/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231228.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, December 28, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 260

                            Headlines

1832 ASSET: Ontario Court Certifies Trailer-Fee Class Action
236 PROSPECT MARKET: Gonzales Sues Over Market Staff's Unpaid Wages
23ANDME HOLDING: B.C. Supreme Court Grants Representation Order
3M COMPANY: Killings Product Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Ala.
AARP: Must Face Video Privacy Class Action in California

ACRISURE LLC: Wooley Sues Over Failure to Protect Information
AETNA MEDICAID: Palmer FLSA Suit Transferred to D. Arizona
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Competition Law
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Jones Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
ARIETIS HEALTH: Gentry Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts

ARIETIS HEALTH: Seidner Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
ARIETIS HEALTH: Sligh Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
ARIETIS HEALTH: Zeigler Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
BANKERS HEALTHCARE: Thuthija Sues Over Deceptive Commercial Loans
BDT CAPITAL: Costner Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.

BLUEFIELD UNIVERSITY: Beer Files Suit in S.D. New York
BOUDIN BAKERIES: Oizarro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Hettinger Suit Removed to D. Columbia
BREDA INC: Saunders Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BUCKLE INC: Sornoso Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wage

CANADA: Murphy Battista Obtains Certification Order in PHSA Case
CAPTEK SOFTGEL: Huerta Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for General Workers
CARDIOVASCULAR CONSULTANTS: Hazlett Files Suit in D. Arizona
CBE GROUP INC: Felberbaum Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for Jan. 29

CHEMOURS COMPANY: Wilcoxen Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CME GROUP: Class Action Poses Threat to Membership Market
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE: Court Certifies Prison Racism Class Action
DATACOMP APPRAISAL: Muns Hits Manufactured Home Lot Price-fixing
EXXON MOBIL: Faces Class Action Over FACTA Violation

EZRICARE LLC: Lubricant Eye Drops Contain Bacteria, Roberts Says
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California
FIRST BANCSHARES: Hall Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi
FITZGERALD JEWELRY: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FORD MOTOR: Soehnlein Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts

FULLERTON CHICKEN: Faces BIPA Class Action Over Fingerprint Scans
GARNEA LLC: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GBNY PRODUCTIONS: Liz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY: Kinnally Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
GOLDEN HEAVEN: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 20

GOOGLE LLC: Brodies LLP Attorneys Discuss UK Class Action
GOOGLE LLC: Seeks to Seal Portions of Reddy Declaration
GOOGLE LLC: Settles Antitrust Class Action Suit for $700MM
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Faces Bhangal Securities Suit Over Disclosure
HD SUPPLY: Fails to Pay Wages Weekly, Santiago Suit Claims

HERITAGE CARE: Court Refuses to Order Discovery of Insurance Docs
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $8.73MM
IANTHUS CAPITAL: February 20 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
IOOF: Judge Tosses Shareholders' Class Action
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Tylenol Class Actions Pending in Courts

KEEFE COMMISSARY: Court Okays $11.6MM Deal in Debit Cards Suit
LIDO DAO: Faces Class Action in California Over LDO Token
LOVESAC CO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 20
MENARD INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Jan. 25, 2024
META PLATFORMS: Faces Age Discrimination Class Action Over Job Ads

METHODE ELECTRONICS: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
MGS MFG GROUP: Hunt Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
NAVY FEDERAL: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action
NEW JERSEY: Edna Mahan Class Action Settlements Fall Short
NORTON HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Ransomware Attack

NY AND CO: Mitchell Sues Over Unlawful Pricing, Sales Practices
PBM SUPPLY: Faces Obrien Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
PORNHUB: Judge Certifies Child Sexual Abuse Victim's Class Action
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Oguin Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
PROGRESSIVE AUTO: Must Face Class Action Over Vehicle Valuation

PROGRESSIVE GULF: Wright Sues Over Failure to Return Deductible
RANCHO ESQUON: Faces Mathis Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
RCI LLC: Stone Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
RE/MAX LLC: Settles Burnett Class Action
RE/MAX LLC: Settles Moehrl Class Action

RE/MAX LLC: Settles Nosalek Class Action
ROCKET MORTGAGE: MacDonald Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
SALEM COMMUNITY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL: Pizana Suit Transferred to D. Utah
SANTANDER BANK: Almanzar Files Suit in S.D. New York

SAVANNAH-CHATHAM COUNTY: Frazier Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid Wages
SOUTHEAST QSR: Maddox Files ADA Suit in S.D. Georgia
SPOILEDCHILD INC: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
T-MOBILE USA: Violates Consumers' Right to Free Speech, Juarez Says
TUFT AND NEEDLE: Licea CIPA Suit Removed to C.D. California

TW SERVICES: Ewing Sues Over Unfair Labor Practices
UNITED STATES: Tucker Files Suit in S.D. Illinois
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Suit Over Misleading Medicare Ads
USHEALTH ADVISORS: Human TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
VACO LLC: Montenegro Alleges Misclassification, Failure to Pay OT

VALLEY NATIONAL: White Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
WESTLAKE, OH: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Hamilton et al. Say
YARDI SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Over Unfair Tenant Screening Report
YOUNG HARRIS COLLEGE: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
[*] 6th Cir. Strikes Down Class Certification Order in PFAS Suit


                            *********

1832 ASSET: Ontario Court Certifies Trailer-Fee Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
James Langton, writing for Investment Executive, reports that
another class action against a fund manager over the allegedly
improper payment of trailer commissions to discount brokers has
been certified in Ontario.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the class action
against 1832 Asset Management L.P., a subsidiary of The Bank of
Nova Scotia. According to the claim, investors were harmed by the
improper payment of trailers, ostensibly for advice, which discount
brokers are prohibited from providing under the limitations of
their registration.

"The plaintiff alleges that the trailing commissions are improper,
unreasonable and unjustified, and were paid by the defendant in
breach of its duties to the class members who held those mutual
funds," the court noted in its decision.

The allegations have not been proven.

The case against 1832 Asset Management is one of a series of class
actions that have been filed against fund managers over the payment
of trailers to discounters, and a couple of those have already been
certified.

In this case, the court largely adopted the reasoning used for
certifying cases against TD Asset Management Inc. and BMO
Investments Inc. It determined that the case was suitable as a
class action in that it sets out a potentially viable claim, and
that there are common facts that apply to a group of investors.

The only issue was whether the proposed plaintiff in the case was
suitable to take on the class action on behalf of affected
investors. And, the court concluded that this criterion was met
too. [GN]

236 PROSPECT MARKET: Gonzales Sues Over Market Staff's Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 236 PROSPECT MARKET LLC (DBA PROSPECT
MARKET), MUSLEH ALOMARI and ALEXANDER ALOMARI, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-09403 (E.D.N.Y., December 20, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide wage notice at time of hiring, and
failure to provide wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at 236 Prospect Park
W, Brooklyn, New York, from approximately 2018 until October 9,
2022. His duties included stocking and unpacking produce, customer
service and cleaning.

236 Prospect Market LLC is a market owner and operator in New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Lina Stillman, Esq.
         STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
         42 Broadway, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 203-2417

23ANDME HOLDING: B.C. Supreme Court Grants Representation Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of British Columbia has granted a Representation
Order subject to proposed class proceedings brought in the matter
of J. R. v 23andMe Holding Co et al, Vancouver Registry, S-237147.

This class action has been brought on behalf of a proposed Class
comprising of all Canadian customers of 23andMe who were affected
by the data breach reported by the company in October 2023
("Class"), excluding certain individuals affiliated with the
Defendants.

Pursuant to the Representation Order, the plaintiff has been
appointed as the Representative Plaintiff and KND Complex
Litigation and YLAW Group have been appointed as Representative
Counsel to address any issues arising from the implementation,
construction or interpretation of the Defendants' Terms of Service
dated November 30, 2023 and its successors.

23andMe's Terms of Service dated November 30, 2023 include
provisions for alternative dispute resolution and individual
arbitration procedures and a class action waiver, and require that
customers opt out if they wish to not be bound by those terms.
Pursuant to the Representation Order, Representative Plaintiff and
Representative Counsel are empowered to address those issues on
behalf of putative members of this class action.

Pursuant to the terms of the Representation Order:

1. The Representation Order is without prejudice to, and it does
not amount to any form of compromise or derogation of, the
Defendants' rights or arguments, including that the proceeding
should not proceed as a class action or at all; and

2. The Representation Order shall be null and shall have no effect
on any person who opts out from this class proceeding by written
email to sn@knd.law, and/or in the event that this action is not
certified under the Class Proceedings Act of British Columbia.

More information concerning this class action and a copy of the
Court's Representation Order are available on Representative
Counsel's website at https://knd.law/class-actions/23-and-me/.

For further information: Inquiries: KND Complex Litigation,
contact@knd.law [GN]

3M COMPANY: Killings Product Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Ala.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LEMUEL KILLINGS JR., et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case
No. 01-CV-2023-904186, was removed from the Circuit Court for the
Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on December 19,
2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Alabama assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-01718-AMM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs generally allege that the Defendants, including 3M,
have designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) products and/or fluorinated
surfactants used therein, which contain polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS), including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid (PFOS), and/or their precursors. The Plaintiffs claim
that they suffered injury as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF or firefighter turnout gear (TOG) products.

3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate operating in
the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer
goods, headquartered in Minnesota. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         M. Christian King, Esq.
         Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
         W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
         Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
         LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
         The Clark Building
         400 North 20th Street
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Telephone: (205) 581-0700
         E-mail: cking@lightfootlaw.com
                 hprater@lightfootlaw.com
                 lradney@lightfootlaw.com
                 wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com

AARP: Must Face Video Privacy Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Gina Kim, writing for Law360, reports that AARP customers survived
a dismissal bid in a putative class action alleging the nonprofit
illegally shares their identities and video viewing activities with
Meta after a California judge said their amended pleading describes
the significant role video content plays in AARP's operations under
the Video Privacy Protection Action. [GN]

ACRISURE LLC: Wooley Sues Over Failure to Protect Information
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erika Wooley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ACRISURE, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01293 (W.D. Mich., Dec.
11, 2023), is brought against the Defendants failure to adequately
protect consumers' information, adequately notify them about the
breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach.

Between January December 1, 2022, and January 28, 2023, Acrisure
control over its computer network and the highly private
information stored on the computer network in a data breach
perpetrated by cybercriminals ("Data Breach"). The Data Breach's
impact has impacted thousands of consumers. Acrisure's breach
differs from typical data breaches because it affects consumers who
had no relationship with Acrisure, never sought one, and never
consented to Acrisure's collecting and storing their information.
On information and belief Data Breach first began December 1, 2022,
and was allowed by Defendant to continue until January 28, 2023,
providing cybercriminals unfettered access to consumers' highly
private information for an appalling fifty-eight days.

Following an internal investigation, Defendant learned
cybercriminals gained unauthorized access to consumers' personally
identifiable information ("PII") and private health information
("PHI") (collectively with PII, "Sensitive Information").
Cybercriminals bypassed Defendant's inadequate security systems to
access consumers' Sensitive Information in its computer systems.

On November 10, 2023, Acrisure finally notified State Attorneys
General and many Class Members about the widespread Data Breach
("Breach Notice"). However, notice is ongoing, with Plaintiff not
receiving her notice until December 6, 2023. The Defendant's Breach
Notice obfuscated the nature of the breach and the threat it
posted—refusing to tell its victims how many people were
impacted, how the breach happened, or why it took the Defendant
almost a year to begin notifying victims that hackers had gained
access to highly private Sensitive Information.

The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach
made its victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings
to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent
unauthorized use of their Sensitive Information. The Defendant knew
or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved
prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in
mitigating the effects of Sensitive Information misuse.

In failing to adequately protect consumers' information, adequately
notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature of the
breach, Defendant violated state law and harmed an unknown number
of its current and former consumers, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, receiving Acrisure's Breach
Notice on December 6, 2023.

Acrisure is a financial technology and insurance company
headquartered in Grand Rapids, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


AETNA MEDICAID: Palmer FLSA Suit Transferred to D. Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Crystal Palmer, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Aetna Medicaid Administrators LLC,
Case No. 3:23-cv-01010 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona on Dec. 8, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02547-DWL to the
proceeding.

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

Aetna Medicaid -- https://www.aetnabetterhealth.com/ -- is a
Medicaid managed care organization focused on improving health
outcomes for those we serve.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq.
          CONNOR & MORNEAU LLP
          273 State St., Ste. 2
          Springfield, MA 01103
          Phone: (413) 455-1730
          Fax: (413) 455-1594

               - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
          1 Towne Sq., 17th Fl.
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Phone: (248) 355-0300
          Fax: (248) 746-4001
          Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew Michael McKinley, Esq.
          James J. Swartz, Jr., Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP - ATLANTA - 1075 PEACHTREE
          1075 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3962
          Phone: (404) 704-9665

               - and -

          Anthony S. Califano, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP - BOSTON, MA
          2 Seaport Lane, Ste. 300
          Boston, MA 02210
          Phone: (617) 946-4925
          Fax: (617) 946-4800

               - and -

          Jill Johnson Chasson, Esq.
          Kent S Brockelman, Esq.
          COPPERSMITH BROCKELMAN PLC
          2800 N Central Ave., Ste. 1900
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Phone: (602) 381-5481
          Fax: (602) 224-6020
          Email: JChasson@cblawyers.com
                 kbrockelman@cblawyers.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Competition Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Dourou, writing for Law360, reports that two proposed class
representatives urged Britain's antitrust tribunal on Dec. 20 to
choose which is better suited to bring a class action against
Amazon over alleged favoring by the technology giant of its own
product offers in breach of competition law.[GN]


AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Jones Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
MONAY JONES, an individual, and MATTHEW RIDGWAY, an individual, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-06211 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 1, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for wage and labor violations arising from
its failure to pay wages for all time worked, failure to provide
timely and uninterrupted meal and rest periods, failure to provide
reporting time pay, and for derivative claims pursuant to the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in two of Defendant's
facilities in Santa Clarita and Valencia, California, from
approximately March 2022 to approximately October 2022, as a
seasonal warehouse associate.

