposes only, a Settlement Class defined as
follows:

     All employees who are current and former hourly Care Center
     employees and Work at Home Care Center employees who were
     employed by Defendant in Ohio for a period of more than
     thirty days and whose job it was to interact with customers
     via the telephone and/or the computer from April 29, 2018
     through the final disposition of this matter. The Ohio
     Settlement Class shall not include anyone who has already
     opted into the Fair Labor Standards Act collective action in
     Tammy Stephens, etal. v. ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc.,
     Case No. 2:20-cv-02152-MHW-K. AJ. The Ohio Settlement Class
     Participants, as finally approved by the Court and subject
     to the final judgment entered in this Action, shall not
     include anyone who has timely and validly opted out of the
     Rule 23 Ohio class settlement.

The Court appoints, for settlement purposes only, Cathy Howard as
Representative Plaintiff. The Court appoints, for settlement
purposes only, Anderson Alexander, LLP and Barkan Meizlish DeRose
Cox, LLP, as Class Counsel. The Court appoints ILYM Group, Inc., as
Settlement Administrator.

The Court directs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1 )(B) that
notice of the settlement be given to all Settlement Class Members.
The Court approves, as to form and content, the Notice of Class
Action Settlement ("Notice") and the Claim Form, attached to the
Motion as Exhibits B and D.

Each Ohio Settlement Class Member (other than the Representative
Plaintiff) will have forty-five days after the date on which the
Settlement Administrator disseminates the Notice to submit a Claim
Form, a written request for exclusion from the Class, or to object
to the Settlement, as described in the Settlement Agreement and the
Notices.

The Court will conduct a Final Approval Hearing on Jan. 24,
2024, at 11:00 a. m. to confirm the overall fairness of the
Settlement and to set the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs to Class Counsel and incentive awards to the Representative
Plaintiff. The Final Approval Hearing may be continued without
further notice to members of the Class.

Class Counsel will file their motion for reasonable attorneys'
fees, costs, expenses, and the Class Representative payment sought
in the Settlement, on or before Jan. 10, 2024, at 5:00 p. m. The
Parties will file their joint motion for final settlement approval,
on or before Jan. 10, 2024, at 5:00 p. m.

The Court enjoins Class Members under the All Writs Act, 28 U. S.
C. Section 165, from filing or prosecuting up to the date of entry
of a Final Approval Order, or the voiding of the Settlement
Agreement, any claims, suits, or administrative proceedings
regarding claims released by them under the Settlement unless and
until such Class Members have submitted valid and timely Requests
for Exclusion with the Settlement and the Claim Deadline has
elapsed.

The Court authorizes and approves the establishment of a Qualified
Settlement Fund ("QSF") related to this Settlement and will
maintain jurisdiction over the QSF during the pendency of the
settlement administration process.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Aug. 28,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybdee259 from
PacerMonitor.com.


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Haley Parties Signed Deal to Arbitrate Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled CALEB HALEY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES,
INC., a foreign corporation, and SAFEWAY, INC., a domestic
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02811-TLT (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Trina L. Thompson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Eureka-Mckinleyville Division, signed a
stipulation and order regarding the Parties' limited agreement to
arbitrate issues concerning the scope of the alleged agreement to
arbitrate.

On June 7, 2023, Plaintiff Caleb Haley commenced this action by
filing a Class Action Complaint, asserting claims against
Defendants Albertsons Companies, Inc., and Safeway Inc. under the
California consumer protection laws, on behalf of himself and a
proposed class.

The Defendants have advised the Plaintiff of the grounds on which
they intend to file a motion to compel arbitration. The Defendants
assert that they and the Plaintiff are parties to a contract,
containing a provision (paragraph 24, the "Arbitration Clause") in
which they and the Plaintiff purportedly agreed to arbitrate
certain disputes.

The Defendants further assert that the Arbitration Clause contains
a delegation provision by which the Parties purportedly agreed that
any disputes concerning the scope of the Arbitration Clause would
be decided by an arbitrator in the first instance.

The Plaintiff disputes that he entered into a binding agreement to
arbitrate any disputes he may have or had with the Defendants and
disputes that the Arbitration Clause they intend to enforce
contains a delegation provision. The Plaintiff further disputes
that the scope of the Arbitration Clause would encompass the
subject matter of this Action, even if such an enforceable
arbitration agreement exists.

The Plaintiff has, nevertheless, agreed to consent to confidential
arbitration for the limited and sole purpose of determining whether
the claims asserted in this Action fall within the scope of the
Arbitration Clause.

The Parties jointly stipulated and agreed, and the Court approved,
as follows.

The Plaintiff consents to arbitration under the terms set forth in
the Arbitration Clause solely and exclusively for the limited
purpose of determining the threshold issue of arbitrability--i.e.,
whether the claims at issue in this Action fall within the scope of
the Arbitration Clause. If the arbitrator determines that the
claims at issue in this Action fall within the scope of the
Arbitration Clause, the Plaintiff agrees that he must arbitrate
those claims according to the terms of the Arbitration Clause and
the Terms of Use.

In an effort to further streamline proceedings and promote judicial
economy, the Parties agree to produce certain documents and
information (as specified in Schedule A hereto) within 30 days of
the service on the Defendants of an arbitration demand by the
Plaintiff.

The Parties agree that the arbitration will be kept confidential
except that they may disclose to this Court whether the arbitrator
concludes that the claims at issue in this Action fall within or
outside the scope of the Arbitration Clause. Nothing in this
stipulation precludes either party from moving in this Court for
entry of an order enforcing an arbitrator's award or ruling under 9
U.S.C. Section 9.

The Parties request that the Court stay this Action pending the
outcome of the arbitration proceeding and that this Court retain
jurisdiction, as necessary, pending the outcome of such arbitration
proceeding.

The Parties further agree to submit joint status reports to the
Court every 30 days until the stay is lifted. The first such status
report will be due on Oct. 2, 2023.

The Parties further agree that this Stipulation is without
prejudice to any dismissal arguments under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 9(b), 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and that the Defendants may
raise those arguments after the arbitrator rules on the threshold
issue of arbitrability--i.e., whether the claims at issue in this
Action fall within the scope of the Arbitration Clause.

For Production by the Defendants:

   1. All non-privileged documents reviewed by Kevin Michael or
      the Defendants' counsel in connection with preparation of
      his draft declaration in this matter provided to
      the Plaintiff's counsel on July 27, 2023 ("Draft
      Declaration"), including the documents constituting "ACI's
      records," as that phrase is used in Paragraph 9 of the
      Draft Declaration;

   2. A copy of the contractual terms that relate to Mr. Haley's
      Club Card account, to the "predecessor Safeway Card
      No. 41035708166," or to any Club Card account associated
      with the Household ID No. 990003116405, as available, and
      as described in paragraph 9 of the Draft Declaration; and

   3. All documents reflecting any purchases made by Mr. Haley in
      his capacity as a visitor to, or a user of, any "Site," as
      that term is defined in the "Terms of Use" attached as
      Exhibit A to the Draft Declaration and identifiable by
      reference to (a) Mr. Haley's Safeway and/or Albertsons
      Companies, Inc. account information or (b) other
      information specific to Mr. Haley (e.g., credit card, email
      address, etc.).

For Production by the Plaintiff:

   1. All documents within Mr. Haley's custody, possession, or
      control related to his Safeway Club Card and/or Safeway for
      U accounts, purchases he made using a Safeway Club Card
      and/or Safeway for U account, and his download and/or use
      of the Safeway mobile app (the application Safeway makes
      available to customers for download and use on a mobile
      device).

Judge Thompson orders that the matter is stayed pending the outcome
of arbitration. The parties will provide status reports every 30
days to the Court regarding the arbitration with the first status
report due Oct. 2, 2023.

The Clerk will administratively close the case subject to reopening
upon completion of arbitration. If the arbitrator determines that
the claims at issue in this Action fall outside the scope of the
Arbitration Clause and are not required to be arbitrated under the
Arbitration Clause and Terms of Use, the Defendants may within 30
days of the arbitrator's determination make in this Court any
arguments they may have under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
9(b), 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order dated Aug.
10, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y43frmde from
Leagle.com.

Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Blythe H.
Chandler -- bchandler@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW
GROUP PLLC, in Seattle, Washington, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.

BERGER MONTAGUE, P.C., Sophia M. Rios -- srios@bm.net -- in San
Diego, California. E. Michelle Drake -- emdrake@bm.net -- in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, Zachary M. Vaughan -- zvaughan@bm.net -- in
Washington, D.C.

SUGERMAN DAHAB, David F. Sugerman -- david@sugermandahab.com --
Nadia H. Dahab -- nadia@sugermandahab.com -- in Portland, Oregon.

TIM QUENELLE, PC, Tim Alan Quenelle -- tim.quenelle@gmail.com -- in
Lake Oswego, Oregon, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, Dana L. Cook-Milligan -- dlcook@winston.com
-- Drew H. Washington -- dwashington@winston.com -- in San
Francisco, California, Christopher M. Murphy --
cmmurphy@winston.com -- in Chicago, Illinois, Attorneys for the
Defendants.


ALTMAN LUGGAGE CO: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Altman Luggage Co.,
LLC. The case is styled as Nihal Erkan, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Altman Luggage Co., LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-06532 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2023).

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

Altman Luggage -- https://altmanluggage.com/ -- has offered the
very best in luggage, travel accessories, briefcases, and fine
writing instruments since 1920.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN HONDA: Vehicles' Windshield "Defective," McIntyre Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKLIN MCINTYRE, MELISSA NULL, CHRISTINA REGNIER, and CRYSTAL
SMITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-07024 (C.D. Cal., August 25, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of implied warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, and violations of the Alabama
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's design, manufacturing,
marketing, and distribution of 2019-2023 Acura RDX vehicles with
defective rear windshield. According to the complaint, the Class
vehicles are equipped with a defective rear windshield with
electrical defroster that causes the rear windshield glass to
spontaneously shatter or break with no external impact. These rear
windshield failures occur without warning, when the motor is off or
running, and when the Vehicles are still or travelling at speed.
The Defendant has known about the propensity of its rear
windshields to spontaneously shatter for years. Yet the Defendant
failed to disclose and actively concealed the vehicles' rear
windshield defect from the public, and continues to manufacture,
distribute, and sell the Vehicles without disclosing the defect.
Had the Plaintiffs and the putative class members known of the rear
windshield defect, they would have paid less for the vehicles or
would not have purchased them, says the suit.

American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is an automobile company,
headquartered in Torrance, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
         TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
         10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1101
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Telephone: (510) 254-6808
         E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com

                 - and -

         Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
         Leora N. Friedman, Esq.
         TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
         2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 1010
         Washington, DC 20006
         Telephone: (202) 973-0900
         E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com
                 lfriedman@tzlegal.com

                 - and -

         Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
         GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
         4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
         Cincinnati, OH 45242
         Telephone: (513) 345-8297
         E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

                 - and -

         Frank Bartela, Esq.
         DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN
         60 South Park Place
         Painesville, OH 44077
         Telephone: (440) 352-3391
         E-mail: fbartela@dworkenlaw.com

ARIZONA: Transgender Persons Class Certified in Roe v. Herrington
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James A. Soto of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
the lawsuit titled Helen Roe, a minor, by and through her parent
and next friend Megan Roe; James Poe, a minor, by and through his
parent and next friend Laura Poe; and Carl Voe, a minor, by and
through his parent and next friend Rachel Voe, Plaintiffs v. Don
Herrington, in his official capacity as Interim State Registrar of
Vital Records and Interim Director of the Arizona Department of
Health Services, Defendant, Case No. CV-20-00484-TUC-JAS (D.
Ariz.).

Plaintiffs Helen Roe, James Poe, and Carl Voe are transgender
individuals born in Arizona, who have been diagnosed with gender
dysphoria. Widely accepted medical and psychological treatment for
gender dysphoria includes socially transitioning to live consistent
with one's gender identity (as opposed to the gender identified on
a birth certificate which is inconsistent for individuals with
gender dysphoria).

Consistent with medical and psychological treatment for gender
dysphoria, transgender individuals seek to align their appearance
and identification documents (such as birth certificates, driver's
licenses, passports, etc.) with their gender identity. For many
transgender individuals, surgical treatment may never be medically
or psychologically appropriate or necessary to treat their gender
dysphoria. However, Arizona law (A.R.S. Section 36-337(A)(3))
requires Arizonans to get a "sex change operation" to be permitted
to change the gender marker on their birth certificate (to align
with their gender identity) through Arizona's private
administrative process.

The Plaintiffs argue that Arizona law violates the Equal Protection
and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by
discriminating against transgender individuals and burdening their
right to liberty, privacy, autonomy, and medical decision-making
authority. They seek to certify a class of: "All transgender
individuals born in Arizona, now and in the future, who seek to
change the sex listed on their birth certificate, but have not
undergone a 'sex change operation' as treatment for their gender
dysphoria."

Considering the thousands of transgender individuals in Arizona
reflected in the Plaintiffs' demographic studies, Judge Soto says
common sense dictates that there are at least 40 transgender
individuals in Arizona, who would seek to change their gender
marker (through a private administrative process) as pursuing such
a course of action is a widely accepted medical and psychological
practice in treating gender dysphoria. As such, the Court finds
that numerosity under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure is satisfied in this case.

In this case, the Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class
trace their injury to a common source: the "sex change operation"
requirement in A.R.S. Section 36-337(A)(3). The inability of
transgender individuals in Arizona to change the gender marker on
their birth certificate through a private administrative process
stems from the enforcement of the surgical requirement in A.R.S.
Section 36-337(A)(3). The Plaintiffs argue this violates the Equal
Protection and Due Process Clauses; these legal issues and the
resolution of those issues are common to the proposed class. Hence,
Judge Soto finds that the commonality requirement is satisfied in
this case.

The Court notes that the Defendant's contention that the Plaintiffs
are unable to satisfy the typicality requirement rests on Article
III standing arguments, which the Court has already considered and
rejected. The Court also notes that the relevant injuries at issue
in this case are not the individualized emotional injuries of each
Plaintiff as indicated by the Defendant, but rather constitutional
injuries (via Arizona's "sex change operation" requirement)
stemming from the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause
violations. Judge Soto finds that the typicality requirement is
satisfied in this case.

As there are no conflicts of interest and class counsel are
experienced attorneys that would properly represent the class,
Judge Soto finds that the adequacy requirement is satisfied.

In this case, the Plaintiffs and the proposed members of the class
seek an injunction against the Arizona Department of Health
Services that bars enforcement of the "sex operation" requirement
under A.R.S. Section 36-337(A)(3). Such an injunction in this
matter would protect all proposed class members' Due Process and
Equal Protection rights, and otherwise make it less burdensome for
transgender individuals to amend the gender marker on their birth
certificates in Arizona through a private administrative process.
Judge Soto finds the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) are satisfied in
this case.

Accordingly, for these reasons, Judge Soto grants the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

The Court notes that two intertwined discovery motions (Docs. 206,
207) were very recently filed; upon review of the briefs and
pertinent record and authority related thereto, the Defendant's
motion to extend remaining deadlines (Doc. 207) is granted and the
Plaintiffs' motion to quash or for a protective order (Doc. 206) is
denied.

The deadlines and the parties' discovery obligations are reset as
follows: (a) the Plaintiffs were to disclose the information
requested in the Defendant's subpoenas as to the Plaintiffs'
experts (Doctors Shumer and Ettner) on 8/18/23; (b) Based on the
newly disclosed information as to Doctors Shumer and Ettner, the
Defendant has leave to conduct any supplemental depositions of
Doctors Shumer and Ettner on 8/31/23; (c) Summary judgment motions
are due no later than 9/29/23; (d) The joint proposed pretrial
order (PTO) is due by no later than 10/31/23.

If summary judgment motions are filed, the PTO will be due 30 days
after any non-dispositive summary judgment rulings. If the parties
can agree to adjust these deadlines to better suit their schedules
and those of the experts, the parties are free to submit a
stipulation and proposed order adjusting the deadlines.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 10, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5b3deyjj from Leagle.com.


AT&T INC: General Retirement Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T INC.,
JOHN STANKEY, RANDALL L. STEPHENSON, PASCAL DESROCHES, and JOHN
STEPHENS, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07351 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 18,
2023) is a class action on behalf of Plaintiff and similarly
situated persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded AT&T securities between November 2, 2018 and July
26, 2023, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants released statements that
were materially false and misleading because they misrepresented
and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known
to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically,
Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (1) AT&T was responsible for cables around the
country that are highly toxic due to their being wrapped in lead, a
known neurotoxin, which has harmed and posed the risk of further
harming the environment, exposed Company employees, and the general
public; (2) AT&T faces potentially significant litigation risk,
regulatory risk, and reputational harm as a result of its
responsibility for these lead-covered cables and the health risks
stemming from their presence around the United States; (3) AT&T was
warned about the damage and risks presented by these cables but did
not disclose them as a potential threat to employee safety or to
everyday people and communities; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
statements about AT&T's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis in
fact at all relevant times.

On this news, the price of AT&T stock fell $0.38 per share, or
2.6%, to close at $14.51 on July 27, 2023.

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

AT&T Inc. is a telecommunications company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell M.Z. Twerksy, Esq.
          Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
          Atara Twersky, Esq.
          Lawrence D. Levit, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
          450 Seventh Avenue, 38th Floor
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 279-5050
          Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
          E-mail: mtwersky@aftlaw.com
                  jfruchter@aftlaw.com
                  atwersky@aftlaw.com
                  llevit@aftlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Vanoverbeke, Esq.
          VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
          79 Alfred Street
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-1200
          Facsimile: (313) 578-1201
          E-mail: mvanoverbeke@vmtlaw.com

ATHENS OUTDOORS: Santana Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN SANTANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ATHENS OUTDOORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-01041-GLS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., August 24, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 and the New York State Civil Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed 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's website contains access
barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the
benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the
public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website
include, but not limited to: (a) is not properly coded to describe
the payment options available to the customer, (b) is not properly
coded to add more than one item once in the cart or to delete a
product if too many of a single product have been added within the
cart, (c) does not contain proper navigation links or headings, and
(d) does not provide a text equivalent for many non-text elements.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.

Athens Outdoors, LLC is an online retail company that sells archery
products and apparel, doing business in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
         MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
         225 Broadway, 39th Floor
         New York, NY 10007
         Telephone: (212) 595-6200
         Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
         E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com

ATLAS FIELD: Court Denies Black's Bid for Leave to Amend Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies the Plaintiff's motion for leave to
file amended complaint in the lawsuit captioned BARRY BLACK,
Plaintiff v. ATLAS FIELD SERVICES, LLC, and CRAIG TAYLOR,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00171-WHA (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff moves for leave to amend his complaint such that he
may file an entirely new complaint, removing all prior claims and
adding a single new claim. The Defendants do not oppose.

