/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231124.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, November 24, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 236

                            Headlines

23ANDME INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Dube Suit Alleges
7-ELEVEN INC: Verdugo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AEROVIRONMENT INC: Faces Employee Labor Suit in California Court
AETNA LIFE: Bid to Decertify Class in Kazda Suit Tossed
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Loper Class Suit in N.Y.

ALAN RITCHEY INC: Malloy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ALCO HANDLING: Pinto Sues Over Unpaid OT, Wrongful Termination
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Seeks Dismissal of Simons Class Suit
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Little Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Dec. 6 Oral Argument on Bystolic Suit Set

APPLE INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to May 23, 2024
AUTOLIV INC: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Airbag Inflators
BAIRD MANDALAS: Fails to Properly Evaluate Lawsuit, Hernandez Says
BANK OF UTAH: Bid to Certify Class Tossed in Sun Life Suit
BIRD RIDES: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in A.H.

BLUEVINE INC: Bain Lmitd Sues Over Illegal Fund Conversion
BRAEMAR HOTELS: Labor Class Suit Discovery Ongoing
BYTEDANCE INC: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due March 25, 2024
CAREDX INC: Continues to Defend Plumbers Federal Securities Suit
CHARLES RIVER: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Mass.

COAST PROFESSIONAL: Oakley Appeals Summary Judgment to 4th Cir.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Cappadora Labor Suit in California Court Tossed
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settles Diaz Labor Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settles Labor Suit in California Court
COSTCO WHOLESALE: To Settle Edwards Labor Suit in California Court

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Umadat Labor Suit in California Court Settled
CROWN BRIDGE: DarkPulse Appeals RICO Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
CSX CORP: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit Over Fuel Surcharge
CUMULUS MEDIA: Court OK's Settlement of ERISA Suit
DYNATA LLC: Davis Appeals Court Orders in FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir.

EXXON MOBIL: Navarro Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
FIRST CITIZENS: Bethea Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit
FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Brown Sues Over Improper Business Practices
FLIPPS MEDIA: Solomon Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
GEOVERA SPECIALTY: Burke Appeals Suit Dismissal to 5th Circuit

HAIN CELESTIAL: Gimpel Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
HERAEUS PRECIOUS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rodriguez Alleges
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Rose Says
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S: Sues Over Improper Job Classification
JAMES PAI: Underpays Bookkeepers & Tax Preparers, Yau Suit Claims

KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART: Environmental Ads "False," Simijanovic Says
LORDSTOWN CONSTRUCTION: Discovery Due March 15, 2024
MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Russ Appeals Class Cert Bid Denial to 4th Cir.
MERCURY FINANCIAL: Appeals Court Orders in Bailey Suit to 4th Cir.
MICHIGAN: Appeals Ruling in Braziel Civil Rights Suit to 6th Cir.

NEW YORK, NY: Astacio Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
PASTOSA RAVIOLI: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
PLAZA CLUB: Rigsby Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 8th Circuit
POPPY + CO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Breslin Suit Says
PROG LEASING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Davis Alleges

RESCUE DOGS: Donor Alleges Misuse of Donations in Fraud Suit
RJ WALKER: Simpson Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
SCALE FACILITATION: Widmer Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
SKIDMORE COLLEGE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cogan Alleges
STATE FARM: Faces Young Suit Over Breach of Insurance Contract

TEXAS ASSOCIATION: Conspires to Inflate Buyer Broker Commissions
UNITED STATES: Sokolich Files Suit Over CBD Tolling Program
VIMEO.COM INC: Tejon Sues Over Unwanted Disclosure of Video Info
W RESTAURANT SUPPLIES: Faces Salazar FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
WALMART INC: Alvarado Sues Over Mislabeled Sunscreen Products

WFG NATIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bautista Alleges

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Has $826MM Net Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $5.3MM Net Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability for Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Estimates $103MM Liabilities

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Defends 900 New Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Faces Pending PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. Defends Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Reports $436MM Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EFH Has 28,000 Claims Filed as of Oct. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Corp. Faces 17,220 Pending PI Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Receives 3,353 New PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Group Has $218MM Loss Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Records $2.5MM Insurance Receivables
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hess Corp. Defends Various PI Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Defends Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Reports $130.4MM Litigation Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Receives 1,924 New Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Global Has 20,670 Claims as of Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Defends 128 Personal Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Tech Records $21.7MM Asbestos Charges
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech Faces Product Liability Lawsuits


                            *********

23ANDME INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Dube Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
BRIANA DUBE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 23ANDME, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-05768-NC (N.D. Cal., Nov. 9, 2023) alleges that the
Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's
and other similarly situated 23andMe customers' sensitive
information, including their names, sex, date of birth, genetic
results, profile photos, and geographic location, referred here as
personally identifiable information and protected health
information.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant failed
to adequately protect the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private
Information, and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly
sensitive information. This unencrypted Private Information was
compromised due to Defendant's negligent and careless acts and
omissions and their utter failure to protect customers' sensitive
data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members'
Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing
the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and
continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their
respective lifetimes, says the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of
the Defendant's conduct.

23ANDME, INC. provides genetic testing and development services.
The Company offers DNA testing for inherited traits, genealogy, and
possible congenital risk factors. 23andMe operates in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Nelson, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (858) 209-6941
          Email: jnelson@milberg.com

7-ELEVEN INC: Verdugo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 7-Eleven, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Jose Lugo Verdugo, on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 7-Eleven, Inc., et al., Case No.
23CV011003 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 2, 2023).

7-Eleven -- http://www.7-eleven.com/-- is the largest convenience
store chain in the world.[BN]

AEROVIRONMENT INC: Faces Employee Labor Suit in California Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aerovironment, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 28, 2023, that on August 9, 2021, a former
employee filed a class action complaint against AeroVironment in
California Superior Court in Los Angeles, California alleging
various claims pursuant to the California Labor Code related to
wages, meal breaks, overtime, and other recordkeeping matters.

The complaint seeks a jury trial and payment of various alleged
unpaid wages, penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees in
unspecified amounts.

Aerovironment, Inc. is into multi-domain robotic systems and
related services based in Virginia.


AETNA LIFE: Bid to Decertify Class in Kazda Suit Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHALA KAZDA, v. AETNA
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:19-cv-02512-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order denying the Aetna's
motion to decertify class and denying Kazda's motion for summary
judgment.

The case is a class action brought under the Employment Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") arising from Aetna's alleged
denial of all claims for liposuction surgery to treat lipedema, a
rare but painful disease, as "cosmetic."

Judge Orrick said, "I previously found that Kazda sought
appropriate equitable relief in her breach of fiduciary duty class
claims and nothing in Wit II suggests that I should decertify it
either. Kazda's motion for summary judgment is also denied. Aetna
shows disputed facts material to both the denial of benefits and
breach of fiduciary duty claims. It offers testimony from the
medical director who reviewed Kazda's claim, along with files of
some claims for liposuction that were approved and some that were
denied, to show a dispute of material fact whether Aetna
categorically denied such claims as cosmetic or individually
determined that the
requested procedures were not medically necessary."

Kazda is a beneficiary under an ERISA-governed health insurance
plan through her husband???s employer, Ipsos America, Inc.

Aetna offers a broad range of traditional and consumer-directed
health insurance products and related services.

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

AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Loper Class Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending in September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Loper class suit in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York.

On June 28, 2018, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Keryx and Alpha Therapeutics Merger Sub, Inc., or the
Merger Sub, pursuant to which the Merger Sub merged with and into
Keryx, with Keryx becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Company, or the Merger.

On December 12, 2018, the Company completed the Merger.

On July 15, 2021, a purported former Keryx stockholder filed a
putative class action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York
against Akebia, a current officer of Akebia (John P. Butler), a
former officer of Akebia (Jason A. Amello), former directors of
Akebia (Muneer A. Satter, Scott A. Canute, Michael D. Clayman,
Maxine Gowen, Duane Nash, Ronald C. Renaud, Jr., and Michael S.
Wyzga), a current director of Akebia (Cynthia Smith), a former
director and officer of Keryx (Jodie P. Morrison), a former officer
of Keryx (Scott A. Holmes) and former directors of Keryx (Michael
Rogers, Kevin J. Cameron, Steven C. Gilman, Daniel P. Regan, Mark
J. Enyedy, and Michael T. Heffernan, some of whom are current
members of our Board of Directors).

The action is captioned Loper v. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., et al.,
or the Loper Action.

The complaint in the Loper Action alleges that the registration
statement filed in connection with the Merger contained allegedly
false and misleading statements or failed to disclose certain
allegedly material information in violation of Section 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

It alleges, among other things, that Akebia failed to disclose
heightened safety risks that allegedly threatened the prospects of
the Phase 3 PRO2TECT clinical trial and the commercial viability of
vadadustat.

The complaint in the Loper Action seeks damages including interest
thereon, an award of plaintiffs??? and the class's costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and rescission,
disgorgement, or such other equitable or injunctive relief that the
Court deems appropriate.

On August 16, 2021, another purported former Keryx stockholder
filed a putative class action making substantially similar
allegations and asserting the same claims as the Loper Action, also
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Akebia and
many of the same individual defendants named in the Loper Action.

The action is captioned Panicho v. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., et
al., or the Panicho Action.

On September 13, 2021, the parties in the Loper Action and Panicho
Action entered into a joint stipulation and proposed order, which
provided for the consolidation of the two actions under the caption
In re Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, or the
Consolidated State Action.

On October 27, 2021, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in
the Consolidated State Action.

On January 10, 2022, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint in its entirety.

Briefing on defendants??? motion to dismiss was completed on April
22, 2022.

Oral argument was held on October 7, 2022, and the Court dismissed
the complaint without prejudice on October 17, 2022, giving
plaintiffs thirty days to amend their complaint.

On November 16, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint, asserting the same claims and seeking the same relief as
the consolidated complaint.

On January 18, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint in its entirety.

Briefing on defendants??? motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint was completed on April 5, 2023. Oral
argument is currently scheduled to be held on January 12, 2024.

The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intend to
continue vigorously defending against the one active stockholder
lawsuit

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients
with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.



ALAN RITCHEY INC: Malloy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alan Ritchey, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Kenneth Malloy, on behalf of himself
and other similarly situated v. Alan Ritchey, Inc., et al., Case
No. 23CV011031 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 2, 2023).

Alan Ritchey, Inc. (ARI) -- https://alanritchey.com/ -- is a family
owned and operated, multi-industry company that provides services
to the government, industrial, agriculture, energy and
transportation sectors.[BN]

ALCO HANDLING: Pinto Sues Over Unpaid OT, Wrongful Termination
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA PINTO, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. ALCO HANDLING SERVICE CORP and PATAGONIA
SEAFARMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-24122 (S.D. Fla., Oct.
27, 2023) is an action to recover money damages from the Defendant
for Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Corporate
Defendants as scaler from November 2019 until her wrongful
termination on September 8, 2023. She worked approximately an
average of 45 hours per week without being compensated at the rate
of not less than one- and one-half times the regular rate at which
she was employed. She complained about unpaid overtime and unpaid
wages and in response, Defendants terminated her employment, says
the suit.

Alco Handling Service Corp. engages in the warehouse and food
processing plants industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julisse Jimenez, Esq.
          THE SAENZ LAW FIRM
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 482-1475
          Facsimile: (305) 209-5754
          E-mail: julisse@legalopinionusa.com

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Seeks Dismissal of Simons Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2023, that the
Company filed motion to dismiss the Simons class suit in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.

On August 14, 2023, a putative class action on behalf of APE
holders, captioned Simons v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., C.A.
No. 2023-0835-MTZ (the "Simons Action"), was filed against the
Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

The Simons Action asserts claims for a declaratory judgment,
injunctive relief, and breach of contract, and alleges that the
Settlement Payment in the Shareholder Litigation violates the
Certificate of Designations that govern the APEs prior to the
conversion of the APEs into Common Stock.

On September 12, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint.

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




AMERICAN NATIONAL: Little Suit Transferred to D. Mass.
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Deborah Little, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. American National Insurance
Company, Case No. 6:23-cv-06447 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Nov. 1, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12627-ADB to the
proceeding.

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

American National Insurance Company --
https://www.americannational.com/ -- is a major American insurance
corporation based in Galveston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Rachel Nicole Dapeer
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: (305) 610-5223
          Email: rachel@dapeer.com

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carmen M. Ortega-Rivero
          Ian M. Ross, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1001 Brickell Bay Drive, Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 391-5211
          Email: cortegarivero@sidley.com
                 iross@sidley.com


ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Dec. 6 Oral Argument on Bystolic Suit Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANI Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2023, that the
Bystolic antitrust class suit oral argument is scheduled on
December 6, 2023.

On December 3, 2020, class action complaints were filed against the
Company on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect
purchasers of the drug Bystolic.

On December 23, 2020, six individual purchasers of Bystolic, CVS,
Rite Aid, Walgreen, Kroger, Albertsons, and H-E-B, filed complaints
against the Company.

On March 15, 2021, the plaintiffs in these actions filed amended
complaints.

All amended complaints were substantively identical.

The plaintiffs in these actions alleged that, beginning in 2012,
Forest Laboratories, the manufacturer of Bystolic, entered into
anticompetitive agreements when settling patent litigation related
to Bystolic with seven potential manufacturers of a generic version
of Bystolic: Hetero, Torrent, Alkem/Indchemie, Glenmark, Amerigen,
Watson, and various of their corporate parents, successors,
subsidiaries, and affiliates.

ANI itself was not a party to patent litigation with Forest
concerning Bystolic and did not settle patent litigation with
Forest.

The plaintiffs named the Company as a defendant based on the
Company???s January 8, 2020 Asset Purchase Agreement with Amerigen.


Under the terms of the 2020 Asset Purchase Agreement, Amerigen
agreed to indemnify ANI for certain liabilities relating to
Bystolic, including liabilities that arose prior to closing of the
asset purchase.

The complaints alleged that the 2013 patent litigation settlement
agreement between Forest and Amerigen violated federal and state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws by delaying the
market entry of generic versions of Bystolic.

Plaintiffs alleged they paid higher prices as a result of delayed
generic competition.

Plaintiffs sought damages, trebled or otherwise multiplied under
applicable law, injunctive relief, litigation costs and
attorneys??? fees.

The complaints did not specify the amount of damages sought from
the Company or other defendants and the Company.

The cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York as In re Bystolic Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 20-cv-005735 (LJL).

On April 23, 2021, the Company and other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the amended complaints.

On January 24, 2022, the court dismissed all claims brought by the
plaintiffs without prejudice.

The court granted the plaintiffs until February 22, 2022 to file
amended complaints, which were filed in federal court in the
Southern District of New York, on that date.

The newly amended complaints contained substantially similar
claims.

On April 19, 2022, the Company and other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the newly amended complaints.

After full briefing and oral argument, on February 21, 2023, the
court granted the Company and the defendants' motion to dismiss all
actions with prejudice.

Plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Second Circuit.