Amazon.com Services, LLC provides e-commerce services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          Maggie Realin, Esq.
          Lisa Brevard, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          888 Prospect Street, Suite 200
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (619) 399-3995
          Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
          E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
                  mrealin@markham-law.com
                  lbrevard@markham-law.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 203
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (888) 474-7242
          Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
          E-mail: walter@uelglaw.com

ARIETIS HEALTH: Gentry Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Charles Gentry, on behalf of himself
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Arietis Health, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00926 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 Dec. 8,
2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-13019-ADB to the
proceeding.

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

Arietis Health, LLC -- https://www.arietishealth.com/ -- specialize
in patient-centric, data-driven revenue cycle solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson St., Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone (608) 237-1775
          Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
          Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
                 raina@turkestrauss.com

               - and -

          Joshua Robert Jacobson, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Phone: (407) 488-8291
          Email: JJacobson@normandpllc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Diana Marie Fassbender, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          1152 15th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 339-8533
          Email: dszego@orrick.com


ARIETIS HEALTH: Seidner Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kevan Seidner, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Arietis Health, LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-00944 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 Dec. 8, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-13020-ADB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Arietis Health, LLC -- https://www.arietishealth.com/ -- specialize
in patient-centric, data-driven revenue cycle solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Nicholas Colella, Esq.
          Patrick D. Donathen, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Email: nickc@lcllp.com
                 patrick@lcllp.com

               - and -

          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South 8th St
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 341-0400
          Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Diana Marie Fassbender, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          1152 15th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 339-8533
          Email: dszego@orrick.com


ARIETIS HEALTH: Sligh Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gina Sligh, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Arietis Health, LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-00890 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 Dec. 8, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-13026-ADB to the
proceeding.

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

Arietis Health, LLC -- https://www.arietishealth.com/ -- specialize
in patient-centric, data-driven revenue cycle solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
          954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518
          San Juan, PR 00907
          Phone (215) 789-4462
          Email: klaukaitis@ecf.courtdrive.com

               - and -

          Joshua Robert Jacobson, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Phone: (407) 488-8291
          Email: JJacobson@normandpllc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Diana Marie Fassbender, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          1152 15th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 339-8533
          Email: dszego@orrick.com


ARIETIS HEALTH: Zeigler Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robbin Zeigler, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Arietis Health, LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-00919 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 Dec. 8, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-13018-ADB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Federal Trade
Commission Act.

Arietis Health, LLC -- https://www.arietishealth.com/ -- specialize
in patient-centric, data-driven revenue cycle solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Fax: (213) 381-9989
          Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kevin Lewis, Esq.
          KL LAW, P.L.L.C.
          150 S. Pine Island Rd., Suite 300
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Phone: (954) 551-2295
          Email: service@kevinlewislaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Diana Marie Fassbender, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          1152 15th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 339-8533
          Email: dszego@orrick.com


BANKERS HEALTHCARE: Thuthija Sues Over Deceptive Commercial Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAJESH THUTHIJA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BANKERS HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 5:23-cv-02453-DDP-SP (C.D. Cal., Dec. 1, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Truth in Lending
Act and the California's Unfair Competition Law.

The suit challenges Defendant's practice of deceptive and
misleading representations and/or omissions and BHG's business
practice of extending millions of dollars in consumer loans to
Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers, while falsely
disguising those consumer loans as "commercial loans" made to
businesses that do not exist. BHG's purpose in falsely disguising
many of its consumer loans as "commercial loans" is to bolster its
revenues and evade certain licensing and disclosure requirements
that federal and state laws impose upon consumer lenders, says the
suit.

Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC is a financial lender that regularly
makes loans to businesses and consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
          Mona Amini, Esq.  
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  david@kazlg.com
                  mona@kazlg.com

BDT CAPITAL: Costner Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BDT Capital Partners,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Randall Costner, George Assad,
and Jonathan Abbott, and others similarly situated v. BDT CAPITAL
PARTNERS, LLC, BYRON D. TROTT, MAD PRIVATE FAMILY TRUST COMPANY
LLC, KELLY D. RAINKO, MARTIN MCCOURT, ELLIOTT HILL, MELINDA R.
RICH, JAMES C. STEPHEN, and SUSAN T. CONGALTON, Case No.
2023-1234-KSJM (Del. Chancery Ct., Dec. 11, 2023).

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

BDT Capital Partners -- https://bdtmsd.com/ -- is a private equity
arm of BDT & Company that specializes in investments in
family-owned and entrepreneurial businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christine Mackintosh, Esq.
          Phone: (302) 622-7000
          Fax: (302) 622-7100

               - and -

          Rebecca Musarra, Esq.
          Phone: (302) 622-7000
          Fax: (302) 622-7100

               - and -

          Corinne Elise Amato, Esq.
          Phone: (302) 888-6500
          Fax: (302) 658-8111

               - and -

          Kevin Davenport, Esq.
          Phone: (302) 888-6500
          Fax: (302) 658-8111

               - and -

          Eric J. Juray, Esq.
          Phone: (302) 888-6500
          Fax: (302) 658-8111

               - and -

          Stacey A. Greenspan, Esq.
          Phone: (302) 888-6500
          Fax: (302) 658-8111


BLUEFIELD UNIVERSITY: Beer Files Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bluefield University.
The case is styled as Kyle Beer, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Bluefield University, Case No.
1:23-cv-00055-JPJ-PMS (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 9, 2023).

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

Bluefield University -- https://www.bluefield.edu/ -- is a private
Baptist university in Bluefield, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Phone: (757) 930-3660
          Email: craig@clalegal.com


BOUDIN BAKERIES: Oizarro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boudin Bakeries, Inc.
The case is styled as Romano Oizarro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Boudin Bakeries, Inc., Andre-Boudin
Bakeries, Inc., Boudin Holdings, Inc., Boudin IP, Inc., Case No.
CGC23610949 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 8, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Civil Rights."

Boudin Bakery -- https://www.boudinbakery.com/ -- is a bakery based
in San Francisco, California, known for its sourdough bread.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH LLC
          333 E City Ave., Ste. 805
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-1515
          Phone: 610-667-6200
          Fax: 610-667-9029
          Email: esmith@brodskysmith.com


BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Hettinger Suit Removed to D. Columbia
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Laura Hettinger, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Bozzuto Management Company, Case No.
2023-CAB007375 was removed from the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia on Dec. 11, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03687-JEB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute.

The Bozzuto Group -- https://www.bozzuto.com/ -- is a real estate
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristen Simplicio, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 973-0900
          Email: ksimplicio@tzlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christina Araviakis, Esq.
          James D. Bragdon, Esq.
          GALLAGHER EVELIUS & JONES
          218 N. Charles Street, Suite 400
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Phone: (410) 951-1410
          Email: caraviakis@gejlaw.com
                 jbragdon@gejlaw.com


BREDA INC: Saunders Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Breda, Inc. The case
is styled as Michael Saunders, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Breda, Inc. doing business as Bredabeds, Case
No. 1:23-cv-10690 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2023).

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

Breda, Inc. doing business as BredaBeds -- https://bredabeds.com/
-- manufactures and sells innovative space-saving bed products such
as modern Murphy Beds (also known as Wall Beds).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bennitta Lisa Joseph, Esq.
          Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
          JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
          110 East 59th Street, Suite 3200
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 227-5700
          Fax: (212) 406-6890
          Email: bennittaj@gmail.com
                 jon@norinsberglaw.com


BUCKLE INC: Sornoso Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wage
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ellena Sornoso, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. THE BUCKLE, INC., a Nebraska Corporation, and Does
1-20, Case No. 23CV03464 (Cal. Super. Ct., Butte Cty., Dec. 11,
2023), is brought for failure to provide meal and rest periods,
failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse for business
expenses, failure to keep accurate time records, failure to timely
pay wages at termination, and derivative civil penalties. Plaintiff
seeks these damages and penalties, plus interest and attorney's
fees, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees worked for Defendant
as a non-exempt employee. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees with meal and rest periods, failed
to pay minimum wages and premium overtime wages, failed to provide
accurate wage statements, failed to keep accurate time records,
failed to timely pay final wages, and failed to reimburse for
business expenses, in violation of the California Labor Code, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy B. Del Castillo, Esq.
          Lisa L. Bradner, Esq.
          Daniel E. Richardson, Esq.
          CASTLE LAW: CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL, PC
          2999 Douglas Blvd, Suite 180
          Roseville, CA 95661
          Phone: (916) 245-0122
          Email: tdc@castleemploymentlaw.com
                 lb@castleemploymentlaw.com
                 dr@castleemploymentlaw.com


CANADA: Murphy Battista Obtains Certification Order in PHSA Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A team of lawyers at Murphy Battista LLP, led by Scott Stanley and
John Cameron along with a team from Slater Vecchio LLP were
successful in obtaining an order for certification of a class
action against the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) on
behalf of patients who received procedures at BC Women's Hospital
and Health Centre (BCWH) during 2020 and 2021. The certification
order allows the Plaintiff to pursue the following common issues:
violation of privacy, vicarious liability, and punitive damages.

The class action arises from the alleged involvement of Brigitte
Cleroux, an individual believed to be an unlicensed nurse, in the
provision of nursing care to approximately 1,150 patients who
attended for gynecological surgical procedures during the specified
period.

PHSA sent out letters to all of those in BC that were treated by
Cleroux. If people believe they are included in this action, they
are encouraged to reach out to Murphy Battista LLP or Slater
Vecchio LLP about their experience.

The case is styled in the case styled Massie v. Provincial Health
Services Authority, 2023 BCSC 1275. [GN]

CAPTEK SOFTGEL: Huerta Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for General Workers
------------------------------------------------------------------
IRMA HUERTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAPTEK SOFTGEL INTERNATIONAL, INC. and DOES
1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV31004 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., December 19, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the
California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay
all overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to
provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to
provide wage statements, waiting time penalties, and unfair
competition.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
general worker in their Inspection Department, from approximately
2007 until approximately June 2023.

Captek Softgel International, Inc. is an operator of a
manufacturing facility for vitamins, minerals, and supplements in
Cerritos, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Paul K. Haines, Esq.
         Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
         Matthew K. Moen, Esq.
         Susan J. Perez, Esq.
         HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
         2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
         El Segundo, CA 90245
         Telephone: (424) 292-2350
         Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
         E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                 fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                 mmoen@haineslawgroup.com
                 sperez@haineslawgroup.com

CARDIOVASCULAR CONSULTANTS: Hazlett Files Suit in D. Arizona
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cardiovascular
Consultants Limited. The case is styled as Brian Hazlett,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Cardiovascular Consultants Limited, Case No. 2:23-cv-02567-JZB (D.
Ariz., Dec. 11, 2023).

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

Cardiovascular Consultants, Ltd. (CVC) -- https://cvcheart.com/ --
offers comprehensive cardiology services at convenient locations
found throughout Metro Phoenix.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq.
          PEREZ LAW GROUP PLLC
          7508 N 59th Ave.
          Glendale, AZ 85301
          Phone: (623) 826-5593
          Email: cperez@perezlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
          LYON FIRM
          2754 Erie Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Phone: (513) 381-2333
          Fax: (513) 766-9011
          Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com


CBE GROUP INC: Felberbaum Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The CBE Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Samuel Felberbaum, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. The CBE Group, Inc., Case No.
7:23-cv-10775-KMK (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2023).

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

CBE Companies -- https://www.cbecompanies.com/ -- is a global
provider of outsourced call center solutions specializing in
receivables management, fraud, and customer care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com


CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for Jan. 29
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issued this
alert to shareholders of ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: CHPT),
if they purchased the Company's securities between June 1, 2023 and
November 16, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders
have until January 29, 2024 to file lead plaintiff applications in
the securities class action lawsuit.

Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at
https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nyse-chpt/, by calling
toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email (dk@kclasslaw.com).

Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to
responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Kuznicki Law PLLC
Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
445 Central Avenue, Suite 344
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Email: dk@kclasslaw.com
Phone: (347) 696-1134
Cell: (347) 690-0692
Fax: (347) 348-0967
https://kclasslaw.com [GN]

CHEMOURS COMPANY: Wilcoxen Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Wilcoxen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01416-UNA (D. Del., Dec. 11, 2023), is brought against the
Defendants for their failure to pay employees overtime wages,
seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 ("FLSA").

Despite clocking in and beginning work that was integral and
indispensable to their job duties before the scheduled start of
their shifts, Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated production employees for their pre-shift work.
Thus, during all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly production employees
for all overtime work performed because of their policy and/or
practice of not paying these employees for pre-shift work.

As a result of the Defendants' companywide policies and/or
practices, Defendants knew or had reason to know that they were not
compensating the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly
production employees for all overtime pay that they actually
earned. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly
production employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per
workweek but were not at paid one-and-one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 as a result of
Defendants' unlawful policy or practice, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from February 2018 to
2021.

The Chemours Company is a domestic corporation that operates and
conducts substantial business activities in the District of
Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7034 Braucher Street NW, Suite B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Phone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: hnilges@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, Ohio 43220
          Phone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Herr, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL C. HERR LLC
          3411 Silverside Road, The Baynard Building
          Wilmington, DE 19810
          Phone: (302)-483-7060
          Email: dherr@dherrlaw.com


CME GROUP: Class Action Poses Threat to Membership Market
---------------------------------------------------------
John Lothian News reports that a long-standing certified
class-action lawsuit against CME Group, filed by members of the
Chicago Board of Trade and Chicago Mercantile Exchange, poses a
potential threat to the exchange group's membership market. A
mediated settlement, encouraged by the judge, could reshape how
trading rights are offered at the exchange and potentially benefit
a class of shareholders, whose B-shares have declined while A-share
values rose.

However, B-shareholders face a hurdle as CME lawyers will seek to
decertify the class-action case in late January 2024 and also seek
a summary judgment. The odds of success for CME in the
decertification effort are slim, given that most certified
class-action lawsuits are not decertified. Regarding summary
judgment, it appears that there is a genuine dispute over the
definition of a trading floor and related matters within the CBOT
and CME core rights. This disagreement makes it unlikely to
succeed.