The action was removed by the Defendants in January 2023. The
removed complaint largely mirrors that of a related action already
before Judge Alsup, which was filed in July 2020 and consisted of
different plaintiffs -- represented by same counsel -- against the
same defendants, also represented by same counsel (Daniel v. Atlas
Field Services, LLC, No. C 20-04415 WHA)).

This order follows the Plaintiff's motion briefing (as the
Defendants do not oppose) and oral argument. In Daniel, the
original complaint asserted various wage-and-hour claims on a
putative class action basis for violations of California and
federal labor laws. It was then amended to add a California Private
Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim in August 2020.

A case management scheduling order in Daniel set a deadline of May
2021 to move for class certification. A week before the deadline,
the Daniel plaintiffs moved to extend that class certification
deadline. An order denied the extension due to evidence showing the
plaintiffs' own lack of diligence in pursuing discovery and
prosecuting their case. In April 2022, with trial imminent, the
plaintiffs moved to approve settlement of their PAGA claims of 40
aggrieved employees.

That settlement was denied because it (1) sought only nominal
recovery for each aggrieved employee within the relevant PAGA
period, and (2) the settlement agreement described a far broader
release of claims than had been represented. At the settlement
approval hearing, counsel for the plaintiffs -- the same counsel,
who represent the Plaintiffs -- affirmed that they would take Judge
Alsup's comments to heart and make sure they would correct
everything.

The Daniel plaintiffs submitted a second proposed settlement in
August 2022, which was again denied because it turned out to be a
resubmission of "the exact same settlement agreement that was
previously rejected." In February 2023, the Daniel parties
stipulated to dismiss all individual claims with prejudice, and the
PAGA claim without prejudice.

Turning back to the instant action, the Plaintiff now moves to
amend his complaint, dropping the individual and class claims, and
proceeding solely under PAGA.

Keeping the foregoing in mind, Judge Alsup notes that here the
Plaintiff openly admits the dilatory motive of waiting for Daniel
to be dismissed so counsel may have a second shot at asserting a
PAGA claim. Therein lies the rub, Judge Alsup says.

Again, Judge Alsup points out, this action involves the same
counsel all around as in Daniel. Either the Plaintiff means to
exhume Daniel and continue to litigate that PAGA claim here, or the
Plaintiff untimely seeks to add a PAGA claim somehow distinct from
that in Daniel but deriving from the same set of facts. Judge Alsup
holds that this order will not bless counsel's belated efforts to
make up for prior lack thereof, and finds this motion to amend made
in bad faith.

To be clear, Judge Alsup says, the Plaintiff proffers no reason
beyond counsel's conscious strategic maneuvering to explain the
delay in amending his complaint. Curiously, the Defendants do not
oppose amendment here, despite the fact that there is certainly
prejudice in exchanging a complaint asserting individual
wage-and-hour claims for one that asserts a PAGA claim, which
carries statutory penalties on a representative capacity. This
order will not speculate on any unstated motives of the parties;
the stated motive of strategic maneuvering, the prejudice to the
Defendants that the amended complaint represents, and the delay in
seeking amendment combine to warrant denial of leave to amend.

Hence, the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first amended
complaint is denied.

Daniel was substantially similar to this action, involving over two
years of litigation, which included a full discovery period. The
parties, being represented by same counsel on both sides, are
familiar with the underlying facts, as well as what their
litigation strategies are (or should be). In the joint case
management statement, the Plaintiff represents that he will also
consider filing a motion to remand once he files his FAC, while the
Defendants represent they intend to file a Motion to Compel
Arbitration, if necessary.

Given the foregoing, both sides have until Sept. 12, 2023, to file
those respective motions (if at all), noticed on the normal 35-day
track.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 28, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3w82c9ra from PacerMonitor.com.


ATOMIC PROVISIONS: Lucero Seeks Unpaid Wages for Servers/Bartenders
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN LUCERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ATOMIC PROVISIONS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:23-cv-00603-RK (W.D. Mo., August 25, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay employees their earned
wages and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Missouri Minimum Wage Maximum Hours Laws, the
Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act.

Ms. Lucero worked at Atomic Cowboy restaurant as server and
bartender from approximately March 2023 until June 2023.

Atomic Provisions LLC is a restaurant company doing business in
Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq.
         Brad K. Thoenen, Esq.
         Kevin A. Todd, Esq.
         Ethan A. Crockett, Esq.
         HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
         1501 Westport Road
         Kansas City, MO 64111
         Telephone: (816) 875-3332
         E-mail: jziegelmeyer@hkm.com
                 bthoenen@hkm.com
                 ktodd@hkm.com
                 ecrockett@hkm.com

                 - and -

         Michael Hodgson, Esq.
         THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
         3609 SW Pryor Road
         Lee's Summit, MO 64082
         Telephone: (816) 600-0117
         Facsimile: (816) 600-0137
         E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Schak Sues Over Unauthorized Credit Card Issuance
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT SCHAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A. and BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06127 (N.D. Ill., August
25, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, and Illinois Unsolicited Credit
Card Act, and for unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, Bank of America is engaged in
fraudulent practice of accessing consumers' credit reports,
submitting credit card applications, and issuing credit cards on
behalf of consumers without their knowledge or consent. As a result
of Bank of America's illegal conduct, the Plaintiff and similarly
situated consumers are harmed, including, but not limited to,
adverse impacts on their credit reports and consequential damages
that result therefrom, and service fees charged or related to
unauthorized accounts. The Defendants were unjustly enriched by the
opening of these credit card accounts, to which consumers did not
consent, says the suit.

Bank of America NA is a global financial services firm, with its
principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment
bank and financial services holding company headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
         WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP
         311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5450
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 346-2222
         E-mail: kae@wbe-llp.com

                 - and -

         Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
         Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
         Abou B. Amara, Jr., Esq.
         GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
         Canadian Pacific Plaza
         120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 333-8844
         E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                 dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
                 aamara@gustafsongluek.com

                 - and -

         Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
         Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
         LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
         100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55401
         Telephone: (612) 339-6300
         E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
                 rkshelquist@locklaw.com

BARILLA AMERICA: Tomato Sauces Contain Preservatives, Long Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TRACHELE LONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BARILLA AMERICA INC., Defendant, Case No.
7:23-cv-07556 (S.D.N.Y., August 25, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the New York General Business Law,
breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
multiple types of tomato sauces. The Defendant clearly lists "No
Preservatives" on the products' label, capitalizing on the
preference of health-conscious consumers to purchase foods that are
free from preservatives. However, the Defendant's products contain
"citric acid," a well-known preservative used in food products. As
a result of its deceptive conduct, the Defendant violates state
consumer protection statutes and has been unjustly enriched at the
expense of consumers, says the suit.

Barilla America Inc. is a food company, with its principal place of
business located at 191 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
         Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, PA
         1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Fl.
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150
         Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
         E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com
                 jdiamond@bursor.com

BARK INC: Faces Vernon Suit Over Illegal Waiver Provision
---------------------------------------------------------
GEOFFREY VERNON, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders, Plaintiff v. BARK, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, MATT MEEKER, PAULETTE DODSON, DAVID A. KAMENETZKY,
JAMES J. MCGINTY, MICHELE MEYER, BETSY K. MCLAUGHLIN, and HENRIK
WERDELIN, Defendants, Case No. 2023-0866 (Del. Ch., Aug. 23, 2023)
is a verified class action complaint against BARK and certain
members its board of directors for declaratory relief relating to
the Company's violation of Sections 102(b)(7) and 122(17) of
Delaware's General Corporation Law and Delaware common law and
public policy.

According to the complaint, the Company's charter, adopted and
maintained by Defendants, has a provision in which the Company
grants a blanket waiver of the corporate opportunity doctrine
contrary to Delaware law. Under Delaware law, fiduciary duties may
be modified or eliminated and corporations have the power to
renounce in advance any interest of the corporation in an
opportunity to participate in specified business opportunities.
Such a waiver of corporate opportunities must be specific and a
company's officers and directors may not be issued carte blanche to
pursue opportunity belonging to the Company. Likewise, the duty of
loyalty cannot be eliminated or limited.

Defendants' Waiver Provision violates both rules, says the suit.

Plaintiff Geoffrey Vernon is and has been at all relevant times an
owner of BARK common stock.

BARK Inc. produces toys, treats, food, and dental care products for
dogs with its principal office located in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          Andrew A. Ralli, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          1000 N. West Street, Suite 1500
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3800
          Facsimile: (302) 984-3939
          E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

               - and -

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 358
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq.
          KRANENBURG
          80-83 Long Lane London EC1A 9ET
          United Kingdom
          Telephone: +44-20-3174-0365
          E-mail: werner@kranenburgesq.com

C3.AI INC: Hearing on Bids to Toss Reckstin Suit Cont'd to Nov. 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled THE RECKSTIN FAMILY TRUST, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. C3.AI, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:22-cv-01413-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
signed the parties' stipulation to continue the hearing on the
Defendants' motions to dismiss to Nov. 2, 2023.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b), 6-2, and 7-7, Lead Plaintiff
Mark Samarghandi, and Defendants C3, Inc., Thomas M. Siebel, Edward
Y. Abbo, David Barter, and Lorenzo Simonelli (the "C3 Defendants"),
and Baker Hughes Co., agree and stipulate, through their respective
counsel of record, that good cause exists to request an order from
the Court continuing the hearing on the Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss.

On Jan. 10, 2023, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting
deadlines for the Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint, the
Defendants' motions to dismiss, the Plaintiffs' opposition thereto,
and the Defendants' replies.

On Feb. 15, 2023, the Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Corporate Defendants C3,
Inc., and Baker Hughes Company, and Individual Defendants Thomas M.
Siebel, Edward Y. Abbo, David Barter, and Lorenzo Simonelli; and
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 against underwriter
defendants Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC,
BofA Securities, Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., Canaccord
Genuity LLC, JMP Securities LLC, KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc.,
Needham & Company, LLC, Piper Sandler & Co., and Wedbush Securities
Inc. (the "Underwriter Defendants").

On April 11, 2023, the Court entered a stipulation and order
extending time for the Defendants' motions to dismiss, the
Plaintiffs' opposition thereto, and the Defendants' replies.

On May 1, 2023, the C3 Defendants, Baker Hughes, and the
Underwriter Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Class
Action Complaint.

On June 30, 2023, the Plaintiffs and the Underwriter Defendants
filed a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice
dismissing their claims against the Underwriter Defendants; and the
Plaintiffs filed an omnibus opposition responding to the C3
Defendants' and Baker Hughes' Motions to Dismiss.

A hearing on the Defendants' motions to dismiss was originally
noted for Aug. 17, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. Pursuant to the Clerk's
Notice, the hearing was continued to Aug. 24, 2023, at 2:00 p.m.

Counsel for the Plaintiffs are unavailable to attend the hearing on
the continued date due to a longstanding work-related commitment
taking place out-of-state between Aug. 23 and Aug. 25, 2023. All
parties consent to the requested relief.

Accordingly, the parties stipulated and agreed that the hearing on
the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss is continued to Nov. 2, 2023.

A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order dated Aug.
10, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/pv62bh9a from
Leagle.com.

Reed R. Kathrein -- reed@hbsslaw.com -- Lucas E. Gilmore --
lucasg@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, in Berkeley,
California.

Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Catherine Y.N. Gannon --
catherineg@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, in
Seattle, Washington, Lead Counsel and Counsel for Lead Plaintiff
Mark Samarghandi.

Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- Jonathan Stern --
jstern@rosenlegal.com -- in New York City, THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Counsel for Additional Plaintiffs Sharon L. Zavalanski, David
Linder, and Elizabeth Wensel.

Harry A. Oliver, Jr. -- harryolivar@quinnemanuel.com -- David
Edward Myre, III -- davidmyre@quinnemanuel.com -- Jacob J. Waldman
-- jacobwaldman@quinnemanuel.com -- Leigha Empson --
leighaempson@quinnemanuel.com -- Jesse A. Bernstein --
jessebernstein@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP, in New York City, Counsel for Defendant C3, Inc.,
Thomas M. Siebel Edward Y. Abbo, David Barter, and Lorenzo
Simonelli.

Jessica Valenzuela -- JValenzuela@gibsondunn.com -- George B. Adams
-- GAdams@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, in San
Francisco, California, Counsel for Defendant Barker Hughes
Company.


CALIBER AEROSPACE: Underpays Machine Operators, Vasquez Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE L. VASQUEZ HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALIBER AEROSPACE, LLC;
EMPLOYER SOLUTIONS STAFFING GROUP II, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV20323 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., August 24, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 including failure to pay all wages
due, failure to pay sick leave and provide employees with written
notice of accrued sick leave, failure to provide meal periods or
compensation in lieu thereof, failure to provide rest periods or
compensation in lieu thereof, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements upon payment of wages, failure to reimburse for
necessary expenditures, and failure to pay wages of terminated or
resigned employees.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a machine operator at
13226 Halldale Avenue, Gardena, California from approximately July
2022 to May 17, 2023.

Caliber Aerospace, LLC is a precision aerospace hardware
manufacturer based in California.

Employer Solutions Staffing Group II, LLC is a staffing solution
provider based in Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Lilit Tunyan, Esq.
         Artur Tunyan, Esq.
         TUNYAN LAW, APC
         1336 Rossmoyne Avenue
         Glendale, CA 91207
         Telephone: (323) 410-5050
         E-mail: ltunyan@tunyanlaw.com
                 atunyan@tunyanlaw.com

CINCINNATI LUBES: Williams Sues Over Employees' Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARREN LAMONT WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CINCINNATI LUBES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00900 (M.D. Tenn., August 24, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a full-time,
hourly-paid employee.

Cincinnati Lubes, Inc. is a provider of automotive preventive
maintenance services, with its principal address located at 790
Pershing Road, Raleigh, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
         James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
         JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
         262 German Oak Drive
         Memphis, TN 38018
         Telephone: (901) 754-8001
         Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
         E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 jholt@jsyc.com

CLIMATE PROS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Fordyce Says
---------------------------------------------------------
James Fordyce, Joshua Pelletier, Michael Ellis, and Randall Swayze,
on behalf of themselves and all other plaintiffs similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CLIMATE PROS LLC, Todd Ernest, Martin
Hamilton, and Patricia Burkland, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05691
(N.D. Ill., Aug. 18, 2023) arises from the Defendants' unlawful
labor policies and practices in violation of the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

According to the complaint, Climate Pros agreed to pay employees
base hourly wages or salaries plus additional compensation in the
form of commissions and/or bonuses. This additional commission
and/or bonus compensation was based on the profitability of
projects/jobs worked on by employees. However, Defendants failed to
properly calculate the profitability of projects/jobs, and thus,
did not properly calculate the additional commission compensation
owed to employees. The Defendants' actions resulted in employees
being paid lower commissions and/or bonuses than they actually
earned pursuant to their agreement with Defendants, says the suit.

Additionally, Climate Pros failed to include this additional
commission and/or bonus compensation in the regular rate of pay
when calculating overtime premiums as is required under the law.
This failure to properly calculate employees' regular rates of pay
resulted in employees being deprived of their proper overtime
earnings, the suit alleges.

Plaintiff Fordyce worked as an estimator and project manager in
Climate Pros' electrical division from about April 2016 until June
2022.

Climate Pros is a nationwide commercial refrigeration and HVAC
company that designs, builds, and services refrigeration systems
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Fish, Esq.
          Patrick Cowlin, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          FISH POTTER BOLAÑOS, PC
          111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312)861-1800
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  pcowlin@fishlawfirm.com
                  kunze@fishlawfirm.com

COSTA FARMS: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Costa Farms, LLC. The
case is styled as Shivan Bassaw, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Costa Farms, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-07753 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2023).

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

Costa Farms, LLC -- https://costafarms.com/ -- grows and
distributes indoor houseplants and bedding plants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ian Piasecki, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (347) 745-0445
          Email: ipiasecki@mizrahikroub.com


COSTWAY.COM INC: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Costway.com, Inc. The
case is styled as Shivan Bassaw, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Costway.com, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-07751 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2023).

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

Costway -- https://www.costway.com/ -- provides customers with
plenty of choices, in fact over 8000 products to choose from.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ian Piasecki, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (347) 745-0445
          Email: ipiasecki@mizrahikroub.com


COUNTY COMFORT: Faces Montes Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
OMAR MONTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COUNTY COMFORT HOME SOLUTIONS, INC. and
JOSEPH JENSEN, Defendants, Case No. 7:23-cv-07579 (S.D.N.Y., August
25, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New York Labor Law,
and the New York State Human Rights Law including failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide
payroll notices, failure to provide wage statements, fraudulent
filing of information returns, and disability discrimination and
failure to accommodate.

Mr. Montes was employed by the Defendants as a heating,
ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) technician on two separate
occasions: first, from on or around May 1, 2016, through on or
around October 3, 2022, and then from on or around July 17, 2023 to
present.

County Comfort Home Solutions, Inc. is a provider of HVAC services,
with its principal place of business located at 1903 Half Moon Bay
Drive, Croton-on-Hudson, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Nicole Grunfeld, Esq.
         KATZ MELINGER PLLC
         370 Lexington Ave, Suite 1512
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (212) 460-0047
         Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
         E-mail: ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com

CRAB STOP: Loses Bid to Compel Discovery Responses in EEOC Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Shaniek Mills Maynard of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida denies the Defendants' motion
to compel discovery responses in the lawsuit captioned U.S. EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff v. THE CRAB STOP
SEAFOOD BAR & GRILL, LLC, and THE CRAB STOP SEAFOOD BAR & GRILL II,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 22-14339-CIV-MARTINEZ/MAYNARD (S.D.
Fla.).

On Sept. 30, 2022, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(the "EEOC") initiated this action against The Crab Stop Bar and
Seafood Grill, LLC ("Crab Stop I") and The Crab Stop Bar and
Seafood Grill II, LLC ("Crab Stop II"). On July 14, 2023, the EEOC
filed a four-count Second Amended Complaint against the
Defendants.

Pursuant to Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section
2000e2(a)(1), the EEOC's claims against the Defendants are premised
on the alleged hostile work environment and retaliation experienced
by the Charging Parties Caroline Mills and Michaela Farrell
("Charging Parties").

The Second Amended Complaint asserts claims against the Defendants
for hostile work environment in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of
Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a)(1) (Count I); retaliation
in violation of Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section
2000e-3(a) (Count II); hostile work environment in violation of
Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e2(a)(1)
(Count III); and constructive discharge in violation of Section
703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e2(a)(1) (Count IV).

The Defendants seek to compel the EEOC to provide the Charging
Parties' medical bills (RFP No. 6), resumes (RFP No. 7), and tax
returns (RFP No. 8).

Since the filing of the Defendants' Motion, the Defendants'
at-issue requests regarding interrogatories have been resolved.
More specifically, the Defendants moved to compel responses to
Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 18, which relate to the proposed class
action in Count V of the First Amended Complaint and information
about Kayla Chitty, the only proposed class member identified.