The matter is fully briefed and oral arguments are scheduled for
December 6, 2023.

ANI continues to dispute any liability in this matter.

ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries is a
diversified bio-pharmaceutical company serving patients in need by
developing, manufacturing, and marketing high quality branded and
generic prescription pharmaceuticals, including for diseases with
high unmet medical need. It is focused on delivering growth by
scaling up our Rare Disease business through the successful launch
of our lead asset, "Cortrophin Gel," strengthening its generics
business with enhanced development capability, innovation in
established brands and leveraging our manufacturing capabilities.



APPLE INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to May 23, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned CHRISTOPHER BRYAN and
HERIBERTO VALIENTE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00845-AMO (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order
amending scheduling order as follows:

                 Event               Previous          New
                                     Deadline          Deadline

  Motion for Class Certification    Feb. 23, 2024      May 23, 2024

  and Expert Reports

  Opposition to Motion for Class    Apr. 26, 2024      July 26,
2024
  Certification and Expert
  Reports

  Reply in Support of Motion for    May 30, 2024        Aug. 29,
2024
  Class Certification  

  Hearing on Motion for Class       July 18, 2024       Oct. 17,
2024
  Certification

The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 8, 2022. The
Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Class Action Complaint on April
22, 2022.

The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Class
Action Complaint on May 6, 2022. The Court issued an Order Granting
in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on March
2, 2023.

The Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Class Action Complaint on
March 23, 2023. The Court entered a Scheduling Order on April 18,
2023.

The Court entered the proposed stipulation regarding discovery of
electronically stored information on October 20, 2023.

The Court entered the proposed protective order as modified on
October 30, 2023.

Apple is an American multinational technology company headquartered
in Cupertino, California.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40CNzy6 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jmarchese@bursor.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew D. Powers, Esq.
          Michael M. Klotz, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 984-8700
          E-mail: mpowers@omm.com
                  mklotz@omm.com

AUTOLIV INC: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Airbag Inflators
-------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report For the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 20, 2023, that in June 2023, several
Autoliv subsidiaries were named as defendants in a class action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan by David Anderson, et al.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits generally allege that the
defendants have violated various state competition, warranty, and
trade practice laws relating to ARC inflators included in airbag
modules that the defendants allegedly supplied after Autoliv
acquired Delphi Technologies, Inc. in December 2009.

Autoliv, Inc. is a US-domiciled, Swedish-headquartered automotive
safety supplier with sales to all leading car manufacturers
worldwide.


BAIRD MANDALAS: Fails to Properly Evaluate Lawsuit, Hernandez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY HERNANDEZ and JOSE HERNANDEZ-ALVAREZ, individually and as
guardian ad litem for their child L.H., Plaintiffs v. BAIRD
MANDALAS BROCKSTEDT & FEDERICO, LLC; CHASE T. BROCKSTEDT; PHILIP C.
FEDERICO; BRENT CERYES; STEPHEN A. SPENCE; and SCHOCHOR, STATON,
GOLDBERG AND CARDEA, P.A., Defendants, Case No. N23C-11-112 FJJ
(Del. Sup. Ct., November 13, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence-legal malpractice, recklessness,
promissory estoppel-detrimental reliance, breach of contract, and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to evaluate the
individual claims of people that retained them, including
Plaintiffs, in connection with a lawsuit related to the migration
of toxic substances, including nitrates through groundwater, from a
facility owned and operated by Mountaire Corporation and its
affiliates. The Defendants pursued a class action lawsuit without
taking into consideration individualized issues that may not be
best served by class action litigation. The Defendants engaged in
class action settlement discussions that resulted in the creation
of a settlement fund in exchange for the release of all claims,
including all personal injury claims, by any member of the class.
As a result, the Plaintiffs were then thrust into a claims
adjudication process that was not designed to compensate L.H., a
catastrophically injured child whose injuries are epidemiologically
highly associated with nitrate ingestion, says the suit.

Baird Mandalas Brockstedt & Federico, LLC is a law firm with its
principal place of business in Delaware.

Schochor, Staton, Goldberg & Cardea, PA is a law firm located in
Baltimore, Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Thomas C. Crumplar, Esq.
         JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A.
         750 Shipyard Dr., Suite 200
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 656-5445

BANK OF UTAH: Bid to Certify Class Tossed in Sun Life Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY
OF CANADA, v. BANK OF UTAH, Case No. 1:21-cv-03973-LMM (N.D. Ga.),
the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered an order denying:

  -- BOU's motion to certify class,

  -- Sun Life's motion for leave to file a surreply, and

  -- Sun Life's motion for partial summary judgment.

The parties are directed to meet and confer and file a proposed
amended scheduling order within 14 days of the entry of the Order.

Thus, because the evidence presented to the Court shows that there
are, at most, fourteen policyholders with a Chapter 93A claim, the
motion for class certification of that claim is due to be denied on
numerosity grounds. The Court's concerns regarding the STOLI
defenses, damages claims, and Rule 23(b)(2) certification also
apply here, as does its basis for denying certification of the
proposed Rule 23(c)(4) class.

Accordingly, the Court will also deny the motion for class
certification as to the claims asserted under Chapter 93A

The Plaintiff / Counter Defendant Sun Life Assurance Company of
Canada is the issuer of the life insurance policy that is at the
center of this case.

The Policy, which has a face amount of $3 million, was issued on
the life of Robert Krasnoff in 2006, when Mr. Kransnoff was 75
years old.

BOU now seeks certification of an "Injunction Class" under Rule
23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and certification
of an "Issues Class" under Rule 23(c)(4).

BOU defines the Injunction Class as follows:

   "All owners of universal life insurance policies issued by Sun
Life
   Assurance Company of Canada, or their predecessors and
successors,
   where the policies (a) have a death benefit option that pays
   specified face amount [sic] plus premiums paid; and (b) provide

   that the policyowner may change the Death Benefit option after
the
   first policy year ???subject to our administrative rules."

   The Injunction Class excludes any owner that

      (i) chose at policy issuance a death benefit option that pays

          specified face amount plus premiums paid,

     (ii) policies that terminated for lapse or surrender, or were

          cancelled,

    (iii) policies that terminated due to the death of the insured
          before June 29, 2021, and death benefits were paid, and
          defendant Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, its
officers
          and directors, members of their immediate families, and
the
          heirs, successors or assigns of any of the foregoing.

In the event that the Court denies the motion to certify the
Injunction or Issues Class, BOU alternatively moves to certify a
"Four Corners" class as a state-specific Injunction or Issues
Sub-Class:

    "All members of the Injunction and Issues Classes, excluding
    owners whose policies were issued in Alaska, Arizona,
California,
    Iowa, Montana, New Mexico, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
    Washington, and Wyoming."

Bank of Utah is a federally-insured community bank, with corporate
headquarters in Ogden, Utah.

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

BIRD RIDES: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in A.H.
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as A.H., a minor, by and
through their mother and next friend, Jashia Johnson v. Bird Rides,
Inc., a corporation, Case No. 4:23-cv-04163-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as
follows:

   -- Rule 16 scheduling conference

      The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
      30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
      The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.

   -- Discovery plan

      The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
      calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.

   -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference

      If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
      plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
      conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
      discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
      within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16

      scheduling conference be cancelled.

   -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing

      For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
      by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a

      telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to

      appear for an in-person hearing.

   -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the

      discovery deadline has already passed

      The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court

      after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
      disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the

      relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
      raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
      discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
      the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
      discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
      discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
      they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move

      that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any

      subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.

   -- Settlement conferences and mediation

      The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or

      mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
      settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
      Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.

Bird Rides provides software solutions. The Company offers
application for electric vehicle sharing to find nearby
transportation.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QSSyr4 at no extra charge.[CC]

BLUEVINE INC: Bain Lmitd Sues Over Illegal Fund Conversion
----------------------------------------------------------
BAIN LMITD INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLUEVINE INC.; COASTAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION
also known as COASTAL COMMUNITY BANK, and Does 1-20, inclusive,
Case No. 23SMCV05308 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 13, 2023)
alleges that the Defendants have converted funds which were
deposited with the Defendants to safekeep.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have converted the funds
deposited by the Plaintiff and the Class to the Defendants for
safekeep, with malice and intent, with disregard to the Plaintiffs'
rights and interests. As a direct and proximate cause of the
Defendants' conversion, the Plaintiff and the Class were damaged by
amounts to be proven at trial, plus interest, but in no event less
than the jurisdictional limits of this court, and attorney's fees
and costs, says the suit.

BLUEVINE INC. provides a range of deposit products and loans, as
well as other services to consumers and businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kousha Berokim, Esq.
          BEROKIM LAW
          270 North Canon Drive, Third Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 846-8553
          Facsimile: (310)300-1233
          Email: berokim@berokim.com

BRAEMAR HOTELS: Labor Class Suit Discovery Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Braemar Hotels & Resorts Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2023, that the
discovery for labor-related class suit is still ongoing.

On December 20, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against one
of the Company's hotel management companies in the Superior Court
of the State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa
alleging violations of certain California employment laws, which
class action affects two hotels owned by subsidiaries of the
Company.

The court has entered an order granting class certification with
respect to: (i) a statewide class of non-exempt employees of our
manager who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of
our manager's previous written policy requiring its employees to
stay on premises during rest breaks; and (ii) a derivative class of
non-exempt former employees of our manager who were not paid for
allegedly missed breaks upon separation from employment.

Notices to potential class members were sent out on February 2,
2021.

Potential class members had until April 4, 2021 to opt-out of the
class; however, the total number of employees in the class has not
been definitively determined and is the subject of continuing
discovery.

The opt out period has been extended until such time that discovery
has concluded.

In May 2023, the trial court requested additional briefing from the
parties to determine whether the case should be maintained,
dismissed, or the class de-certified.

The trial court set a due date of August 7, 2023 for the briefs.

After submission of the briefs, the court requested that the
parties submit stipulations for the court to rule upon.

If this litigation goes to trial, the Company expects that the
earliest the trial would occur is the last quarter of 2023, based
on various extensions to which the parties have agreed.

While it believes it is reasonably possible that it may incur a
loss associated with this litigation, because there remains
uncertainty under California law with respect to a significant
legal issue, discovery relating to class members continues, and the
trial judge retains discretion to award lower penalties than set
forth in the applicable California employment laws, it does not
believe that any potential loss to the Company is reasonably
estimable at this time.

As of September 30, 2023, no amounts have been accrued.

Braemar Hotels and Resorts Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
is
a Maryland corporation that invests primarily in high revenue per
available room luxury hotels and resorts.



BYTEDANCE INC: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due March 25, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REECE YOUNG, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BYTEDANCE INC.
and TIKTOK INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01883-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Vince Chhabria entered case schedule order pursuant to the
Court's August 17, 2023 Order.

  Deadline to Disclose Identity (Name +          Dec. 4, 2023
  Brief Description) of Plaintiffs'
  Experts

  Deadline to Disclose Identity (Name +          Dec. 22, 2023
  Brief Description) of Defendants' Experts

  Deadline to complete fact discovery1           Jan. 31, 2024

  Deadline for Plaintiffs' expert reports        Feb. 1, 2024

  Deadline for Defendants' expert reports        Feb. 22, 2024

  Deadline to complete expert discovery          Mar. 15, 2024

  Motion for Class Certification                 Mar. 25, 2024

  Opposition to Motion for Class                 Apr. 29, 2024
  Certification (including any Daubert
  motion to Plaintiffs' experts offered
  in support of class certification)

  Reply in support of Motion for Class           May 20, 2024
  Certification (including Plaintiffs'
  opposition to any Daubert motion filed
  by Defendants, and any Daubert motion by
  Plaintiffs to Defendants' experts offered
  in opposition to class certification)

  Defendants' opposition to any Daubert          May 29, 2024
  motion filed by Plaintiff

  Hearing on Motion for Class Certification      June 6, 2024

ByteDance is a technology company that operates a variety of
content platforms that inform, educate, entertain, and inspire
people.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Syo8fe at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          Elissa A. Buchanan, Esq.
          Kathleen J. McMahon, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
                  eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com
                  kmcmahon@saverilawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jesse A. Cripps, Esq.
          Lauren M. Blas, Esq.
          Leonora Cohen, Esq.
          Viola H. Li, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
          E-mail: JCripps@gibsondunn.com
                  LBlas@gibsondunn.com
                  LCohen@gibsondunn.com
                  VHLi@gibsondunn.com

CAREDX INC: Continues to Defend Plumbers Federal Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caredx Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 8, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Plumbers & Pipefitters federal securities
class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On May 23, 2022, Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union #295 Pension
Fund filed a federal securities class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company,
Reginald Seeto, its former President, Chief Executive Officer and
member of the Company???s Board of Directors, Ankur Dhingra, its
former Chief Financial Officer, Marcel Konrad, its former interim
Chief Financial Officer and former Senior Vice President of Finance
& Accounting, and Peter Maag, its former President, former Chief
Executive Officer, former Chairman of the Company???s Board of
Directors and current member of the Company???s Board of Directors.


The action alleges that the Company and the individual defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions
and that such statements violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the ???Exchange Act???), and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The action also alleges that the individual defendants are liable
pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as controlling
persons of the Company.

The suit seeks to recover damages caused by the alleged violations
of federal securities laws, along with the plaintiffs??? costs
incurred in the lawsuit, including their reasonable attorneys???
and experts??? witness fees and other costs.

On August 25, 2022, the court appointed an investor group led by
the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System as lead
plaintiffs and appointed Saxena White P.A. and Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsels.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 28, 2022.

On January 27, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss all claims and to
strike certain allegations in the amended complaint.

On May 24, 2023, the court granted the Company's motion to strike
and motion to dismiss, dismissing all claims against defendants
with leave to amend.

On June 28, 2023, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
against the Company, Reginald Seeto, Ankur Dhingra, and Peter Maag.


Under a briefing schedule ordered by the court on June 12, 2023,
defendants??? motion to dismiss and motion to strike the second
amended complaint was filed on July 26, 2023, plaintiffs???
opposition was filed on August 30, 2023, and defendants' reply was
filed on September 22, 2023.

The court held oral argument on October 31, 2023.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously, and believes that
the Company has good and substantial defenses to the claims alleged
in the suit, but there is no guarantee that the Company will
prevail.

The Company has not recorded any liabilities for this suit.


CHARLES RIVER: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles River Laboratories International Inc. disclosed in its Form
10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8,
2023, that the Company continues to defend itself from the
securities class suit in the United States Court for the District
of Massachusetts.

A putative securities class action was filed on May 19, 2023
against the Company and three of its current/former officers (James
Foster, the Chief Executive Officer; David R. Smith, the former
Chief Financial Officer; and Flavia Pease, the current Chief
Financial Officer) in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

The complaint asserts claims under ???? 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of Company securities from May 5, 2020
through February 21, 2023.

The complaint alleges that certain of the Company's disclosures
about its practices with respect to the importation of non-human
primates made during the putative class period were materially
false or misleading.