As the case nears its conclusion, membership prices still primarily
reflect their utility as trading rights rather than their potential
value with a settlement. Some believe these memberships are
undervalued and have been actively buying them over the past couple
of years.

It's important to note that not all memberships are part of the
class-action case, with firm memberships and those owned by
exchange staff excluded. The time period for memberships to be
included in the class has passed, meaning one can only join the
lawsuit by purchasing a membership without certainty about its
inclusion.

This situation could lead to the sale of memberships by the estates
of long-time CME or CBOT members that include the right to
participate in the lawsuit, potentially without the seller's
awareness of the lawsuit's value.

Corporate members of the CME Group, who leverage single memberships
for trading of multiples of traders, may find a resolution of the
lawsuit has changed the CME's membership business model, leaving
them with higher costs for accessing the markets.

"If it (the lawsuit) goes to trial and if you look at the risk to
CME, if we win on Aurora being a trading floor, there's the damage
number for the value of the exclusivity right that members haven't
enjoyed for the past decade," said Steven E. Morrissey, the
plaintiffs attorney. "Then there'll be a past damages number for
that that's limited to the memberships that are in our class, which
are individual memberships, but that number will be in excess of $1
billion in past damages."

"And then we'll also seek a declaration that Aurora is a trading
floor, which would require CME to deal with the issue going forward
as well," he said.

Furthermore, the class-action lawsuit may deter Cboe Global Markets
from entering negotiations for a potential deal, particularly one
involving CME stock. Similar to the Cboe-CBOT trading rights
dispute that needed resolution before the CME-CBOT merger, this
lawsuit might need to be resolved before any Cboe and CME deal can
proceed.The CME Group declined to comment on this story.

What this is All About
The CMELawSuit.com website says this about the lawsuit:

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants CME and CBOT have breached
their obligations to the Class B Plaintiffs by denying the Class B
Plaintiffs the best and most proximate access to the Globex
electronic trading platform at the Aurora Data Center ("ADC"), by
denying the Class B Plaintiffs the right to trade the full range of
CME products on Globex at member rates, and by requiring the Class
B Plaintiffs to pay certain fees for colocation at the ADC.
Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants violated the Class B
Plaintiffs' rights by allowing Electronic Corporate Members and, on
information and belief, other non-member customers to exercise the
trading rights and privileges of exchange members without
purchasing or leasing seats on the exchange, and by providing
preferential fees to certain non-member customers. Plaintiffs seek
damages and injunctive relief. The lawsuit, Langer, et al. v. CME
Group, Inc., et al., No. 2014 CH 00829, was filed on January 15,
2014 and is currently pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, Chancery Division.

B-Shares vers. A-Shares

Since the launch of the Aurora Data Center ("ADC") by CME, the
values of B-shares and A-shares have moved in opposite directions.
While CME executives, board and staff receive performance-based
rewards in the form of A-shares, the same does not apply to
B-shares, according to a CME member.

A-shares have surged in value, increasing fivefold since the ADC's
launch, while B-shares have plummeted, losing 75% of their value
during the same period, as indicated by the member.

The trader emphasized the wisdom of purchasing a membership rather
than leasing one, considering it among his best decisions. He
explained that he might have been one of the numerous individual
members who left the industry when faced with several months of
trading losses if he had leased a membership. He credited a
seasoned trader who once advised him, saying, "A carpenter does not
rent his tools."

However, with membership prices sagging over the last few years, it
has been easy for traders to lease instead of buying a membership,
which has made it all too easy for individual traders to walk away
when trading results were negative.

The judge wants the two sides to come to a mediated solution,
rather than leaving it up to a jury unsophisticated in the ways of
market structure. Should the decertification and summary judgment
efforts of the CME fail this winter and spring, look for this case
to move quickly to a mediated solution.

The plaintiffs' attorneys specialize in high-stakes cases such as
the CME Group's legal battle against members of the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade. Stephen E.
Morrissey, co-lead counsel on the CME case from Susman Godfrey,
serves on the Susman executive committee and previously chaired the
expert committee in a complex litigation related to the
contamination of the Flint, Michigan water distribution system. In
that case, Morrissey's team has successfully obtained
court-approved settlements valued at $626 million with several
governmental defendants, including the state of Michigan.

This case might also be influencing the length of CME Group
Chairman and CEO Terry Duffy's employment term, which was recently
extended until the end of 2025. The CME Group board may not wish to
have this lawsuit looming over the head of a new CEO.

Ultimately, the mediation is about monetary damages only. Dragging
out the resolution of the lawsuit could continue to impact
membership prices, legacy members' estates, individual trader
retention and could have implications for future negotiations,
deals and senior executive employment. [GN]

CORRECTIONAL SERVICE: Court Certifies Prison Racism Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Fagan, writing for Toronto Star, reports that former inmate
Abel Araya says he was in desperate need of medical attention
following a serious head injury -- but when he asked his parole
officer to call for help, he says she refused.

Then, when he took himself for treatment, he says was scolded by
staff from the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC). He should have
first consulted his parole officer, he said they told him.

This was one incident of many involving alleged neglect,
harassment, public shaming and racism that Araya says plagued his
time at William Head Institution in British Columbia.

Now, Araya is at the centre of a class-action lawsuit against CSC,
alleging widespread anti-Black racism within the country's prison
system. Certified in a Federal Court decision released on Dec. 19,
the class action -- which represents all living current and former
Black inmates since April 17, 1985, who say they were subject to
physical, emotional, or psychological abuse while incarcerated --
could have massive consequences on Canada's federal prison system.

In the lawsuit, Araya alleges that CSC is responsible for "systemic
negligence resulting in the abuse of Black inmates" and that the
prison system has breached Charter rights to life, liberty, and
security, along with equal protections under the law.

He is seeking a declaration from the government that the CSC
"systemically violated, and continue(s) to violate" these charter
rights and payment for damages.

If successful, the scale of the class action brings the potential
for significant change for Black Canadians involved in the criminal
justice system, said Howard Sapers, who extensively documented the
experience of Black prisoners during his former career as Canada's
correctional investigator.

The lawsuit, which he is not involved in, "frustrates and angers
me, but it doesn't shock or surprise me," he said, noting about 10
per cent of 13,000 people currently in prison are Black.

Lawyers for the Attorney General of Canada argued Araya is not a
representative plaintiff, that the claim is "overly broad" and that
the class of Black inmates do not share common issues of law or
fact. The federal lawyers also argued a class-action lawsuit is not
the best way to resolve inmates' claims.

Esther Mailhot, a spokesperson for CSC, said it would be
"inappropriate to comment on specifics" of the case as it is before
the courts.

"Once in our custody, we are committed to working hard to address
societal systemic barriers for offenders by providing programs and
services that address offender's needs," she wrote in a statement.

"We are committed to ensuring that Black and ethnocultural
offenders are afforded the same protections, dignity and treatment
as others, consistent with the Canadian Human Rights Act, and CSC's
policies."

University of Toronto criminology professor Akwasi Owusu-Bempah
presented expert evidence of "CSC's practices, procedures,
instruments, policies and other acts and omissions systematically
disadvantage racialized prisoners" -- issues he says were brought
to CSC's attention in 2013 but did not lead to any meaningful
policy or procedure changes.

CSC has also not implemented any recommendations in this area made
by the Auditor General starting in 2015 and the Senate Standing
Committee on Human Rights in 2021.

Federal Justice Simon Fothergill certified the lawsuit as a class
action in a decision released on Dec. 19, finding that Araya is
sufficiently credible to act as a representative claimant.

Certification is the first major step in a class action, allowing a
plaintiff's case to go forward on behalf of a larger group of
people.

The truth of Araya's allegations has not yet been tested.

Araya pleaded guilty in June 2019 to trafficking narcotics. He
received a three-year federal sentence, which he began serving at
Drumheller Institution in Alberta before he moved to William Head
Institution, a minimum security facility in British Columbia, prior
to his release in March 2020.

It was during his seven weeks at William Head, and after his
release, that Araya alleges the "racial abuse" by prison officials
and other inmates took place.

The class action details several examples of these allegations,
including that Araya was "ignored or dismissed" by white prison
officers, pressured to leave a halfway house to make room for "more
vulnerable prisoners, all of whom were white," and intimidated from
filing his complaints regarding racism as formal grievances by CSC
officials.

In separate instances, he says his parole officer told him she
would not want him as a sports coach for her children, as he was
"clearly a drug dealer," while another officer told Araya that he
"would not like someone like him living in his community."

He says in the lawsuit that he was also threatened by a white
inmate who directed derogatory racial slurs at him. He alleges
prison staff did not intervene until he said he did not want to
fight but if the inmate repeated the slurs, he would "have to
settle the matter," at which point Araya alleges staff claimed he
had threatened the other inmate. That night, Araya says he was
removed from his bunkhouse -- which he shared with the other inmate
-- and told to go door-to-door to find another bunkhouse to take
him in, or risk losing his place at William Head, while the other
inmate received no punishment.

Since his release, Araya says he has continued to struggle with
panic attacks, depression, anxiety and sleepless nights.

Rajinder Sahota and Patrick Dudding, lawyers representing Araya in
the class action, declined to respond to questions from the Star,
saying they were limited in what they could say about a matter
currently before the courts.

"The plaintiff welcomes the federal court's certification ruling.
We view this as the first step toward righting the injustices and
mistreatment faced by Black people incarcerated in Federal
prisons," Sahota wrote in a statement.

"We hope the government of Canada will work with the plaintiff to
resolve this matter in a fair and just manner."

The court has not yet decided on a timeline for the class action.
[GN]

DATACOMP APPRAISAL: Muns Hits Manufactured Home Lot Price-fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA M. MUNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DATACOMP APPRAISAL SYSTEMS, INC.; EQUITY
LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES, INC.; HOMETOWN AMERICA MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.;
LAKESHORE COMMUNITIES, INC.; SUN COMMUNITIES, INC.; RHP PROPERTIES,
INC.; YES! COMMUNITIES, INC.; INSPIRE COMMUNITIES, L.L.C.; KINGSLEY
MANAGEMENT, CORP.; and CAL-AM PROPERTIES, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:23-cv-16450 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 1, 2023) is an antitrust class
action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and a nationwide Class of
all similarly situated persons and entities who paid rent for a
manufactured home lot located in a manufactured home community that
was included in a JLT Market Report between August 31, 2019, and
the present.

The Plaintiff and members of the Class were injured by paying
significant overcharges on manufactured home lot rents throughout
the United States in violation of the Section 1 of the Sherman Act
and common law. As a result of Defendants' conspiracy, two of
society's most vulnerable groups -- the elderly and low-income
earners -- face considerable financial pressures. The effect of
Defendants' conspiracy has been devasting to manufactured home
residents, says the suit.

If Defendants are permitted to continue their anticompetitive
scheme, Plaintiff and members of the Class will continue to pay
supracompetitive rents for manufactured home lots. The Plaintiff
brings this action to seek damages and permanently enjoin
Defendants' ongoing efforts to coordinate their prices by sharing
competitively sensitive information for manufactured home lots.

Datacomp Appraisal Systems, Inc. provides manufactured and mobile
home value reports, price information, appraisal reports and
inspections.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 234-6487
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          E-mail: kjustice@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Moskovitz, Esq.
          Robert Wozniak, Esq.
          Nia Barberousse Binns, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          100 Tri-State Dr, 128
          Lincolnshire, IL 60069
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          E-mail: mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com
                  rwozniak@fklmlaw.com
                  nbinns@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
          Cary Zhang, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF PC
          2001 Market Street Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
          E-mail: bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
                  jspector@srkattorneys.com
                  czhang@srkattorneys.com

EXXON MOBIL: Faces Class Action Over FACTA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Cook County Record reports that Exxon Mobil is facing a class
action lawsuit for allegedly violating the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act (FACTA) by printing too many credit and debit card
digits on customer receipts.

The suit was filed in Cook County Circuit Court on behalf of named
plaintiff Daniel Quinn and potentially many others throughout the
U.S. and Illinois.

The lawsuit alleges that Exxon Mobil branded stores knowingly or
recklessly failed to comply with FACTA by printing customer
receipts displaying the first six and the last four digits of its
customers' debit or credit card numbers. This alleged violation has
reportedly led to an invasion of privacy for customers, elevated
risk of identity theft, loss of control over their card
information, and the need to protect their receipt to prevent
further disclosure.

Quinn argues that due to Exxon Mobil's unlawful conduct, he and
other proposed class members are entitled to an award of statutory
damages under the FACTA law.

Quinn and the class of additional plaintiffs are represented by
attorneys Keith J. Keogh and Michael S. Hilicki, of Keogh Law, of
Chicago; and attorney Scott D. Owens, of Hollywood, Florida. [GN]

EZRICARE LLC: Lubricant Eye Drops Contain Bacteria, Roberts Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Roberts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EZRICARE, LLC; and EZRIRX, LLC Defendants,
Case No. 3:23-cv-22827 (D.N.J., Dec. 1, 2023) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff due to Defendants' fraud, false marketing,
false advertising, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and
breaches of state law consumer protection statutes.

This is a class action lawsuit by Plaintiff on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated who purchased Defendants'
EzriCare Artificial Tears Lubricant Eye Drops product, which was
sold to consumers across the United States. The product purchased
by Plaintiff and Putative Class members was adulterated and
contaminated with a "very rare strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa
that hasn't been seen in the U.S. before," says the suit.

The product is designed to be safe for use in the human eye.
Unfortunately, due to the presence of the bacteria, the product is
not safe for human use. The Plaintiff and Putative Class members
have been deprived of their benefit of the bargain as they intended
to purchase safe, healthy, and contaminant free products, the suit
asserts.