The EEOC responded that it intends to remove the class claims,
including all claims related to Kayla Chitty in a Second Amended
Complaint. The EEOC's Second Amended Complaint, filed on July 14,
2023, removes the class action claim and any claims relating to Ms.
Chitty. Thus, the Defendants' Motion is denied as moot as to
Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 18, and any discovery requests pertaining
to Ms. Chitty.

The Defendants also moved to compel a response to Interrogatory No.
8, which asked the EEOC to "state the amount of damages sought by
the EEOC along with an explanation as to how it arrived at that
sum." The EEOC responded that it did not receive the work schedules
from the Defendants necessary to make the requested calculations
until three days before they filed their motion to compel and would
serve Amended Interrogatory Responses containing the requested
damages calculations by July 10, 2023. The EEOC subsequently filed
a notice indicating that Amended Interrogatory Responses were
served. The Defendants' Motion regarding Interrogatory No. 8 is,
therefore, denied as moot.

Request for Production No. 6 asks the EEOC to produce all medical
records and bills relating to claims for physical or mental
injuries on behalf of the Charging Parties. In response, the EEOC
agreed to provide the Charging Parties' medical records but
objected to producing billing records because the "EEOC is not
including medical costs in its damages calculations and therefore
such information is irrelevant." The Defendants maintain that the
billing records are relevant because they may include "dates of
service and diagnosis." The EEOC has agreed to provide the medical
records, however, which will include that information.

Given that the EEOC is not seeking medical expense reimbursement,
and because the "dates of service and diagnosis" information is
contained within the treatment notes being produced, Judge Maynard
finds that the Charging Parties' medical bills are not relevant to
the claims or defenses in this action. Thus, the Defendants' Motion
is denied as to Request for Production No. 6.

Request for Production No. 7 asks the EEOC to produce the Charging
Parties' resumes. In response, the EEOC produced much of the
information typically found on a resume, including position/title,
rate of pay, and dates of employment for all employment after the
Charging Parties were employed by the Defendants. The EEOC objects,
however, to revealing the identity and location of the Charging
Parties' current employment and disclosing the Charging Parties'
work history before they were hired by the Defendants.

As the EEOC acknowledges, the work history of the Charging Parties
after they left the Defendants' employ is relevant. Recognizing
this, EEOC has produced information regarding the Charging Parties'
position/title, rates of pay, and dates of employment since their
employment with the Defendants.

EEOC objects, however, to providing identities and contact
information for current employers out of concerns that the
Defendants may attempt to interfere with the Charging Parties'
current employment in retaliation for bringing this lawsuit. The
Defendants have not articulated how current employers' identities
are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case given the
information already provided.

Thus, to the extent the Defendants' request for resumes seeks
identities and contact information for current employers, Judge
Maynard holds that the Defendants' Motion is denied.

EEOC also objects to disclosing the Charging Parties' work
histories for the time period before they worked for the
Defendants. The Defendants say such information "outlines the
progression of the Charging Parties' skill set, job duties and
personal work statements," but fail to identify how the Charging
Parties' skill set, job duties and personal work statements are
relevant to any claim or defense in this case, Judge Maynard
notes.

Although such information may be relevant in certain Title VII
contexts alleging adverse employment actions, Judge Maynard says
that is not the case here. The Charging Parties' prior employment
history has no apparent relation to whether the Defendants created
a hostile work environment, engaged in retaliation against Mills,
or constructively discharged Farrell. The Defendants' motion for
disclosure of prior work history is, therefore, denied.

Request for Production No. 8 seeks the Charging Parties' tax
returns. In response, the EEOC agreed to produce the Charging
Parties' W2s and/or IRS wage transcripts for any employment
subsequent to their employment with the Defendants, but objects to
producing the requested tax returns on the grounds that the request
is overbroad in temporal scope and Defendants have no "sufficient
basis" for entitlement to such financial records.

The Defendants' Motion narrows the temporal scope of Request for
Production No. 8 and now seeks the Charging Parties' tax returns
from age of 18 onward. The EEOC responds that the Defendants'
request is still overbroad in temporal scope and Defendants have
demonstrated no need for the Charging Parties' tax returns since
the EEOC has produced relevant wage and earnings information to the
Defendants in the form of W-2s and IRS wage transcripts for the
full period that the Charging Parties' are seeking backpay.

Judge Maynard finds that the Defendants are not entitled to the
Charging Parties' tax returns. Regarding the request for the
Charging Parties' tax returns prior to their employment with the
Defendants, the Defendants have failed to identify any reason the
Charging Parties' earnings history prior to their employment with
the Defendants is relevant.

As to the Charging Parties' tax returns after their employment with
the Defendants, Judge Maynard finds that the Defendants have failed
to articulate what relevant information the tax returns would
provide that the W-2s and IRS wage transcripts do not. Given that
the EEOC has produced the relevant wage and earnings information
through W-2s and transcripts, production of the Charging Parties'
tax returns is not proportional to the needs of this case. The
Defendants' Motion is, therefore, denied as to Request for
Production No. 8.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 10, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/43rstnzc from Leagle.com.


DAK RESOURCES: E.D. California Refuses to Remand Vigil Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOSEPH VIGIL, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAK RESOURCES, INC., a
Florida corporation; MICHAELS STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00163-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California denies the
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.

Defendant Michaels Stores, Inc., a specialty retail company,
employed the Plaintiff and other individuals as hourly-paid or
non-exempt employees in California. On Nov. 23, 2022, the Plaintiff
filed this putative class action in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of San Joaquin, alleging violations of
the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions
Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant: (1) failed to pay lawful
wages including overtime; (2) failed to provide lawful meal
periods; (3) failed to provide lawful rest periods; (4) failed to
reimburse employee expenses; (5) failed to timely pay wages during
employment; (6) failed to timely pay wages due at termination of
employment; (7) failed to comply with itemized employee wage
statement provisions; and (8) violated unfair competition law.

On Jan. 27, 2023, the Defendant filed a Notice of Removal to this
Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA").
On Feb. 24, 2023, the Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing the
Defendants failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence the
amount in controversy ("AIC") exceeds $5 million. On March 10,
2023, the Defendant filed an opposition.

The Plaintiff argues the Defendant failed to establish the AIC
exceeds $5 million. He primarily attacks the Defendant's evidence
in support of removal, arguing the notice of removal is supported
by unreliable declaratory testimony, unreasonable assumptions, and
missing information and data points. He asserts the AIC estimates
are unreasonable because the Defendant did not provide evidence to
support its estimates in the notice of removal.

In opposition, the Defendant argues it provided sufficient evidence
to support removal, namely the declaration of Joyce Davis, the
Defendant's Vice President of Human Resources. The Defendant
contends its AIC calculation is based on data from the Davis
Declaration and argues this calculation, supported by the Davis
Declaration, shows by a preponderance of the evidence the damages
for the Plaintiff's claims exceed $5 million.

Furthermore, the Defendant asserts it estimates the AIC exceeds $5
million when accounting for only six of the Plaintiff's nine claims
and the AIC would be even higher if the remaining three claims were
added in. The Plaintiff disagrees and argues the Davis Declaration
constitutes unreliable testimony with assumptions based on
unverifiable information over which the Defendant has unilateral
access.

The Court agrees with the Defendant.

Contrary to the Plaintiff's contention, Judge Nunley says the
Defendant was not required to submit evidence with its notice of
removal establishing the AIC. It was not until the Plaintiff
challenged the AIC, that the Defendant was required to produce
evidence to establish the AIC exceeds $5 million by a preponderance
of the evidence. Here, Judge Nunley points out, the Defendant
provided such evidence both at the removal stage and in their
opposition to the motion to remand.

Judge Nunley finds that the Davis Declaration and the estimated
damages based on the factual evidence contained therein are
sufficient to meet the Defendant's burden. Accordingly, the Court
finds the Defendant provided sufficient factual evidence for
purposes of calculating damage estimates.

The Defendant's estimated damages reasonably yield an AIC of
$7,380,000 arising from the Plaintiff's claims for rest period
violations, meal period violations, waiting time penalties, and
attorneys' fees, Judge Nunley notes. This figure does not include
estimated damages related to the Plaintiff's other claims for
unpaid overtimes wages, failure to reimburse business expenses, and
failure to timely pay wages during employment. This figure is also
based on the most conservative estimates provided by the
Defendant.

Therefore, the Court finds that the Defendant has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence the AIC in this case exceeds $5
million as required by CAFA.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is denied. The
parties are ordered to file a Joint Status Report with proposed
dates for filing a motion for class certification within thirty
(30) days of the date of this order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 10, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4hab4f5b from Leagle.com.


DATA MEDIA ASSOCIATES: Valdivia Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Data Media
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Norma Valdivia,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Data Media Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03904-MHC (N.D. Ga.,
Aug. 30, 2023).

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

Data Media Associates, LLC -- https://www.dma.us/ -- is a digital
printing service in Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Andrew Childers, Esq.
          Michael Brandon Smith, Esq.
          CHILDERS, SCHLUETER & SMITH, LLC
          1932 North Druid Hills Road, Suite 100
          Atlanta, GA 30319
          Phone: (404) 419-9500
          Email: achilders@cssfirm.com
                 bsmith@cssfirm.com

               - and -

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


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 7, 2023, that the company's motion to dismiss
was denied in a ruling by the court on March 29, 2023 and the
company's answer to a second amended complaint was filed on May 12,
2023.

This is in regards to two putative class action suits (filed on
June 7, 2018, and August 9, 2018) that were filed, and later
consolidated, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of New York. An amended complaint filed alleged that the defendants
failed to disclose, among other things, that a distributor had
purchased excessive inventory of legacy Sirona products and those
three distributors of the company's products had been engaging in
anticompetitive conduct. The plaintiffs seek to recover damages on
behalf of a class of former Sirona shareholders who exchanged their
shares for shares of the company's stock in the 2016 merger of
Sirona Dental Systems Inc. with DENTSPLY International Inc.

Said action claimed that the company and certain individual
defendants, violated U.S. securities laws by making material
misrepresentations and omitting required information in the
December 4, 2015 registration statement filed with the SEC in
connection with the merger.

On September 26, 2019, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss all claims and a judgment dismissing the case was
subsequently entered. On February 4, 2020, the court denied
plaintiffs' post-judgment motion to vacate or modify the judgment
and to grant them leave to amend their complaint. The plaintiffs
appealed the dismissal and the denial of the post-judgment motion
to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division,
First Department, and the company cross-appealed select rulings in
the court's decision dismissing the action.

The plaintiffs' appeals and the company's cross-appeal were
consolidated and argued on January 12, 2021. On February 2, 2021,
the Appellate Division issued its decision upholding the dismissal
of the State Court Action with prejudice on statute of limitations
grounds. The plaintiffs did not appeal the Appellate Division
decision.

Dentsply Sirona Inc. is a manufacturer of dental products and
technologies, including dental consumable products, dental
equipment, dental technologies and certain healthcare consumable
products.


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Securities Suit Over Distributor Pricing Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 7, 2023, that on June 2, 2022, the company was
named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio captioned "City of
Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust
v. Casey, Jr. et al.," Case No. 2:22-cv-02371 (S.D. Ohio).

The complaint in the Securities Litigation allege that, during the
period from June 9, 2021 through May 9, 2022, the Company, Mr.
Donald M. Casey Jr., the company's former Chief Executive Officer,
and Mr. Jorge Gomez, the company's former Chief Financial Officer,
violated U.S. securities laws by, among other things, making
materially false and misleading statements or omissions, including
regarding the manner in which the company recognizes revenue tied
to distributor rebate and incentive programs.

On March 27, 2023, the court in the Southern District of Ohio
ordered the transfer of the putative class action to the Southern
District of New York. Multiple suits have now been consolidated
into a single case brought by one plaintiff class and an amended
complaint filed in August 2023.

On June 1, 2023, the court appointed the City of Birmingham
Retirement and Relief System, the El Paso Firemen and Policemen's
Pension Fund, and the Wayne County Employees' Retirement System as
lead plaintiffs for the putative class, and consolidated the two
separate actions under case No. 1:22-cv-06339. The Plaintiffs filed
an amended class action complaint on July 28, 2023. The company
voluntarily contacted the SEC following the company's announcement
on May 10, 2022 of the Audit and Finance Committee's internal
investigation.

Dentsply Sirona Inc. is a manufacturer of dental products and
technologies, including dental consumable products, dental
equipment, dental technologies and certain healthcare consumable
products.


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Securities Suit Over Merger Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 7, 2023, that a putative class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against the company and certain individual defendants is still
ongoing.

Said action claimed that the company and certain individual
defendants, violated U.S. securities laws by making material
misrepresentations and omitting required information in the
December 4, 2015 registration statement filed with the SEC in
connection with the 2016 merger of Sirona Dental Systems Inc. with
DENTSPLY International Inc. In addition, the plaintiff alleges that
the defendants violated U.S. securities laws by making false and
misleading statements in quarterly and annual reports and other
public statements between February 20, 2014, and August 7, 2018.

The plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of a putative class
consisting of (a) all purchasers of the company's stock during the
period February 20, 2014 through August 7, 2018 and (b) former
shareholders of Sirona who exchanged their shares of Sirona stock
for shares of the company's stock in the Merger. The company moved
to dismiss the amended complaint on August 15, 2019. The plaintiff
filed its second amended complaint on January 22, 2021, and the
company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on
March 8, 2021, with briefing on the motion fully submitted on May
21, 2021.

Dentsply Sirona Inc. is a manufacturer of dental products and
technologies, including dental consumable products, dental
equipment, dental technologies and certain healthcare consumable
products.


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Settles 3 Labor Suits Filed in Cal. Sup.
---------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 7, 2023, that its former wholly-owned
subsidiary, Futuredontics, Inc. is facing a purported class action
lawsuit that alleges several violations of the California wage and
hours laws, including, but not limited to, failure to provide rest
and meal breaks and the failure to pay overtime.

The company has agreed to resolve these actions. The final
settlement amount has been approved by the court and was paid by
the Company in the first quarter of 2023.

On January 25, 2018, the company, received service of said suit
brought by Henry Olivares and other similarly situated individuals
in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles. In January 2019, an amended complaint was filed adding
another named plaintiff, Rachael Clarke, and various claims. The
parties have engaged in written and other discovery. On February 5,
2019, Plaintiff Calethia Holt (represented by the same counsel as
Mr. Olivares and Ms. Clarke) filed a separate representative action
in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging a single violation of the
Private Attorneys' General Act that is based on the same underlying
claims as the Olivares/Clarke lawsuit.

On April 5, 2019, Plaintiff Kendra Cato filed a similar action in
Los Angeles Superior Court alleging a single violation of the
Private Attorneys' General Act that is based on the same underlying
claims as the Olivares/Clarke lawsuit.

The court in Cato approved the settlement in that case, the
settlement payment has been made, and the court dismissed the
lawsuit. The parties have also reached a settlement in the Olivares
and Holt class action.

Dentsply Sirona Inc. is a manufacturer of dental products and
technologies, including dental consumable products, dental
equipment, dental technologies and certain healthcare consumable
products.


EASTERN FRUITS: Underpays Supermarket Workers, Rodriguez Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EASTERN FRUITS & VEGETABLES INC. and ASIF
JHANGIR, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06317 (E.D.N.Y., August 23,
2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide
wage notices, and failure to provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a supermarket
worker in Brooklyn, New York from January 2022 to June 2023

Eastern Fruits & Vegetables Inc. is an owner and operator of a
retail full-service supermarket, located at 1234 Coney Island
Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Fausto E. Zapata, Jr., Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF FAUSTO E. ZAPATA, JR. PC
         277 Broadway, Suite 501
         New York, NY 10007
         Telephone: (212) 766-9870
         E-mail: fz@fzapatalaw.com

ELEGANZA 1 INC: Fails to Properly Pay Deli Workers, Tapia Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS TAPIA RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELEGANZA 1 INC. (D/B/A ELEGANZA
GOURMET DELI), ELEGANZA II GOURMET DELI INC. (D/B/A ELEGANZA
GOURMET DELI), ELEGANZA GORMET INC. (D/B/A ELEGANZA GOURMET DELI),
ELEGANZA GOURMET INC. (D/B/A ELEGANZA GOURMET DELI), SAMER S. SALEH
A/K/A SAMER MOHAMMED SALEH A/K/A HALIL, and NOOR ZENDANI,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07451 (S.D.N.Y., August 23, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation,
failure to provide wage notices, and failure to provide accurate
wage statements.

Mr. Tapia was employed by the Defendants as a deli worker at
Eleganza Gourmet Deli from approximately August 2017 until on or
about February 22, 2023.

Eleganza 1 Inc. is the owner and operator of a deli under the name
Eleganza Gourmet Deli, located at 1 Convent Ave, New York, New
York.

Eleganza II Gourmet Deli Inc. is the owner and operator of a deli
under the name Eleganza Gourmet Deli, located at 1 Convent Ave, New
York, New York.

Eleganza Gormet Inc. is the owner and operator of a deli under the
name Eleganza Gourmet Deli, located at 1 Convent Ave, New York, New
York.

Eleganza Gourmet Inc. is the owner and operator of a deli under the
name Eleganza Gourmet Deli, located at 1 Convent Ave, New York, New
York. [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

FCA US: Court Dismisses Destination Charge Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood of CarComplaints.com reports that a Chrysler
destination and delivery fee class action lawsuit has been
dismissed after the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege Fiat
Chrysler rips off consumers by making a profit from the destination
charge.

California plaintiffs James Gunn and Dustin Stafford filed the
lawsuit by contending FCA artificially inflates the destination
charges for transporting its new Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, Ram, Fiat
and Maserati brands to dealerships.

The plaintiffs own Ram trucks and both owners complain they were
not allowed to negotiate the destination fees charged by FCA.

The Chrysler class action lawsuit alleges FCA charges consumers
"phantom freight" because the destination charge includes hidden
profit. The lawsuit alleges consumers don't understand the
destination fees and the Monroney labels (window stickers) are
misleading.

Chrysler has never alleged it does not make a profit from the
destination fee.

FCA Destination Fee Lawsuit Dismissed

In dismissing the class action, the judge referenced the law
regarding the window stickers and how the law is not to "restrict
the freedom of the manufacturer to establish and announce a
suggested retail delivered price for the automobile, its optional
equipment, and any services to be performed by the dealer in
acquiring and making ready the vehicle for sale to the purchaser."

According to the judge, the plaintiffs were completely informed of
the destination charge and could have picked a different automaker
for their purchase if they didn't like FCA's fees.

The plaintiffs allegedly asked the court to, "determine how much of
a profit is fair or reasonable for FCA to make on the different
components of its car sales," said the judge.