On August 31, 2023, the court appointed the State Teachers
Retirement System of Ohio as lead plaintiff, and the Company
intends to file a motion to dismiss. While the Company cannot
predict the outcome of this matter, it believes the class action to
be without merit and plans to vigorously defend against it.

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

COAST PROFESSIONAL: Oakley Appeals Summary Judgment to 4th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARLA OAKLEY is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Defendants' motions for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled
Carla Oakley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Coast Professional, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00021, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Mercer County Circuit Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, is a
putative class action alleging deceptive debt collection practices
by the Defendants in violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit
and Protection Act (WVCCPA). The Plaintiff says that the Defendants
sent her collection letters that misrepresented the amount and
status of a debt. The Defendants have filed three motions to
dismiss on various grounds, including preemption and lack of
personal jurisdiction.

On May 1, 2023, the Defendants filed motions for summary judgment,
which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge David A.
Faber on Sept. 29, 2023. The Court determined that there is
insufficient evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to return
a verdict finding that the letter sent to Oakley violated either
the general or specific provisions of the WVCCPA. Accordingly, the
Court granted the Defendants' motions for summary judgment. Given
the Court's conclusion that the letter does not violate the WVCCPA,
the Court has not reached the other arguments advanced by the
Defendants.

The appellate case is captioned Carla Oakley v. Coast Professional,
Inc., Case No. 23-2136, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 31, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CARLA OAKLEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., Esq.
            BROADWATER LAW GROUP, PLLC
            P.O. Box 1636
            417 Main Street East
            Oak Hill, WV 25901
            Telephone: (304) 574-2727

                    - and -

            Patricia Mulvoy Kipnis, Esq.
            BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
            923 Haddonfield Road
            Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
            Telephone: (304) 345-6555

                    - and -

            Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
            BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
            209 Capitol Street
            Charleston, WV 25301
            Telephone: (304) 345-6555

Defendants-Appellees COAST PROFESSIONAL, INC., et al. are
represented by:

            Michael David Alltmont, Esq.
            SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC
            3850 North Causeway Boulevard
            Two Lakeway Center
            Metairie, LA 70002
            Telephone: (504) 828-3700

                    - and -

            Albert C. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
            BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC
            500 Virginia Street East
            Charleston, WV 25301
            Telephone: (304) 345-4222

                    - and -

            Mary Claire Davis, Esq.
            WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW
            101 Law School Drive
            Morgantown, WV 26506
            Telephone: (304) 395-4378

                    - and -

            Alex J. Zurbuch, Esq.
            FROST BROWN TODD
            500 Virginia Street, East
            Charleston, WV 25301
            Telephone: (304) 348-2419

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Cappadora Labor Suit in California Court Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the fiscal year ended September 3, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 11, 2023, that "Cappadora v.
Costco Wholesale Corp.," Case No. 1:20-cv-06067, E.D.N.Y., has been
dismissed.

In December 2020, a former employee filed suit against the company
asserting collective and class claims on behalf of non-exempt
employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law
for failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay certain
non-exempt employees on a weekly basis, and failure to provide
proper wage statements and notices. The plaintiff also asserted
individual retaliation claims. Based on an agreement in principle
concerning settlement of the matter, involving a proposed payment
by the company of an immaterial amount, the federal action has been
dismissed.

Costco Wholesale Corporation and its subsidiaries is principally
engaged in the operation of membership warehouses in the United
States and Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, Japan, the United Kingdom
(U.K.), Korea, Australia, Taiwan, China, Spain, France, Iceland,
New Zealand and Sweden. Costco operated 861, 838, and 815
warehouses worldwide at September 3, 2023, August 28, 2022, and
August 29, 2021.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settles Diaz Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the fiscal year ended September 3, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 11, 2023, that in December 2022,
case captioned "Diaz v. Costco Wholesale Corp.," Case No.
22STCV09513 (Los Angeles Superior Court) was settled for an
immaterial amount and the case was dismissed.

In March 2022, Diaz, an employee filed said class action against
the company alleging violations of the California Labor Code
regarding the failure to: pay wages, provide meal and rest periods,
provide accurate wage statements, timely pay final wages, and
reimburse business expenses.

Costco Wholesale Corporation and its subsidiaries is principally
engaged in the operation of membership warehouses in the United
States and Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, Japan, the United Kingdom
(U.K.), Korea, Australia, Taiwan, China, Spain, France, Iceland,
New Zealand and Sweden. Costco operated 861, 838, and 815
warehouses worldwide at September 3, 2023, August 28, 2022, and
August 29, 2021.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settles Labor Suit in California Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the fiscal year ended September 3, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 11, 2023, that the final court
approval of a settlement was granted on May 3, 2022 with regards to
March 2019 a class action filed by employees against the company
alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,
to provide meal and rest periods and itemized wage statements, to
timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum
wages, and for unfair business practices.

Relief was sought under the California Labor Code, including civil
penalties and attorneys' fees. Case was captioned "Nevarez v.
Costco Wholesale Corp.," Case No. 2:19-cv-03454 (C.D. Cal.). The
company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint. In December 2019, the court issued an order denying
class certification. In January 2020, the plaintiffs dismissed
their Labor Code claims without prejudice, and the court remanded
the action to state court. Settlement for an immaterial amount was
agreed upon in February 2021. Final court approval of the
settlement was granted on May 3, 2022. A proposed intervenor
appealed the denial of her motion to intervene, and the appeal was
dismissed on February 15, 2023.

Costco Wholesale Corporation and its subsidiaries is principally
engaged in the operation of membership warehouses in the United
States and Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, Japan, the United Kingdom
(U.K.), Korea, Australia, Taiwan, China, Spain, France, Iceland,
New Zealand and Sweden. Costco operated 861, 838, and 815
warehouses worldwide at September 3, 2023, August 28, 2022, and
August 29, 2021.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: To Settle Edwards Labor Suit in California Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the fiscal year ended September 3, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 11, 2023, that on September 27,
2022, the parties in the case captioned "Edwards v. Costco
Wholesale Corp." Case No. 5:21-cv-00716 (C.D. Cal.) reached a
settlement which is subject to court approval.

In February 2021, Edwards, a former employee, filed said class
action against the company alleging violations of California Labor
Code regarding payment of wages, meal and rest periods, wage
statements, reimbursement of expenses, payment of final wages to
terminated employees, and for unfair business practices.

Costco Wholesale Corporation and its subsidiaries is principally
engaged in the operation of membership warehouses in the United
States and Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, Japan, the United Kingdom
(U.K.), Korea, Australia, Taiwan, China, Spain, France, Iceland,
New Zealand and Sweden. Costco operated 861, 838, and 815
warehouses worldwide at September 3, 2023, August 28, 2022, and
August 29, 2021.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Umadat Labor Suit in California Court Settled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the fiscal year ended September 3, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 11, 2023, that in August 2023,
the parties in the case captioned "Umadat v. Costco Wholesale
Corp.," Case No. 2:21-cv-4814 (E.D. N.Y.) reached an agreement in
principle on a settlement.

In August 2021, a former employee filed said suit, asserting class
claims on behalf of certain non-exempt employees under New York
Labor Law for failure to pay on a weekly basis. The company filed
an answer, denying the material allegations of the complaint.

Costco Wholesale Corporation and its subsidiaries is principally
engaged in the operation of membership warehouses in the United
States and Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, Japan, the United Kingdom
(U.K.), Korea, Australia, Taiwan, China, Spain, France, Iceland,
New Zealand and Sweden. Costco operated 861, 838, and 815
warehouses worldwide at September 3, 2023, August 28, 2022, and
August 29, 2021.


CROWN BRIDGE: DarkPulse Appeals RICO Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARKPULSE, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
the lawsuit entitled DarkPulse, Inc., et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Crown
Bridge Partners LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-08163-VM,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

This is a class action against a "death spiral" or "toxic" lender
(Crown Bridge) that is controlled and manipulated by the Individual
Defendants to carry out a fraudulent scheme to collect upon
unlawful debts and otherwise unlawfully obtain repayment of
unlawful loans from the Plaintiffs and other Class members through
the use of their criminally usurious convertible promissory notes
in violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO).

On Jan. 13, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
case, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge
Victor Marrero on Sept. 29, 2023. The Clerk's Office was directed
to close the case.

The appellate case is captioned DarkPulse, Inc. v. Crown Bridge
Partners LLC, Case No. 23-7550, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 30, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants DARKPULSE, INC., et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Eric Benzenberg, Esq.
            THE BASILE LAW FIRM, P.C.
            390 North Broadway, Suite 140
            Jericho, NY 11753

Defendants-Appellees CROWN BRIDGE PARTNERS LLC, et al. are
represented by:

            Jeffrey Fleischmann, Esq.
            Fleischmann PLLC
            150 Broadway, Suite 701
            New York, NY 10038
            Telephone: (646) 657-9623

CSX CORP: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit Over Fuel Surcharge
---------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 20, 2023, that it is facing a
consolidated case by individual shippers with regards to a fuel
surcharge antitrust litigation.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and
three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws. The class action lawsuits were
consolidated into one case in federal court in the District of
Columbia. In 2017, the District Court issued its decision denying
class certification. On August 16, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling.

CSX Corporation together with its subsidiaries provides rail-based
transportation services including traditional rail service, the
transport of intermodal containers and trailers, as well as other
transportation services such as rail-to-truck transfers and bulk
commodity operations.


CUMULUS MEDIA: Court OK's Settlement of ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Cumulus Media Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in October 27, 2023, that on
July 11, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia issued an order granting final approval to a settlement of
certain claims in two class action suits. All applicable appeal
deadlines have expired and the court's order approving the
settlement is now final.

The company has made a settlement payment for which it was
indemnified by one of its insurance carriers.

On February 24, 2020, two individual plaintiffs filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the Company in alleging claims
regarding the Cumulus Media Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan").

The case alleges that the company breached its fiduciary duties
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)
in the oversight of the Plan, principally by selecting and
retaining certain investment options despite their higher fees and
costs than other available investment options, causing participants
in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees, and by failing to
monitor other fiduciaries.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of
Plan participants from February 24, 2014 through the date of any
judgment. On May 28, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint. On December 17, 2020, the District Court entered an
order dismissing one of the individual plaintiffs and all claims
against the company except those that arose on or after February
24, 2019.

On March 24, 2021, the company filed a motion seeking dismissal of
all remaining claims. On October 15, 2021, the District Court
entered an order granting the company's motion and dismissing all
remaining claims. On November 12, 2021, one of the plaintiffs filed
a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit. While the appeal was pending, the parties agreed to a
settlement, that if granted final approval, will resolve all of the
claims against the company on a class-wide basis for the entire
Class Period, and will provide the company a general release.

On February 16, 2023, the District Court granted preliminary
approval to the settlement. On July 10, 2023, the court held a
fairness hearing.

Cumulus Media Inc. is an audio-first media company delivering
premium content and engages listeners with high-quality local
programming through 403 owned-and-operated radio stations across 85
markets, delivers nationally-syndicated sports, news, talk, and
entertainment programming from iconic brands.


DYNATA LLC: Davis Appeals Court Orders in FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
YOLANDA DAVIS, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders in the
lawsuit entitled Yolanda Davis, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dynata, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-01062-SVN, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
filed a complaint against the Defendant for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

On Nov. 28, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class.

On Nov. 30, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' first amended complaint.

On May 1, 2023, Shiftsmart, Inc. filed motion to stay and to compel
arbitration.

On Aug. 16, 2023, Shiftsmart filed a motion to strike.

On Sept. 25, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Shiftsmart's motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration;
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification of an FLSA collective action; denied
Dynata's motion to dismiss; and denied as moot Shiftsmart's motion
to strike. The Court also denied Dynata's request to join
Shiftsmart's motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration.

Specifically, Shiftsmart's motion was denied with respect to the
Plaintiffs who agreed to arbitration provisions in place before
October 21, 2022, and was granted with respect to the Plaintiffs
who agreed to arbitration provisions introduced thereafter. All
litigation with respect to named Plaintiffs Teneshia Bankston and
Tiffany Taylor and opt-in Plaintiffs Sasha Watson, Catera Duncan,
Toya Shaunnell Kenan, Alisa Charles, was stayed. The Court held
that Named Plaintiff Yolanda Davis and opt-in Plaintiffs Margaret
Samantha Abernathy, Keshun Durden, Brittni Davis, and Tiara Jones
may proceed with their claims in this action.

Moreover, the Court granted and denied in part the Plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification of a collective action. The
Court found that the Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for
conditional certification and ordered Dynata to identify all
potential members of the collective, as limited by the ruling. The
Court ordered the parties to submit a revised joint notice of
collective action, in conformance with the ruling, by October 5,
2023. The Court denied Dynata's motion to dismiss the breach of
contract and unjust enrichment claims. Finally, the Court denied as
moot Shiftsmart's motion to strike Plaintiff's notice of additional
authority.

On Oct. 20, 2023, Dynata filed a motion to stay all proceedings
pending disposition of interlocutory appeal on arbitrability.

The appellate case is captioned Davis v. Dynata, LLC, Case No.
23-7582, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on November 1, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants YOLANDA DAVIS, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Andrew Frisch, Esq.
            MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
            8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
            Plantation, FL 33324

Defendant-Appellee SHIFTSMART, INC. is represented by:

            Thomas C. Blatchley, Esq.
            GORDON & REES, LLP
            95 Glastonbury Boulevard
            Glastonbury, CT 06033

EXXON MOBIL: Navarro Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE NAVARRO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Jose Navarro, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-02477-DSF-SK, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The case is a putative class action seeking to remedy harms arising
from the contamination caused by an oil refinery in Torrance,
California formerly operated by ExxonMobil Corporation, currently
operated by Torrance Refining Company LLC. Due to Defendants'
negligence, the Refinery has emitted, and continues to emit,
harmful contaminants into the groundwater, soil vapor, and air,
presenting substantial health impacts to the surrounding
community.

On Mar. 24, 2023, Plaintiff Jose Navarro filed a Fourth Amended
Complaint against the Defendants.

On Apr. 7, 2023, Defendant Torrance Refining Company, LLC filed a
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

On Aug. 28, 2023, Defendant Torrance Refining Company, LLC filed a
motion for summary judgment as to the Plaintiff's claims in the
Fourth Amended Complaint, which the Court granted through an Order
entered by Judge Dale S. Fischer on Oct. 18, 2023. Judge Fischer
ruled that the Plaintiff takes nothing; the action is dismissed
with prejudice; and the Defendant recovers costs of suit pursuant
to a bill of costs filed in accordance with 28 U.S. Code section
1920.