EzriCare, LLC is a pharmaceutical company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Furia, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza Suite 200
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601  
          Telephone: (845) 483-7100
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-mail: Furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com  

               - and -

          Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
          Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
          POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (803) 222-2222
          E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
                  blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brooklee Han, writing for Housing Wire, reports that big Four title
firm Fidelity National Financial and its subsidiary mortgage
subservicer Loancare are facing a class action lawsuit alleging
that they were negligent with customer data and that they breached
their contract, after the firm was the victim of a cyber security
attack in late-November.

The suit was filed on Dec. 12 by Teneika Tillis, a Loancare
servicing client, in U.S. District Court for Central California.
The complaint states that Tillis filed the suit "upon information
and belief" that her personal identifiable information had been
comprised in the attack.

"The data breach itself and information defendants have disclosed
about the breach to date, including its length, the need to
remediate defendants' cybersecurity and the sensitive nature of the
impacted data, collectively demonstrate defendants failed to
implement reasonable measures," the complaint states.

In addition, Tillis claims as a result of the data breach the
plaintiff class has been "required to continue to undertake
time-consuming and oten costly efforts to mitigate the actual and
potential harm."

The complaint also maintains that Loancare should have notified
consumers of inadequate security measures after it reported a data
breach around August 2022. "Defendants thus failed to take
reasonable measures to secure its system," the lawsuit said.

Roughly a week after initially reporting the attack, Fidelity said
the incident was contained, however the firm has yet to disclose
the type of personal information that may have been acquired by the
cyber criminals or the number of clients impacted by the incident.

Shortly after the incident, ransomware gang AlphV/BlackCat claimed
responsibility.

In an online post, AlphV/BlackCat blamed Fidelity for allegedly
hiring incident responders from Google's Mandiant unit and
threatened to disclose information on data it collected.

Tillis is demanding a jury trial and a damages amount that is
"equitable relief with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest" to
the plaintiff and members of the class.

Mr. Cooper, which became the victim of a cyber security attack in
late October, is currently facing four class action suits as a
result of the attack. [GN]

FIRST BANCSHARES: Hall Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The First Bancshares,
Inc. The case is styled as Nancy Hall, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. The First Bancshares, Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-00192-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss., Dec. 7, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

The First Bancshares, Inc. -- https://www.thefirstbank.com/ --
operates as the bank holding company for The First Bank that
provides general commercial and retail banking services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Winston Hudson, Esq.
          JOHNSON FIRM
          610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 372-1300
          Email: winston@yourattorney.com


FITZGERALD JEWELRY: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fitzgerald Jewelry,
LLC. The case is styled as Rhondine Melendez, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Fitzgerald Jewelry, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-09005 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2023).

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

Fitzgerald Jewelry, LLC -- https://www.fitzgeraldjewelry.com/ --
are a fine jewelry studio and school specializing in custom
engagement and wedding rings, unique stones and alternative
diamonds, local designers, and workshops in the heart of
Williamsburg in Brooklyn, NYC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com


FORD MOTOR: Soehnlein Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mark Soehnlein, Teressa Kohman, and Richard
Bunger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-09262 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec.
7, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-13013-FDS to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Ford Motor Company -- http://www.ford.com/-- is an American
multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn,
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tyler Litke, Esq.
          Mitchell Breit, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          405 E. 50th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 946-9306
          Email: tlitke@milberg.com
                 mbreit@milberg.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Hector Torres, Esq.
          Cindy Caranella Kelly, Esq.
          Stephen Paul Thomasch, Esq.
          KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
          1633 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 506-1700
          Email: htorres@kasowitz.com
                 ckelly@kasowitz.com
                 sthomasch@kasowitz.com


FULLERTON CHICKEN: Faces BIPA Class Action Over Fingerprint Scans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Record reports that a Chicago KFC franchisee has been
hit with a class action lawsuit, accusing the company of allegedly
violating Illinois' biometrics privacy law by requiring workers to
scan fingerprints to use point of sale registers and punch the
clock.

Fullerton Chicken Inc. violated the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act, according to the lawsuit filed in Cook County Circuit
Court.

The law requires companies to obtain a written release before
collecting and storing biometric information such as fingerprints,
the lawsuit states.

Fullerton "required employees, including Plaintiff, to scan their
fingerprints on a daily basis by using their fingerprints with the
fingerprint scanner so that Defendant could track the number of
hours worked," the lawsuit states

The company allegedly failed to obtain express written consent from
employees when it introduced the biometric system.

"Defendant never informed Plaintiffs of the specific purpose and
length of time for which their biometric identifiers or information
would be collected, stored and used," the suit alleges. "Defendant
did not have written, publicly available policies identifying their
retention schedules or guidelines for permanently destroying users'
biometric identifiers or information."

The lawsuit seeks $5,000 for each intentional violation of the law
and $1,000 for each negligent violation.

Payouts under such lawsuits can quickly climb to what judges and
defendants alike have described as "astronomical" levels, after the
Illinois Supreme Court recently ruled that the BIPA law should be
interpreted to define "individual violations" as each time a
company scans someone's biometric identifier over a period
beginning five years before the lawsuit was filed. When multiplied
across entire workforces, potential judgments under BIPA could
spiral quickly into many millions of dollars.

The Illinois Supreme Court has also repeatedly ruled that
plaintiffs don't ever have to actually prove they were harmed by
the alleged improper collection of their biometric data to make
such payment claims.

Attorneys typically claim about one third of such payouts.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jordan Richards, of Jordan
Richards PLLC, of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. [GN]

GARNEA LLC: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Garnea, LLC. The case
is styled as Justin Bullock, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons v. Garnea, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-10666-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2023).

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

Garnea, LLC doing business as Wella Foods --
https://wellafoods.com/ -- is the maker of wellness-inspired
snacks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com



GBNY PRODUCTIONS: Liz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GBNY Productions,
Inc. The case is styled as Pedro Liz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. GBNY Productions, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-10679-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2023).

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

GBNY Productions, Inc. -- https://gbny.com/ -- is a sportswear and
designer fashion brands for everyone.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY: Kinnally Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Thomas J. Kinnally, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. GigaCloud Technology Inc.,
Larry Lei Wu, Kwok Hei David Lau, Xin Wan, Frank Lin, Xing Huang,
Aegis Capital Corp., Case No. 2:23-cv-08381 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
Dec. 7, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-10684-JMF to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for the
Securities Exchange Act.

GigaCloud Marketplace -- https://www.gigacloudtech.com/ -- offers a
seamless end-to-end experience that includes discovery, payments,
and logistics solutions on a user-friendly platform.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com
                 clinehan@glancylaw.com
                 prajesh@glancylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jason Craig Hegt, Esq.
          Jeff G. Hammel, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS
          1271 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 906-1200
          Email: jason.hegt@lw.com
                 jeff.hammel@lw.com

               - and -

          Kristin Nicole Murphy, Esq.
          LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP
          650 Town Center Drive 20th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (714) 540-1235
          Fax: (714) 540-1235
          Email: kristin.murphy@lw.com


GOLDEN HEAVEN: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 20
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 19
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Golden Heaven Group Holdings Ltd.
(NASDAQ: GDHG) between April 13, 2023 and November 13, 2023, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Golden Heaven investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Golden Heaven class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20494 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Golden Heaven's amusement parks are in generally
poor condition; (2) Golden Heaven materially overstated the number
of visitors to its amusement parks and overall growth prospects,
and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
20, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20494 or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

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

GOOGLE LLC: Brodies LLP Attorneys Discuss UK Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Craig Watt, Esq., and Syma Din, Esq., of Brodies LLP, in an article
for Lexology, disclosed that Google faces another class action, and
this time it has been accused of contributing to the cost-of-living
crisis.

A class action was brought against Google at the UK Competition
Appeal Tribunal (CAT), in which Google has been accused of taking
advantage of its market dominance by shutting out competition on
mobile search engines. It is alleged that advertisers were fighting
for their position on the Google search page, which resulted in
consumers having to pay higher prices for the goods and services
that they purchased, therefore contributing to the cost-of-living
crisis.

The action was brought under the representative action scheme which
forms part of the class action regime operating in England and
Wales.

What are Class Actions?

Class actions allow two or more parties to collectively raise a
claim or proceedings in a single action where they have suffered a
loss in the same, similar or related way.

Multiple parties raising claims in a single action is not an option
that is available worldwide. Nonetheless, a growing number of
nations have been implementing procedures that allow them to do so.
Although the rules governing the initiation of collective
proceedings vary by jurisdiction, class actions are typically
initiated as opt-in or opt-opt proceedings. We have previously
discussed the difference between the opt-in and opt-out schemes
here.

England and Wales operate both an opt-in and opt-out scheme,
depending on the nature of the action. Representative class actions
form part of the opt-out scheme, whereas Group Litigation Orders
(GLOs) are part of the opt-in scheme. We have previously compared
the differences between the Scottish and English systems in our
earlier blog.

Representative actions came into the spotlight in the case of Lloyd
v Google, where the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the
decision of the Court of Appeal to allow the representative action
to proceed against Google in connection with an alleged breach of
data protection regulations.

Despite the expectation of a decrease in data protection breach
claims after the Lloyd's ruling, we continue to see a rise in
applications to proceed by way of representative action.

Scotland

Class actions, known as Group Proceedings in Scotland, came into
effect on 31 July 2020, with the implementation of Part 4 of the
Civil Litigation (Expenses and Group Proceedings) (Scotland) Act
2018.

In Scotland, we have an opt-in system. This essentially means that,
in order to be part of the class, you will need to opt-in to be
included in the action.

Although the 2018 Act, provides for opt-out proceedings, the
Scottish Court's rules only allow opt-in procedure. Only time will
tell whether Scotland will provide rules to adopt the opt-out
procedure. [GN]

GOOGLE LLC: Seeks to Seal Portions of Reddy Declaration
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re Google RTB Consumer
Privacy Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order sealing the cited
portions of the Reddy Declaration and Exhibit 3.

Indeed, throughout this litigation, this Court has sealed similar
information and descriptions of internal logs and data systems.

Pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rules 7-11
and 79-5(c), the Defendant submits this Administrative Motion to
Seal Portions of Google's Objections to Plaintiffs' Evidence in
Support of Class Certification Reply Briefing, the concurrently
filed Declaration of Aarti Reddy, and Exhibit 3 to the Reddy
Declaration.

Google is an American multinational technology company focusing on
artificial intelligence, online advertising, search engine
technology, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing,
e-commerce, and consumer electronics.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
          Whitty Somvichian, Esq.
          Aarti Reddy, Esq.
          Kyle C. Wong, Esq.
          Reece Trevor, Esq.
          Anupam Dhillon, Esq.
          Robby L.R. Saldaña, Esq.
          Khary J. Anderson, Esq.
          Elizabeth Sanchez Santiago, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20004-2400
          Telephone: (202) 842-7800
          Facsimile: (202) 842-7899
          E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com
                  wsomvichian@cooley.com
                  areddy@cooley.com
                  kwong@cooley.com
                  rtrevor@cooley.com
                  adhillon@cooley.com
                  rsaldana@cooley.com
                  kjanderson@cooley.com
                  lsanchezsantiago@cooley.com

GOOGLE LLC: Settles Antitrust Class Action Suit for $700MM
----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Duignan-Cabrera, writing for Silicon Valley Business
Journal, reports that Google LLC will pay $700 million to settle a
federal class action lawsuit alleging that its U.S. Play Store
violated antitrust rules.

In details released on Dec. 18 from an agreement reached in
September, Google revealed that as part of the settlement It will
expand billing options in its app store. The tech titan also will
allow independent developers to the option of direct payment for
consumers and allow consumers to purchase apps on other third-party
app stores, a process known as "sideloading."

"This settlement builds on Android's choice and flexibility,
maintains strong security protections, and retains Google's ability
to compete with other OS makers, and invest in the Android
ecosystem for users and developers," Wilson White, Google vice
president of government affairs, wrote in a statement on the
Alphabet Inc. (Nasdaq: GOOGL)-owned company's official blog.

First filed in July 2021 by attorneys general from North Carolina,
Utah, Tennessee, New York and California, the plaintiffs accused
Google of abusing its market power with restrictive terms of
service for software developers looking to develop and sell or
monetize mobile apps on the Android App Store.

"Google will no longer profit from the inflated app costs it forced
through its abuse of market power," Tennessee Attorney General
Jonathan Skrmetti said in news release. "This settlement will
reduce app prices and increase consumer choices on the Android
platform. Our office is proud to protect consumers, secure $700
million in financial relief and be a part of this bipartisan effort
to ensure one of the most powerful companies in the world follows
the law."

As part of the settlement Google will pay $630 million into a
settlement fund that will be distributed "for the benefit of
consumers" as well as $70 million that will go into a fund to be
used by the states.

To be on the Android App Store, developers are charged a 15% fee
for app subscriptions, with Google taking up to 30% for purchases
made within popular apps. Moving forward, developers will be able
to show users other billing options and pricing, either from their
websites or third-party app stores.

This isn't the only antitrust case Google has dealt with in 2023.
The company is facing multiple antitrust and anticompetitive
lawsuits and regulations both in the U.S. and the European Union.

Google also faces a federal antitrust case regarding its lucrative
advertising model. In that case the government has painted the
search giant as a monopoly that paid billions of dollars to
partners and competitors alike to ensure its search engine owned
90% of the market.

While Google completed its defense in November, the Justice
Department's closing arguments are expected in early May.

The details of the app store settlement come in the wake of the
Mountain View-based tech giant's recent loss in court to video game
developer Epic Games. On December 12, a San Francisco jury ruled
that Google broke antitrust laws to extract fees and limit
competition from game developers by charging for in-app purchases.

The Gary, North Carolina-based Epic Games is the publisher of the
popular Fortnite video game. In gaming programs, an in-app purchase
allows the user to upgrade the app's software, upgrade their
character's abilities, tools or weapons, as well as buy new
characters. [GN]

HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Faces Bhangal Securities Suit Over Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 30, 2023, that on August 24, 2023,
a putative securities class action captioned "Bhangal v. Hawaiian
Electric Industries, Inc., et al.," No.: 3:23-cv-04332-JSC was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. (HEI) and certain
of its current and former officers, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against certain of HEI's current and former officers.
Plaintiff broadly alleges that HEI and certain of its current and
former officers made materially false and misleading statements or
omissions regarding HEI's wildfire prevention and safety protocols
and related matters. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages.