As for allegedly misleading consumers regarding the destination
charge, the judge referenced a ruling in a similar lawsuit where it
was determined, "a reasonable or average consumer would not expect
the Destination Charge to exclude profit."

"Overall, a reasonable consumer would not be misled by FCA's fully
disclosed destination charge." -- Judge James Donato

Judge Donato also ruled the plaintiffs, "have not plausibly alleged
that FCA's conduct was unfair, fraudulent, or deceptive, nor that
FCA is unlawfully or unjustly retaining money that belongs to
them."

The FCA destination charge lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California: Gunn, et al., v. FCA
US, LLC. [GN]

GANNON UNIVERSITY: Engel Seeks Refund of Unused Tuition Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW ENGEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GANNON UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00244-SPB (W.D. Pa., Aug. 18, 2023) alleges that Defendant
breached its contracts with Plaintiff and similarly situated
students or was otherwise unjustly enriched by not giving pro-rated
refunds for tuition or fees charged for on-campus education and
services not provided.

In March 2020, in response to the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus,
the virus that causes the COVID-19 disease, Gannon, like many other
colleges and universities, transitioned to remote online-only
education, canceled on-campus recreational events, canceled student
activity events, and ordered students to refrain from going on
campus. As a result, all on-campus education, services, and
amenities were no longer available to Gannon students for the
remainder of the Spring 2020 semester.
          
The Plaintiff brings this class action for damages and restitution
resulting from Gannon's retention of the tuition and fees paid by
Plaintiff and the other putative Class members for in-person
education and services that were contracted for but were not
provided. Specifically, this lawsuit seeks disgorgement of the
pro-rated, unused amounts of the fees that Plaintiff and other
putative Class members paid, but for which they (or the students on
behalf of whom they paid) were not provided the benefit, as well as
a partial pro-rated tuition reimbursement representing the
difference in fair market value between the on-campus product for
which they had paid, and the online product that they received.

Plaintiff Engel was an undergraduate student enrolled at Gannon's
Erie, Pennsylvania campus for the Spring 2020 semester, which was
scheduled to run from January 13, 2020 through May 8, 2020. He did
not have access to campus after March 22, 2020, because the campus
was closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He paid tuition and fees
for the Spring 2020 semester, the benefits of which he allegedly
lost because Gannon closed the campus and cut off access to
on-campus services, facilities, and extracurricular activities.

Gannon University is a private university founded in 1933.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
                  jamisen@lcllp.com
                  nickc@lcllp.com

GILEAD SCIENCES: Court Dismisses 2nd Amended Jacksonville Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jeffrey S. White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
second amended class action complaint in the lawsuit styled
JACKSONVILLE POLICE OFFICERS AND FIRE FIGHTERS HEALTH INSURANCE
TRUST, Plaintiff v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-06522-JSW (N.D. Cal.).

The matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion
to dismiss filed by Defendant Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Defendants
by Cipla, Ltd., and Cipla USA, Inc. (collectively "Cipla"). The
Court grants the motion, and gives the Plaintiffs one final
opportunity to amend.

The Court set forth the facts underlying this dispute in its Order
granting, in part, and denying, in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the first amended complaint (Jacksonville Police Officers
and Fire Fighters Health Insurance Trust v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.,
No. 20-cv-6522-JSW, 2022 WL 3579881, at *1-*4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19,
2022) ("Jacksonville").

Gilead manufactures a number of drugs used to treat HIV, including
Viread (a tablet containing 300 mg of tenofovir disproxil fumarate
("TDF")), Emtriva (a tablet containing 200 mg of emtricitabine),
and Truvada (a tablet containing 200 mg of emtricitabine and 300 mg
of TDF). The Jacksonville Police Officers and Fire Fighters Health
Insurance Trust
("Trust") and John Doe ("Doe") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") allege
the Defendants entered into anti-competitive reverse-payment
settlement agreements to protect Gilead's patents on its brand name
drugs.

The Plaintiffs' theory is that Cipla agreed not to produce a
co-packaged, generic version of Truvada, in return for: (1) a
license to produce Atripla, another HIV medication manufactured by
Gilead; and/or (2) a license to produce drugs for Hepatitis C in
India ("Access Agreement"); and/or (3) the right to provide Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. ("Teva") with TDF for Teva's generic
version of Truvada ("Supply Agreement").

Mr. Doe asserts three claims for relief. First, he asserts a claim
on behalf of himself and a putative class for violations of the
Cartwright Act. Second, he asserts a claim on behalf of himself and
a putative class of individuals and entities in California for
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Third,
he asserts a claim against Gilead under common law for
"restitution, money had and received, unjust enrichment, [and/or]
quasi-contract/assumpsit," on behalf of himself and a nationwide
class. In the alternative, he asserts this claim on behalf of
himself and a California class.

The Trust asserts a claim for violations of Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act (the "FDUPTA Claim").

The Defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Unless
otherwise noted, the Court has accepted the allegations in the SAC
as true, has construed those allegations in the light most
favorable the Plaintiffs, and has examined those allegations to
determine if the Plaintiffs state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.

The Defendants ask the Court to consider portions of the Food and
Drug Administration's Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic
Equivalence Evaluations ("FDA Orange Book") (exhibits 1-7, 11-16,
36-37), court filings (exhibits 8-10, 15, 34), patents (exhibits
17-24), the Settlement Agreements between Gilead and Cipla
(exhibits 23-24), and seven "Access Agreements" Gilead entered into
with Cipla (exhibit 26) and six other companies (exhibits 27-32),
and supply agreements Cipla entered into with Teva (exhibits 33,
35). Because the Court did not rely on the majority of these
exhibits to resolve the motion, the Court denies the Defendants'
Request for Judicial Notice as moot, except as noted.

The Court has considered, among other things, exhibits 23-24 under
the incorporation by reference doctrine, subject to the limitations
set forth in Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988,
999-1001 (9th Cir. 2018).

The Defendants also ask the Court to consider a "Patent
Certification and Exclusivity Statement" from Cipla dated March 25,
2014, which contains a paragraph IV certification regarding a
generic version of Atripla. The Plaintiffs object and ask for leave
to file a sur-reply. The Court did not rely on that exhibit to
resolve the motion. Accordingly, the Court denies both requests as
moot.

After briefing was closed, the Plaintiffs asked the Court to take
judicial notice of excerpts of briefs filed by Gilead and Teva in
In re HIV Antitrust Litigation, No. 19-cv-02573-EMC, which include
statements about Teva's views about its litigation position with
Gilead. The Defendants do not oppose the Plaintiffs' request. The
Court takes judicial notice of the existence of the briefs and the
statements made therein.

The Defendants move to dismiss on the basis that the Plaintiffs
fail to allege facts to show antitrust injury. The Plaintiffs
assert they were injured because the Defendants' conduct allegedly
kept a co-packaged, generic version of Truvada off the market. The
Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' allegations are still
speculative.

The Plaintiffs also allege that Cipla never sought approval from
the FDA to market a co-packaged emtricitabine/TDF product despite
strong indications from the FDA that such an application would be
approved. The Plaintiffs allege Cipla filed ANDAs for Viread and
Emtriva but did not file an ANDA on Truvada. According to the
Plaintiffs, that fact would have indicated to Gilead that Cipla
intended to sell co-packaged TDF and emtricitabine to compete with
Truvada.

Although the Plaintiffs have provided greater factual support for
the allegation that FDA approval of a co-packaged version of
Truvada was a "virtual certainty," the Court concludes their
allegations about whether Cipla, or any other generic manufacturer,
intended to seek approval for a co-packaged version of Truvada are
based on speculation and conjecture and are insufficient to
plausibly allege their theory of injury.

For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss. The SAC constitutes the third iteration of the Plaintiffs'
complaint. However, because the Court cannot say it would be
futile, the Court will give the Plaintiffs' one final opportunity
to amend.

If the Plaintiffs choose to amend, Judge White they should file an
amended complaint by no later than Sept. 26, 2023. If they choose
not to amend, they will file a notice of that intent, and the Court
will enter a dismissal and judgment. If the Plaintiffs amend, the
Defendants will answer or otherwise respond within 21 days
thereafter. The Court will defer setting a case management
conference until the Defendants have answered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 28, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/47n39nfb from PacerMonitor.com.


GREEN DOT: Faces Class Suit Over Clients' Inaccessible Funds
------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Wile of NBC News reports that Like many customers of Green Dot
Bank, Texas resident Sheldon Ransom first encountered the online
banking company through TurboTax, in the form of a stimulus check.


Though perhaps not a household name, Green Dot, headquartered in
Austin, Texas, with a Utah-based bank regulated by the Federal
Reserve, has been used by millions of Americans like Ransom, who
said he was "never a big banking person" and used to carry cash but
suddenly found an easy way to receive basic banking services
through the company.

Green Dot, which also operates under the moniker Go2bank,
specializes in prepaid debit cards and digital accounts that can be
set up for direct-deposit paychecks and to pay bills online. The
company has touted itself and its app as the "ultimate mobile bank
of Americans living paycheck to paycheck." Since 1999, the company
says it has served more than 33 million customers -- a figure that
is a function of its 17-year relationship with Walmart and
TurboTax, which partners with the bank to help customers claim
their tax refunds.   

On Aug. 10, Ransom, who works for an ambulance service, tried to
use his card to pay tithes to his church but was declined. He then
tried to use the card for another payment and was declined again.
He called Green Dot customer service and said he was told there was
a maintenance issue that would need to be resolved.

By Aug. 14, the issue still hadn't been fixed. "By the grace of
God," Ransom said, a fellow church member offered to help pay for
school clothes for Ransom's three children.  

"It's really put a damper on our day to day lives," Ransom said
while still locked out of his account.

It was ultimately not until Aug. 19, Ransom said, that he could
regain access to his account.

Other Green Dot customers said their funds had been recently
waylaid by the bank for one reason or another. The complaints have
increased to such an extent that the Better Business Bureau said in
a statement that it was looking into "a pattern and influx of
complaints against Green Dot," which it was reviewing and which
required the agency to update Green Dot's listing on its website.


In addition to Ransom, NBC News spoke with six other customers who
said they'd had problems gaining access to their accounts or
retrieving their money. Five said they were told by Green Dot
customer service representatives that a maintenance or technical
issue was making their accounts unavailable. Two others were
informed that suspicious or fraudulent activity had been detected
and that the bank would have to freeze their accounts. One customer
remains frozen out of her account; the status of another is
unclear.  

Since reaching out to these customers over the past two weeks, all
but one in the group who were told their issue stemmed from a
maintenance problem said they had regained access to their
accounts.

Whatever the reason, the effect has been the same: Customers said
that during the time they were frozen out of their accounts, they
could not make necessary purchases and pay bills.

Inaccessible funds and mixed messages
NBC News first reported on the issues customers were facing on Aug.
11. The day before, on Aug. 10, a message on Green Dot's homepage
stated the bank was experiencing high call volumes because of "an
issue with one of our processing partners," adding that "some
functionality, including balances and transactions, may have been
impacted."

After an inquiry from NBC News, Green Dot spokesperson Alison
Lubert said in an email that there had been no system or platform
outage; the message on the website was subsequently updated and no
longer mentioned a functionality issue. Instead, Lubert said, the
bank was in the process of upgrading its platforms. Doing so, she
said, required "temporary service interruptions for small segments
of customers and can lead to increased call volumes and hold
times."

On Aug. 23, Lubert reiterated in an emailed statement that recent
tech conversions at Green Dot caused temporary outages for "very
small segments of customers," but that these have been resolved,
and that customers whom the bank confirmed had been affected were
issued courtesy credits. The initial message regarding a problem
with a processing partner was outdated, she said.

As for the cases that cited suspicious activity, Lubert said that,
generally, fraud was increasingly prevalent across the financial
services industry. She said Green Dot "invests heavily to identify,
mitigate and prevent fraud," and that it partners with government
agencies, including the Secret Service and industry peers to combat
and prevent fraud across the board.

Lubert said she could not comment on individual cases.

Walmart did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson
for TurboTax parent Intuit said in an emailed statement that the
company works closely with customers, banking partners and the IRS
to help resolve issues quickly.

Kevin Myhre, 60, who lives in Idaho, was among those who received a
courtesy credit for having been locked out of his account, of $25.


That money was deposited on Aug. 15. But his account wasn't
reopened until Aug. 21, according to emails viewed by NBC News.

Yet at the time he received his credit he couldn't use it because
his account was still frozen, he said.

Myhre said he signed up with Green Dot after learning about it at
Walmart sometime in the past year or two. Having recently been
unemployed, Myhre now needed a bank to receive his direct deposit
paycheck after taking a job as a video-game tester.

On Aug. 9, Myhre said he tried to use his Green Dot debit card at a
Burger King, but it was declined. At first, he didn't think much of
it; he knew he had sufficient funds in his account. When he called
the bank the next day, he was told there was a "glitch" or
"maintenance issue" as they were putting in "some kind of new
system," and that it was the bank's "top priority" to address it.

The following day, Myhre said, he went to try the card, but it kept
getting declined, at both brick and mortar and online stores. Myhre
said he called back and kept receiving the same response about the
maintenance issue.

For more than two weeks, the problem persisted, causing Myhre to
fall behind on his phone bill, he said. Myhre also pays for the
internet access at his parents' house, and he feared that too could
be affected. He had set up the Green Dot account to accept his
direct deposits, and as his only bank account, it was the primary
mechanism he used to pay bills online.

"I've got things shutting down on me because I can't pay my bills,"
Myhre said before the problems were resolved. "I don't carry cash.
I use my card everywhere."

Myhre said his account was finally unfrozen Aug. 21 -- but he
remains in the dark about what exactly happened. [GN]

GSK CONSUMER: Jernigan Sues Over Beverage Mix's Misleading Label
----------------------------------------------------------------
EUNICE JERNIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GSK CONSUMER HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 6:23-cv-01640-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla., August 26, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act, false and misleading advertising,
breach of express warranty, and fraud.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its raspberry flavored immune supporting beverage mix under its
Emergen-C brand. The Defendant promoted the product as containing
"Natural fruit flavors" with pictures of bright red raspberries.
However, the ingredient list in small print on the back, coupled
with laboratory testing, reveals the product's raspberry taste is
derived in part from artificial flavoring ingredients. As a result
of the false and misleading representations, the product is sold at
a premium price, says the suit.

GSK Consumer Health, Inc. is a consumer healthcare company, with a
principal place of business in New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         William Wright, Esq.
         THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
         515 N. Flagler Dr., Ste. P300
         West Palm Beach, FL 33401
         Telephone: (561) 514-0904
         E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com

                 - and -

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

HARTFORD LIFE: Matheson Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DUSTY MATHESON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01122-VAB (D. Conn., August
23, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and
unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated customers stored within its network systems
following a data breach. The Defendant also failed to timely notify
the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data
breach. As a result, the PII of the Plaintiff and Class members
were compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to
unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.

Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company is an insurance
company, with its principal place of business at One Hartford
Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Erin Green Comite, Esq.
         SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
         156 South Main Street
         P.O. Box 192
         Colchester, CT 06415
         Telephone: (860) 537-5537
         Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
         E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com

                 - and -

         Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
         Ethan S. Binder, Esq.
         SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
         The Helmsley Building
         230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10169
         Telephone: (212) 223-6444
         Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
         E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                 ebinder@scott-scott.com

                 - and -

         David K. Lietz, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
         5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
         Washington, DC 20015
         Telephone: (866) 252-0878
         Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
         E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com

                 - and -

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

                 - and -

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

ILLINOIS: Court Denies Cleveland's Bid for Leave to Amend Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois denies the Plaintiff's
motion for leave to amend complaint in the lawsuit styled RICHARD
CLEVELAND, Plaintiff v. LATOYA J. HUGHES, Defendant, Case No.
22-cv-456-NJR (S.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Richard Cleveland, an inmate of the Illinois Department
of Corrections ("IDOC") who is currently incarcerated at
Pinckneyville Correctional Center, brings this action for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983.

After a review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1915A, Cleveland was allowed to proceed on a single count under the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and/or the Rehabilitation
Act ("RA") for being denied access to a typewriter (Count 2). He
later sought leave to amend his Complaint. The motion was denied
because he sought to add a class action claim and additional
plaintiffs, one of which was a restricted filer and could not
proceed in this Circuit until he fully paid all outstanding fees
and sanctions.

Although Cleveland's amended pleading had a number of issues and
was ultimately denied, he was granted additional time to seek leave
to amend his Complaint.

The matter is now before the Court on Cleveland's motion for leave
to amend his Complaint. He submitted a proposed Amended Complaint
for review. Defendant Latoya J. Hughes filed a response in
opposition to the motion. Cleveland filed a reply brief. He seeks
to amend his Complaint in order to re-allege claims in Count 1 for
the treatment of his atrophied hand.

Simply put, Judge Rosenstengel says, Cleveland's proposed Amended
Complaint cannot serve as a viable Amended Complaint because it
only contains new allegations. The proposed Amended Complaint only
seeks to re-allege the previously dismissed claims in Count 1.
Cleveland includes allegations regarding the injury to his hand and
the medical care he received for the injury, but there are no
allegations as to the claims in Count 2 which Cleveland is
currently proceeding on in this case. He has left out any claims
regarding his access to a typewriter. Thus, the Court will not
accept piecemeal amendments to the Complaint.

Because the proposed Amended Complaint only includes allegations in
Count 1 and fails to include his original allegations in Count 2,
the Court finds it to be a piecemeal attempt to amend the
Complaint. Further, the proposed Amended Complaint does not comply
with SDIL Local Rule 15.1, which requires that all new material in
the pleading be underlined.

For the reasons stated, Cleveland's motion to amend is denied. The
Court previously stated that it would reset the deadline to file a
dispositive motion on the issue of administrative exhaustion after
resolution of Cleveland's motion to amend. Thus, Defendant Hughes
now has until Sept. 8, 2023, to file a dispositive motion on the
issue of exhaustion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Aug. 10,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3shab26e from
Leagle.com.


IMAGINE 360: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Seebach Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
RAENA SEEBACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IMAGINE 360 ADMINISTRATORS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-01430-MEM (M.D. Pa., August 27, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated customers stored within its network systems
following a data breach identified between January 28 and January
30, 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a
result, the PII of the Plaintiffs and Class members were
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.

Imagine 360 Administrators, LLC, is a provider of health plan
solutions, with its principal place of business located at 1550
Liberty Ridge Drive, Wayne, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Randi Kassan, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
         100 Garden City Plaza
         Garden City, NY 11530
         Telephone: (212) 594-5300
         E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com

                 - and -

         David K. Lietz, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
         5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440
         Washington, DC 20015
         Telephone: (866) 252-0878
         Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
         E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com

JONESBORO, AR: Court Refuses to Approve Trullinger's Class Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled LAURA TRULLINGER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, PLAINTIFF v. CITY OF JONESBORO,
ARKANSAS, DEFENDANT, Case No. 3:22-cv-00137 KGB (E.D. Ark.), Judge
Kristine G. Baker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, Northern Division, denies the parties' joint
motion for preliminary approval of class settlement and notice to
the settlement class.