The appellate case is captioned Navarro, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., Case No. 23-3274, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 2, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 7,
2023;

   -- Appellant Appeal Transcript Order was due on November 13,
2023;

   -- Appellant Appeal Transcript is due on December 13, 2023;

   -- Appellant Appeal Opening Brief is due on January 22, 2024;
and

   -- Appellant Appeal Answering Brief is due on February 21, 2024.
[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JOSE NAVARRO, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
            Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
            MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
            1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
            Manhattan Beach, CA 90266

Defendants-Appellees EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, et al. are
represented by:

            Lauren Kaplan, Esq.
            Dawn Sestito, Esq.
            O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
            400 S. Hope Street, 18th Floor
            Los Angeles, CA 90071

                    - and -

            Mark Randall Oppenheimer, Esq.
            O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
            1999 Avenue of the Stars, 8th Floor
            Los Angeles, CA 90067

                    - and -

            Mark E. Elliott, Esq.
            Michael J. Finnegan, Esq.
            PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP
            725 S. Figueroa Street, 36th Floor
            Los Angeles, CA 90017

FIRST CITIZENS: Bethea Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
BRIANA BETHEA is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her
lawsuit entitled Briana Bethea, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. First Citizens Bank &
Trust Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02790-BHH, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
seeks declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief, as well as
monetary damages, to redress the Defendants' unlawful employment
practices, including unlawful discrimination, against the Plaintiff
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Section
1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866; and the Equal Pay Act of
1963.

The Plaintiff, individually and as class representative of the
putative classes, and classes of similarly situated Black and/or
female current and former employees of First Citizens are victims
of discriminatory barriers to equal opportunity advancement, which
has included the unlawful denial of promotions, compensation
commensurate with white male employees, and equality with respect
to the terms and conditions of their employment, including, in many
cases, the wrongful termination of such employment, says the suit.

On Dec. 5, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

On Jan. 9, 2023, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the case.

On July 26, 2023, Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry filed a Report
and Recommendation to grant the Defendants' motions to dismiss,
which the Plaintiff moved to oppose on Aug. 9, 2023.

On Sept. 27, 2023, Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks adopted Judge
Cherry's Report and Recommendation and granted the Defendants'
motions to dismiss.

On Sept. 28, 2023, judgment was entered in favor of the
Defendants.

The appellate case is captioned Briana Bethea v. First Citizens
Bank & Trust Company, Case No. 23-2142, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on November 1, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant BRIANA BETHEA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq.
            Paul Judson Doolittle, Esq.
            Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
            POULIN, WILEY, ANASTOPOULO, LLC
            32 Ann Street
            Charleston, SC 29403
            Telephone: (843) 614-8888

                    - and -

            Nicholas B. Corser, Esq.
            F. Beau Howard, Esq.
            FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
            999 Peachtree Street, NE
            Atlanta, GA 30309
            Telephone: (404) 870-3765
                       (404) 870-3763

                    - and -

            Molly Renee Hamilton Cawley, Esq.
            MESSERLI & KRAMER P.A.
            100 South 5th Street
            Minneapolis, MN 55402
            Telephone: (843) 225-8651

                    - and -

            Casey Merrell Martens, Esq.
            KIM AND LAHEY LAW FIRM
            3620 Pelham Road
            Greenville, SC 29615
            Telephone: (828) 545-2036

Defendants-Appellees FIRST CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY, et al.
are represented by:

            Michael Kevin McCarrell, Esq.
            FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
            2 West Washington Street
            Greenville, SC 29601
            Telephone: (864) 751-7652

                    - and -

            Phillips Lancaster McWilliams, Esq.
            Stephen C. Mitchell, Esq.
            FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
            1320 Main Street
            Columbia, SC 29201
            Telephone: (803) 740-7672

                    - and -

            John Hagood Tighe, Esq.
            FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
            P.O. Box 11612
            Columbia, SC 29211
            Telephone: (803) 255-0000

FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Brown Sues Over Improper Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
LEONNA BROWN; KATHERINE BURNETT; CHRIS GOLDEN; IRENE HARDIN; FIZA
JAVID; JOJO JENKINS; KRYSTYNA MACHUTA; NICHOLAS MAHON; SAIRA
MUELLER; and SHARVIA SULTANA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC
d/b/a LA FITNESS; ESPORTA FITNESS; and CITY SPORTS CLUB, Defendant,
Case No. 8:23-cv-02109 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 9, 2023) alleges that the
Defendant is engaged in deceptive and predatory cancellation
policies to continuously gain a profit from consumers who no longer
wish to utilize gym membership services.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant violated
membership agreements with the Plaintiff and the Class by failing
to abide by cancellation policies in their contracts. The Defendant
deceived new members by promoting "no hassle" cancellations in
order to get them to sign up for gym memberships but failed to
disclose the true nature of its cancellation policies. As a result,
consumers were continuously charged membership fees after making
good faith efforts to cancel their policies, says the suit.

LA FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC operates sports and fitness clubs.
The Company offers exercise equipment, fitness classes and
programs, personal trainers, sports leagues, and education on
healthy living. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jill J. Parker, Esq.
          PARKER & MINNE, LLP
          700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (310) 882-6833
          Facsimile: (310) 889-0822
          Email: jill@parkerminne.com

               - and -

          Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
          MASON LLP
          5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Email: dperry@masonllp.com

               - and -

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          Sara J. Watkins, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOC., P.C.
          707 Grant Street, Suite 125
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-7229
          Email: arihn@peircelaw.com
                 swatkins@peircelaw.com

FLIPPS MEDIA: Solomon Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
DETRINA SOLOMON is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
her lawsuit entitled Detrina Solomon, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Flipps Media, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-05508-JMA-JMW, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The Plaintiff filed this putative class action against the
Defendant alleging that it has violated the Video Privacy
Protection Act (VPPA). The Plaintiff's claims are premised on the
Defendant's installation and use of a tracking product on its
website and apps called the "Pixel." The Pixel code was developed
by and promoted by Facebook, Inc.

On Feb. 7, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case
for failure to state a claim, which the Court granted through an
Order entered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on Sept. 30, 2023. The Court
concluded that Solomon has not plausibly alleged that the content
that is advertised as live on the Defendant's site actually
qualifies as pre-recorded for purposes of the VPPA. The Court found
that these allegations are insufficient, particularly given the
preference of many viewers to watch sporting events live; to
plausibly allege that the Plaintiff actually accessed any
prerecorded video. Accordingly, the Court granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss and denied the Plaintiff leave to amend. The
Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

The appellate case is captioned Solomon v. Flipps Media, Inc., Case
No. 23-7597, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on November 1, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DETRINA SOLOMON, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Christopher J. Cormier, Esq.
            BURNS CHAREST LLP
            4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
            Washington, DC 20016

                    - and -

            Nicomedes Sy Herrera, Esq.
            HERRERA KENNEDY LLP
            1300 Clay Street, Suite 600
            Oakland, CA 94612

Defendant-Appellee FLIPPS MEDIA, INC. is represented by:

            Brendan Michael Walsh, Esq.
            PASHMAN STEIN WALDER HAYDEN, P.C.
            Court Plaza South, Suite 200
            21 Main Street
            Hackensack, NJ 07601

GEOVERA SPECIALTY: Burke Appeals Suit Dismissal to 5th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
HEIDI C. BURKE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Heidi C. Burke, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GeoVera Specialty Insurance Company, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02352-NJB-MBN, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

On July 6, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the
Defendants on behalf of a class of all insureds who were paid by
GeoVera Specialty for insured property damage occurring after
August 1, 2021 and whose damage value was reduced because GeoVera
Specialty applied a predetermined depreciation schedule to damaged
roofing systems.

On Aug. 22, 2023, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the case,
which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Jay C.
Zainey. The Court concluded that all of the elements necessary to
support res judicata in favor of GeoVera Specialty are satisfied
and the motion to dismiss is granted. Accordingly, the complaint
was dismissed with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned Burke v. GeoVera Specialty
Insurance, Case No. 23-30773, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, filed on November 2, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants HEIDI C. BURKE, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Anthony D. Irpino, Esq.
            IRPINO, AVIN & HAWKINS LAW FIRM
            2216 Magazine Street
            New Orleans, LA 70130
            Telephone: (504) 525-1500

                    - and -

            Charles Ferrier Zimmer, II, Esq.
            DAVILLIER LAW GROUP, LLC
            935 Gravier Street
            New Orleans, LA 70112
            Telephone: (504) 582-6998

Defendants-Appellees GEOVERA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
are represented by:

            Wystan Michael Ackerman, Esq.
            ROBINSON & COLE, L.L.P.
            280 Trumbull Street
            1 Commercial Plaza
            Hartford, CT 06103
            Telephone: (860) 275-8388

                    - and -

            Seth Andrew Schmeeckle, Esq.
            LUGENBUHL, WHEATON, PECK, RANKIN & HUBBARD
            601 Poydras Street
            Pan American Life Center
            New Orleans, LA 70130
            Telephone: (504) 568-1998

HAIN CELESTIAL: Gimpel Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------
SALAMON GIMPEL, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing the lawsuit entitled In Re The Hain Celestial Group Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:16-cv-04581, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who purchased
or otherwise acquired Hain securities between November 5, 2015, and
August 15, 2016, seeking to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

On May 6, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated
class action complaint.

On June 20, 2019, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
second amended consolidated class action complaint for failure to
state a claim.

On Nov. 4, 2022, Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst filed a Report and
Recommendation to grant the Defendants' motions to dismiss the case
with prejudice, which the Plaintiffs moved to oppose on Dec. 7,
2022.

On Sept. 29, 2023, Judge Joanna Seybert adopted Magistrate Judge
Dunst's Report and Recommendation and granted the Defendants'
motions to dismiss with prejudice. The Court held that the
Magistrate Judge's scienter-related recommendations are thorough
and well-reasoned. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' scienter-related
objections are overruled. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter
judgment accordingly and, thereafter, mark the case closed.

The appellate case is captioned In Re The Hain Celestial Group Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 23-7612, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on November 2, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants SALAMON GIMPEL, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Christine M. Fox, Esq.
            LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
            140 Broadway 34th Floor
            New York, NY 10005
            Telephone: (212) 907-0700

Defendants-Appellees THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., et al. are
represented by:

            John M. Hillebrecht, Esq.
            DLA PIPER LLP (US)
            1251 Avenue of the Americas
            New York, NY 10020
            Telephone: (212) 335-4590

HERAEUS PRECIOUS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rodriguez Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
BLANCA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HERAEUS PRECIOUS METALS NORTH
AMERICA, LLC; HERAEUS PRECIOUS METALS NA, LLC; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV27667 (Cal. Sup., Los
Angeles Cty., Nov. 9, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Rodriguez was employed by the Defendants as a staff.

HERAEUS PRECIOUS METALS NORTH AMERICA, LLC manufactures organic
compounds. The Company offers photo acid generators, monomers,
resins, molding compounds, pharmaceutical raw materials,
intermediates, specialty chemicals, custom formulations, and
polymers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Otkupman, Esq.
          Nidah Farishta, Esq.
          OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
          5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 123,
          Westlake Village, CA 91362
          Telephone: (818) 293-5623
          Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
          Email: Roman@OLFLA.com
                 Nidah@OLFLA.com

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Rose Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW ROSE, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION; and JOHNSON & JOHNSON HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-09123 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2023)
arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard individuals' sensitive personal data.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff's and other proposed Class
members??? Sensitive Information, including confidential medical
information, was accessed and taken by unauthorized third parties
as a result of Defendants' inadequate data security and inadequate
or negligent training of their employees. While Defendants learned
of the breach on August 2, 2023, they waited till September 29,
2023 to notify Plaintiff and other Class members, says the suit.

As a result of Defendants' failures to implement and follow
reasonable security procedures, Class members' Sensitive
Information is now exposed. The Plaintiff and Class members have
spent, and will continue to spend, significant amounts of time and
money trying to protect themselves from the adverse ramifications
of the data breach and dealing with actual fraud and will forever
be at a heightened risk of identity theft and fraud, the suit
alleges.

International Business Machines Corporation is a multinational
technology company that provides infrastructure, software and
consulting services for clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (866) 219-3343
          Facsimile: (866) 219-8344
          E-mail: josh@swigartlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Ben Travis, Esq.
          BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC
          4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (619) 353-7966        
          E-mail: ben@bentravislaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
          LOKER LAW, APC
          1303 East Grand Avenue, Ste. 101
          Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
          Telephone: (805) 994-0177
          Facsimile: (805) 994-0197
          E-mail: matt@loker.law

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S: Sues Over Improper Job Classification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN DODD; RICHARD SMITH; and AMANDA HAMMOND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION; and INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION LOCAL 1475 CLERKS AND CHECKERS UNION,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00327-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., Nov. 9,
2023) alleges that the Defendants violated their fiduciary duties
to the Plaintiffs and the Class.

The Defendants urged the Georgia Stevedore Association, where the
Plaintiffs are members, to enter into an agreement that split the
job assignment classification to which Plaintiffs are assigned to
(i.e., Class HH) into two Subclasses, (i.e., HH1 and HH2).

Under this agreement and as of June 19, 2023, a cohort largely
composed of the family and friends of Local 1475 leaders were
placed in a new job assignment classification known as Subclass
HH1. Consequently, they were afforded favorable job assignment
preference at the expense of the Subclass HH2 members, resulting in
a dramatic loss of pay and benefits to the members of Subclass HH2.
These actions violated the unions' duty of fair representation to
the Proposed Class.

As a direct result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the
Plaintiffs and other members of the Proposed Class have suffered
lost wages, health insurance benefits, pension benefits, royalties,
vacation and holiday pay, and seniority, says the suit.

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION is proud to represent the
union clerks and checkers serving the Port of Savannah, Georgia.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

JAMES PAI: Underpays Bookkeepers & Tax Preparers, Yau Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NANG KIT YAU and WENLU WENG, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JAMES PAI CPA PLLC, ONE
ACCOUNTING CORP., and JAMES PAI, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-09997
(S.D.N.Y., November 13, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay proper overtime
wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours premium, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, and failure to provide wage notice.

Plaintiffs Yau and Weng were employed by the Defendants as
bookkeepers, tax preparers, and non-CPA accountants from in or
around late September 2021 to on or about April 18, 2022 and from
in or around April 16, 2018 to in or around late January 2022,
respectively.

James Pai CPA LLC is an accounting firm with its principal place of
business at 139 Centre St., New York, New York.

One Accounting Corp. is an accounting firm with its principal place
of business at 139 Centre St., New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
         Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
         PELTON GRAHAM LLC
         111 Broadway, Suite 1503
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 385-9700
         Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
         E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com
                 graham@peltongraham.com

KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART: Environmental Ads "False," Simijanovic Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVAN SIMIJANOVIC, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ N.V.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-12882-JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich., November 13,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of
Michigan Consumer Protection Act and for fraud.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines' services. The Defendant's environmental
benefit claims include "Fly Responsibly" and "Sustainability,"
which tell customers its commitment to limit global warming and the
targets defined in the Paris Climate Agreement.