On October 5, 2023, the court entered an order extending
defendants' time to respond to the complaint until after a lead
plaintiff has been appointed by the court in accordance with
relevant procedures of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995 and Defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. A
hearing on competing motions for appointment of lead plaintiff was
held last November 30, 2023.

Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. is a holding company, which
through its subsidiaries, engages in the electric utility, banking,
and renewable/sustainable infrastructure investment businesses. It
operates through the following segments: electric utility and
banking. Its utility segment involves in the generation, purchase,
transmission, distribution, and sale of electric energy in the
islands of Oahu, Hawaii, and Maui, Lanai, and Molokai.


HD SUPPLY: Fails to Pay Wages Weekly, Santiago Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
George Santiago, on behalf of himself, George Santiago, on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HD Supply
Management, Inc.; HD Supply Management LLC; HD Supply Holdings,
Inc.; White Cap Management LLC; and White Cap Supply Holdings, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 535872/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., December
7, 2023) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and
other manual workers a timely and weekly basis as required by the
New York Labor Law.

The complaint asserts that Plaintiff Santiago worked as a warehouse
worker in one of Defendants' distribution centers in Queens County,
New York from May 2019 to December 2019 and was paid bi-weekly at
all times in violation of the NYLL.

HD Supply Management, Inc. is a foreign business corporation that
sells materials, supplies, and services to customers in the
maintenance, repair and operations, infrastructure and power and
specialty construction sectors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810,
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (718) 669-0714
          E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com

HERITAGE CARE: Court Refuses to Order Discovery of Insurance Docs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Smith, Esq., and Ross Donaldson, Esq., of Clyde & Co
disclosed that in the case styled Agnello v Heritage Care Pty Ltd;
Fotiadis v St Basil's Homes for the Aged in Victoria (No 2) [2023]
VSC 653, the Victorian Supreme Court has refused to order the
discovery of insurance documents, including insurance policies
sought by plaintiffs in a representative proceeding for damages
against two aged care facilities (the defendants) concerning the
death of residents as a result of contracting COVID-19 whilst in
the defendants' care. The proceedings are one of many claims
working their way through the Victorian courts in regard to
COVID-19 related injuries and deaths.

The plaintiffs sought to obtain the discovery of insurance policies
that may provide indemnity to the defendants on the basis that they
were concerned about the capacity of the defendants to pay any
amount of a settlement or judgment obtained in the proceedings.
They sought to argue determining the level of insurance cover the
aged care facilities had would be relevant to their assessment of
their prospects of recovering damages from those entitled by way of
settlement of judgment.

At the relevant time the insurer was not a party to the proceeding
but was granted leave to intervene to be heard on this discovery
application. The defendants opposed the production of insurance
policies.

Following a ruling of the Judicial Registrar on 4 July 2023 who
dismissed the discovery application there was a de novo hearing to
a single judge of the Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs submitted that they were seeking insurance and
financial documents to facilitate a settlement of the proceeding
and to assist them in making decisions in regard to the
reasonableness of any settlement. The plaintiffs relied on the
relevant Court Rules in regard to permitting a party to obtain
discovery of documents from another party (Rule 29) and provisions
of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), the Act which deals with the
overarching obligations of parties in civil litigation including as
it concerns disclosure and discovery.

Section 54 of the Act provides that unless the Court otherwise
orders discovery of documents in a civil proceeding is to be in
accordance with the rules of the Court. The plaintiff sought to
invoke provisions of the Act to obtain Orders for the discovery of
insurance documents which would not normally be permitted and had
not been permitted in the past under the relevant Rule 29.

The Act provides broad discretion to a Court to order discovery to
satisfy the overarching purpose of the Act. The overarching purpose
of the Act as stated in s 7 included a purpose to "facilitate the
just, efficient, timely and cost-effective resolution of the real
issues in dispute". The plaintiffs argued that given the broad
powers in the Act the Court should exercise its discretion and
order the production of the insurance policies which would help in
settlement negotiations and to resolve the dispute. Insurance
documents the plaintiffs argued would assist them in assessing the
ability of the defendants to pay any settlement or judgment and
would facilitate the mediation process. It was said that this was
overall in the interests of justice, to enhance transparency in the
resolution and conduct of the proceeding and mitigate risk to the
plaintiffs. It also ensured that the Court's time was not wasted on
litigation that turned out to be pointless.

Justice Keogh hearing the matter ruled in favour of the defendants
and insurer. He found that discovery of insurance documents would
not be permitted.

His Honour took a traditional view of the purpose of discovery and
found that only documents that relate to a question or fact in
dispute on the pleadings between the parties must be discovered. He
was not prepared to provide an expansive interpretation of the Act
and make an order of the kind sought by the plaintiffs. His Honour
considered that there was nothing in the text of the Rules or the
Act for extending the court's powers to order discovery of
documents that are not related to the facts in issue. He considered
that insurance documents are confidential to the defendants and
insurer and that parties should not be obliged to disclose this
private information unless justice requires. He found that there
was generally no right of discovery of financial and insurance
documents simply for the purpose of examining a defendant's means,
in order to decide whether to settle or proceed with their case.

His Honour noted that discovery of insurance policies in the
circumstances of this claim was likely to cause an asymmetry in
bargaining positions that would prejudice the defendants and likely
the insurer. In other words, the plaintiffs would achieve an
advantage over the defendants. Accordingly, His Honour found the
Act and case management principles did not justify the production
of insurance policies in these circumstances.

As to the plaintiffs' submissions that they required the insurance
policies to assess any offer to be made at mediation and to advise
the Group Members, His Honour noted that a party at a mediation can
challenge assertions made by a defendant about a lack of financial
means or insurance, made to justify the quantum of an offer and
similarly it is in the interests of the party making an offer to
establish the truth of the asserted lack of financial means to
encourage acceptance of the offer. It is in the interests of the
party making the offer to produce sufficient information to
persuade a plaintiff of their capacity or non-capacity to pay a
settlement. This is a common approach to negotiations in our
experience.  

As to the risk that a defendant may positively mislead a party
about its capacity to pay a settlement of judgment, in
circumstances where a plaintiff cannot verify such assertions with
the benefit of insurance policies, His Honour noted that the
overarching obligations of the Act required the parties in civil
proceedings to act honestly and not mislead or deceive another
party. We know the court has a wide discretion under the Act to
penalise a party if such conduct was established. Further, there
are relevant professional conduct rules applicable to solicitors
and barristers in this regard.

The decision is welcome news for insurers and is consistent with
other decisions made in federal and state courts on the issue.
However, it should be noted that the insurer was not a party to the
proceeding. There was no issue between insurer and insured which
may justify an Order for the production of insurance policies. [GN]

HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $8.73MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Horizon Actuarial agreed to pay a
settlement of more than $8.73 million to resolve claims that it
failed to prevent a 2021 data breach.

The settlement benefits individuals whose personal information was
compromised in a Horizon Actuarial data breach that occurred in
November 2021.

According to the data breach class action lawsuit, Horizon
Actuarial failed to take reasonable cybersecurity measures that
could have prevented a November 2021 data breach. These failures
allegedly allowed hackers to access consumer names, Social Security
numbers, birth dates and plan information.

Horizon Actuarial is an actuarial consulting firm that specializes
in multiemployer plan benefits.

Horizon hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a
$8,733,446.36 settlement to resolve the data breach class action
lawsuit.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members who experienced
unreimbursed losses as a result of the data breach can receive up
to $5,000 in out-of-pocket loss reimbursement. In order to receive
this compensation, claimants must provide documentation of the
losses they sustained. Class members can also receive up to $125
for five hours of lost time compensated at a rate of $25 per hour.

All claimants are eligible for a one-time payment of around $50.
Claimants from California can receive an additional $50 payment.
However, these payments may be decreased depending on the number of
claims filed and the amount left in the settlement fund after fees,
costs and other deductions.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 22, 2024.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for
March 25, 2024.

In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Feb. 21, 2024.

Who's Eligible
Individuals whose personal information was compromised in a Horizon
Actuarial data breach that occurred in November 2021.

Potential Award
$5,225

Proof of Purchase
Receipts or other documentation of out-of-pocket losses.
"Self-prepared" documents, such as handwritten receipts, are not
sufficient documentation.

Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

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

Claim Form Deadline
02/21/2024

Case Name
Sherwood, et al. v. Horizon Actuarial Services LLC, Case No.
1:22-CV-01495-ELR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia

Final Hearing
03/25/2024

Settlement Website
HorizonDataSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Horizon Actuarial Settlement Administrator
PO Box 4298
Portland, OR 97208-4298
877-395-9210

Class Counsel
Terence R Coates
MARKOVITS STOCK & DEMARCO LLC

Gary M Klinger
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC

Kenya J Ready
MORGAN & MORGAN


Defense Counsel
John J Sullivan
Max E Kaplan
COZEN O'CONNOR

Hsiao C (Mark) Mao
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER [GN]

IANTHUS CAPITAL: February 20 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
If you are a person or entity, other than an "Excluded Person", who
acquired securities of iAnthus Capital Holdings Inc. ("iAnthus")
during the period from May 14, 2018 to and including April 5, 2020,
and who held some or all of those securities at the close of
trading on April 5, 2020 (defined as the "Class"), then this NOTICE
OF CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE OF HEARING FOR SETTLEMENT APPROVAL is
for you.

In 2020, a proposed securities class action was commenced against
iAnthus and two of its former officers in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice (the "Court"). It is alleged that during the
period from May 14, 2018 to and including April 5, 2020 (the "Class
Period"), the Defendants made misrepresentations or omissions
regarding iAnthus (whether contained in a public document or in an
oral statement), or permitted or acquiesced in such
misrepresentation(s) and/or omission(s). The parties have reached a
proposed settlement of the class action, which is subject to
approval by the Court (the "Agreement"). The Defendants do not
admit any wrongdoing or liability. The Agreement is a compromise of
disputed claims. This Notice provides a summary of the proposed
settlement.

Under the Agreement, the Defendants will pay or cause to be paid
CAD $500,000 (the "Settlement Amount") in full and final settlement
of all claims against them, including Class Counsel's fees and
disbursements, any approved honorarium, administrative expenses,
applicable taxes and interest, in exchange for a full release and a
dismissal of the class action. The Settlement Amount, less approved
Class Counsel's fees and disbursements, any approved honorarium,
administration expenses (such administrative expenses estimated to
be CAD $105,055 plus HST), taxes and interest will be distributed
to the Class on a pro rata share in accordance with the
Court-approved Plan of Allocation. It is estimated that the balance
of the Settlement Amount that will be available to be distributed
to the Class will be approximately CAD $200,000, inclusive of
interest earned upon the Settlement Amount less taxes applicable to
said interest. The Agreement and Plan of Allocation may be viewed
at www.iAnthusSecuritiesSettlement.ca.

There will be a hearing (the "Approval Hearing") in which Class
Counsel will request the Court to approve (i) the Agreement; (ii)
their legal fees and expenses; and (iii) an honorarium for the
representative Plaintiff in the amount of $15,000. The Approval
Hearing shall take place on February 20, 2024 via Zoom
video-conferencing.

At the Approval Hearing, the Court will determine whether the
Agreement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the
Class. At the Approval Hearing, Class Counsel will seek Court
approval of their request for fees equal to 30% of the Settlement
Amount (being CAD $150,000 plus HST) plus reimbursement of their
relevant expenses (estimated to be approximately CAD $1,000). Class
Counsel has been working under a contingency-fee agreement, has not
been paid as the matter has proceeded. Class Counsel will be
requesting that their legal fees and disbursements be deducted from
the Settlement Amount.

Class Members do not have to do anything to stay in the class
action. If the Court approves the Agreement and any benefits,
including the Settlement Amount available for distribution to the
Class, you will be notified about how to request your portion
thereof. If you stay in the Action, you will be legally bound by
all orders and judgments of the Court and will not be able to sue
the Defendants regarding the legal claims made in this case.
Conversely, if you opt-out of the proposed settlement you may
pursue your own action with your own lawyer at your own expense. A
copy of the long-form notice providing greater detail about the
settlement, including about Class Counsel's fees that will be
requested of the Court, your right to oppose the settlement, the
hearing of the motion to approve the settlement, and the right to
opt-out is available at www.iAnthusSecuritiesSettlement.ca. The
Opt-Out Form must be received on or before February 18, 2024 at
11:59 pm EST to be valid. Interested Class Members may submit their
email addresses to the website to stay informed of developments.

Any Class Member may participate in the Approval Hearing to object
to the Agreement or comment on the Agreement or Class Counsel's
request for fees, expenses or honorarium. If they intend to do so,
they are asked to email any objections or comments to Class Counsel
at info@MSinghLaw.ca no later than January 31, 2024.

You may obtain further information at
www.iAnthusSecuritiesSettlement.ca or contact the Administrator by
email addressed to: info@iAnthusSecuritiesSettlement.ca.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has authorized distribution
of this Notice.

Questions about this Notice should NOT be directed to the Court.
[GN]

IOOF: Judge Tosses Shareholders' Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Miklos Bolza, writing for Australian Associated Press, reports that
a class action against IOOF has been knocked down after a judge
dismissed claims shareholders overpaid for the firm's shares when
it failed to publicly reveal misconduct.

While IOOF was aware of internal problems such as potentially
improper share trading, plagiarism and compliance breaches, there
was no evidence of anything systemically wrong at the wealth
management company, the Federal Court found.

"The evidence as a whole, does not rise to the level of
establishing a problem with IOOF's culture, systems, governance and
compliance during the relevant period," Justice Stewart Anderson
wrote in a judgment on Dec. 20.

Any information about issues that was true and known by IOOF did
not have to be disclosed publicly and would not have impacted its
share price, the judge said.

A spokesperson from Insignia Financial, the company formerly known
as IOOF, told AAP the firm was pleased to have successfully
defended the claims which it has consistently maintained were
without merit.