The Court denies the motion without prejudice, subject to the
parties refiling the motion and addressing the issues the Court
identifies in this Order.

Plaintiff Laura Trullinger, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed the lawsuit alleging that
Defendant City of Jonesboro, Arkansas, violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"),
for failing to pay her adequately for overtime work. The complaint
requested that the Court certify a collective action pursuant to
the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and certify a class action for
alleged AMWA violations pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

In the motion, Ms. Trullinger and the City claim that they have
reached a settlement and seek Court approval to approve
preliminarily the class settlement and notice to the settlement
class. Specifically, the parties request a Court order:

   (1) certifying a class action under Arkansas Rule of Civil
       Procedure 23 for purposes of settlement, including
       appointment of Chris Burks and Brandon Haubert of the WH
       Law PLLC law firm, as Class counsel;

   (2) granting preliminary approval of the settlement;

   (3) approving the Parties' proposed forms and methods of
       giving class members notice of the proposed settlement;

   (4) directing that notice be given to class members in the
       proposed forms and manner; and

   (5) setting a hearing on or about April 6, 2024, on whether
       the Court should grant final approval of the settlement,
       enter judgment, and award attorneys' fees and costs to
       the Plaintiff and Class Counsel.

The parties' first request in their Settlement Motion presents a
unique legal issue because it asks the Court to certify a class
pursuant to a state rule of procedure despite the fact that, absent
a congressional exception, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
apply to all cases brought in federal court.

The Court acknowledges that the FLSA has its own class
certification or collective action process, separate and apart from
Federal Rule 23.

The parties contend that their Settlement Motion does not present
any issues given the overlap between claims arising under the FLSA
and the AMWA, and the fact that the Arkansas Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 standard is higher than the standard for certification
of an opt-in class under the FLSA.

The contention that Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 23 has a
higher standard for certification does not address or remedy the
issue that this Court applying Arkansas state procedural rules runs
afoul of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and United States
Supreme Court precedent, Judge Baker holds. Furthermore, the Court
can find no exception, and the parties have identified no
exception, whereby state procedural rules govern the certification
of a class under the present circumstances.

Therefore, the Court denies the instant motion, just as the Court
would have denied the same request had Ms. Trullinger moved to
certify an AWMA class action pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 at the outset of this case.

Furthermore, despite their confusing semantic similarities, the
Court notes that there are "great" differences between class
actions certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and
collective actions brought pursuant to the FLSA.

The Court acknowledges the unique challenges that arise when
actions under state and federal law proceed in the same lawsuit
through different class certification processes. However, Judge
Baker opines, those challenges do not alleviate the Court or the
parties' responsibility to apply the applicable rules to each set
of claims.

For this and the proceeding reasons, the Court, at this time,
denies the parties' Settlement Motion, subject to the parties'
refiling an updated settlement agreement that either: (1) includes
the proper certification protocol or (2) identifies controlling
precedent which indicates that the Court may properly certify a
collective or class action pursuant to a state rule of procedure.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 28, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/58evuwd2 from PacerMonitor.com.


KING ACES: Faces Morgan Suit Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE MORGAN and D'ANDRE KING, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHUKWU EMEKA OCID and KING
ACES CHICKEN & FISH LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00786-JM
(E.D. Ark., August 25, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed as hourly-paid employees at the King
Aces Chicken and Fish restaurant in Little Rock, Arkansas.

King Aces Chicken & Fish LLC is a restaurant owner and operator
doing business in Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Chris Burks, Esq.
         Lindsey Noe, Esq.
         WHLAW
         1 Riverfront Place, Suite 745
         North Little Rock, AR 72114
         Telephone: (501) 888-4357
         E-mail: chris@wh.law
                 lindsey@wh.law

LIFEMD INC: Marden Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Health Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW MARDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIFEMD, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-07469 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2023) is a
class action lawsuit for damages and injunctive relief arising from
Rex MD's unlawful practice of disclosing Plaintiff's and Class
members' individually identifiable health information(IIHI) and
protected health information(PHI) to unauthorized third parties
including, but not limited to, Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta,
Google LLC, and TikTok Inc.

According to the complaint, the Defendant installed and implemented
"pixels" and similar tracking technologies such as those made
available by the pixel information recipients on the Defendant's
website, https://www.RexMD.com, in order to improve its advertising
and thereby increase its profits. Invisible to the naked eye, each
of the pixels collects and transmits information from the user's
browser to the corresponding pixel information recipient as the
user enters information into the website. The pixels secretly
enable the unauthorized transmission and disclosure of Plaintiff's
and Class Members' IIHI and PHI by Defendant, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of similarly situated
individuals whose sensitive private information was intentionally,
recklessly, and/or negligently disclosed to the pixel information
recipients through Defendant's unauthorized utilization of the
pixels, conversions application programming interface, and other
similar tracking technologies.

LifeMD, Inc., which conducts business under the brand name Rex MD,
is a "telehealth" website that connects patients with doctors who
conduct medical assessments and prescribe medications over the
Internet.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason Rathod, Esq.
          Bryan G. Faubus, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H St. NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520
          Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
          E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                  jrathod@classlawdc.com
                  bfaubus@classlawdc.com

MARQETA INC: Smith Sues Over Directors' Breach of Fiduciary Duty
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE SMITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JASON GARDNER, NAJUMA ATKINSON, MARTHA
CUMMINGS, ARNON DINUR, GERALDINE ELLIOTT, SIMON KHALAF, JUDSON C.
LINVILLE, SRIKIRAN PRASAD, HELEN RILEY, and GODFREY SULLIVAN,
Defendants, and MARQETA, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No.
2023-0872 (Del. Ch., August 24, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty.

The case arises from the Director Defendants' breach of their
fiduciary duties by approving the 2023 Repurchase Program, thereby
allowing Jason Gardner, the founder of Marqeta, Inc., to imminently
gain control of the Company without any cost to him, without paying
a control premium, and at expense and to the significant detriment
of the Company's public stockholders. The Director Defendants also
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to take reasonable
action to protect known threats to corporate and stockholder
welfare. The Director Defendants are aware of the creeping takeover
by Gardner and their willful failure to act in the face of this
known threat is a breach of the duty of loyalty to the Company and
its stockholders. As a result of the Director Defendants' breaches
of fiduciary duty, the Plaintiff and the Class will not receive any
control premium for their shares, says the suit.

Marqeta, Inc. is a provider of modern card issuing and payment
processing platform, with its principal place of business located
in Oakland, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Michael J. Barry, Esq.
         Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq.
         Vivek Upadhya, Esq.
         GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
         123 Justison Street
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 622-7000

                 - and -

         Christopher J. Orrico, Esq.
         GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
         485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (646) 722-8500

                 - and -

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Eitan Kimelman, Esq.
         BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
         60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 697-6484

MCDONALD'S CORP: Court Revives Ex-Staff's No-Poach Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Annelise Gilbert of Bloomberg Law reports that the Seventh Circuit
on August 25, 2023 revived a lawsuit over McDonald's Corp.
contracts that barred franchisees from pursuing or hiring current
McDonald's employees without a letter of release or within six
months after their employment ended.

The workers' lawsuit sufficiently alleged an antitrust claim, Judge
Frank Easterbrook said for the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit. Easterbrook remanded the case to the trial court to
consider a series of inquiries, including whether the no-poach
clause protected the franchises' investments in training or allowed
them to appropriate the value of workers' own investments, its
national scope, and the time restriction.

The district court had rejected the workers' theory that the
contracts were per se illegal because the anti-poach clause wasn't
a naked restraint on trade but was ancillary to each franchise
agreement -- and, as every new restaurant expanded output, the
restraint was justified.

The "district judge jettisoned the per se rule too early,"
Easterbrook said. "The complaint alleges a horizontal restraint,
and market power is not essential to antitrust claims involving
naked agreements among competitors," Easterbrook said.

The decision allows two former employees to proceed with a proposed
class action alleging the provision violated federal antitrust law
and prevented workers from moving to higher-paying locations.

Judge Kenneth F. Ripple concurred in a separate opinion, saying
that in further proceedings before the trial court, McDonald's
bears the burden of establishing that the no-poach clause in the
franchise agreement qualifies as an ancillary restraint.

Procompetitive Justifications
McDonald's claimed that the provision was necessary to prevent
franchisees from stealing others' employees and free riding of
training costs, in addition to improving procompetitive,
brand-enhancing consistency and quality.

Former employees Leinani Deslandes and Stephanie Turner argued that
the district court wrongly concluded a no-hire provision was
ancillary to the franchise agreement.

Justice Department attorney Stratton Strand, arguing in support of
the former employees, contended that the lower court failed to
assess whether the provision was "reasonably necessary to achieve
pro competitive benefits of that collaboration."

Easterbrook and Judge Diane P. Wood questioned McDonald's proffered
competitive reasoning during the March 31 oral argument. In
response to the restaurateur’s justification that the provision
reduced friction among franchises, Easterbrook laughed, saying,
"Let's reduce friction, we don't like these price wars, so we'll
all just fix the price."

Vertical vs. Horizontal Restraint Debate
The plaintiffs asserted that the no-hire agreement qualifies as a
horizontal employment restraint and is a per se antitrust violation
because it was between rival employers, among franchisees and
between franchisees and company-owned restaurants.

The thousands of franchises are independent employers, and aren't
the same brand to the workers, workers' counsel, Dean Harvey of
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, said.

The fast food purveyor countered that the agreement's vertical
elements are "embodied in the relationship between McDonald's and
its franchisees," and that there is no allegation of "actual
agreement" among the thousands of franchisees. Because it was a
vertical restraint, it should be subject to the fact-specific
rule-of-reason analysis that the workers can't satisfy, McDonald's
said.

The workers' allegation that McDonald's operated many restaurants
itself or through a subsidiary and that it enforced the no-poach
clause at those restaurants made the arrangement horizontal as
workers at franchised outlets couldn't move to corporate outlets,
or the reverse, Easterbrook said.

McCune Wright Arevalo Vercoski Kusel Weck Brandt APC also
represents the workers. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP represents
McDonald's.

The case is Deslandes v. McDonald's USA LLC, 7th Cir., Nos.
22-2333, 22-2334, 8/25/23.

To contact the reporter on this story: Annelise Gilbert at
gilbert1@bloombergindustry.com

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Carmen
Castro-Pagan at ccastro-pagan@bloomberglaw.com; Andrew Harris at
aharris@bloomberglaw.com [GN]

MDL 3025: Court Denies Mikhail's Bid to Transfer Suit to E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Amgad S. Mikhail, Plaintiff v. The Procter
& Gamble Company, Defendant, Case Nos. 2:22-md-3025,
2:22-cv-02703-MHW-CMV, Judge Michael H. Watson of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denies
the Plaintiff's motion to transfer his case back to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Pursuant to the Court's order granting final approval of a class
action settlement, the Clerk closed the Plaintiff's member case in
this multidistrict litigation. The Plaintiff now moves the Court to
transfer his case back to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, under 28 U. S. C. Section 1404,
asserting that he validly opted out of the settlement and wishes to
pursue his claim in the Eastern District of New York. The Defendant
opposes the Plaintiff's motion, and the Plaintiff filed an untimely
reply in his individual docket (Case No. 2:22-cv-2703).

As an initial matter, Judge Watson finds that the Plaintiff has
repeatedly failed to demonstrate that he properly opted out of the
settlement. In support of his motion, he cites only the transcript
from a pre-notice status conference in which his counsel stated
that the Plaintiff intended to opt out of any settlement.

The Plaintiff's case is terminated, and because he has failed to
demonstrate that it was improperly terminated, Judge Watson says
there is nothing to transfer.

In the alternative, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion for
lack of authority.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to transfer is denied.

Nonetheless, to the extent the Panel concludes that additional
proceedings are necessary in the Plaintiff's closed individual
case, the Court suggests, under the Rules of Procedure of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the Panel
remand the Plaintiff's closed case back to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York to conduct
those further proceedings.

The Clerk will terminate ECF No. 67 in Case No. 2:22-md-3025 and
ECF No. 20 in Case No. 2:22-cv-2703 and file a copy of this Opinion
and Order with the Panel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Aug. 28,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/nhe8va48 from
PacerMonitor.com.


MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY: Certification Bid in Tuition Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keila Szpaller of Daily Montanan reports that Anthony Cordero says
he's not the only one owed a refund from Montana State University
for not providing an in-person education -- other students who
attended MSU when it switched to remote learning during the
COVID-19 pandemic are also owed money.

In court documents, Cordero is asking a Lewis and Clark County
District Court judge to certify his case against the flagship as a
class-action lawsuit. Class certification would allow other
students to join his legal fight to get some money back.

Some courts in the U.S. have already certified COVID-19 college
tuition lawsuits as class-action cases, and in recently filed court
documents, Cordero's attorneys argue that his case is not
meaningfully different.

Cordero, now an MSU graduate, argues in the lawsuit that he and
other students paid tuition and fees for an education the
university pledged to provide in-person -- and then failed to
deliver when it switched to remote learning in response to the
pandemic.

In its own court documents, however, MSU said it exercised its
authority to protect the health and safety of students during the
emergency, and it doesn't owe Cordero any money.

MSU also disagrees the court should group all students into one
class -- and it is asking the judge to toss the case and make sure
it can't be filed again.

Across the country, an estimated 300 lawsuits have been filed by
students alleging colleges and universities owed them some of their
tuition and fees because they were deprived of a promised in-person
education, according to a recent story from Stateline News.

Courts have since awarded some students money as a result,
Stateline News reported. For example, the story said the University
of Delaware agreed in June to set up a $6.3 million fund to
partially reimburse students.

In the Montana case, a court document Cordero filed last month
notes the Bozeman university admits more than 15,000 students who
paid tuition and fees for the 2020 semester. That semester,
in-person education stopped because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cordero has asked the court to decide the question he has --
whether MSU breached its contract with him -- is the same question
those other students have, even if they'd be owed different dollar
amounts.

In a list of expenses online, MSU said tuition and fees are $8,082
for the academic year for undergraduate residents, and $31,400 for
undergraduate non-residents.

Contrary to MSU's argument it doesn't have a contract with Cordero,
he said the Montana Supreme Court has found a contract doesn't have
to be just one single document; instead, it can be a set of
materials with uniform language -- such as a guide MSU sends
prospective students, class registration information, and course
catalog.

The lawsuit Cordero is bringing said a central question is common
to all students: "Did MSU breach its contractual obligations to
students when MSU retained the full amount of tuition and fees
after closing its campus and moving all educational services to an
online-only format in reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic?"

But MSU said all those students took a different mix of classes and
didn't have the same extracurricular activities either. Therefore,
the university argued the court should reject the class
certification request, as it said a court did in a case against New
York University.

"The court concluded that 'the putative class members in this case
have little in common except that they were enrolled in the
university in 2020 and paid some type of fee to some entity within
NYU for some purpose,'" MSU said.

MSU said Cordero "inferred" the school should provide in-person
education. As for fees, MSU said Codero didn't take advantage of
intramural activities anyway, wasn't a member of student
organizations, and can't remember reading the student newspaper.

MSU said Cordero returned to California and took classes from
there, received a computer engineering degree, and went to work for
Boeing. Cordero wants his money, or property, back, but when he
paid his tuition and fees, MSU said the money was no longer his.

"While money is property . . . once Cordero paid his tuition and
fees for the Spring 2020 semester, those funds became public funds
-- they were no longer his property," MSU said. "The exclusive and
sole right to those funds belonged to the Board of Regents, not
Cordero."

In October 2021, Judge Michael McMahon said Cordero could proceed
with his claim MSU breached its contract with him to provide an
in-person education. MSU denies it made such a pledge and said
Cordero jumped to conclusions from marketing materials.

The requests for summary judgment and class certification are
pending before McMahon.

Cordero is represented by Sullivan Miller Law of Billings and Leeds
Brown Law of New York. MSU is represented by Moore, Cockrell,
Goicoechea & Johnson of Kalispell. [GN]

MORNING CHEF: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Staff, Thomas Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MORNING CHEF, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-02719-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, August 24, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to pay the proper
minimum wage to all employees for all hours worked in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act.

Ms. Thomas was employed by Morning Chef as a server and bartender
at its Another Broken Egg Cafe from on or about July 6, 2022.

Morning Chef, LLC is an owner and operator of a chain of breakfast
food restaurants under the name Another Broken Egg Cafe, with its
principal place of business located at 3518 Riverside Drive, Ste.
104, Columbus, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Chris Wido, Esq.
         SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE S ATTORNEY
         25825 Science Park Drive, Suite 200
         Beachwood, OH 44122
         Telephone: (216) 291-4744
         Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
         E-mail: Chris.Wido@Spitzlawfirm.com

MSP RECOVERY: Pignatelli Sues Over 18% Drop of Securities Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH PIGNATELLI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MSP RECOVERY, INC. F/K/A LIONHEART
ACQUISITION CORP. II, JOHN H. RUIZ, CALVIN HAMSTRA, RICARDO RIVERA,
OPHIR STERNBERG, JAMES ANDERSON, THOMAS BYRNE, THOMAS HAWKINS,
ROGER MELTZER, ALEXANDRA PLASENCIA, FRANK C. QUESADA, BEATRIZ
ASSAPIMONWAIT, and MICHAEL F. ARRIGO, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-23224 (S.D. Fla., August 23, 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 Lionheart's business, and
operations in order to trade Lionheart securities at artificially
inflated prices between April 28, 2022, and August 17, 2023.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that contrary to
litigation occurring in the ordinary course of business, it was at
a heightened risk of litigation as a result of being unable to pay
assignors for health care claims, a crucial component of its
business, says the suit.

When the truth emerged, the price of MSP Recovery stock allegedly
fell $0.0127 per share, or 5.89 percent, to close at $0.2028 on
July 31, 2023. The price of MSP Recovery stock continuously fell
$0.025 per share, or 12.19 percent, to close at $0.18 on August 2,
2023.

MSP Recovery Inc., formerly known as Lionheart Acquisition Corp.
II, is a data analytics company headquartered in Coral Gables,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Court OK's Settlement Deal in Davidson
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE DAVIDSON et. al,
v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, Case No. 2:18-cv-01182-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge James M. Wicks entered an order granting the parties'
motion for approval of the Settlement Agreement.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed with prejudice. The
settlement agreement must be submitted to the legislature for
approval within 10 days of the Court's approval under Cheeks.

The parties shall file a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice in
both cases once 30 days have elapsed from the final settlement
payment from Defendant and the Court will direct the Clerk’s
Office to close these cases thereafter.

The lodestar cross-check affirms that the requested attorney's fee
of $766,666.67, which is exactly one-third of the settlement
amount, is fair and reasonable, the Court says.