However, these claims lack qualifying language which makes clear
the limitations of its actions to support them. The targets KLM is
using to try and limit its carbon emissions are outdated, and using
this as a goal is insufficient to curb dangerous global warming.
Though KLM attempts to specify its environmental initiatives with
facts and figures, the result is consumers being misled. As a
result of the false and misleading representations and omissions
about its environmental initiatives, flights on KLM cost more than
on other airlines, higher than similar airline flights, represented
in a non-misleading way, says the suit.

Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. is an airline operator
based in the Netherlands. [BN]

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

LORDSTOWN CONSTRUCTION: Discovery Due March 15, 2024
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARI NAGY, v. LORDSTOWN
CONSTRUCTION RECOVERY, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-01376-BYP (N.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Benita Y. Pearson entered a case management
conference order as follows:

   -- Parties shall engage in mediation            Nov. 30, 2023
      by:

   -- Discovery on certification issues            March 15, 2024
      shall be completed by:

   -- Plaintiff's deadline for disclosing          March 29, 2024
      expert(s) on certification issues,
      providing all required expert
      disclosures, and producing expert
      report(s):

   -- Defendant's deadline to depose               April 26, 2024
      Plaintiff's expert(s):

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Qx2q8N at no extra
charge.[CC]???


MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Russ Appeals Class Cert Bid Denial to 4th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELLEN RUSS is taking an appeal from a court order denying her
motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Ellen Russ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 4:20-cv-00187-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Horry County Court of Common Pleas to
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina,
involves a putative class of over ten thousand fractional owners of
time-share units whose property in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina is
sustaining water damage due to defective construction of and
repairs to the exterior of the buildings. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants are responsible for defects in the exterior
envelope of the buildings.

On Sept. 20, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, which the Defendants moved to oppose on Mar. 30,
2023.

On May 15, 2023, the Defendants file a joint motion to strike,
which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Joseph
Dawson, III on July 13, 2023. The Court also denied the Plaintiff's
motion to certify class.

On Aug. 10, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration,
which the Court denied on Oct. 13, 2023. The Court determined there
is no commonality or typicality, and by extension, no predominance
as to all of the Plaintiff's causes of action and denied class
certification as to the same. The court held that the Plaintiff
fails to demonstrate an error of law or manifest injustice.
Therefore, the Court's Order to grant the Defendants' motion to
strike and to deny the Plaintiff's motion to certify class is not a
clear error causing manifest injustice, nor has there been a
subsequent trial producing substantially different evidence or a
change in applicable law. Accordingly, there is no basis to
reconsider the Court's prior Order.

The appellate case is captioned Ellen Russ v. Marriott Ownership
Resorts, Inc., Case No. 23-277, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 30, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner ELLEN RUSS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Christopher Moore, Esq.
            Terry E. Richardson, Jr., Esq.
            Grace Babcock, Esq.
            RICHARDSON, THOMAS, HALTIWANGER, MOORE & LEWIS, LLC
            1513 Hampton Street, First Floor
            Columbia, SC 29201
            Telephone: (803) 281-8150
            E-mail: chris@richardsonthomas.com
                    grace@richardsonthomas.com
                    terry@richardsonthomas.com

                    - and -

            Robert L. Wylie, IV, Esq.
            James L. Hills, Jr., Esq.
            MULLEN WYLIE, LLC
            Post Office Box 1980
            Myrtle Beach, SC 29578
            Telephone: (843) 449-4800
            E-mail: rwylie@mullenwylie.com
                    jhills@mullenwylie.com

                    - and -

            George E. Mullen, Esq.
            P.O. Box 5969
            Hilton Head Island, SC 29938
            Telephone: (843) 785-6969
            E-mail: gmullen@mullenwylie.com

Defendants-Respondents MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., et al. are
represented by:

            Robert C. Calamari, Esq.
            NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP
            3751 Robert M. Grissom Parkway
            Pinnacle Corporate Center
            Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
            Telephone: (843) 946-5660

                    - and -

            Benjamin Rush Smith, III, Esq.
            Donna Ojetta Tillis, Esq.
            NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP
            1320 Main Street
            Columbia, SC 29206
            Telephone: (803) 799-2000
                       (803) 255-9327

                    - and -

            John Edward Cuttino, Esq.
            GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, PA
            P.O. Box 7368
            Columbia, SC 29202
            Telephone: (803) 724-1714

                    - and -

            Brittany T. Bihun, Esq.
            Kerry K. Jardine, Esq.
            A. Victor Rawl, Esq.
            GORDON & REES LLP
            40 Calhoun Street
            Charleston, SC 29401
            Telephone: (843) 278-5900
                       (843) 714-2520
                       (843) 714-2501

                    - and -

            Michael S. Seekings, Esq.
            MICHAEL S. SEEKINGS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PA
            40 Calhoun Street
            Charleston, SC 29401
            Telephone: (843) 853-5353

                    - and -

            Paul E. Sperry, Esq.
            Kent Taylor Stair, Esq.
            COPELAND, STAIR, VALZ & LOVELL, LLP
            40 Calhoun Street
            Charleston, SC 29401
            Telephone: (843) 727-0307

                    - and -

            Gary S. Kessler, Esq.
            MALOUF, LYNCH, JACKSON, KESSLER & COLLINS
            700 Preston Commons West
            8117 Preston Road
            Dallas, TX 75225
            Telephone: (214) 750-0722

                    - and -

            Lawrence Bradley Orr, Esq.
            ORR, ELMORE & ERVIN, LLC
            504 Coit Street
            P.O. Box 2527
            Florence, SC 29503
            Telephone: (843) 667-6613

                    - and -

            James Atkinson Bruorton, IV, Esq.
            Elizabeth Foy Nicholson, Esq.
            ROSEN HAGOOD, LLC
            40 Calhoun Street
            Charleston, SC 29401
            Telephone: (843) 577-6726

                    - and -

            Patrick J. McDonald, Esq.
            Amanda L. Perry, Esq.
            RESNICK & LOUIS, P.C.
            146 Fairchild Street
            Charleston, SC 29492
            Telephone: (843) 270-0675
                       (843) 266-8138

                    - and -

            Phillip Paul Cristaldi, III, Esq.
            Jeffrey A. Ross, Esq.
            ROSS & CRISTALDI, LLC
            863 Coleman Boulevard
            Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
            Telephone: (843) 329-4040

                    - and -

            Jonathan Joel Anderson, Esq.
            ANDERSON REYNOLDS & STEPHENS, LLC
            37 1/2 Broad Street
            P.O. Box 87
            Charleston, SC 29402
            Telephone: (843) 723-0185

                    - and -

            Morris Dawes Cooke, Jr., Esq.
            Barbara J. Wagner, Esq.
            BARNWELL WHALEY PATTERSON & HELMS, LLC
            P.O. Drawer H
            Charleston, SC 29402
            Telephone: (843) 577-7700

                    - and -

            Franklin H. Turner, III, Esq.
            ROGERS TOWNSEND, LLC
            1221 Main Street
            Columbia, SC 29202
            Telephone: (803) 771-7900

                    - and -

            Jordan C. Davis, Esq.
            S. Markey Stubbs, Esq.
            BAKER, RAVENEL & BENDER, LLP
            P.O. Box 8057
            Columbia, SC 29202

                    - and -

            Greg Horton, Esq.
            Matthew E. Tillman, Esq.
            WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
            P.O. Box 999
            Charleston, SC 29402
            Telephone: (843) 722-3400
                       (843) 720-4629

                    - and -

            James Lloyd Williams, Esq.
            COLLINS & LACY, PC
            P.O. Box 12487
            Columbia, SC 29211

                    - and -

            Cameron D. Berthelsen, Esq.
            James H. Elliott, Jr., Esq.
            RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA
            P.O. Box 21203
            Charleston, SC 29413

                    - and -

            Mark Brandon Goddard, Esq.
            William Taylor Stanley, Esq.
            TURNER PADGET GRAHAM & LANEY, PA
            1901 Main Street
            Columbia, SC 29201
            Telephone: (803) 227-4334
                       (803) 227-4215

                    - and -

            Timothy Dargan, Esq.
            Kevin W. Mims, Esq.
            LUZURIAGA MIMS LLP
            50 Immigration Street
            Charleston, SC 29403

MERCURY FINANCIAL: Appeals Court Orders in Bailey Suit to 4th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
MERCURY FINANCIAL, LLC is taking an appeal from court orders in the
lawsuit entitled Angelita Bailey, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mercury Financial, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-00827-DKC, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.

On Jan. 25, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a complaint, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, in the Circuit Court for
Montgomery County. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant made
loans without a license in violation of the Maryland Consumer Loan
Law. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's collection on its
void and unenforceable loans also violates the Maryland Consumer
Debt Collection Act, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, and
gives rise to claims for negligence, unjust enrichment, and money
had and received.

The Defendant timely removed this matter from the Circuit Court for
Montgomery County to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland.

On Mar. 31, 2023, the Defendant moved to compel arbitration, stay
proceedings, and strike class allegations pursuant to the
arbitration provision within the cardholder agreement.

On May 15, 2023, the Plaintiff responded in opposition.

On July 24, 2023, the Plaintiff moved for leave to file a
surreply.

On Sept. 26, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a surreply and denied the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings and
to strike class allegations. The Court ruled that while the
Defendant's first, second, and fifth arguments are new, a surreply
to those arguments is unnecessary because the Court does not rely
on them to make its decision. The Court though granted the
Plaintiff's motion to file a surreply with respect to the
Defendant's argument that federal law requires the Defendant to
provide the Plaintiff advance notice of unilateral modifications to
the cardholder agreement's arbitration provision. On the other
hand, because the cardholder agreement's arbitration provision is
illusory, it cannot enforce any of its terms. Hence, the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings and
to strike class allegations is denied.

The appellate case is captioned Angelita Bailey v. Mercury
Financial, LLC, Case No. 23-2133, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 30, 2023. [BN]

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

            Benjamin Howard Carney, Esq.
            Richard Scott Gordon, Esq.
            GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY
            11350 McCormick Road
            Executive Plaza I
            Hunt Valley, MD 21031
            Telephone: (410) 825-2300

Defendant-Appellant MERCURY FINANCIAL, LLC is represented by:

            Matthew Allen Fitzgerald, Esq.
            MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
            800 East Canal Street
            Richmond, VA 23219
            Telephone: (804) 775-4716

                    - and -

            Melissa O. Martinez, Esq.
            MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
            500 East Pratt Street
            Baltimore, MD 21202
            Telephone: (410) 659-4505

MICHIGAN: Appeals Ruling in Braziel Civil Rights Suit to 6th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants MARCUS MUHAMMAD, Mayor at City of Benton Harbor,
individually and in his official capacity, et al., filed an appeal
from the District Court's order entered in the lawsuit entitled
DARETHA BRAZIEL, et al., Plaintiffs v. GRETCHEN WHITMER, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00960-HYJ-PJG, in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Benton Harbor, Michigan, who
allegedly consumed water containing lead, bacteria, and other
contaminants from Benton Harbor???s water supply.  They brought
this action against the City of Benton Harbor, some of its present
and former officials, the State of Michigan, several state agencies
and officials, and two private engineering firms.

The Plaintiffs' second amended complaint contains six claims.
Count I asserts that the individual Defendants who worked for the
State of Michigan or the City violated Plaintiffs' right to
substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Count II
asserts that the City is liable for the unconstitutional conduct of
its "official policymakers" under Monell v. Department of Social
Services Count III asserts that the City is liable for unjust
enrichment because Plaintiffs paid for contaminated water that was
unfit for consumption. Counts IV and V assert that Defendants
Elhorn Engineering Company and F&V Operations and Resource
Management, Inc. are liable for negligence because they failed to
exercise due care when selecting or using anti-corrosion chemicals
to treat the City's water problems. Finally, Count VI asserts that
Defendant Michael O'Malley, the former Manager of the City's Water
Department, was grossly negligent in his duties when responding to
the City's water problems.  

The Defendants then filed motions to dismiss the federal claims in
the complaint on December 16, 2022.

On June 1, 2023, Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Green entered a Report
and Recommendation that the Court grant most of the motions, deny
another, and dismiss Plaintiffs' claims.

On October 4, 2023, the District Court adopted the R&R in part and
rejected it in part. The Court dismissed all Defendants other than
Defendants O'Malley, Muhammad, and the City. The R&R is REJECTED
insofar as it concluded (1) that Plaintiffs fail to state a federal
claim against Defendants Muhammad, O'Malley, and the City of Benton
Harbor; and (2) that the Court should decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state-law claims because
the Court will dismiss all of Plaintiffs' federal claims. Instead,
the Court concluded that Plaintiffs state a substantive due process
claim against Defendants Muhammad, O'Malley, and the City of Benton
Harbor. The Court will decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction for different reasons.

The appellate case is captioned as Daretha Braziel, et al. v.
Gretchen Whitmer, et al., Case No. 23-1954, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on October 27,
2023.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants MARCUS MUHAMMAD, Mayor, individually and in
his official capacity, et al.,

          Alexandra Markel, Esq.
          Thomas J. Rheaume, Jr., Esq.
          Erica Shell, Esq.
          BODMAN
          1901 Saint Antoine Street, Sixth Floor
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 259-7777

Plaintiffs-Appellees DARETHA BRAZIEL, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated Plaintiff Residents of
the City of Benton Harbor, Michigan, next friend of RB, next friend
of DB, next friend of DR, et al., are represented by:

          Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
          222 Second Avenue, S. Suite 1640
          Nashville, TN 37201-2379
          Telephone: (615) 313-9000

               - and -

          Carl Ray Edwards, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE
          65 Cadillac Square, Suite 2710
          Detroit, MI 48226-0000
          Telephone: (313) 961-5000

               - and -

          Amelia Haselkorn, Esq.
          Tiseme G. Zegeye, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000

               - and -

          Alice B. Jennings, Esq.
          EDWARDS & JENNINGS
          3031 W. Grand Boulevard, Suite 435
          Detroit, MI 48202
          Telephone: (313) 961-5000

               - and -

          Annika K. Martin, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
          250 Hudson Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500

               - and -

          Stuart Talley, Esq.
          KERSHAW, CUTTER, RATINOFF & YORK
          980 Ninth Street, Suite 1900
          Sacramento, CA 95814-2719
          Telephone: (916) 779-7000

NEW YORK, NY: Astacio Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------
DOLORES ASTACIO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in
the lawsuit entitled Dolores Astacio, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The City of
New York, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06862, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The nature of suit is stated as Accommodations Civil Rights.

On September 29, 2023, the Court granted in full a motion to
dismiss filed by the Defendants. Judgment was entered in favor of
Defendants.