"The allegations were all historical, relating to matters which are
more than a decade old," she said.

"They were investigated, and disproved or addressed at the time."

The Shine-led class action was brought in February 2020 by lead
applicant John Douglas McFarlane against Insignia Financial, the
company formerly known as IOOF.

Mr McFarlane's accusations that IOOF breached its continuous
disclosure obligations and engaged in misleading or deceptive
conduct were rejected.

The lawsuit sought compensation, interest and legal costs for
investors, who alleged they purchased shares in the firm at
inflated prices because it failed to disclose material
information.

The issues were brought to light internally by a whistleblower in
March 2014 and later publicly disclosed in mid-2015 in a number of
media articles and statements from IOOF managing director Chris
Kelaher in senate estimates.

On Dec. 20, Justice Anderson found Mr McFarlane had failed to prove
a number of allegations against IOOF, including that its staff
engaged in insider trading or that it failed to mitigate risks in
its business model.

Other information shown to be true -- such as the plagiarism of
third-party research reports -- would not have affected the firm's
reputation or share price, the judge said.

Details of two financial planners working for IOOF subsidiary
Bridges Financial Services being banned by ASIC were already
publicly available, Justice Anderson said.

While one had been imprisoned and this was not known generally, the
information was not something that would have affected the firm's
share price, he said.

Mr McFarlane had not provided a rational foundation for any claim
to damages as he did not show how details in the media reports and
Mr Kelaher's statements actually contributed to a subsequent drop
in IOOF's share prices, the judge said.

Shine's joint head of class actions Craig Allsopp said the firm
would review the judgment and consider whether to appeal.

Litigation funder LLS Fund Services is financially backing the
class action and will be liable for paying any legal costs ordered
by the court. [GN]

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Tylenol Class Actions Pending in Courts
----------------------------------------------------------
Christy Bieber, J.D. and Adam Ramirez, J.D. disclosed that Tylenol
is one of the most widely used pain-killers across the world.
Recent studies have suggested a potential link between maternal use
of acetaminophen (its active ingredient) and an increased autism
risk.

In response to the concern that acetaminophen could cause autism to
develop in children, some parents have begun filing thousands of
claims against drug manufacturers as well as against retailers who
sold the drug.

If you suspect you may have a claim because your child developed
autism after being exposed to it in the womb, this guide explains
the status of the Tylenol autism lawsuits.

What Are the Tylenol Autism Lawsuits?
In the medical journal, Nature Reviews Endocrinology, a group of 91
leading medical experts issued a Consensus Statement in September
of 2021.

The statement warned of the potential link between acetaminophen
(also called paracetamol) and autism. It summarized the growing
body of research indicating that extensive use of acetaminophen
during pregnancy could increase the likelihood of an autism
spectrum diagnosis in a baby.

In response to the mounting evidence, some parents and families
began taking action and filing claims against manufacturers and
retailers. This included Walmart, but not Johnson & Johnson
(manufacturer of the brand name Tylenol) at the time. Plaintiffs
claimed, among other things, that the defendants failed to warn
them of the dangers of their products.

How Are the Lawsuits Linking Tylenol and Autism Progressing?
Because so many people use Tylenol, many cases are being filed.
Subsequently, a class action was certified in 2022. And a number of
Tylenol lawsuits were moved into a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL).

A class action means a large group of plaintiffs all come together
to bring one big claim. By contrast, plaintiffs retain their
individual claims in an MDL but all of the cases are moved so they
are heard by one judge to simplify and streamline the process of
handling so many cases at once.

While Walmart sought to have the case against it dismissed, arguing
that FDA rules prevented additional warning labels, the court was
not responsive to these efforts. Legal proceedings continued in the
MDL, including the approval of a short form complaint plaintiffs
could use to more easily join the case as well as the creation of a
discovery plan to focus on the collection of documents showing
scientific evidence about prenatal exposure risks.

By August of 2023, hundreds of claims were pending in federal
courts and additional defendants had been named including Johnson &
Johnson, Family Dollar, 7-Eleven and Dollar Tree. Many cases were
also pending in state courts, proceeding separately from the
federal multidistrict litigation.

A Causation Hearing Could Shape Future Cases
With cases mounting, defendants raised challenges as to whether
testimony from the plaintiff's experts should be admitted that
attempts to establish the link between acetaminophen and autism.
These challenges were to be addressed at a Daubert hearing, which
is named after a pivotal case called Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. That case helps establish the criteria for
when scientific research and evidence is admissible in court.

The Daubert hearing was held in early December and, on December 19,
the judge ruled to exclude the evidence the plaintiffs hope to
present.

This finding by the judge establishes that the scientific evidence
linking acetaminophen use to autism is inadmissible in federal
court. It is likely that all federal cases in this matter,
including the MDL, will be dismissed. Lawsuits will, however,
continue in state courts.

Should You Join an Acetaminophen Lawsuit?
Acetaminophen lawsuits are a type of product liability claim. In
product liability claims, it is not necessary to prove the
defendant was negligent in order to recover compensation. If there
was a flaw in the design or manufacture of the product or a failure
to warn of its dangers, plaintiffs can pursue a claim for
compensation for resulting damages.

If you wish to sue, though, you do need to prove a causal link
between your use of the product as intended and the harm that
resulted. If you used Tylenol or other acetaminophen products when
pregnant and your child was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder
or ADHD, you may be able to prove this causal link due to the
scientific studies showing a tylenol/autism connection.

You could potentially become part of the class action or
multidistrict litigation, or could independently pursue your case.
If you used the medication for a prolonged period, or if your child
developed autism despite a lack of pregnancy complications or a
lack of family history of the disease, you may have a stronger
claim.

An experienced product liability lawyer can help you to determine
what your best option is with regards to making a case for
compensation.

Compensation in a Tylenol Lawsuit
Many large-scale product liability claims are resolved through a
settlement. In fact, one purpose of a MDL is for bellwether trials
(representative trials) to move forward so both the plaintiff and
defendants can get an idea of how strong their cases are and what
compensation might be awarded by a court. This can help to
determine an appropriate settlement.

If cases settle and you are part of the class action or
multi-district litigation, your compensation will be determined
based on the terms of the settlement as well as how severely your
family was affected. It is possible you could recover tens or even
hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation. [GN]

KEEFE COMMISSARY: Court Okays $11.6MM Deal in Debit Cards Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal court in Washington
state approved an $11.6 million settlement that ends a class action
brought by formerly incarcerated citizens who say they were forced
to pay unreasonable, excessive fees on prepaid debit cards instead
of having their confiscated cash returned to them. The settlement
amount represents almost 40% of the estimated actual damages, a
"significantly higher" figure than most class settlements.

The case is styled JEFFREY REICHERT and GARY MOYER, v. KEEFE
COMMISSARY NETWORK, L.L.C. d/b/a ACCESS CORRECTIONS; RAPID
INVESTMENTS, INC., d/b/a RAPID
FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, d/b/a ACCESS FREEDOM; and CACHE VALLEY BANK.
(Case No. 17-cv-05848) (W.D. Wash.) [GN]



LIDO DAO: Faces Class Action in California Over LDO Token
---------------------------------------------------------
Jessie A Ellis, writing for Blockchain, reports that Lido DAO, a
decentralized autonomous organization governing the liquid staking
protocol Lido, is currently embroiled in a class-action lawsuit.
The lawsuit, filed by former LDO holder Andrew Samuels, alleges
that Lido's LDO token is an unregistered security and holds Lido
DAO liable for the financial losses incurred due to the token's
price decline.

Lido is a prominent protocol in the blockchain ecosystem, enabling
users to stake their Ether (ETH) and receive staking rewards. Users
get a derivative token called stETH, which can be utilized in
various applications. The Lido DAO, comprising LDO token holders,
is responsible for governance decisions within this protocol. Lido
stands out in the DeFi space, having locked more than $19 billion
worth of cryptocurrency in its contracts, marking it as the largest
in terms of total value locked for any liquid staking derivative.

Details of the Lawsuit

The class-action lawsuit was filed in a San Francisco United States
District Court on December 17, 2023. Andrew Samuels, the plaintiff,
is a resident of Solano County, California. He asserts that the LDO
token, governed by Lido DAO, is an unregistered security according
to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's criteria. The
lawsuit includes defendants such as Lido DAO, AH Capital Management
LLC, Paradigm Operations LP, Dragonfly Digital Management LLC, and
Robot Ventures LP. These entities are alleged to hold significant
control over LDO tokens, limiting the influence of regular
investors on governance issues.

The Core Allegation

Samuels' main contention is that the Lido DAO began as a general
partnership led by institutional investors, later transitioning to
public token sales for potential exit opportunities. The lawsuit
alleges that centralized exchanges were persuaded to list LDO
tokens, leading to their purchase by Samuels and other investors.
Following the listing, the token's price fell, leading to
significant losses for these investors. The complaint leverages a
statement from SEC Chair Gary Gensler, suggesting that the LDO
token is a security because it involves a group between the tokens
and investors, with the public expecting profits from this group's
actions.

The case, filed under case number 4:2023cv06492, is being presided
over by Judge Donna M. Ryu in the US District Court for the
Northern District of California. It focuses on allegations of
securities fraud under 15 U.S.C. Section 77. The outcome of this
lawsuit could have significant implications for the Lido DAO, LDO
token holders, and the broader DeFi and blockchain community,
particularly regarding the classification and regulation of tokens
as securities. [GN]


LOVESAC CO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 20
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of securities of The Lovesac Company (NASDAQ: LOVE)
between March 30, 2023 and August 16, 2023, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been
filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the
Court no later than February 20, 2024.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Lovesac class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18449 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 20, 2024.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Lovesac's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Lovesac did not properly account for last mile
shipping and freight expenses; (2) accordingly, Lovesac's
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting were ineffective and deficient; (3) as a result
of all the foregoing, Lovesac overstated its gross profit and
operating and net income, as well as understated its shipping and
handling costs and accrued freight and shipping expenses, in its
previously issued financial statements; (4) accordingly, Lovesac
was likely to restate one or more of its previously issued
financial statements; and (5) as a result, Lovesac's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

To join the Lovesac class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18449 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

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

MENARD INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Jan. 25, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shoemaker v. Menard Inc.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-04089 (W.D. Mo., Filed June 10, 2022), the Hon.
Judge M. Douglas Harpool entered an order granting motion for
extension of time to complete discovery and class certification due
to ongoing settlement negotiations:

-- All pre-trial discovery as to class          Jan. 25, 2024
    certification shall be completed by:

-- Plaintiff shall file all motions             Jan. 25, 2024
    seeking class certification by:

-- The Defendants shall file any responsive     Feb. 26, 2024
    motions objecting to class certification
    by:

The nature of suit states Torts - Personal Damage Product
Liability.

Menard is an American home improvement retail company.[CC]

META PLATFORMS: Faces Age Discrimination Class Action Over Job Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Missakian, writing for AARP, reports that AARP Foundation
lawyers have joined a pending class action charge against social
media giant Meta, alleging that technology the company uses to
decide what job advertisements show up on Facebook discriminates
against women and older job seekers.

REAL Women in Trucking (RWIT), a group representing female truck
drivers, filed the charge with the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunities Commission (EEOC) in December 2022 against Facebook's
parent company, Meta Platforms. It alleges that the algorithm the
company employs to target ads to its social media users steered
some job ads away from women and older workers, a violation of
federal employment laws.

According to the charge, the algorithm failed to show employment
ads to older adults and women if the job was stereotypically
associated with men or younger workers, such as truck drivers and
mechanics.

By intentionally excluding older workers from seeing many job
advertisements based on "ageist assumptions," Meta's algorithm is
"further fortifying the already significant barriers" older adults
face in the job market, AARP Foundation lawyers wrote in a filing
with the EEOC.

This is not the first time Facebook has been accused of
discrimination over how it targets job ads. In 2019, the company
settled multiple lawsuits alleging it was permitting advertisers on
its website to direct ads only to people who fit certain
characteristics.

The latest charge, pending before the EEOC, alleges Facebook's
algorithm steers the ads away from older workers and women even if
this is not what the employer who paid for the ads asked for or
intended.

"Age and gender discrimination have been pervasive in hiring
practices for too long, and new technologies are creating even more
barriers that keep qualified older job seekers out of the
workforce," said William Alvarado Rivera, senior vice president for
litigation at AARP Foundation. "This case aims to ensure older
adults have equal footing during their job search, regardless of
the industry and any age or gender stereotypes that may be attached
to that industry." [GN]

METHODE ELECTRONICS: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 20
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of Methode Electronics, Inc. (NYSE: MEI) resulting
from allegations that Methode may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Methode securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21318 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On July 14, 2023, Methode announced that "[o]n
July 10, 2023, Joseph Khoury was placed on leave from his position
as Chief Operating Officer." The announcement added that
"[Khoury's] powers, authority and duties as such officer of the
Company were suspended."

Then, on December 7, 2023, Methode announced that "[o]n December 5,
2023, the Board of Directors of Methode Electronics, Inc. (the
'Company') removed Joseph Khoury from his position as Chief
Operating Officer of the Company, and Mr. Khoury was terminated as
an employee of the Company's Egyptian subsidiary and is no longer
associated with the Company." The announcement explained that
"multiple other officers of the Company have assumed Mr. Khoury's
management duties during this period, while remaining in their
current positions and as a result, the Company has eliminated the
position of Chief Operating Officer for the present time."

On this news, the price of Methode stock fell $2.26 per share, or
9%, to close at $22.13 on December 7, 2023.

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

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

CONTACT:

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

MGS MFG GROUP: Hunt Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------
PAUL HUNT, on behalf of himself and  all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MGS MFG. GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-1640
(E.D. Wis., December 7, 2023) alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws.

In approximately January 2023, Defendant hired Plaintiff as an
hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of machine
operator working at its Germantown, Wisconsin location. According
to the complaint, the Defendant operated an unlawful compensation
system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all
other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all
hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an
overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek, by shaving time from Plaintiff's and all other
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift
and post-shift hours worked and/or work performed. Moreover,
Plaintiff seeks relief under the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any
such other relief the court may deem appropriate.