The Plaintiffs -- male and female Police Communications Operators
(“PCOs”) and Police Communications Operators Supervisors
("PCOSs") -- allege that Defendant County of Nassau subjected them
to a system of illegal employment practices.

The Davidson case is a series of cases that involve allegations of
Equal Pay Act ("EPA"), New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and
federal and state wage and hour violations, while others involve
allegations of Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") violations. After
extensive negotiations between the parties, they have now chosen to
resolve these two remaining actions.

Nassau County is an affluent inner suburban county located on Long
Island, immediately to the east of New York City.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47T3LhW at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louis D. Stober, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS D. STOBER, JR., LLC
          98 Front Street
          Mineola, NY 11501

The Defendant is represented by:

          Deanna Darlene Panico, Esq.
          Rhoda Yohai Andors, Esq.
          BEE READY FISHBEIN HATTER & DONOVAN, LLP
          170 Old Country Road, Suite 200
          Mineola, NY 11501

                - and -

          Susan M. Tokarski, Esq.
          NASSAU COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          One West Street
          Mineola, NY 11501

                - and -

          Aaron Edward Kaplan, Esq.
          Leslie Catherine Perrin, Esq.
          CSEA INC.
          143 Washington Avenue
          Albany, NY 12210

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Final Approval Hearing for Settlement Set Nov 17
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that the Pro Football Hall of Fame agreed
to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it breached
its ticket contract by canceling the 2016 Hall of Fame game.

The settlement benefits consumers who paid for or acquired tickets
to the 2016 NFL Pro Football Hall of Fame game and have not
accepted reimbursement for the Pro Football Hall of Fame by
submitting a reimbursement election form.

According to the plaintiff in the case, the Pro Football Hall of
Fame canceled the 2016 game scheduled between the Green Bay Packers
and Indianapolis Colts due to field conditions. The plaintiff and
other ticket holders were allegedly injured by breach of contract
due to this cancellation.

The Pro Football Hall of Fame is a hall of fame in Canton, Ohio,
that celebrates the best players and victories of professional
football.

The Pro Football Hall of Fame hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but
agreed to pay an undisclosed sum as part of a settlement to resolve
the class action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the Pro Football Hall of Fame game settlement,
class members can receive reimbursement for documented expenses
including up to $250 per ticket, up to $600 for travel expenses,
hotel costs of up to $289 per night, ground transportation of up to
$100, mileage reimbursement of $0.54 per mile and parking fees of
up to $50 per vehicle.

Even without documentation, class members can receive reimbursement
for the face value price of their ticket. Class members without
documentation can also receive a fixed cash payment of $300 for
miscellaneous expenses.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 9, 2023.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Nov.
17, 2023.

In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Oct. 9, 2023.

Who's Eligible
Consumers who paid for or acquired tickets to the 2016 NFL Pro
Football Hall of Fame game and have not accepted reimbursement for
the Pro Football Hall of Fame by submitting a reimbursement
election form

Potential Award
Varies

Proof of Purchase
Invoices, receipts, bills, emails, order confirmations, card
statements, screenshots and other documentation of expenses.

Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
10/09/2023

Case Name
Treviso v. National Football Museum Inc. d/b/a Pro Football Hall of
Fame, Case No. 5:17-cv-00472-CAB, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio

Final Hearing
11/17/2023

Settlement Website
2016HallOfFameGameClassAction.com

Claims Administrator
Treviso v. National Football Museum, Inc. dba Pro Football Hall of
Fame
Settlement Administrator
c/o CPT Group, Inc.
50 Corporate Park
Irvine, CA 92606
2016HallofFameGame@cptgroup.com
888-440-1255

Class Counsel
Romney Cullers
THE BECKER LAW FIRM

Ahmed Ibrahim
AI LAW PLC

Defense Counsel
Scott M Zurakowski
Joseph J Pasquarella
James M Williams
KRUGLIAK WILKINS GRIFFITHS & DOUGHERTY CO LPA [GN]

NATIONAL GENERAL: King Reply to Opposition Due Oct. 26
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDD KING, DIEDRE KING,
ELMO SHEEN and SHEILA LEE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similar situated, v. NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONAL
GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
INTEGON PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, MIC GENERAL INSURANCE
CORPORATION, PERSONAL EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, SEQUOIA INSURANCE
COMPANY, and DOES1 through 200, inclusive Case No.
4:15-cv-00313-DMR (N.D. Cal.),
Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered an order extending the deadlines
and hearing date as to Sequoia as follows:

  -- Sequoia's deadline to file its opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion
     for Class Certification is extended to September 11, 2023;

  -- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply to Sequoia's
opposition
     to the Motion is extended to October 26, 2023; and

  -- The hearing on the Motion as to Sequoia is continued to
December
      14, 2023, at 1:00 PM via Zoom.

On July 25, 2023, Plaintiffs and the NG Defendants submitted a
Joint
Discovery Letter (JDL) in which the NG Defendants sought to depose
four experts who submitted declarations in support of Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

On August 7, 2023, this Court granted the JDL), and will allow the
NG Defendants to take a two-hour deposition of each of the four
experts as stated in the Order.

The Court also ordered that:

   (1) the NG Defendants' deadline to file their opposition to the

       Motion is extended by two weeks, to September 11, 2023; and


   (2) The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply to NG Defendants'
       opposition to the Motion is extended to October 26, 2023.

National General is a Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based property
and casualty insurance company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 15, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EkFaoG at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Marie N. Appel, Esq.
          Shelby Serig, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 358-6913
          Facsimile: (415) 358-6923
          E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
                  mappel@forthepeople.com
                  sserig@forthepeople.com

                - and -

          Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Esq.
          CEREGHINO LAW GROUP LLP
          649 Mission Street, Floor 5
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 433-4949
          E-mail: jbc@cereghinolaw.com

                - and -

          W. Craig Bashein, Esq.
          John P. Hurst, Esq.
          BASHEIN & BASHEIN CO., L.P.A.
          Terminal Tower, 35th Floor
          50 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 771-3239
          Facsimile: (216) 781-5876
          E-mail: cbashein@basheinlaw.com
                  jhurst@basheinlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:


          Sanford L. Michelman, Esq.
          David F. Hauge, Esq.
          Marc R. Jacobs, Esq.
          Mona Z. Hanna, Esq.
          Vincent S. Loh, Esq.
          MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP
          10880 Wilshire Boulevard, 19th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 299-5500
          Facsimile: (310) 299-5600
          E-mail: smichelman@mrllp.com
                  dhauge@mrllp.com
                  mjacobs@mrllp.com
                  mhanna@mrllp.com
                  vloh@mrllp.com

                - and -

          Tamiko A. Dunham, Esq.
          Alison V. Lippa, Esq.
          NICOLAIDES FINK THORPE
          MICHAELIDES SULLIVAN LLP
          101 Montgomery Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 745-3770
          E-mail: tdunham@nicolaidesllp.com
                  alippa@nicolaidesllp.com

                - and -

          James J. Boland, Esq.
          Verona M. Sandberg, Esq.
          SMITH, GAMBRELL, & RUSSELL LLP
          311 South Wacker Dr., Ste. 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 360-6000
          E-mail: jboland@sgrlaw.com
                  vsandberg@sgrlaw.com

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Lemus Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ana L. Lemus, an individual, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 23CV004939 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California on
Aug. 30, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01871-DB.

The Plaintiff’s complaint asserts claims for: failure to pay
minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; meal period
violations; rest break violations; violations of California Labor
Code Section 226, 221, 204 and 203; failure to maintain records;
failure to produce employment records; failure to reimburse
business expenses in violation of Labor Code; failure to pay
vacation wages in violation of Labor Code; violations of the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act; violations of California Civil
Code; and violations of California’s Business & Professions
Code.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Allison E. Crow, Esq.
          Erin E. McMahon, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1500
          Phone: +1.415.626.3939
          Facsimile: +1.415.875.5700
          Email: emcmahon@jonesday.com
                 acrow@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Cindi L. Ritchey, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92121.3134
          Phone: +1.858.314.1200
          Facsimile: +1.844.345.3178
          Email: critchey@jonesday.com


NEOCORTEXT INC: AI Face-Swapping App Class Suit Continues
---------------------------------------------------------
Maia Spoto of Bloomberg Law reports that an AI face-swapping app
will likely have to face a lawsuit from a reality TV contestant who
said altered clips of him on a show violate California's right of
publicity law, following a hearing on a motion to dismiss on August
25, 2023.

Kyland Young, a finalist on CBS's "Big Brother," filed the class
action in the US District Court for the Central District of
California in April against NeoCortext Inc.'s "Reface" app, which
lets users swap faces with athletes, musicians, and other famous
people with deepfake technology. [GN]

NEOGENOMICS INC: Faces Goldenberg Shareholder Suit in NY Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Neogenomics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that a purported shareholder
class action captioned "Daniel Goldenberg v. NeoGenomics, Inc.,
Douglas VanOort, Mark Mallon, Kathryn McKenzie, and William
Bonello" was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on December 16, 2022. The company and
certain of its current and former officers were named as
defendants.

This lawsuit was filed by a stockholder who claims to be suing on
behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
securities between February 27, 2020 and April 26, 2022. The
alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding the
company's menu of tests, business operations and compliance with
health care laws and regulations.

The lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact were made in the company's public
disclosures in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff
seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class
and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees and
expert fees.

NeoGenomics, Inc. and its subsidiaries, operate as a certified,
high complexity clinical laboratory in accordance with the federal
government's Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act, as amended, and
is dedicated to the delivery of clinical diagnostic services to
pathologists, oncologists, urologists, hospitals, and other
laboratories as well as providing clinical trial services to
pharmaceutical firms.


NEXSTAR MEDIA: Consolidated Ads Price-Rigging Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Nexstar Media Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2023, that it is facing a
multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois captioned "In Re: Local TV
Advertising Antitrust Litigation," No. 1:18-cv-06785.

Starting in July 2018, a series of plaintiffs filed putative class
action lawsuits against the defendants and others alleging that
they coordinated their pricing of television advertising, thereby
harming a proposed class of all buyers of television advertising
time from one or more of the Defendants since at least January 1,
2014. The plaintiff in each lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and
money damages caused by the alleged antitrust violations. On
October 9, 2018, these cases were consolidated. On January 23,
2019, the Court in the MDL Litigation appointed plaintiffs’ lead
and liaison counsel.

The plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint was filed on April 3, 2019.
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 5, 2019. Before
the court ruled on that motion, the plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint on September 9, 2019. This complaint
added additional defendants and allegations. The defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss and Strike on October 8, 2019. The court denied
that motion on November 6, 2020. On March 16, 2022, the Plaintiffs
filed their Third Amended Complaint. The Third Amended Complaint
adds two additional plaintiffs and an additional defendant, but
does not make material changes to the allegations.

The parties are in the discovery phase of litigation.

Nexstar is diversified media company with television broadcasting,
television network and digital media assets operating in the United
States.


NORTH STAR INSURANCE: Bente Sues Over Unlawful Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Eric Bente and Tamara Harrison, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. NORTH STAR INSURANCE ADVISORS, LLC,
Case No. 4:23-cv-01102-NCC (E.D. Mo., Aug. 31, 2023), is brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and applicable
California wage-and-hour laws including the Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA") of the California Labor Code as a result of
the Defendants unlawful patterns, practices, and conduct of failing
pay minimum and overtime wages.

The Defendant knowingly and improperly fails to pay Insurance
Agents for all hours worked. Insurance Agents who work for North
Star do not receive minimum wage, overtime pay, reimbursement for
business expenses, or the meal and rest breaks they are entitled
to, and they are subject to unlawful commission claw backs, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked as Insurance Agents in California.

North Star is a large insurance marketing entity specializing in
selling final expense insurance on behalf of insurance agents over
the phone.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          S. Cody Reinberg, Esq.
          HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
          7382 Pershing Ave., 1W
          St. Louis, MO 63130
          Phone/Fax: 314.391.9557
          Email: creinberg@hkm.com

               - and -

          Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
          Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
          Mariyam Hussain, Esq.
          Olivia Lanctot, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-3000
          Fax: (215) 875-4620
          Email: crodriguez@bm.net
                 apiazza@bm.net
                 mhussain@bm.net
                 olanctot@bm.net


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Poe Loses Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERI POE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE NORTHWESTERN
MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:21-cv-02065-SPG-E (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett entered an order
denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

  -- Pursuant to the Court's order granting in part Defendant's
motion
     to adjourn the summary judgment hearing deadline, the Court
sets
     the hearing date for Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
to
     September 27, 2023, at 1:30 p.m.

Ms. Poe and the putative class in this case are beneficiaries to
term life insurance policies issued by Defendant Northwestern
Mutual Life Insurance Company that lapsed or were terminated by
Defendant for the non-payment of premium after January 1, 2013.

The Plaintiff has defined the putative class as:

   "All beneficiaries who made a claim, or would have been eligible
to
   make a claim, for the payment of benefits on term life insurance

   policies issued, or delivered by Northwestern Mutual in the
State
   of California that lapsed or were terminated by Northwestern
Mutual
   for the non-payment of premium after January 1, 2013, and as to

   which policies one or more of the notices described by Section
   10113.72(a) and 10113.72(b) of the California Insurance Code
were
   not sent by Northwestern Mutual prior to lapse or termination."

Northwestern is a provider of life insurance and investment
products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 14, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45NKAUS at no extra charge.[CC]



NOVAVAX INC: Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing on COVID Vax Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Novavax, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in August 9, 2023, that the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland dismissed all claims against two individual
defendants and claims based on certain public statements challenged
in the consolidated an amended purported securities class action
against the company and certain members of senior management,
captioned "Sothinathan Sinnathurai v. Novavax, Inc., et al.," Case
No. 8:21-cv-02910-TDC, November 12, 2021.

The Maryland Court denied the motion to dismiss as to the remaining
claims and defendants, and directed the company and other remaining
defendants to answer within fourteen days. On December 27, 2022,
the company filed its answer and affirmative defenses.

On January 26, 2022, the Maryland Court entered an order
designating David Truong, Nuggehalli Balmukund Nandkumar, and
Jeffrey Gabbert as co-lead plaintiffs in the Sinnathurai Action.
The co-lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
March 11, 2022, alleging that the defendants made certain
purportedly false and misleading statements concerning the
company's ability to manufacture NVX-CoV2373 on a commercial scale
and to secure the NVX-CoV2373's regulatory approval. The amended
complaint defines the purported class as those stockholders who
purchased the company's securities between February 24, 2021 and
October 19, 2021. On April 25, 2022, the defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On December 12,
2022, the Maryland Court issued a ruling granting in part and
denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Novavax, Inc. is a biotechnology company into the discovery,
development, and commercialization of vaccines. It currently has
one commercial program, for vaccines to prevent COVID (Novavax
COVID Vaccine, Adjuvanted), which it markets under the brand name
"Nuvaxovid(TM)" and has partnered with Serum Institute of India
Pvt. Ltd. (SIIPL) and markets NVX-CoV2373 as "Covovax(TM)."


NPAS SOLUTIONS: Court Confirms Prohibition of Class Incentive Award
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas E. Sanchez of Duane Morris reports that last year, in
denying a petition for rehearing in Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, 43
F.4th 1138 (11th Cir. 2022), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit confirmed that class representative incentive
awards are prohibited as a matter of law. Although the Eleventh
Circuit stands alone in its hardline position on incentive awards,
a recent panel decision of the Second Circuit suggests that other
circuits may be receptive to adopting Johnson's reasoning under the
right circumstances. Indeed, in a recent class action before the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Department of
Justice challenged the amounts of requested incentive awards for 36
class representatives. Although the department stopped short of
asserting that incentive awards are categorically prohibited, it
relied on Johnson to argue that requests for such awards should be
viewed "with skepticism."

Moreover, although Johnson prohibits incentive awards, several
district courts within the Eleventh Circuit have continued to
approve monetary awards to class representatives as part of
class-action settlements. In some cases, those awards have been
characterized as "general release" payments, while others have held
that Johnson is inapplicable in diversity jurisdiction actions
where state law permits incentive awards. The Eleventh Circuit has
not yet assessed whether payments to class representatives under
these circumstances run afoul of Johnson.

A Review of 'Johnson'

In March 2017, Charles Johnson filed a putative class action under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act against NPAS Solutions, LLC
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Pennsylvania. Later that year, the district court preliminarily
approved a $1.432 million settlement and allowed Johnson to move
the court for a $6,000 incentive award. See Johnson, No.
9:17-cv-80393 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2017). Class member Jenna
Dickenson objected, arguing in part that Supreme Court precedent
precluded the incentive award. The district court overruled that
objection and approved the $6,000 incentive award in a May 2018
order.

Dickenson appealed, and the majority of a three-judge panel of the
Eleventh Circuit held that, in approving the incentive award, the
district court "ignored on-point Supreme Court precedent
prohibiting such awards." Specifically, the panel held that
incentive awards are barred under Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S.
527 (1881), and Central Railroad & Banking v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116
(1885). Writing for the majority, Judge Kevin Newsom deemed the
awards rejected in Greenough and Pettus to be "roughly analogous to
incentive awards in class-action settlements." Newsom reasoned that
"modern-day incentive awards" are barred under Greenough and Pettus
because such awards "compensate class representatives for their
time (i.e., as a salary) " and also "promote litigation by
providing a prize to be won (i.e., as a bounty)."

Dickenson petitioned the Eleventh Circuit for rehearing, seeking
review of the attorney fees awarded under the settlement. Six
amicus briefs were filed, one of which argued that the panel's
decision "risks eliminating large swaths of small-value claim class
actions in the Eleventh Circuit" and disregards the 2018 amendments
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which require
courts to ensure that a class-action settlement "treats class
members equitable relative to each other."

On Aug. 3, 2022, a 7-4 majority of the Eleventh Circuit denied the
petition for rehearing. The Supreme Court denied Johnson's petition
for writ of certiorari on April 17, 2023.

Post-'Johnson' Decisions of District Courts in the Eleventh
Circuit

During the pendency of the petition for rehearing in Johnson,
district courts in the Eleventh Circuit took varying approaches to
addressing requests for incentive awards as part of class-action
settlements.

For example, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia declined to follow Johnson in two decisions, finding that
incentive awards do "not constitute either a salary or a bounty"
and that class representatives are deserving of such awards because
they undertake "considerable risk of alienation and harm to their
reputations for seeking to enforce their rights" and those of the
class. See Henderson v. Emory University, No. 16-cv-2920 (N.D. Ga.
Nov. 4, 2020); Pledger v. Reliance Trust, No. 15-cv-4444 (N.D. Ga.
Mar. 8, 2021).