The appellate case is captioned Astacio v. The City of New York,
Case No. 23-7598, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on November 2, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants DOLORES ASTACIO, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Dennis J. Kelly, Esq.
            KELLY & GROSSMAN, LLP
            1248 Montauk Highway
            West Islip, NY 11795

Defendants-Appellees THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al. are represented
by:           

            Sylvia Hinds-Radix, Esq.
            NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
            100 Church Street
            New York, NY 10007

PASTOSA RAVIOLI: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
SILVIA MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. PASTOSA, RAVIOLI, MACARONI, AND NOODLE
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-08044-CLP (E.D.N.Y., Oct.
27, 2023) is a civil rights action against Defendant for the
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.pastosa.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable
by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and in violation of the New York City Human Rights
Law.

The Plaintiff has visited the website on October 13, 2023 and again
on October 15, 2023 using a screen-reader. Specifically, Plaintiff
intended to purchase the Tri-Color Cheese Filled Tortellini. She
asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free
and full use using keyboards and screen-reading software. These
barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden
elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop
ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement
that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the
Plaintiff.

Pastosa, Ravioli, Macaroni, and Noodle Corporation is a New
York-based company which manufactures Italian pasta sauces, cheeses
and other food items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          PeterPaul Shaker, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com

PLAZA CLUB: Rigsby Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 8th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RYANN RIGSBY is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled
Ryann Rigsby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Plaza Club City Apartments LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 4:23-cv-00061-BCW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.

On June 30, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge
Brian C. Wimes on Oct. 4, 2023.

The appellate case is captioned Ryann Rigsby v. Plaza Club City
Apartments LLC, Case No. 23-3409, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on October 31, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript is due on or before December 11, 2023;

   -- Appendix is due on December 20, 2023;

   -- Appellant Ryann Rigsby is due on December 20, 2023; and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant RYANN RIGSBY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Taylor Foye, Esq.
            Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq.
            HORN & AYLWARD
            Suite 1100
            2600 Grand Boulevard
            Kansas City, MO 64108
            Telephone: (816) 421-0700

Defendant-Appellee PLAZA CLUB CITY APARTMENTS LLC is represented
by:

            Ronald Balfour, Esq.
            Michael M. Chang, Esq.
            AMUNDSEN & DAVIS
            Suite 3300
            150 N. Michigan Avenue
            Chicago, IL 60601
            Telephone: (312) 894-3369
                       (312) 455-3035

                    - and -

            Abbigale A. Gentle, Esq.
            Joseph J. Roper, Esq.
            WATTERS & WOLF
            Suite 920
            4435 Main Street
            Kansas City, MO 64111

POPPY + CO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Breslin Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
ANNA BRESLIN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v ALEXIS KACLIK; and POPPY + CO. BEAUTY LOUNGE
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-14359-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 13,
2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Breslin was employed by the Defendants as a hair
stylist.

POPPY + CO. BEAUTY LOUNGE LLC operates as a boho chic salon located
in Stuart, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth Coke, Esq.
          COKE EMPLOYMENT LAW
          131 N. 2nd Street, Suite 204
          Fort Pierce, FL 34950
          Telephone: (772) 252-4230
          Facsimile: (772) 252-4575
          Email: Beth@cokeemploymentlaw.com

PROG LEASING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Davis Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
DAWN DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROG LEASING, LLC d/b/a PROGRESSIVE LEASING,
Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-02327 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 13, 2023)
alleges that the Plaintiff and the Class' personal information was
compromised as a result of the Defendant's failure to implement and
maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate
to the nature of the information, disclose their inadequate
security procedures and practices, effectively monitor their
systems for security vulnerabilities, and timely detect, report,
and disclose the data breach.

According to the complaint, on or around September 11, 2023, the
Defendant was the target of a massive data breach in which
approximately 193,055 U.S. customers were subject to an
unauthorized access and exfiltration, theft, or disclosure of their
personal information. Outside parties accessed a trove of personal
details about Defendant's Customers, such as names, dates of birth,
addresses, email addresses, Social Security numbers, credit card or
account information, income information, and financial account
numbers -- stored on Defendant's servers.

As a result of the Defendant's lax security, outside parties have
accessed Plaintiff's and Class Members' PI in a readily usable form
that is potentially of great value to them. Plaintiff and Class
Members are thus exposed to criminals seeking to use the PI for
nefarious and illegal activities, such as identity theft schemes,
says the suit.

PROG LEASING, LLC d/b/a PROGRESSIVE LEASING provides commercial
equipment finance and leasing services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Lyon, Esq.
          Simon Franzini, Esq.
          DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
          201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 656-7066
          Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
          Email: rick@dovel.com
                 simon@dovel.com

RESCUE DOGS: Donor Alleges Misuse of Donations in Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Arlene Dean, of Ulster County New York, a donor to animal rescues,
on November 2, 2023, filed a Class Action Federal RICO and Charity
Fraud suit in the Northern District of New York, Case No. 23-01370,
against Rescue Dogs Rescue Soldiers and other persons and entities
located in Cherry Valley, New York, alleging they organized to
defraud the donors of hundreds of thousands annually for years to a
sham dog rescue, and using the donations for the personal benefit
of the board and their friends; including amassing an over $1
million real estate portfolio and a 10-bedroom estate for President
Elizabeth Keller.  A copy of the complaint is available at
https://bit.ly/49ooeMb

Rescue Dogs is a partner of the New York City Animal Care and
Control (NYCACC) shelter that sends stray dogs to their Cherry
Valley sanctuary to train them for disabled war veterans, as Rescue
Dogs, charitable mission filed with New York State Department of
Corporations and their website and Facebook pages state to the
public to get for donations.

Donors in New York and nationwide made hopeful investments of
hundreds of thousands of dollars for years believing the dogs
received great care at a sanctuary and trained for soldiers to
adopt, but "there is no care, no sanctuary and no soldiers -- just
a living hell for the dogs that violates consumer fraud and state
charity laws that should end this sham," says Susan Chana Lask,
Esq., attorney for Dean.

The case is Arlene Dean, individually & for all those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Rescue Dogs Rescue Soldiers Corp., Glen
Wild Animal Rescue Corp., El-liza's Dog House, Inc., Elizabeth
Keller, Matthew Greenberg, Eva Synek, Jane Hoffman, Ellen B.
Stewart, Isaiah Bowen, Donna Fowler, and Does 1-10 being those
persons who are accountants, veterinarians, working, volunteering
or associated with Rescue Dogs Rescue Soldiers Corp., El-liza's Dog
House Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-1370 (N.D.N.Y.).

Meta Platforms, Inc., is also designated as a party-in-interest for
purposes of subpoenas and notice regarding the unlawful use and TOS
violations of its platform by Defendants.

Arlene Dean and the putative class is represented by:

     Susan Chana Lask, Esq.
     Law Offices of Susan Chana Lask
     244 Fifth Avenue, Suit 2369
     New York, NY 10001
     Tel: (917) 300-1958
     E-mail: scl@appellate-brief.com


RJ WALKER: Simpson Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
---------------------------------------------------------------
GREG SIMPSON and MARY PAUOLE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RJ WALKER V, LLC d/b/a MY
FATHER'S MOUSTACHE and ROBERT J. WALKER, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-05808-RMG (D.S.C., November 13, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay proper minimum wage and
overtime wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

Mr. Simpson and Ms. Pauole were employed by the Defendants as
bartenders and servers from approximately February 2017 to November
2023 and from approximately October 2013 to October 2023,
respectively.

RJ Walker V, LLC, doing business as My Father's Moustache, is a
restaurant owner and operator based in Charleston County, South
Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
         BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A.
         147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
         Charleston, SC 29412
         Telephone: (843) 579-7373
         Facsimile: (843) 614-6417
         E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com

SCALE FACILITATION: Widmer Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS WIDMER, LINDSEY ROOT, and SOPHIA FITZSIMONDS, in their
individual capacities and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SCALE FACILITATION, DAVID A. COLLARD, VANESSA
GERONIMO, MICHAEL WINN, AND JACKIE NOLLER, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-09482 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2023) is an action seeking
equitable and legal relief including applicable damages and
attorney's fees for Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and applicable wage orders.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants paid wages late and also
unlawfully failed to pay their wages; made unlawful deductions from
their wages for wire transfers and healthcare benefits and taxes
while not actually sending the deducted wages to the appropriate
parties; and failed to provide them with pay notice and stubs
pursuant to the NYLL.

Plaintiffs Widmer, Root, and Fitzsimonds were employed by Defendant
Scale as Senior Manager of Marketing Strategy, Office Manager, and
Intern, respectively.
          
Scale Facilitation is an investment management firm focused on
scaling technology and other innovations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick Boyd, Esq.
          THE BOYD LAW GROUP, PLLC
          250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 867-3675
          Facsimile: (212) 867-5765
          E-mail: pboyd@theboydlawgroup.com

SKIDMORE COLLEGE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cogan Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
MARY COGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SKIDMORE COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-01409-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2023) is an action against
the Defendant for its failure to adequately secure and safeguard
Personally Identifiable Information of the Plaintiff and the
Class.

According to the complaint, on February 17, 2023, an unauthorized
actor gained access to the Defendant's network and obtained
unauthorized access to Defendant's files. The Defendant breached
its numerous duties and obligations by failing to implement and
maintain reasonable safeguards; failing to comply with
industry-standard data security practices and federal and state
laws and regulations governing data security; failing to properly
train its employees on data security measures and protocols;
failing to timely recognize and detect unauthorized third parties
accessing its system and that substantial amounts of data had been
compromised; and failing to timely notify the impacted Class, says
the suit.

As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and the Class is
presently and will continue to be at a present and heightened risk
for financial fraud, identity theft, other forms of fraud, and the
attendant damages, the suit asserts.

SKIDMORE COLLEGE is a private liberal arts college in Saratoga
Springs, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randi Kassan, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          Email: rkassan@milberg.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          212 W. Spring Valley Road
          Richardson, TX 75081
          Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com

STATE FARM: Faces Young Suit Over Breach of Insurance Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
GLORIA CELESTE YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00175-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss.,
November 13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for
breach of contract, negligence and/or gross negligence, bad faith,
and declaratory judgment and relief.

The case arises from the Defendant's practice of using the New
Construction Labor Efficiency setting within Xactimate, a software
program, in adjusting the Plaintiff's and similarly situated
insureds' property loss claims. This selection reduced the benefits
to be paid by altering and suppressing the allowable labor and
material costs necessary to remediate the loss.

The new construction setting, as opposed to
Restoration/Service/Remodel Labor Efficiency, reduces the allowable
labor and/or material charges for a specific task entry. State
Farm's practice of calculating actual cash value (ACV) by using the
new construction setting for claims where there has been a loss
where additional labor and/or material costs, as set forth herein
are necessary, are not included, but rather artificially and
improperly excluded from the ACV calculation, is a breach of its
policy, says the suit.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company is an insurance company, with
its principal place of business in Bloomington, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         David McMullan, Jr., Esq.
         John W. ("Don") Barrett, Esq.
         BARRETT LAW GROUP, PA
         404 Court Square
         Lexington, MS 39095
         Telephone: (662) 834-2488
         Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
         E-mail: dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
                 dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com

                 - and -

         Anthony Sakalarios, Esq.
         Chuck Blackwell, Esq.
         SAKALARIOS, BLACKWELL, SCHOCK, PLLC
         1817 Hardy St.
         Hattiesburg, MS 39401
         E-mail: asakalarios@sbslawfirm.net
                 cblackwell@sbslawfirm.net

                 - and -

         Mark A. Nelson, Esq.
         Ned A. Nelson, Esq.
         NELSON LAW PLLC
         7 Woodstone Plaza Ste. 7
         Hattiesburg, MS 39402
         E-mail: mark@nelsonfirm.law
                 ned@nelsonfirm.law

                 - and -

         Nicholas A. Sakalarios, Esq.
         7 Woodstone Plaza Ste. 7
         Hattiesburg, MS 39402
         E-mail: nick@sakalarioslaw.com

                 - and -

         John M. Deakle, Esq.
         Ronald V. Johnson, IV, Esq.
         Russell L. Johnson, Esq.
         Richard J. LaJaunie, Esq.
         DEAKLE-JOHNSON LAW FIRM, PLLC
         802 Main St.
         Hattiesburg, MS 39401
         E-mail: rjlajaunie@djlawms.com
                 jmd@deaklelawfirm.com
                 rvjohnson@djlawms.com
                 rljohnson@djlawms.com

                 - and -

         Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
         PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
         P.O. Box 71
         Plaquemine, LA 70765
         E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com

                 - and -

         Alvah H. Pasley, Esq.
         D. Chad Nuce, Esq.
         PASLEY, NUCE, MALLORY & DAVIS, LLC
         300 W. Gordon St.
         Thomaston, GA 30286
         E-mail: apasley@pnlawgroup.com
                 cnuce@pnlawgroup.com

                 - and -

         J. Mark Deakle, Esq.
         Jubal L. Hamil, Esq.
         DEAKLE, SHOLTIS & HAMIL, LLC
         P.O. Box 1031
         Mobile, AL 36633
         E-mail: mdeakle@dshfirm.com
                 jhamil@dshfirm.com

TEXAS ASSOCIATION: Conspires to Inflate Buyer Broker Commissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
QJ TEAM, LLC, and FIVE POINTS HOLDINGS, LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TEXAS
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC., AUSTIN BOARD OF REALTORS, SAN
ANTONIO BOARD OF REALTORS, INC., METROTEX ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS,
INC., HOUSTON ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, ABA MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.,
PENFED REALTY, LLC, EBBY HALLIDAY REAL ESTATE, LLC, THE DAVE
PERRY-MILLER COMPANY, KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., HEYL GROUP
HOLDINGS LLC, THE LOKEN GROUP, INC., HEXAGON GROUP, LLC, DMTX, LLC,
KELLER WILLIS SAN ANTONIO, INC., SAN ANTONIO LEGACY GROUP, LLC,
FATHOM REALTY, LLC, GRACE REALTY GROUP LLC, SIDE, INC., CITIQUEST
PROPERTIES, INC., HOMESERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., JP PICCININI REAL
ESTATE SERVICES, LLC, TEAM BURNS, LLC, ABRE CAPITAL LLC, REALTY
AUSTIN, LLC, ATX WIR LLC, THE MICHAEL GROUP, LLC, SQUARE MB, LLC,
MARK ANTHONY DIMAS, GREENWOOD KING PROPERTIES II, INC., and TURNER
MANGUM LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-01013 (M.D. Fla., November
13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in unlawful
collaboration and anticompetitive practices which compel home
sellers to provide an inflated fee to the broker representing the
buyer of their properties, thus violating federal antitrust
regulations. The creator of the conspiracy is the National
Association of Realtors (NAR), a trade association for real estate
brokers with over 1.5 million individual members. NAR conspired
with affiliated associations in Texas and some of the largest real
estate brokerages that worked in Texas during the Class Period, the
suit says.