Based in Germantown, WI, MGS Mfg. Group, Inc. manufactures medical
parts. [BN].

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NAVY FEDERAL: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Roberts, writing for BET, reports that a new class-action
lawsuit accuses the Navy Federal Credit Union, the largest credit
union in the nation, of racial discrimination in its home mortgage
practices.

Civil rights attorneys Ben Crump and Adam Levitt filed the federal
lawsuit Sunday (Dec. 17) on behalf of Black plaintiffs. Navy
Federal rejected their home loans despite them having stellar
credit ratings and high income.

According to the lawsuit, Navy Federal violated the Fair Housing
Act of 1968 and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which prohibit
lending discrimination based on race.

The lawsuit cites a CNN analysis published Thursday (Dec. 14). It
found that the credit union had the widest mortgage approval rate
disparity between white and Black borrowers in 2022.

"The outright discrimination that occurs when Banking While Black
continues to reveal itself in the lending practices of many of
America's largest financial institutions," Crump stated.

"It is shameful that Navy Federal, an organization that prides
itself in helping the families of men and women who served their
country, does not give their Black and Latino customers the same
opportunities as White customers."

CNN's investigation found a nearly 30 percent gap between Navy
Federal's home mortgage approval rate between White and Black
members. While the data don't prove discrimination, it goes a long
way toward explaining why the credit union rejected Cherelle Jacob
and Laquita Oliver's applications.

Jacob, a 40-year-old teacher with a Master's degree, and her
husband, who is in the armed services, together "make approximately
$200,000 in salary, have no debt, have ample savings, and both have
'exceptional' credit scores above 800," according to the complaint.


Oliver, 44, is a capital improvement project analyst who "makes
approximately $100,000 per year in salary, has good credit, a
history of home ownership, and very little debt." Yet, Navy Federal
rejected the Miami-Dade County resident's application to support
purchasing a $400,000 home.

According to CNN's probe, the credit union approved applications
for 77 percent of whites, 56 percent of Latinos and 49 percent of
Blacks in 2022. The 28.6 percent gap between white and Black
applicants was the largest among 50 financial institutions. In its
analysis, CNN accounted for variables, including income,
debt-to-income ratio, property value, and down payment percentage.

In response, Navy Federal spokesperson Bill Pearson defended the
credit union's lending practices, telling CNN that it's "committed
to equal and equitable lending practices and strict adherence to
all fair lending laws."

He claimed that CNN failed to account for credit scores, cash
deposits and the applicants' history with the credit union.

CNN said that information is not available to the public, and the
credit union declined a request to share that data, adding that
Navy Federal rejected most applicants for reasons other than credit
history.

Navy Federal's alleged discriminatory practices are part of a
widespread problem in the mortgage loan industry.

The New York Times reported a National Association of Real Estate
Brokers study released in 2022 found that lenders denied 15 percent
of Black home mortgage applicants compared to 6 percent of white
applicants. At the same time, Black borrowers relied on high-cost
loans nearly three times more than their white borrowers.

"We hope this legal action will stop racial lending discrimination
in its tracks and require Navy Federal to right their wrongs,"
Levitt said. "Home ownership is recognized as the cornerstone of
the American Dream. We will not sit by while that dream is denied
to hard-working and deserving Americans based on discriminatory
practices and algorithms." [GN]

NEW JERSEY: Edna Mahan Class Action Settlements Fall Short
----------------------------------------------------------
Colleen O'Dea, writing for NJ Spotlight News, reports that in April
of 2021, the New Jersey Department of Corrections announced a
settlement in a number of lawsuits filed by current and former
incarcerated women over years of alleged sexual harassment and
abuse at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women.

The settlement, the state said, would include up to $21 million in
payments to the women and their attorneys.

And touted in the announcement was the resolution of a class-action
lawsuit where the state would pay many women who had either been
incarcerated during an eight-year period or been subject to
harassment or sexual abuse.

A number of former inmates who say they were sexually assaulted by
corrections officers said they heard about the $21 million
settlement and thought they would be getting significant
compensation for the abuse they suffered at the hands of
corrections officers.

The actual amount given to women found to have suffered abuse
turned out to be much more modest: Most got an average of less than
$55,000.

The lawyers on both sides of the case were paid more than the women
who were sexually assaulted: $6.33 million vs. $5.7 million.

"They're in the news bragging about how they gave us over $20
million for the settlement. No, they didn't," said Lauren Bianco,
who spent about five years at the Hunterdon County women's prison
and reported having been sexually assaulted numerous times by two
different corrections officers. "The state of New Jersey is
responsible for not protecting us from their officers . . . and now
you give them the power to not only dictate our money, but to
disperse it to us and then steal it from us?"

At the time the settlement was announced, operations at the state's
only women's prison and then-DOC Commissioner Marcus Hicks were
under intense scrutiny over both physical and sexual abuse at Edna
Mahan. The state Senate passed without opposition a bipartisan
resolution urging Hicks to resign or be removed.

Federal investigation
The U.S. Department of Justice launched an investigation into the
prison in 2018, following several guilty pleas by and convictions
of corrections officers and civilian staffers for sexual abuse of
10 female inmates. It issued a scathing report in April 2020,
citing a "pattern of abuse" at the facility and stating that the
DOC "fails to keep prisoners at Edna Mahan safe from sexual abuse
by staff."

Nine months later, in January 2021, the state was still negotiating
a settlement with the Justice Department over these civil rights
violations when Edna Mahan officers seriously injured two women --
one was punched 28 times -- during overnight extractions of some
inmates from cells. In all, 15 officers, including the associate
administrator overseeing the prison that night, have been indicted
on charges of physical assault or covering up the assaults, with a
superseding indictment in the case that added the 15th defendant in
November.

On the eve of Hicks' testimony before a joint Assembly committee in
April 2021, his first since the January assaults, the Corrections
Department issued two press releases. One stated that the
department was implementing a body-worn camera system, initially as
a pilot at Edna Mahan, funded in part by a $250,000 grant from the
DOJ. The other announced the settlement of civil litigations,
including a class-action lawsuit, against the Corrections
Department and its administration dating back to 2017 that would
provide "up to $20,835,600 in damages and attorneys' fees" to women
directly impacted by sexual misconduct or even just incarcerated at
Edna Mahan between 2014 and the settlement date.

Complex legal settlements
The way the court handled the suits was complex, with some
individuals' claims settled separately and others combined with the
class-action suit.

Almost half of the money would go to settle individual suits
against the state, a fact that was not made clear in the state's
announcement. The DOC has not answered questions about the number
of other suits or the dispositions of those, although one document
filed with the court indicates there were more than 10 separate
suits and several women received more than $500,000 each in
settlements.

That left close to $11 million for the class-action suit. That
lawsuit contended that women at Edna Mahan had suffered years of
emotional, and in some cases, physical, distress. It sought
monetary compensation and reforms at the prison. Settlement
documents filed with the court in 2021 indicated that the state of
New Jersey would pay "not more than $7,985,600 in the aggregate" to
all the women in the class.

"I will tell you that doing any kind of corrections litigation, one
of the things you're really struck with … is just how difficult
it is, in terms of having access to resources, whether it's
housing, whether it's reentry, education programs," said Oliver
Barry, one of the lawyers for the women. "My hope is whether it's a
lot or a little, that can be a help to some people."

Attorney fees
The court awarded several attorneys named as class counsel $3
million to cover fees and expenses. In response to an Open Public
Records Act request, the New Jersey attorney general's office
provided a statement of invoices indicating that the state has paid
the outside lawyers it hired to handle the case, the Chiesa
Shahinian and Giantomasi law firm, $3.33 million for work between
June 17, 2019 and Oct. 30 of this year.

The settlement agreement in the class-action suit, filed with the
court in June 2021, created three tiers of class members, with each
tier being provided a different amount in the settlement. Tier 1
members, defined as anyone incarcerated at Edna Mahan during the
seven-year period covered, 2014 to 2021, would be eligible for
between $1,020 and $2,920. Those who were subject to sexual
harassment -- including verbally and, for example, being watched in
the shower -- would be assigned to Tier 2 and eligible for at least
the same amount as if they were in Tier 1 and no more than $4,500.
Women who suffered sexual assault or abuse would be placed in Tier
3 and could receive up to $250,000. They would have to submit
documentation supporting a claim and a special master appointed by
the court would decide the merits of each claim during a hearing.

Terms and compensation under the
Edna Mahan settlement
The terms of the class action lawsuit settlement involving women
incarcerated in the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women
promised a maximum payout to women who were sexually assaulted of
$250,000. Women got much less. The graphic shows the terms of the
settlement and what women actually received.

Five women who had filed some of the original lawsuits were named
"class representatives." Each of them received a $50,000 "incentive
award," so a total $250,000 was set aside for that purpose. This is
a common practice in class-action suits, to recognize the
additional effort of those who essentially started the litigation,
said David Noll, a Rutgers University law professor who is an
expert on class-action lawsuits.

But there were other details of the settlement -- which were not
publicized and not fully understood by many of the women who stood
to receive compensation -- that made it likely the amount received
by those who experienced abuse firsthand would never reach the
maximum $250,000 allowed.

The settlement provided that the class representatives and Tier 1
members, who did not experience sexual harassment or assault
firsthand, be paid first. Whatever was left from the $8 million
settlement pot of money would then be distributed among those in
Tiers 2 and 3, who were either harassed or sexually assaulted.

Actual amounts given to the 1,465 individuals who submitted claims
have been sealed by the court.

But the special master awarded more money to the women than was
available. The totals provided to women in Tiers 2 and 3 were
smaller than the amounts that had been awarded by the special
master engaged to hear the women's claims and determine how much
they should receive. The special master had awarded $447,000 to
those in Tier 2 and almost $9.9 million to those in Tier 3 who had
proven they had been assaulted. In total, the state paid the women
in Tiers 2 and 3 $4.2 million less than the special master awarded
them.

Missed payment deadlines
The payments also came later than originally expected. Initially,
court documents had envisioned women being compensated last year.
When that didn't happen, attorneys for the women went back to court
to ask a judge to order the state to pay, saying the state did not
devote enough resources to searching for outstanding liens against
the women and thus the payouts were being delayed. The Corrections
Department had assigned just one staff member to perform all the
lien searches. Under an order issued March 7, Superior Court Judge
Haekyoung Suh found DOC's failure to meet the payment deadline
without seeking a court extension to be "inexcusable" but "not
willful" so she gave the state until May 15 to pay all those in
Tier 1, with everyone else to be paid by June 15 and ruled that if
that didn't happen, the state might have to pay an additional 2.25%
to each woman.

The state missed the May 15 deadline as well, but its outside
attorney, Matthew Beck of the Chiesa Shahinian and Giantomasi law
firm argued that the Corrections Department could not meet those
deadlines due to circumstances "beyond their control." Those
circumstances included, the lawyer said, inaccurate court records,
saying that close to 1,000 women had received Tier 1 payments and
the ones that remained had missing information. The judge gave the
state until July 15 to pay all the remaining Tier 1 claim amounts
and additional time to pay the others. Barry, one of the attorneys
for the women in the class-action suit, said he thought all, or
almost all, of the women have been paid.

But it wasn't until a court filing dated May 30 that it became
clear the women in the higher tiers would not be receiving the
maximum amounts they had been expecting. The filing noted that
after those in Tier 1 were paid, there was only $5.8 million left
for those in the other tiers. Noting that the special master had
approved $10.3 million in awards, court documents stated that every
woman in tiers 2 and 3 would receive only 56.5% of the amount which
she was originally awarded.

The lower settlement awards were not the result of an
underestimation of the number of women impacted, Amy Z. Quinn, the
director of public information for the Corrections Department,
said.

"The amount of class damages and the method of allocation were
negotiated by the NJDOC and class counsel during mediation before a
retired federal judge," Quinn said, adding that all claims were
paid according to that agreement and then prorated because the
special master's awards exceeded the amount available under the
settlement.

Barry said there is a silver lining to the fact that higher award
amounts had to be cut; it means that outreach to women impacted was
successful and that a large number of women would get at least some
compensation and no money would revert back to the state.

"It was a great return rate, meaning that there was a percentage
reduction because enough people came forward," he said. "And the
special master found enough of them credible that he did not deny a
lot of those claims.

"Would I have liked to have seen a greater amount that was
available for class claimants? Absolutely," Barry continued. "But
this was not something, obviously, where the state rolled over and
agreed to a settlement . . . So I have two minds about it. I would
have always liked in any case -- particularly this one -- for
everyone to always get more, not that more is ever going to be
enough. On the other hand, I am pleased that it was set up in such
a way that it reached and was able to touch a lot of people and
that there wasn't a reverter of the state just getting their money
back. I'm very happy about that."

As for why the settlement provided for the payment to all women who
had spent time in Edna Mahan first, rather than to those who
suffered actual sexual assault first, Barry said, "These are just
some of the settlement things that you try to hash out."

Noll said it is common in class-action settlements for people in
the class to receive less money than they originally had been told
to expect. Frequently, a fund is established to settle all claims
for a fixed amount, regardless of the number of claimants.

Women not given details
Most women were not told the amount to which they were entitled, as
determined by the special master and so are unsure of how much less
they are getting than the special master had recommended.

Bianco, however, had an email from the settlement administrator in
June 2022 telling her she would receive a check "in the near future
which is expected to be in the amount of $250,000 as a tier 3
maximum payout." When she finally received her settlement check on
July 15, it was for $81,911, less than a third of the $250,000
maximum she had been told to expect.

"I'm expecting a $250,000 payout by July 15," she said. "But when I
got my check, finally, it wasn't even the 56%. They took another
$60,000-something from me."

Deductions made to satisfy liens
A small amount of the difference is about $2,800 in liens deducted
from all settlements that exceeded $2,000. Fees were subtracted to
pay for any child support, motor vehicle or tax liens against the
women in the settlement found because of a records search; the
women even had to pay a $10 fee to cover the cost of the search.