Conversely, other courts held that Johnson was binding and
disallowed incentive awards. See Benitez v. FGO Delivers, No.
21-cv-221 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2022); Parker v. Stoneledge
Furniture, No. 21-cv-740 (M.D Fla. Feb. 17, 2022). Since the denial
of the petition for rehearing, several courts have followed suit.
See Mosley v. Lozano Insurance Adjusters, No. 19-cv-379 (M.D. Fla.
June 6, 2023); Malespin v. Longeveron, No. 21-cv-23303 (S.D. Fla.
Mar. 31, 2023); In re Johnson & Johnson Aerosol Sunscreen Marketing
Sales Practice, No. 21-md-3015 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2023).

Other district courts in the Eleventh Circuit avoided the outright
rejection of requests for incentive awards by deferring ruling on
such requests pending the disposition of the petition. Since the
Eleventh Circuit's denial of the petition, these courts have taken
different approaches to addressing requests for incentive awards.

Rejection of Incentive Awards

Some district courts simply adhered to Johnson, finding it
categorically prohibited incentive awards. For example, in Belin v.
Health Ins. Innovations, No. 19-61430 (S.D. Fla.), class counsel
requested that $56,250 be paid to the class representatives as
incentive awards, and that amount was paid into escrow pending the
disposition of the Johnson petition. Following the denial of the
petition, the court ordered the settlement administrator to
disburse the $56,250 to the participating settlement class
members.

'General Release' Payments to Class Representatives

In an arguable workaround of Johnson's prohibition against
incentive awards, class counsel in several cases have requested
"general release" payments for class representatives as opposed to
incentive awards. For example, in Turner v. Rosen Hotels & Resorts,
No. 21-cv-161 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2022), class counsel characterized
a requested $7,500 payment to the class representative as a
"general release" payment made in consideration for the release of
his claims. Class counsel, however, ultimately withdrew the request
after the court requested additional briefing on whether such a
payment was permissible under Johnson.

In Thomas v. JSTC, No. 19-cv-1528, (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2022), class
counsel characterized requested $10,000 payments to class
representatives as general release payments that were negotiated
and supported by consideration separate from the class settlement.
The court, however, was "not convinced these actions were not taken
solely to create a workaround of the Johnson prohibition" and
voided the requested payments. Thomas is currently on appeal in the
Eleventh Circuit, where the appellant has argued that Johnson is
inapplicable to general release agreements because it did not
concern courts' authority to void private agreements between
contracting parties that would not be drawn from a settlement
fund.

Contrary to Thomas, the court in Baja v. Costco Wholesale, No.
21-cv-61210 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 20, 2022), approved a class settlement
that included a $10,000 general release payment for the class
representative. After requesting briefing as to whether such
payments violated Johnson, the court concluded that they do not
constitute prohibited incentive awards because they are supported
by separate consideration.

Permitting Incentive Awards in Diversity Jurisdiction Actions

Several district courts in the Eleventh Circuit also have permitted
incentive awards where class claims arise under state law as
opposed to a federal cause of action like in Johnson. These courts
have reasoned that Johnson is inapplicable in diversity
jurisdiction actions where the underlying claims arise under state
law that permits incentive awards in class actions. See Venerus v.
Avis Budget Car Rental, No. 13-cv-921 (M.D. Fla. May 25, 2023);
Mitchell v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance, No. 21-cv-347
(S.D. Ala. Aug. 3, 2023); South v. Progressive Select Insurance,
Nos. 19-cv-21760, 19-cv-21761 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2023).

Outside the Eleventh Circuit

Recent decisions in federal district courts outside the Eleventh
Circuit have declined to follow Johnson and hold that incentive
awards are appropriate. See Shane Group v. Blue Cross Blue Shield
of Michigan, 833 F. App'x 430 (6th Cir. 2021); In re Apple Device
Performance Litigation, 50 F.4th 769 (9th Cir. 2022); Murray v.
Grocery Delivery E-Services USA, 55 F.4th 340 (1st Cir. 2022).

Recently, though, a panel decision of the Second Circuit found
Johnson's reasoning compelling. In Fikes Wholesale v. HSBC Bank, 62
F.4th 704 (2d Cir. 2023), objectors challenged proposed $900,000
incentive awards to class representatives. The panel agreed with
Johnson that incentive awards are likely impermissible under
Greenough. However, the panel concluded that it was bound by prior
Second Circuit decisions approving such awards. In a concurring
opinion, Judge Dennis Jacobs noted that the named plaintiffs "are
getting a total of $900,000 as a kind of tip," which is "$900,000
more than permitted under Supreme Court authority." He further
noted that "we now find ourselves on the wrong side of a circuit
split" and that "perhaps class actions that plaintiffs lack
incentive to bring are class actions that need not be brought."

Further, the Department of Justice recently opposed a request for
incentive awards of $5,000 each for 36 plaintiffs in a
multidistrict class action, In re U.S. Office of Personnel
Management Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 15-mc-01394 (D.D.C.
Sept. 9, 2022). There, the Department pointed to Johnson's
prohibition against incentive awards but stopped short of asserting
that such awards are "categorically precluded" in the District of
Columbia. Rather, the department argued that the court should "view
the request for such awards with skepticism." The department also
argued that the incentive awards were inflated because the named
plaintiffs were not subject to any formal discovery and not
required to sit for depositions or attend any hearings. Although
the district court seemingly sided against adopting Johnson, it
reduced the requested incentive awards to $1,000 each.

What Lies Ahead

Although other circuits have not joined the Eleventh Circuit's
position on incentive awards, the Second Circuit's recent decision
in Fikes indicates that a court outside the Eleventh Circuit may
ultimately be receptive to, and perhaps adopt, Johnson's reasoning
on incentive awards. At a minimum, arguments like those recently
advanced by the Department of Justice in Office of Personnel
Management suggest that litigants will continue to cite Johnson in
opposing requests for incentive awards.

Furthermore, the Eleventh Circuit likely will soon have another
opportunity to express its view on incentive awards, as some
district courts within that circuit have continued to permit
incentive awards to class representatives in diversity jurisdiction
actions while others have allowed class representatives to receive
"general release" payments. Awarding such payments may very well
run afoul of Johnson's prohibition against incentive awards. [GN]

OCEAN CLUB: Zappettini Suit Seeks Sales Clerks' Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
VIVIANA ZAPPETTINI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OCEAN CLUB SPORTSWEAR, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-01609 (M.D. Fla., August 23, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly wage retail salesclerk at
the Defendant's beachwear/souvenir shops located in Daytona Beach,
Florida, until her separation in August 2023.

Ocean Club Sportswear, Inc. is an owner and operator of
beachwear/souvenir shops located in Daytona Beach, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Robert S. Norell, Esq.
         ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
         300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305
         Plantation, FL 33317
         Telephone: (954) 617-6017
         Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
         E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com

PRIMARK US: Fails to Timely Pay Sales Associates, Swain Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
TYESHA SWAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRIMARK US CORP., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-06368 (E.D.N.Y., August 24, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for failure to pay timely wages in violation of the
New York Labor Law.

Ms. Swain was employed by Primark as an hourly-paid sales associate
at Kings Plaza, New York retail store from approximately May 2022
to August 2023.

Primark US Corp is an operator of retail stores, with its principal
executive office in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
         FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
         28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 300-0375

RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Must Answer Hightower Complaint by Oct. 27
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BERNADETTE HIGHTOWER, LATERSHIA JONES, GEORGE
DEAN, and BRUCE MARK WOODRUFF, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01683-RSM (W.D.
Wash.), Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Seattle, rules that the
Defendant must answer, move or otherwise respond to the Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Class Action Complaint on or before Oct. 27, 2023.

Pursuant to Local Rules 7(j) and 10(g), Plaintiffs Bernadette
Hightower, Latershia Jones, George Dean and Bruce Mark Woodruff,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
Defendant Receivables Performance Management, LLC, submit this
stipulated motion for an extension of time for the Defendant to
answer, move or otherwise respond to the Plaintiffs' Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint and for an extension of time to
submit Initial Disclosures and Joint Status Report and Discovery
Plan, in support thereof.

The Plaintiffs filed their Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on May 4, 2023. The Defendant's current due date for
responding to the Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint
was Aug. 28, 2023.

Additionally, the following deadlines for initial disclosure and
submission of the Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan are in
place: (1), Deadline for FRCP 26(f) Conference: Sept. 1, 2023; (2)
Initial Disclosures Pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1): Sept. 8, 2023; and
(3) Combined Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan as Required by
FRCP 26(f) and Local Civil Rule 26(f): Sept. 15, 2023.

As set forth in the Parties' motion to amend complaint and for an
extension of time for the Defendant to respond to the Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Parties agreed to discuss
the possibility of an early resolution, including the exchange of
information to allow them to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses
of the Plaintiffs' claims and the Defendant's defenses, as well as
the scheduling of a mediation before Hon. Wayne Andersen (Ret.).
This mediation was conducted on July 12, 2023.

Following completion of this mediation session, the Parties are
continuing to engage in discussions regarding an early resolution
with the assistance of the mediator. The Parties have exchanged
documentation in aid of an early resolution and are continuing to
discuss any early resolution of the matter with Hon. Wayne Andersen
(Ret.), including the scheduling of a second day of mediation,
anticipated to take place in early October.

The Parties agree that it would be beneficial to further extend the
time for the Defendant to answer, move or otherwise respond to the
Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint while these discussions
are ongoing.

As such, the Parties stipulate and agree that the Defendant will
have an extension of time up to and including Oct. 27, 2023, to
answer, move or otherwise respond to the Plaintiffs' Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint.

Judge Martinez rules that the Defendant will answer, move or
otherwise respond to the Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on or before Oct. 27, 2023. The deadlines for initial
disclosure and submission of the Joint Status Report and Discovery
Plan per ECF No. 43 are extended as follows:

   (1) Deadline for FRCP 26(f) Conference: Nov. 1, 2023;

   (2) Initial Disclosures Pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1): Nov. 8,
       2023; and

   (3) Combined Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan as
       Required by FRCP 26(f) and Local Civil Rule 26(f):
       Nov. 15, 2023.

A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order dated Aug.
28, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/44p2w5vv from
PacerMonitor.com.

TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC, Kaleigh N. Boyd -- kboyd@tousley.com
-- Jason T. Dennett -- jdennett@tousley.com -- 1200 Fifth Avenue,
Suite 1700, in Seattle, Washington 98101-3147, Interim Liaison
Counsel for the Plaintiffs.

Bryan L. Bleichner -- bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com -- Philip
Krzeski -- pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut Cambronne PA,
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700, in Minneapolis, Minnesota
55401; John A. Yanchunis -- jyanchunis@forthepeople.com -- Ryan D.
Maxey -- rmaxey@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan Complex
Business Division, 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor, in Tampa,
Florida 33602, Interim Co-Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs.

GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP -- Sarah Turner --
sturner@grsm.com -- 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100, in Seattle,
Washington 98104; Brian E. Middlebrook -- bmiddlebrook@grsm.com --
John T. Mills -- jtmills@grsm.com -- One Battery Park Plaza, 28th
Floor, in New York City, New York 10004, Attorneys for the
Defendant.


SCARPA NORTH: Santana Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN SANTANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCARPA NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-01058-AMN-TWD (N.D.N.Y., August 24, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 and the New York State Civil Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed 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's website, us.scarpa.com,
contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class
members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services offered to the public through the website. The
accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to:
(a) does not contain proper navigation links or headings, (b) is
not properly coded to alert customers when a product has been added
to the cart function, and (c) is not properly coded to relay all
the information for products.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.

Scarpa North America, Inc. is an online retail company that owns
and/or operates us.scarpa.com, doing business in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
         MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
         225 Broadway, 39th Floor
         New York, NY 10007
         Telephone: (212) 595-6200
         Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
         E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com

SECURITAS SECURITY: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Ulloa Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MICHAEL ANGEL ULLOA II, Plaintiff v.
SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
23-cv-01752-DMR (N.D. Cal.), Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California:

   (1) converts the Defendant's motion to dismiss to a Rule 12(c)
       motion for judgment on the pleadings;

   (2) grants in part and denies in part the Rule 12(c) motion.

The Defendant moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint.

In the putative class action, Ulloa sues his former employer,
Securitas, alleging numerous wage and hour violations under
California law. He asserts these claims: 1) failure to provide
required meal periods in violation of the California Labor Code; 2)
failure to provide required rest periods in violation of the Labor
Code; 3) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Labor
Code; 4) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Labor
Code; 5) failure to pay wages due upon termination in violation of
the Labor Code; 6) failure to provide accurate, itemized wage
statements in violation of the Labor Code; 7) failure to maintain
employment records in violation of the Labor Code; 8) failure to
indemnify employees for necessary expenditures in violation of the
Labor Code; 9) unfair and unlawful business practices in violation
of the California Business & Professions Code ("UCL"); and 10)
civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act
of 2004 ("PAGA"), California Labor Code sections 2698-2699.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of "all current and former
non-exempt employees of Defendants in the State of California at
any time within the period beginning four (4) years prior to the
filing of this action and ending at the time this action settles or
the class is certified[.]"

The Plaintiff filed the complaint in state court on Feb. 14, 2023.
The Defendant filed an answer to the complaint on April 7, 2023.
The Defendant removed the action to this Court on April 12, 2023.
The Defendant now moves pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the
complaint.

Judge Ryu notes that the Defendant moves pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. She explains
that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion must be made before the responsive
pleading, citing MacDonald v. Grace Church Seattle, 457 F.3d 1079,
1081 (9th Cir. 2006).

Here, the Defendant filed its motion to dismiss on July 18, 2023,
over three months after it filed an answer on April 7, 2023.
Accordingly, Judge Ryu holds that the motion is untimely.
Nonetheless, Ninth Circuit law provides that "if a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim is made after the answer is
filed, the court can treat the motion as one for judgment on the
pleadings" under Rule 12(c).

In this case, the Defendant's answer includes the defense of
failure to state a claim. Accordingly, the Court converts the Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss into a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on
the pleadings.

The Defendant asks the Court to take judicial notice of two
documents: 1) a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between the
Defendant and Service Employees International Union, United Service
Workers West ("SEIU-USWW"), effective Aug. 5, 2017, through Sept.
30, 2022; and 2) a CBA between the Defendant and SEIU-USWW
effective Oct. 1, 2022, through June 30, 2026. The Defendant
asserts that the Plaintiff's employment was covered by these CBAs.
The Plaintiff objects to the Court taking judicial notice of both
documents.

According to the Defendant, the Court may take judicial notice of
the two CBAs under Rule 201(b), arguing that courts may take
judicial notice of court transcripts both within and without the
federal judicial system if those proceedings have a direct relation
to matters at issue and that courts routinely take judicial notice
of documents found on the internet.

Judge Ryu opines that the Defendant offers no explanation as to how
the CBAs are "court transcripts" or "documents found on the
internet" or are otherwise judicially noticeable. Accordingly, the
Court declines to take judicial notice of the CBAs.

The Defendant first argues that the CBAs that purportedly governed
the Plaintiff's employment contain grievance and arbitration
provisions that cover the wage and hour claims in the complaint,
and that he is required to arbitrate claims for meal periods, rest
breaks, overtime, unpaid wages, and unreimbursed business expenses.
Accordingly, it contends, the Court must dismiss all claims in the
complaint for "failure to exhaust the CBA's internal grievance
mechanisms."

The Defendant also asserts that the Court should dismiss or strike
the Plaintiff's class claims because the CBA expressly prohibits
him from bringing a civil action other than on an individual basis.
As these arguments rely on materials outside the complaint that are
not judicially noticeable, Judge Ryu holds that the motion is
denied on these grounds.

The Defendant also argues that the complaint fails to allege
sufficient factual allegations to state plausible claims under the
California Labor Code (claims one through eight), and that
complaint fails to state derivative UCL and PAGA claims (claims
nine and ten). It also contends that the Plaintiff lacks Article
III standing to seek injunctive relief because he has not worked
for the Defendant since October 2022.

The Plaintiff does not oppose the motion on these particular
grounds. Instead, he responds that if the Defendant had filed a
timely motion to dismiss before filing an answer, he "would have
amended the complaint as a matter of course, pursuant to Rule
15(a)(1)(B), to include more detailed allegations under federal
pleading standards." He requests leave to amend to file an amended
complaint. He also concedes that as a former employee, he lacks
standing to seek injunctive relief, and states that any amended
complaint "would remove the request for injunctive relief."

For motions under both Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(c), the Court
should grant leave to amend even if no request for leave to amend
has been made, unless amendment would be futile. Here, the Court
cannot say that amendment would be futile. Accordingly, the
Defendant's Rule 12(c) motion is granted in part and denied in
part. The Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is dismissed
with prejudice. Claims one through ten are dismissed with leave to
amend.

For these reasons, Judge Ryu holds that the Plaintiff's request for
injunctive relief is dismissed with prejudice. Claims one through
ten are dismissed with leave to amend. He will file an amended
complaint with 14 days of the date of this Order and will plead his
best case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 28, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y697xade from PacerMonitor.com.


SLEEPY'S LLC: Court Dismisses Gundell's Third Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert Kirsch of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey dismisses the Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint in the
lawsuit entitled JEFFREY GUNDELL, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SLEEPY'S, LLC, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 15-7365 (RK) (DEA) (D.N.J.).

The matter comes before the Court upon an Order to Show Cause as to
why Count II of the Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") should not be
dismissed in light of Judge Zahid Quraishi's Opinion (the
"Opinion") granting summary judgment for the Defendants on
Counts I and III of the TAC.

The putative class action lawsuit arises from two provisions in the
Defendants' consumer contracts, which the Plaintiff alleges violate
the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act ("TCCWNA"),
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA"), and the Furniture
Delivery Regulations ("FDR").

Count I sought to certify an injunctive or damages class pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) or 23(b)(3) for the
Defendants' alleged violations of the TCCWNA, CFA, and FDR. The
alleged violations in Count I stem from the Defendants' inclusion
of a "Limitation of Liability" and a "no refunds" provision in its
sales contracts.

Count II sought certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class and entry of
declaratory judgment pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:16-50, et seq., that
the same "Limitation of Liability" provisions in its sales
contracts are null and void because they deprive the Plaintiff and
putative class members of their rights to seek redress for
violations of the TCCWNA, CFA, and FDR.

Count III sought to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class and render
declaratory relief that the Defendants violated the CFA and FDR, as
well as injunctive relief requiring the Defendants to provide
notice to the class describing options for remedies under the
respective statutes.

The Honorable Zahid N. Quraishi, U.S.D.J., granted the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment on Counts I and III. The Court held
that the Defendants had "strictly complied with the language
required by the FDR and are therefore not in violation of the
CFA."

The Court further found that the "Plaintiff cannot proceed with his
TCCWNA claim" because he was not an "aggrieved consumer" and
because the contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant Sleepy's
does not have any prohibited language, such as 'all sales final,'
no cancellations,' or 'no refunds,' as enumerated in Spade, citing
Spade v. Select Comfort Corp., 232 N.J. 504, 516 (N.J. 2018)).
Judge Quraishi denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment
as to Count II, however, on the grounds that the Defendants made no
arguments specifically directed to Count Two and, therefore, failed
to meet their burden of persuasion.