NAR wields its regulatory authority to impose a rule known as the
"Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule," which dictates that every
property seller, when listing their home on an Multiple Listing
Service (MLS) affiliated with a local NAR association, must make a
sweeping, non-negotiable offer of compensation to buyer brokers.
The Defendants, acting in concert with NAR, pressurize or
incentivize their franchisees, brokers, and agents to become NAR
members and adhere to its regulatory regime. Through this concerted
effort, they ensure the implementation and enforcement of the
Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule. As a result, the Defendants'
conspiracy has inflated and stabilized buyer broker commissions,
resulting in higher total commissions paid by home sellers like the
Plaintiffs and Class members, alleges the suit.

QJ Team, LLC is a home builder in Texas.

Five Points Holdings, LLC is a developer of mixed-use communities
in Texas.

Texas Association of Realtors, Inc. is a real estate non-profit
corporation in Texas.

Austin Board of Realtors is a non-profit corporation in Texas.

San Antonio Board of Realtors, Inc. is a non-profit corporation in
Texas.

MetroTex Association of Realtors, Inc. is a non-profit corporation
in Texas.

Houston Association of Realtors, Inc. is a non-profit corporation
in Texas.

ABA Management, L.L.C. is a real estate service provider in Texas.

PenFed Realty, LLC is a real estate company in Virginia.

Ebby Halliday Real Estate, LLC is a real estate company in Texas.

The Dave Perry-Miller Company is a real estate company in Texas.

Keller Williams Realty, Inc. is a real estate franchise and
brokerage firm in Texas.

Heyl Group Holdings LLC is a real estate company in Texas.

The Loken Group, Inc. is a real estate company in Texas.

Hexagon Group, LLC is a real estate company in Texas.

DMTX, LLC is a real estate company in Texas.

Keller Willis San Antonio, Inc. is a real estate company with its
principal place of business in San Antonio, Texas.

San Antonio Legacy Group, LLC is a real estate company in Texas.

Fathom Realty, LLC is a real estate company in Texas.

Grace Realty Group LLC is a real estate company in Texas.

Side, Inc. is a real estate company with its principal place of
business in San Francisco, California.

Citiquest Properties, Inc. is a real estate company with its
principal place of business in Houston, Texas.

HomeServices of America, Inc. is a real estate company with its
principal place of business in Edina, Minnesota.

JP Piccinini Real Estate Services, LLC is a real estate firm in
Texas.

Team Burns, LLC d/b/a Monument Realty is a real estate service
provider in Frisco, Texas.

ABRE Capital LLC d/b/a Real Broker, LLC is a real estate company in
Texas.

Realty Austin, LLC is a real estate company in Texas.

ATX WIR LLC is a real estate company in Texas.

The Michael Group LLC is a real estate company in Texas.

Square MB, LLC is a real estate company in Texas.

Greenwood King Properties II, Inc. is a real estate company with
its principal place of business in Houston, Texas.

Turner Mangum LLC is a real estate company in Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Julie Pettit, Esq.
         David B. Urteago, Esq.
         THE PETTIT LAW FIRM
         2101 Cedar Springs, Suite 1540
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Telephone: (214) 329-0151
         Facsimile: (214) 329-4076
         E-mail: jpettit@pettitfirm.com
                 durteago@pettitfirm.com

                 - and -

         Michael K. Hurst, Esq.
         Chris Schwegmann, Esq.
         Yaman Dasai, Esq.
         LYNN PINKER HURST & SCHWEGMANN, LLP
         2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Telephone: (214) 981-3800
         Facsimile: (214) 981-3839
         E-mail: mhurst@lynnllp.com
                 cschwegmann@lynnllp.com
                 ydesai@lynnllp.com

                 - and -

         Laurence D. King, Esq.
         KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
         1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Telephone: (415) 772-4700
         Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
         E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com

                 - and -

         Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
         Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
         Matthew P. McCahill, Esq.
         KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
         800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (212) 687-1980
         Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
         E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com
                 jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
                 mmccahill@kaplanfox.com

UNITED STATES: Sokolich Files Suit Over CBD Tolling Program
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARK SOKOLICH, in his capacity as the mayor of Fort Lee and a
resident of Fort Lee, and RICHARD GALLER individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION,
SHAILEN BHATT, in his official capacity as Administrator of the
Federal Highway Administration, and RICHARD J. MARQUIS, in his
official capacity as Division Administrator of the New York
Division of the Federal Highway Administration; THE MANHATTAN
TRANSIT AUTHORITY (MTA), JOHN JANNO LIEBER, in his official
capacity as Chair and CEO of the MTA, the TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND
TUNNEL AUTHORITY (TBTA), DANIEL DECRESCENZO, in his official
capacity as President of the (TBTA), the TRAFFIC MOBILITY REVIEW
BOARD (TMRB), CARL WEISBROD, in his capacity as Chair of the
(TMRB), Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-21728-BRM-LDW (D.N.J., Nov. 1,
2023) arises from the Federal Highway Authority's June 27, 2023
decision to approve the environmental review phase of New York's
Central Business District Tolling Program, a congestion pricing
scheme, which imposes an additional toll on drivers in Manhattan's
Central Business District wherein the approval was imprudently
given without the preparation of a complete environmental impact
statement.

According to the complaint, Defendant TBTA has the final say with
respect to the design, development, building and running of the CBD
Tolling Program. However, the Defendant TMRB, and the appointed
chair and five-member panel, (also named as Defendants) are
presently already working on recommending a tolling structure for
the CBD Tolling Program, having met on July 19, 2023 and again on
August 17, 2023, with additional meetings soon to be scheduled.

On July 21, 2023, an action was commenced on behalf of the State of
New Jersey against various federal entities relating to this
premature approval captioned as State of New Jersey v. United
States Department of Transportation, et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-03885-BRM-LDW. The Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by
reference the allegations of that Complaint and agree with the
remedies sought in that action. However, Plaintiffs seek additional
remedies for injuries flowing from the CBD Tolling Program as well
as relief on behalf of two separate classes.

The Plaintiffs now bring this case on their own behalf and on
behalf of two classes seeking both injunctive relief in the form of
a judicially mandated review of the approval process used by the
FHWA in its approval of the CBD program without adequately
considering the consequences of the program on New Jersey, and the
creation of a fund designed to remediate the acknowledged increase
in traffic in Bergen County and the surrounding area, exacerbating
noise and air pollution, the stress to New Jersey's mass transit
infrastructure, and the deleterious health impact to New Jersey
residents living in the vicinity of the George Washington Bridge
and feeder roads.

Plaintiff Sokolich is a citizen of New Jersey, the mayor of Fort
Lee and a lifelong resident of this Borough in New Jersey which is
along the Hudson River on the New Jersey side.

Plaintiff Galler is a citizen of New Jersey and resident of Fort
Lee. Mr. Galler suffers from Asthma which will be exacerbated by
the increased traffic causing pollution to both Plaintiff and other
residents in and around the surrounding area.

United States Department of Transportation is the executive
department of the federal government responsible for oversight of
the transportation planning process.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
          Randee M. Matloff, Esq.
          NAGEL RICE, LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 618-0400
          E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com

VIMEO.COM INC: Tejon Sues Over Unwanted Disclosure of Video Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROGER TEJON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VIMEO.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-24347 (S.D. Fla., November 13, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Video Privacy Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed to Meta
Platforms, Inc. (Facebook) information regarding the video viewing
habits of the visitors to its website, www.thezeusnetwork.com,
without consent. The Defendant embedded within its website a "Meta
Pixel" that was provided to it by Facebook. That pixel tracked the
Plaintiff's and the Class members' video viewing history while on
the Defendant's website and reported their viewing history to
Facebook along with their unique Facebook Identification numbers.
As a result, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's and the Class
members' statutorily protected privacy rights, says the suit.

Vimeo.com, Inc. is a video tape service provider, with its
principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
         110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
         Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301

                 - and -

         Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
         HIRALDO P.A.
         401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (305) 336-7466
         E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

                 - and -

         Michael Eisenband, Esq.
         EISENBAND LAW P.A.
         515 E. las Olas Blvd., Ste. 120
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 533-4092
         E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

W RESTAURANT SUPPLIES: Faces Salazar FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
NHAIKELLY A. SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. W RESTAURANT SUPPLIES CORP,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-24334 (S.D. Fla., November 13, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempted, full-time
payroll processing employee from approximately August 01, 2022, to
September 29, 2023.

W Restaurant Supplies Corp. is a restaurant management company
doing business as Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

WALMART INC: Alvarado Sues Over Mislabeled Sunscreen Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
NAKIAH ALVARADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-02592 (M.D.
Fla., Nov. 13, 2023) alleges violation of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the labeling of the
Defendant's sunscreen Product violated FDUTPA because the
representations and omissions that it was "Reef Friendly" was
unfair and deceptive to consumers, since it contained ingredients
which are harmful to coral reefs. The labeling of the Product as
"Reef Friendly" even though its active and inactive ingredients are
harmful to coral reefs results in its "misbranding," because it
misleads consumers, says the suit.

As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than no
less than approximately $4.88 for 5.5 oz (156 g), excluding tax and
sales, higher than similar products, represented in a
non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the
misleading representations and omissions, the suit alleges.

Walmart Inc. operates discount stores, supercenters, and
neighborhood markets. The Company offers merchandise such as
apparel, house wares, small appliances, electronics, musical
instruments, books, home improvement, shoes, jewelry, toddler,
games, household essentials, pets, pharmaceutical products, party
supplies, and automotive tools. [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
          Email: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com

               - and -

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

WFG NATIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bautista Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
GEORGINA BAUTISTA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WFG NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY; and WILLISTON FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
5:23-cv-05837 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 13, 2023) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Bautista was employed by the Defendants as an escrow
officer.

WFG NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY operates as an insurance firm.
The Company offers property and casualty insurance products, as
well as provides underwriting of insurance such as guaranty of
titles, real estate, and title insurance. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
          OMNUM LAW APC
          4350 Executive Drive, Suite 350
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 539-9767
          Email: bgaldston@omnumlaw.com

               - and -

          Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          Email: pmeirels@shavitzlaw.com

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Has $826MM Net Reserves at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation has reported $826 million net asbestos
reserves at September 30, 2023, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "The reserve reestimates in 2023 primarily
related to new reported information and defense costs for asbestos
and other run-off exposures and higher than expected environmental
reported losses.

"The reserve reestimates in 2022 primarily related to new reported
information and defense costs for asbestos and higher than expected
reported losses for environmental and other run-off exposures.

"We believe that our reserves are appropriately established based
on available facts, technology, laws, regulations, and assessments
of other pertinent factors and characteristics of exposure (e.g.,
claim activity, potential liability, jurisdiction, products versus
non-products exposure) presented by individual policyholders,
assuming no change in the legal, legislative or economic
environment. However, as we progress with the resolution of
disputed claims in the courts and arbitrations and with
negotiations and settlements, our reported losses may be more
variable."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mvkcdv6b

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc., (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a
defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business which was acquired
by the Company and do not involve products which were manufactured
or sold by the Company. In connection with these lawsuits, the
seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the Company against
these claims (the "Indemnified Claims"). The Indemnified Claims
have been tendered to, and are being defended by, such seller. The
seller has met its obligations, in all respects, and the Company
does not have any reason to believe such party would fail to
fulfill its obligations in the future. To date, no judgments have
been rendered against the Company as a result of any
asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company believes that it has good and
valid defenses to each of these claims and intends to defend them
vigorously."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4jn99xf9

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $5.3MM Net Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation has estimated its net
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between $5,300,000 and $9,700,000, net of insurance
recoveries, using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a
period of 38 years from September 30, 2023, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

In continually evaluating costs relating to its estimated
asbestos-related liability, the Company reviews, among other
things, the incidence of past and recent claims, the historical
case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed illnesses and
occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and historical resolution
of the cases, the number of cases pending against it, the status
and results of broad-based settlement discussions, and the number
of years such activity might continue. Based on this review, the
Company has estimated its share of liability to defend and resolve
probable asbestos-related personal injury claims. This estimate is
highly uncertain due to the limitations of the available data and
the difficulty of forecasting with any certainty the numerous
variables that can affect the range of the liability. The Company
will continue to study the variables in light of additional
information in order to identify trends that may become evident and
to assess their impact on the range of liability that is probable
and estimable.

A share of the Company's previously incurred asbestos-related
expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are covered by
pre-existing insurance policies. The Company had been engaged in a
legal action against the insurance carriers for those policies to
recover past expenses and future costs incurred. The Company came
to an agreement with the insurance carriers to settle its case
against them for recovery of a portion of past costs and future
costs for asbestos-related legal defense costs. The agreement was
finalized during the quarter ended September 30, 2020. The terms of
the settlement require the carriers to pay gross defense costs
prior to retro-premiums of 65% for future asbestos-related defense
costs subject to an annual cap of $1,650,000 for claims covered by
the settlement.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ef8h35ca

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability for Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison), has
reported $8 million accrued liability for asbestos suits at
September 30, 2023, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts
against the Utilities and many other defendants, wherein a large
number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and
punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities. The
suits that have been resolved, that are many, have been resolved
without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not,
in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in all
the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars;
however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly
exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims. At
September 30, 2023, Con Edison and CECONY have accrued their
estimated aggregate undiscounted potential liabilities for these
suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15
years. These estimates were based upon a combination of modeling,
historical data analysis and risk factor assessment. Courts have
begun, and unless otherwise determined on appeal may continue, to
apply different standards for determining liability in asbestos
suits than the standard that applied historically. As a result, the
Companies currently believe that there is a reasonable possibility
of an exposure to loss in excess of the liability accrued for the
suits. The Companies are unable to estimate the amount or range of
such loss. In addition, certain current and former employees have
claimed or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on
alleged disability from exposure to asbestos. CECONY is permitted
to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through
rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers'
compensation claims.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/29fts8ke


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Estimates $103MM Liabilities
------------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Corporation, at September 30, 2023 and
December 31, 2022, has recorded estimated liabilities of
approximately $103 million and $95 million, respectively, in total
for asbestos-related bodily injury claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company states, "As of September 30, 2023, approximately $27
million of this amount related to 247 open claims presented to us,
while the remaining $76 million is for estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through
2055, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are
updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, we monitor actual
experience against the number of forecasted claims to be received
and expected claim payments and evaluate whether adjustments to the
estimated liabilities are necessary."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3aaz4zuy

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Defends 900 New Exposure Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.,
during the nine months ended September 30, 2023, has received 900
new claims that arises from the insulation operations of a U.S.
company, the majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

During the nine months ended September 30, 2023, the Company paid
$10 to settle asbestos claims and pay related legal and defense
costs.

The outstanding claims in each period exclude approximately 19,000
inactive claims. Due to the passage of time, the Company considers
it unlikely that the plaintiffs in these cases will pursue further
action against the Company. The exclusion of these inactive claims
had no effect on the calculation of the Company???s accrual as the
claims were filed in states, as described above, where the
Company???s liability is limited by statute.

With respect to claimants alleging first exposure to asbestos
before or during 1964, the Company does not include in its accrual
any amounts for settlements in states where the Company's liability
is limited by statute except for certain pending claims in Texas as
described earlier.