The Plaintiff and the Defendants separately sought reconsideration
on different portions of the Opinion. Shortly thereafter, the case
was reassigned to Judge Kirsch. On reconsideration, the Court found
no basis to disturb Judge Quraishi's findings of law and fact, and,
accordingly, denied the Plaintiffs reconsideration motion as to
Counts I and III.

In a separate Memorandum Order, the Court denied the Defendants'
request to reconsider the denial of summary judgment on Count II
based on Judge Quraishi's determination that the issue had not been
sufficiently briefed. Noting, however, that the three counts of the
TAC significantly overlap, the Court ordered the parties to submit
additional briefing on what, if anything, remained as to Count II
of the TAC given the Opinion. The parties timely obliged.

Judge Kirsch notes that the issue at bar is whether the prior grant
of summary judgment has rendered the remaining Count of the TAC a
nullity. To that effect, the so-called "law of the case" doctrine
is clearly implicated, which "limits relitigation of an issue once
it has been decided in an earlier stage of the
same litigation," citing Hamilton v. Leavy, 322 F.3d 776, 786 (3d
Cir. 2003).

Since reconsideration has already been denied with respect to this
Opinion, the sole issue at bar is purely to interpret the Opinion
as it relates to Count II of the TAC, Judge Kirsch says. However,
where no material issues of fact exist, the Court will enter
judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs.

Although neither party raises any issue of due process, Judge
Kirsch says it is also important to make clear -- given the impetus
behind this decision is the Court's Order to Show Cause -- that
dismissal of Count II or entry of judgment for the Defendants can
neither be classified as sua sponte entry of summary judgment nor a
grant of summary judgment to a non-movant. While both actions are
within the Court's power, they typically implicate issues of notice
that do not exist here, Judge Kirsch points out.

In this case, the Defendants originally moved for summary judgment
on Feb. 19, 2021. Partial judgment was then entered on Nov. 30,
2022. The Order to Show Cause was issued on June 26, 2023, because
the Court was contemplating entering judgment in favor of the
Defendants on Count II and dismissal of the Plaintiff's complaint.
The Court gave the Plaintiff a month to fully brief the issue, and
the record has been fully developed for over a year.

To summarize, Judge Kirsch notes, the Opinion addressed and soundly
rejected the Plaintiff's claim under N.J.A.C. 13:45A-5.3(c). While
the contract may have contained the phrase "no refund," Judge
Quraishi concluded that the provision did not violate N.J.A.C.
13:45A-5.3(c), and more broadly, the FDR, CFA, or TCCWNA given the
presence of contractual language that contained the required
offering of a full refund under certain circumstances. The Court
has already reviewed and defers to Judge Quraishi's reasoning on
the Plaintiff's reconsideration motion and declines to revisit the
Plaintiff's attempted "gotcha" game that relies so heavily on
cherry-picked and decontextualized phraseology.

In Spade, the New Jersey Supreme Court opined that a plaintiff
pursuing a TCCWNA cause of action must prove four elements, the
fourth element being that the plaintiff is an "aggrieved consumer."
Less than two years after Spade was decided, the New Jersey Supreme
Court restated that these same four elements are required to assert
a claim under the TCCWNA, citing Pisack v.
B&C Towing, Inc., 240 N.J. 360, 379 (2020).

Because all four elements apply to every TCCWNA cause of action,
Judge Quraishi's holding that the Plaintiff was not an "aggrieved
consumer" foreclosed all of the Plaintiff's claims under the
TCCWNA, Judge Kirsch opines. There was no need to consider
remaining factors once the Court found that a necessary element had
not been proven.

Likewise, since each claim would require a finding that the
Plaintiff was an "aggrieved consumer," the Court did not need to
specifically itemize each allegedly violative provision of the
sales document in order to foreclose each claim. Thus, the
Plaintiff's remaining argument -- that the limitation of liability
provision is still live because it was not discussed -- also
fails.

Accordingly, the Court finds that entry of judgment in favor of the
Defendants on Counts I and III also warrants summary judgment in
favor of the Defendants on Count II. As no Count remains, the TAC
is dismissed. The Plaintiff's outstanding motion for
reconsideration on the Court's denial of class certification as to
Count II is dismissed as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Aug. 28,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3wj96anh from
PacerMonitor.com.


SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies the petition to compel arbitration in
the matter titled SMILEDIRECTCLUB, INC., et al., Petitioners v.
RENEE COLORADO, Respondent, Case No. 23-cv-01189-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

Respondent Renee Colorado has moved to dismiss a petition to compel
arbitration brought by Petitioners SmileDirectClub, Inc. and
SmileDirectClub, LLC (collectively, "SDC").

Judge Orrick previously granted a motion to compel arbitration in a
related putative class action of which Colorado admits he is an
unnamed member: Navarro v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., No.
22-CV-00095-WHO, 2022 WL 1786582, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2022).
After Judge Orrick granted SDC's motion to compel arbitration in
Navarro, Colorado filed his own arbitration demand, seeking
declaratory relief as a putative class member that the Navarro
claims were not arbitrable and attaching the First Amended
Complaint filed in Navarro.

But Colorado refused to sign a consent form required by the
American Arbitration Association for his arbitration to proceed,
and it is currently closed. Nonetheless, SDC filed a petition to
compel arbitration in this Court.

Judge Orrick says it is unclear why this matter is here. Colorado
has not filed any complaint of his own and does not have a pending
arbitration either. His arbitration demand, as drafted, attempts to
piggyback on the Navarro claims. But Colorado is not Navarro. If
Colorado wants to challenge the arbitrability of the claims in
Navarro, he should do so in that arbitration. If he wants to assert
his own claims, he may do so. But at the moment, Judge Orrick has
no claims from Colorado to evaluate.

Judge Orrick says he lacks subject matter jurisdiction over SDC's
petition to compel arbitration. True, he found that the Class
Action Fairness Act provided jurisdiction in Navarro (Navarro v.
SmileDirectClub, Inc., 2022 WL 1124594, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15,
2022)).

But again, Judge Orrick opines, Colorado is not Navarro, and his
now closed demand for arbitration does not appear to assert class
claims. There are no satisfactory allegations regarding an amount
in controversy unique to Colorado that would establish diversity
jurisdiction; SDC simply relies on the amount demanded in Navarro
to estimate the amount in controversy here. And neither the Federal
Arbitration Act nor the Declaratory Judgment Act provide federal
question jurisdiction.

For those reasons, Judge Orrick holds that Colorado's motion to
dismiss SDC's petition for arbitration is granted and SDC's
petition to compel arbitration is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 10, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/49epzer3 from Leagle.com.


SPECIALTYCARE INC: Dorta Sues Over Training Repayment Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL DORTA and NATHAN FUCHS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SPECIALTYCARE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00892 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 23, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for unlawful restraint of trade
and unlawful liquidated damages provision and for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and Truth in Lending Act.

According to the complaint, SpecialtyCare trains its incoming
surgical neurophysiologists in a program it calls "SpecialtyCare
University," although SpecialtyCare University is a job-training
program, not an accredited school. The training lasts for a year
and includes a week of in-person coursework along with ongoing
online coursework that covers workplace procedures along with basic
lessons in topics like anatomy and physiology. At the same time
that surgical neurophysiologists receive training from
SpecialtyCare University, they are working full-time in the
operating room as surgical neurophysiologists, a job that often
requires them to show up on short notice to surgeries that can last
14 hours or more.

In exchange for the training, SpecialtyCare surgical
neurophysiologists have to sign a Training Repayment Agreement
Provision(TRAP) promising to "reimburse" SpecialtyCare for the cost
of their training if they leave their jobs within three years. But
while the training lasts for only a year, the so-called
reimbursement amount continues to increase over the three-year TRAP
period. SpecialtyCare is either charging its workers for its own
business costs, or it is engaging in unauthorized student lending.
Either way, it is undermining the normal functioning of the job
market to keep workers trapped in underpaid and demanding jobs by
threatening them with crushing debt if they try to leave for any
reason, says the suit.

This lawsuit seeks to invalidate SpecialtyCare's TRAP, to make
whole those who have paid SpecialtyCare to be able to leave their
jobs, and to recover for SpecialtyCare workers the wages they
should have earned in a properly functioning job market free from
SpecialtyCare's manipulation.

Plaintiffs Dorta and Fuchs were employed by SpecialtyCare from
approximately August 2022 to December 2022 in Miami, Florida area
and from approximately November 2020 to February 2022 in Atlanta,
Georgia, respectively.

SpecialtyCare provides outsourced health and operating services
with principal place of business in Brentwood, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryce W. Ashby, Esq.
          DONATI LAW, PLLC
          1545 Union Ave.
          Memphis, TN 38104
          Telephone: (901) 278-1004
          E-mail: bryce@donatilaw.com

               - and -

          Juno Turner, Esq.
          David H. Seligman, Esq.
          Rachel W. Dempsey, Esq.
          TOWARDS JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 371689, PMB 44465
          Denver, CO 80237-5680
          Telephone: (720) 441-2236
          E-mail: juno@towardsjustice.org
                  david@towardsjustice.org
                  rachel@towardsjustice.org

               - and -

          Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
          Joshua Cottle, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
          E-mail: aprakash@nka.com
                  jcottle@nka.com

SUGAR RUSH: St. Louis Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
ORIELLA ELIZABETH ST. LOUIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUGAR RUSH INC. d/b/a MUR
RESTAURANT, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-06373 (E.D.N.Y., August 25,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law
including unlawful retention of gratuities, failure to provide
payroll notices, and failure to provide wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a server at Mur
Restaurant in New York from June 2023 to August 2023.

Sugar Rush Inc. is an operator of a Mediterranean restaurant under
the name Mur Restaurant, located at 314 Central Avenue, Lawrence,
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
         Frank J. Tantone, Esq.
         LIPSKY LOWE LLP
         420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (212) 392-4772
         E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
                 frank@lipskylowe.com

TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL: Simon Suit Seeks Unpaid OT for Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON SIMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02526 (W.D. Tenn., August
24, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

Mr. Simon has worked remotely for the Defendant as a non-exempt
hourly employee from approximately February 2023 to the present.

Terminix International Company Limited Partnership is a pest and
termite control company, headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Joshua Frank, Esq.
         David Garrison, Esq.
         BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC
         Philips Plaza
         414 Union Street, Suite 900
         Nashville, TN 37219
         Telephone: (615) 244-2202
         E-mail: jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
                 dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com

                 - and -

         Jesse L. Young, Esq.
         SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
         141 E. Michigan Ave., Ste. 600
         Kalamazoo, MI 49007
         Telephone: (269) 250-7500
         E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com

                 - and -

         Alana A. Karbal, Esq.
         SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
         One Towne Square, 17th Floor
         Southfield, MI 48076
         Telephone: (248) 355-0300
         E-mail: akarbal@sommerspc.com

UPHOLD HQ: Damages Claims Trimmed, Crypto Theft Suit Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown of Bloomberg Law reports that Uphold HQ pursuaded
a district court to trim back damages claims but otherwise failed
to convince the court to dismiss a proposed class action alleging
it failed to protect customers' cryptocurrency accounts from being
hacked and looted.

Zachary Nero, Jesse Smith, Gilles Boevi, and two other named
plaintiffs alleged the digital money platform failed to properly
implement a two-factor authentication system for their accounts,
which allowed unauthorized users to drain their funds.

Judge Denise Cote of the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York rejected Uphold’s argument that that the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act didn't apply. [GN]

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Bostard Sues Over Toxic Lead-Covered Cables
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GREG BOSTARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., and VERIZON NEW
JERSEY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-08564 (D.N.J., Aug. 23,
2023) arises from the Defendants' profit-driven decision to leave
dangerous lead cables in place after they became obsolete, in
violation of New Jersey and federal law.

According to the complaint, Defendants own and operate
telecommunications networks in New Jersey and elsewhere. The
Defendants' infrastructure includes a sprawling network of cables
covered in toxic lead: on poles overhead, in the soil, and
underwater. For many years, Defendants have known that the
lead-covered cables existed, that lead was potentially leaching
into the environment surrounding the cables, and that the cables
created significant risks of human and animal exposure. Defendants,
however, have not meaningfully acted to mitigate the health risks
to the individuals who work near the cables or made adequate
efforts to monitor or dispose of the cables, says the suit.

The Plaintiff and other New Jersey utility workers have been
exposed to lead from these toxic cables for years. That exposure
has significantly increased their risk of developing lead-related
health conditions, and thus they require a program of medical
surveillance to permit the earliest possible diagnosis of
illnesses, which could lead to improved outcomes, prolongation of
life, relief of pain, and minimization of disability, the suit
asserts.

Verizon Communications is an American multinational
telecommunications conglomerate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          David R. Buchanan, Esq.
          Nigel P. Halliday, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100
          Facsimile: (973) 639-8656
          E-mail: cayers@seegerweiss.com
                  cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                  dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com
                  nhalliday@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq.
          DWOSKIN WASDIN LLP
          433 Plaza Real, Suite 275
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 849-8060
          E-mail: edwoskin@dwowas.com

               - and -

          Nicholas F. Wasdin, Esq.
          DWOSKIN WASDIN LLP
          110 N. Wacker Dr.
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 343-5361
          E-mail: nwasdin@dwowas.com

WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP: Sued Over Patients' Privacy Rights Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE and JAN DOE, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP HEALTH CARE
DISTRICT; WASHINGTON HOSPITAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM; WASHINGTON
HOSPITAL; WASHINGTON HOSPITAL HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. _____ (Cal. Super.,
Alameda Cty., Aug. 18, 2023) arises from the Defendants’
systematic violation of the medical privacy rights of Plaintiffs as
patients and users of Defendants' services, exposing highly
sensitive personal information to Facebook without their  knowledge
or consent in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act,
the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the
Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Invasion of
Privacy and Violation of the California Constitution, the
California Unfair Competition Law, and the Information Practices
Act of 1977.

According to the complaint, the Defendants disclose patient
information through its use of a tracking pixel on its Website,
https://www.whhs.com. Washington Healthcare installed Facebook's
Meta Pixel tool on almost every page of its website. The Washington
Healthcare breached confidentiality and violated Plaintiffs'
privacy when it did not seek -- and certainly did not receive --
consent for disclosure of personal and medical information before
it unlawfully disclosed Plaintiffs' personally identifiable
information and protected health information, says the suit.

On behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs seek an order enjoining Defendants from further
unauthorized disclosures of personal information, awarding
statutory damages in the amount of at least $5,000 per violation as
well as attorneys' fees and costs, and granting any other
preliminary or equitable relief the Court deems appropriate.

Washington Township Health Care District is a local healthcare and
hospital district organized and existing under the laws of the
State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason "Jay" Barnes, Esq.
          Eric S. Johnson, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
          112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 784-6400
          Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
          E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com
                  ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Foster C. Johnson, Esq.
          David Warden, Esq.
          Nathan Campbell, Esq.
          AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, & MENSING, PLLC
          1221 McKinney Street, Suite 3460
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 655-1101
          Facsimile: (713) 655-0062
          E-mail: fjohnson@azalaw.com
                  dwarden@azalaw.com
                  ncampbell@azalaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
          Nicole R. Jones, Esq.
          Mahnam Ghorbani, Esq.
          KIESEL LAW LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: (310) 854-4444
          Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
          E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law
                  ramirez@kiesel.law
                  ghorbani@kiesel.law

YALE UNIVERSITY: Settles Mental Health Discrimination Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlyn Pohly of Yale News reports that as many Yalies moved back
to campus on August 25, 2023 afternoon, Dean of Student Affairs
Melanie Boyd sent an email to the Yale community about new mental
health-related reforms to University policy, following a years-long
legal battle between the University and mental health advocacy
group Elis for Rachael.

Boyd's message came just on the heels of an email from Elis for
Rachael announcing a settlement in the class-action lawsuit that
the nonprofit filed alongside two student plaintiffs in November
2022, alleging that the University discriminates against students
with mental illnesses.

When the spring semester began in January, two months after the
lawsuit was filed, the University announced its first change: the
redefinition of leaves due to mental health struggles as "medical
leave of absences" rather than medical withdrawals -- a change in
distinction that expanded support available to students. Medical
leave of absence includes a simplified reinstatement process,
accommodations for a reduced course load and financial support,
along with healthcare coverage options through Yale.

If the judge assigned to the case approves the settlement terms,
those changes -- along with "significant new advances" -- will be
officially codified and thus legally enforceable in the settlement
with the University, per the August 25, 2023 email from Elis for
Rachael.

"On August 26, 2023 is a watershed moment for anyone with a mental
health disability, and for the entire Yale community," Rishi
Mirchandani '19, co-founder of Elis for Rachael, wrote in the
nonprofit's email announcement. "This historic settlement affirms
that students with mental health needs truly belong."

These changes, detailed in the settlement agreement, include a
clarified reinstatement process with individualized lengths of
absence, continued campus inclusion during time away, part-time
study, access to Yale's healthcare coverage and a scheduled system
for tuition, room and board refunds.

Alicia Floyd '05, co-founder of Elis for Rachael, told the News the
part-time study option is a particularly consequential change for
Yale, a school that has historically taken an "all or nothing"
approach to university life and enrollment.

"I am pleased with August 26, 2023's outcome," Yale College Dean
Pericles Lewis wrote in a statement to the News. "Students and
alumni have shared constructive ideas with Yale administrators and
clinicians, and my hope is that the changes that have emerged from
these discussions will make it easier for students to ask for
support, focus on their health and wellbeing, and take time off if
they wish, knowing that they can resume their studies when they are
ready."

Lewis highlighted the expanded resources the University has worked
to provide for students seeking support over the past few years. He
added that he hopes students will continue to take advantage of
those resources, as needed, throughout their time at Yale.

Boyd's email referenced the "Time Away and Return" portion of the
University's academic regulations, which was updated in January.
Paul Mange Johansen '88, fellow Elis for Rachael co-founder, told
the News he remains "cautiously optimistic" about the resource.

It remains unclear how the University will specifically approach
implementing the policies outlined in the settlement. Floyd noted
that the centralized information -- which she called a "one-stop
shop" -- mirrors existing support systems at Duke University and
Cornell University, and she and Johansen encouraged Yale to look at
schools like those for inspiration on execution.

Elis for Rachael's announcement of the changes noted that while
this settlement might be an important step in the right direction,
the organization plans to continue its fight for mental health
advocacy and policy reform.

Additional action for which the group will lobby includes preferred
provider organization insurance for enrolled students, housing
security and medical privacy.

Elis for Rachael will hold a fundraising event at Center Church On
The Green on Nov. 17. [GN]


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***