With respect to post-1964 claims, regardless of the existence of
asbestos legislation, the Company does not include in its accrual
any amounts for settlement of these claims because of increased
difficulty of establishing identification of relevant insulation
products as the cause of injury. Given the Company's settlement
experience with post-1964 claims, it does not believe that an
adverse ruling in the Texas or Pennsylvania asbestos litigation
cases, or in any other state that has enacted asbestos legislation,
would have a material impact on the Company with respect to such
claims.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2xjnt3cx

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Faces Pending PI Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation has been named in pending lawsuits that
allege injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "To date, we have not been found liable or paid
any material sum of money in settlement in any asbestos-related
case. We believe that the minimal use of asbestos in our past
operations and the relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in
our products make it unlikely that we will face material liability
in any asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the
aggregate. We maintain insurance coverage for these potential
liabilities and we believe adequate coverage exists to cover any
unanticipated asbestos liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p9x9xwe

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. Defends Exposure Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Domtar Corporation is involved in a number of asbestos-related
lawsuits filed primarily in U.S. state courts, including certain
cases involving multiple defendants, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

These lawsuits principally allege direct or indirect personal
injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing
premises. While the Company disputes the plaintiffs' allegations
and intends to vigorously defend these claims, the ultimate
resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this time.
These lawsuits frequently involve claims for unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate a range of possible losses, which may not be
covered in whole or in part by its insurance coverage. However,
unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms could materially
impact the Consolidated Financial Statements. Hearings for certain
of these matters are scheduled to occur in the next twelve months.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/23yvwda5

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Reports $436MM Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of
$436 million at September 30, 2023, and $457 million at December
31, 2022, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "These reserves are based on Duke Energy
Carolinas' best estimate for current and future asbestos claims
through 2043 and are recorded on an undiscounted basis. In light of
the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management
does not believe they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and
medical costs that might be incurred after 2043 related to such
potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur
asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves.

"The reserve for credit losses for insurance receivables is $9
million and $12 million for Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas
as of September 30, 2023, and December 31, 2022, respectively. The
insurance receivable is evaluated based on the risk of default and
the historical losses, current conditions and expected conditions
around collectability. Management evaluates the risk of default
annually based on payment history, credit rating and changes in the
risk of default from credit agencies."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4ejw55tn

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EFH Has 28,000 Claims Filed as of Oct. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Sempra's indirect subsidiaries which were acquired as part of the
merger of Energy Future Holdings Corp. (EFH), were defendants in
personal injury lawsuits brought in state courts throughout the
U.S., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "As of October 31, 2023, two lawsuits are
pending. Additionally, approximately 28,000 proofs of claim were
filed, but not discharged, in advance of a December 2015 deadline
to file a proof of claim in the EFH bankruptcy proceeding on behalf
of persons who allege exposure to asbestos under similar
circumstances and assert the right to file such lawsuits in the
future. The costs to defend or resolve such claims and the amount
of damages that may be incurred could have a material adverse
effect on Sempra's results of operations, financial condition, cash
flows and/or prospects."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4nh9s37j

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Corp. Faces 17,220 Pending PI Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Enviri Corporation, at September 30, 2023, had approximately 17,220
pending asbestos personal injury actions filed against the them,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Of those actions, approximately 16,600 were
filed in the New York Supreme Court (New York County),
approximately 120 were filed in other New York State Supreme Court
Counties and approximately 500 were filed in courts located in
other states.

"The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form
that contains a standard damages demand of $20 million or $25
million, regardless of the individual plaintiff???s alleged medical
condition, and without identifying any specific Company product.

"As of September 30, 2023, approximately 16,550 of the actions
filed in New York Supreme Court (New York County) were on the
Deferred/Inactive Docket created by the court in December 2002 for
all pending and future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot
demonstrate that they have a malignant condition or discernible
physical impairment. The remaining approximate 50 cases in New York
County are pending on the Active or In Extremis Docket created for
plaintiffs who can demonstrate a malignant condition or physical
impairment."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5n98sdu4

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Receives 3,353 New PI Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
ESAB Corporation, for the nine months ended September 29, 2023, has
received 3,353 asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company has classified asbestos-related activity in Loss from
discontinued operations, net of taxes in the Consolidated and
Combined Condensed Statements of Operations. This is consistent
with the Former Parent's classification on the basis that, pursuant
to the purchase agreement from the Former Parent's Fluid Handling
business divestiture, the Former Parent retained its
asbestos-related contingencies and insurance coverages. However, as
the Former Parent did not retain an interest in the ongoing
operations of the business subject to the contingencies,
asbestos-related activity was classified as part of Loss from
discontinued operations, net of taxes in the Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Operations of the Former Parent.

The Company believes that it can reasonably estimate the
asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims that will
be resolved in the next 15 years and has recorded that liability as
its best estimate. While it is reasonably possible that the
subsidiaries will incur costs after this period, the Company does
not believe the reasonably possible loss or a range of reasonably
possible losses is estimable at the current time. Accordingly, no
accrual has been recorded for any costs that may be paid after the
next 15 years. Defense costs associated with asbestos-related
liabilities as well as costs incurred related to efforts to recover
insurance from the subsidiaries' insurers are expensed as
incurred.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mvtm52wv


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Group Has $218MM Loss Reserves at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Group, Ltd., with respect to asbestos only, at September
30, 2023, had reported net asbestos loss reserves of $218 million,
or 90.7%, of total net A&E reserves, all of which was for assumed
business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities
cannot be accomplished using standard actuarial techniques. We
believe that our A&E reserves represent management's best estimate
of the ultimate liability; however, there can be no assurance that
ultimate loss payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a
significant amount.

"Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E
reserves among companies with such liabilities. The survival ratio
is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net
reserves by the three-year average of annual paid losses. Hence,
the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take to
exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to
continue at historical levels. Using this measurement, our net
three-year asbestos survival ratio was 6.8 years at September 30,
2023. These metrics can be skewed by individual large settlements
occurring in the prior three years and therefore may not be
indicative of the timing of future payments."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/465eurff

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Records $2.5MM Insurance Receivables
-------------------------------------------------------------
Graybar Electric Company, Inc., at September 30, 2023 and December
31, 2022, had $2.5 million and $41.5 million of insurance
receivables recorded in other current assets and other non-current
assets, respectively, and $2.5 million and $41.5 million recorded
in other current liabilities and other non-current liabilities,
respectively, related to its asbestos litigation defense and claims
settlement reserve, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "We have in place insurance coverage for
litigation defense and claim settlement costs incurred in
connection with our asbestos claims.  We estimate the value of
probable insurance recoveries associated with our asbestos reserve
based on management???s interpretations and estimates surrounding
the available or applicable insurance coverage.  We estimate the
future payments for litigation defense and claim settlement costs
based on our historical liabilities and current and projected
caseloads.

"We are subject to various claims, disputes, and administrative and
legal matters incidental to our past and current business
activities.  As a result, contingencies arise resulting from an
existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving an
uncertainty as to the realization of a possible loss.

"Estimated loss contingencies are accrued only if the loss is
probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.
With respect to a particular loss contingency, it may be probable
that a loss has occurred but the estimate of the loss is a wide
range.  If we deem an amount within the range to be a better
estimate than any other amount within the range, that amount will
be accrued.  However, if no amount within the range is a better
estimate than any other amount, the minimum amount of the range is
accrued.  While we believe that none of these claims, disputes,
administrative, and legal matters will have a material adverse
effect on our financial position, these matters are uncertain and
we cannot at this time determine whether the financial impact, if
any, of these matters will be material to our results of operations
in the period in which such matters are resolved or a better
estimate becomes available."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bde9mmr6

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hess Corp. Defends Various PI Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Hess Corporation and its subsidiary HONX, Inc. have been named as
defendants in various personal injury claims alleging exposure to
asbestos and/or other alleged toxic substances while working at a
former refinery (owned and operated by subsidiaries or related
entities) located in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "On April 28, 2022, HONX, Inc. initiated a
Chapter 11 ?? 524G process in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, to resolve
these asbestos-related claims. In February 2023, Hess, HONX, Inc.,
the Unsecured Creditors' Committee, and counsel representing
claimants, reached a mediated resolution of the matter, contingent
upon final approvals of all parties and confirmation by the
Bankruptcy Court. As of September 30, 2023, we have a provision of
$116 million for the amounts expected to be funded to the ?? 524G
trust established for the settlement of claims, based on the
mediated resolution."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5y8nhjnb

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Defends Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) and its
predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of
cases that have been and continue to be filed in various
jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current
employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos
containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or
while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available
for the Company's liabilities. The costs to resolve cases during
the nine months ended September 30, 2023 and 2022, were not
material individually or in the aggregate. The Company's estimate
of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because
liabilities are influenced by many variables that are inherently
difficult to predict. Although the Company believes the ultimate
resolution of current cases will not have a material effect on its
condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations,
or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or
litigation might be asserted or what information might come to
light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate
outcome of asbestos related litigation.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/53efj2z3


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll Rand Reports $130.4MM Litigation Reserve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll Rand Inc. has total litigation reserve of $130.4 million
and $137.9 million as of September 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022,
respectively, with regards to potential liability arising from the
its asbestos-related litigation, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Asbestos related defense costs are excluded from the asbestos
claims liability and are recorded separately as services are
incurred. In the event of unexpected future developments, it is
possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters may be
material to the Company's consolidated financial position, results
of operation or liquidity.

The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain of
its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential
indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for
the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits
filed against the Company. The Company has an insurance recovery
receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of
approximately $153.9 million and $154.2 million as of September 30,
2023 and December 31, 2022, respectively, which was included in
"Other assets" in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The
amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities
and insurance recoveries are based on currently available
information and assumptions that the Company believes are
reasonable based on an evaluation of relevant factors. The actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than
those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the
assumptions.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2s38u5j3

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc., is named as a defendant in several
multi-defendant asbestos-related product liability lawsuits, in
certain instances, has been indemnified by a former owner of the
product line involved, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In the remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to
establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products.
The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes
that it will not incur any material liability with respect to these
claims.

As of September 30, 2023, the Company has a remaining obligation
under these agreements to pay the plaintiffs $855 without interest
in 9 annual installments of $95 on or before May 22 of each year.
The Company has recorded a liability for the net present value of
the liability. The difference between the net present value and the
total payment will be charged to interest expense over the payment
period.

The Company has accrued $335 for settling a litigation matter
involving a product liability case. In addition, the Company has
recorded a charge of $369 for the estimated withdrawal liability
for pension payments that it may owe under a collective bargaining
agreement with the unions. These amounts are recorded in other
expense in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for
the nine months ended September 30, 2023 and 2022.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4kj6snyj




ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Receives 1,924 New Exposure Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. (MLIC) is and has been a defendant in a large number
of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts, wherein
suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both
actual and punitive damages, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2023 and 2022, MLIC
received approximately 1,924 and 1,962 new asbestos-related claims,
respectively.

MLIC has never engaged in the business of manufacturing or selling
asbestos-containing products, nor has MLIC issued liability or
workers' compensation insurance to companies in the business of
manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits
principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain
research, publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's
employees during the period from the 1920s through approximately
the 1950s and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of
certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things,
improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks.
MLIC believes that it should not have legal liability in these
cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is
uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including
differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature
of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal
merit of the claims asserted against MLIC.

MLIC's defenses include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the
plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of MLIC;
(iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries;
and (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of
asbestos were known. During the course of the litigation, certain
trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC,
while other trial courts have denied MLIC's motions. There can be
no assurance that MLIC will receive favorable decisions on motions
in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, MLIC
intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on
asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/n3xucdr4

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Global Has 20,670 Claims as of Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paramount Global is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various
personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which
allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "As of September 30, 2023, we had pending
approximately 20,670 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 21,580 as of December 31, 2022. During the third
quarter of 2023, we received approximately 690 new claims and
closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately 770 claims.

"Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period. We do not report as pending those claims on inactive,
stayed, deferred or similar dockets that some jurisdictions have
established for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment.

"We report claims as closed when we become aware that a dismissal
order has been entered by a court or when we have reached agreement
with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement.
Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that
form the basis of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting
the claims and other factors. Our total costs for the years 2022
and 2021 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after
insurance recoveries and net of tax were approximately $57 million
and $63 million, respectively. Our costs for settlement and defense
of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance proceeds are
not always recovered in the same period as the insured portion of
the expenses."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5erma88y

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Defends 128 Personal Injury Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., is a co-defendant in 128 cases
asserting claims on behalf of 178 plaintiffs alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought.
To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the
amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are three asbestos cases, involving 19 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages against named defendants. In each of the
three cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of
action. In two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at
$3.0 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at
$3.0 million compensatory and $1.0 million punitive damages; one
count at $1.0 million. In the third case, the plaintiff has alleged
compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of $20.0
million, for three separate causes of action, and $5.0 million
compensatory damages for the fifth cause of action."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/48xryvj8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Tech Records $21.7MM Asbestos Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
SPX Technologies, Inc., during the three and nine months ended
October 1, 2022, has recorded charges for asbestos-related matters
of $21.7 and $24.0, respectively, with $16.5 and $18.8,
respectively, recorded to continuing operations and the remainder
to discontinued operations, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Of such charges, $21.7 (continuing operations
- $16.5 and discontinued operations - $5.2) resulted from a ruling
by a North Carolina trial court, during the third quarter of 2022,
that certain excess insurance carriers associated with our asbestos
product liability matters are not required to cover the costs of
defending suits that are dismissed without an indemnity payment.

"On November 1, 2022, we divested three wholly-owned subsidiaries
that hold asbestos liabilities and certain assets, including
related insurance assets, to Canvas Holdco LLC ("Canvas"), an
entity formed by a joint venture of Global Risk Capital LLC and an
affiliate of Premia Holdings Ltd. In connection with the
divestiture (the "Asbestos Portfolio Sale"), the divested
subsidiaries have agreed to indemnify us and our affiliates for
their asbestos-related liabilities, which encompassed all of our
consolidated asbestos-related liabilities and contingent
liabilities immediately prior to the divestiture. These
indemnification obligations are not subject to any cap or time
limitation. As a result of this transaction, the Company divested
all obligations with respect to pending and future asbestos claims
relating to these matters. The board of managers of the divested
subsidiaries each received a solvency opinion from an independent
advisory firm that the divested subsidiaries were solvent after
giving effect to the Asbestos Portfolio Sale."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4sjd9z92

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Trane Technologies plc's wholly-owned subsidiaries, and its former
companies, have been named as defendants in asbestos-related
lawsuits in state and federal courts, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The vast majority of those claims were filed against predecessors
of Aldrich and Murray and generally allege injury caused by
exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold
by predecessors of Aldrich or Murray, primarily pumps, boilers and
railroad brake shoes. None of the Company's existing or
previously-owned businesses were a producer or manufacturer of
asbestos.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ab6beb8r


                            *********

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 ***