There was also a deduction for "NJDOC Liens." A number of women
reported these totaled more than $2,000 and said they did not have
any such liens outstanding. No documentation was included
enumerating the fees. Quinn said the liens covered commissary
expenses, Victims of Crime Compensation Board charges and
court-ordered restitution and that DOC made sure the amounts
withheld were accurate.

"Before funds were distributed, each member of the class's accounts
was audited by NJDOC's Central Office Revenue Unit and any fines or
penalties owed to NJDOC not previously collected were deducted from
the amount of the final settlement payment amount," she said.

In Bianco's case, Quinn said additional court-imposed fines of
$2,685 were added to her record last February after the department
audited four systems that have information about indictments, fines
and collections.

Quinn did not explain why DOC did not provide a full accounting to
the women of the liens against them.

Impossible to figure out
In June 2022, Barry had complained in court papers that the state
"has not provided sufficient documentation to ascertain what the
asserted claim or lien represents," thus making it impossible to
tell if the money was being properly withheld. He and another
attorney sought to have the court require the state to reimburse
some of the class representatives and women they represented
separately, contending that some of the liens were "unenforceable."
They were disputing about $155,000 withheld from 14 women or an
average of $11,000 per woman. Among these were fees for
representation by the state Office of the Public Defender that were
more than 10 years old and, thus, no longer collectible. The public
defender's office subsequently waived those liens, but a judge
ruled the rest of the fees had been properly withheld. For 11
individuals who received individual settlements, that totaled more
than $144,000 or an average of 3% of their awards.

Bianco has a number of health issues and an infant and was counting
on the $250,000 she had been told she would receive. She planned to
pay bills and help with a fledgling business. This, she said, all
feels like a betrayal.

"First of all, they paid all of Tier 1 their money first and they
got every cent of their money and then they decided they didn't
have enough money to give out the rest of the amounts that people
were awarded," Bianco said. "Tier 3 were the people that were
actually assaulted, that actually had endured something from the
officers, and we had to go in front of a special master and tell
our story and he was the one deciding our payout. I did this whole
hour-and-a-half-long interview that was super traumatic, with this
man that was in charge of everything. I told my story. A couple of
weeks later, I find out that I'm getting $250,000 and so it's just
a waiting game at that point.

"It's literally my only chance at being able to take care of this
baby and get on our feet," she added.

Other complaints
Other women complained about the Correction Department's fee
reductions and what they considered to be smaller checks than they
thought they were eligible to receive.

"Nothing happened to the officers who assaulted us, at least not
the officer in my case," said Toni Sissler, who said she received a
payment of about $28,000. "The five girls (who were class
representatives) got $250,000 and got paid first. We went through
the same things . . . and we have nothing to show for it."

Another woman, who is still incarcerated and asked that her name
not be used, appears to have been placed in Tier 2 and said she had
more than $1,500 in liens withheld, "but they will not tell us what
for or what was taken and we can't ask them."

And the women likely have little or no recourse.

Women had to join the class action or opt out of it, by Jan. 10,
2022. On joining the settlement, a woman had to sign a document
stating she could not further sue the state regarding sexual
harassment or assault. Noll of Rutgers University said such a
stipulation is typical for class-action settlements. It is unclear,
though, whether that prevents someone from suing based on actual or
perceived problems with the settlement.

An unknown number of women opted out of the settlement and the
status of those is unknown.

"I would have never signed on if I knew they were going to cut the
payout," Bianco said.

While some women did not get the amount they expected, Barry said
he hopes the money will help all the women in some way.

"There was no amount of money that is ever going to be enough for
anyone in this kind of situation," he said. "A lot of people we
were able to reach. We were able to make some really positive new
law and we were able to recover something for people to help turn a
page on a pretty dark chapter in their lives. No amount of money
fixes this or makes it okay. And I am particularly aware of that."
[GN]

NORTON HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Ransomware Attack
------------------------------------------------------------
Noelle Friel and Derek Brightwell, writing for WAVE, report that a
new class action lawsuit has been filed against Norton Healthcare.

The lawsuit is about the ransomware attack in May that leaked the
information of 2.5 million Norton patients, including social
security numbers, contact information, drivers license numbers and
more, the company said in a letter to those impacted.

One of the patients who received that letter was Shelly Harman.

Her son, now a senior at Seneca High School, has a congenital
disorder causing chronic pain in his foot. He underwent an MRI
earlier this year to learn if he would need to undergo another
surgery.

After the data breach, Shelly had to wait to learn the results of
the MRI for more than a month.

"We even went to the hospital to try to get them and once the
doctor did finally get them, they were only a partial result, it
wasn't the full result so that delayed us even further," Harman
said. "When you're dealing with pain, it's not very pleasant."

The lawsuit was filed by Margaret Garrett, one of the affected
patients. In it, Garrett is "seeking declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages,
equitable relief and all other relief authorized by law."

The lawsuit claims that Norton failed to "secure and safeguard
Plaintiff's and approximately 2.5 million other individuals'
personally identifiable information and personal health
information."

It's the second such lawsuit filed against Norton. The first came
in July and claims a former Norton employee and longtime patient
was informed after the attack that her private information was
found on the dark web, including her social security number and
credit card information.

The letter to patients says Norton is enhancing its security
safeguards.

While Shelly says she hasn't had any issues regarding her personal
information, she believes the company should do more to prevent
this from happening.

"Better protect our information," Harman said. "I wish it hadn't
happened." [GN]

NY AND CO: Mitchell Sues Over Unlawful Pricing, Sales Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
KANISHA MITCHELL and KIM MOSELEY, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. NY AND CO ECOMM LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; NY AND CO IP LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and SAADIA GROUP LLC, a New York limited
liability company, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-10117 (C.D. Cal.,
Dec. 1, 2023) is a class action lawsuit brought to address
Defendants' misleading and unlawful pricing, sales, and discounting
practices on its website, www. www.nyandcompany.com, in violation
of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California False
Advertising Law, and the California Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants advertise fake and
inflated comparison reference prices to deceive customers into a
false belief that the sale price is a deeply discounted bargain
price. Indeed, Defendants apply strikethrough pricing and "% off"
discounts to merchandise it describes as "New Arrivals," which
purportedly are newly added to the website, and therefore could not
have been listed for sale at the regular price for any substantial
period of time. All reference prices on the website for New York &
Co.-branded products are fake. They are not original, regular,
retail, or former prices. They are inflated prices posted to lure
consumers into purchasing items from Defendants, alleges the suit.

As a result, the Plaintiffs and other consumers are deceived into
spending money they otherwise would not have spent, purchasing
items they would not have purchased, and/or spending more money for
an item than they otherwise would have absent deceptive marketing,
the suit asserts.

NY and Co Ecomm LLC is an online retailer of clothing and
accessories, advertising and selling its company-branded products
through its website.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexander E. Wolf, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (872) 365-7060
          E-mail: awolf@milberg.com

PBM SUPPLY: Faces Obrien Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
CAMERON RILEY OBRIEN, an individual on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PBM SUPPLY & MFG INC., a
California corporation; PBM SUPPLY & MANUFACTURING, INC., a
business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 23CV03337 (Cal. Super., Butte Cty., Dec. 1,
2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff alleging that
Defendants, and each of them, violated various provisions of the
California Labor Code, relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare
Commission, and the California Business and Professions Code, and
seeking redress for these violations.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members
consistently worked at Defendants behest without being paid all
wages due. They were either not paid by Defendants for all hours
worked or were not paid at the appropriate minimum, regular and
overtime rates. The Plaintiff also contends that Defendants failed
to pay Class Members all wages due and owing, including by
requiring off the clock work, unlawfully rounding to their
detriment, failing to provide meal breaks, failing to furnish
accurate wage statements, failing to timely pay wages including
final wages, failing to maintain accurate records, and failing to
reimburse for necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly
employee within the State of California at any time from four years
prior to the filing of this lawsuit.

PBM Supply & Mfg. Inc. is a farm equipment supplier based in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Natalie Haritoonian, Esq.
          D.LAW, INC.
          880 E Broadway
          Glendale, CA 91205
          Telephone: (818) 962-6465
          Facsimile: (818) 962-6469

PORNHUB: Judge Certifies Child Sexual Abuse Victim's Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Koplowitz, writing for AL.com, reports that a federal judge
on Dec. 19 certified a class action lawsuit against Pornhub's
parent company led by a woman who was sexually abused as a child
five years ago in Alabama and whose rape was uploaded to the
pornography website.

Anyone who appeared in videos or images taken when they were under
18 years old that were available on Pornhub or other websites run
by Aylo, its parent company, from Feb. 12, 2011 through Tuesday,
Dec. 19, can join the class action lawsuit, ruled Chief U.S.
District Court Judge L. Scott Coogler in Tuscaloosa.

Aylo, formerly known as Mindgeek, said it would not comment on the
ruling "out of respect for the integrity of court proceedings.

"We look forward to the facts being fully and fairly aired in that
forum," the company told AL.com.

The woman, only identified in the lawsuit as Jane Doe, was 16 years
old when she was drugged and raped in 2018 by a Tuscaloosa man who
uploaded video of the sexual assault to PornHub.

Coogler noted in his ruling that the woman's abuser was convicted.

The lawsuit was also brought by a California victim whose abuse was
uploaded to Pornhub.

The victims contend Pornhub violated a number of laws, including
the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act , which
allows victims to sue entities in civil court who benefit from "a
venture that it should have known was engaged in a violation,
including that an act involving a child 18 years of age or under
constitutes a violation," according to their complaint.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs claim Pornhub did not make an effort to
check whether the Alabama victim was a minor or victim of rape or
sex trafficking.

They applauded Coogler's decision on Dec. 19 to allow the class
action case to move forward.

"We're gratified that the court has certified this class of
victim-survivors and look forward to holding Pornhub and its
related companies accountable for their actions," said Josh Hayes,
partner at Prince Glover Hayes, who represents the Alabama victim,
in a statement. "This is a team effort and we're grateful to all of
the firms who are partnering with us to represent Jane Doe and the
other survivors. Jane Doe's courage in representing the class
'helps more vulnerable [child] victims come forward with their
claims and potentially receive relief than might otherwise come
forward individually.'"

The lawsuit is the second in the country to be certified as a class
action against Pornhub's parent company. [GN]

PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Oguin Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joyce Oguin, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Progress Software Corporation, Arietis
Health, LLC, Anesthesia Consulting & Management, LP, NorthStar
Anesthesia of Missouri, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00817 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
Dec. 8, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-13025-ADB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Progress Software Corporation -- https://www.progress.com/ -- is an
American public company that produces software for creating and
deploying business applications.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER LPA
          4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
          Cincinnati, OH 45242
          Phone: (513) 345-8291
          Fax: (513) 345-8294
          Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

               - and -

          Kristen Anne Johnson, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1 Faneuil Hall Square, Ste. 5th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: (617) 482-3700
          Fax: (617) 482-3003
          Email: kristenj@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Sean R. Matt, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 2nd Ave, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          Email: sean@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: (816) 714-7100
          Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com


PROGRESSIVE AUTO: Must Face Class Action Over Vehicle Valuation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shweta Watwe, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a class of
Colorado residents who made total loss automobile policy claims
through Progressive Direct Insurance Company and received payment
based on a valuation using a projected sale adjustment rate was
certified by a federal court in a class action challenging the
adjustment rate.

The US District Court for the District of Colorado certified the
class on Dec. 18, following in the footsteps of at least three
other federal courts that certified similar classes in suits
challenging vehicle valuation adjustment rates earlier this year.

Michael Curran brought the class action after his car was totaled.
[GN]



PROGRESSIVE GULF: Wright Sues Over Failure to Return Deductible
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keondrae Wright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PROGRESSIVE GULF INSURANCE COMPANY and THE PROGRESSIVE
CORPORATION, Case No. 4:23-cv-00235-DMB-DAS (N.D. Miss., Dec. 11,
2023), is brought against the Defendant's violation of Mississippi
law by failing to return all of an insured's deductible to the
insured when Defendants recover the insured's deductible through
subrogation.

The Defendant's standard form insurance policy with Plaintiff and
members of the putative class provides. The Defendant Progressive
Gulf's contract and Defendants' conduct violates Mississippi's
"made whole" doctrine. The "made whole" doctrine provides that "an
insurer is not entitled to equitable subrogation until the insured
has been fully compensated." Further, Mississippi law provides that
its "made whole" doctrine cannot be overridden by the terms of
Defendant Progressive Gulf's insurance policy.

The Defendant violated Mississippi law and failed to keep its
contractual promise to apply Mississippi law when it recovered
Plaintiff's deductible through subrogation and then pro-rated the
amount of the deductible paid to Plaintiff. This business practice
was not random or isolated to Plaintiff, nor was it the result of a
mistake or ignorance of Mississippi law. Rather, the Defendant's
conduct is part of a common and uniform business practice and
protocol employed by it when subrogation recoveries are obtained
and deductibles are due to be returned to its Mississippi insureds,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff received a renewal automobile insurance policy ("auto
policy") from Defendant Progressive Gulf.

Progressive Gulf markets, sells, and underwrites automobile
insurance in the State of Mississippi. Progressive Gulf is owned by
Progressive.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Esq.
          James M. Terrell, Esq.
          METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C.
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: 205.939.0199
          Facsimile: 205.939.0399
          Email: rgm@mtattorneys.com
                 jterrell@mtattorneys.com

               - and -

          Joseph F. Murray, Esq.
          Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
          MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614.488.0400
          Facsimile: 614.488.0401
          Email: murray@mmmb.com
                 murphy@mmmb.com


RANCHO ESQUON: Faces Mathis Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
GARY RUSSELL MATHIS SR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RANCHO ESQUON, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, Defendants, Case No. 23CV03336 (Cal. Super., Butte
Cty., Dec. 1, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful
labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay for all hours
worked, failure to pay all overtime owed, failure to provide
compliant meal periods, failure to provide compliant rest periods,
wage statement penalties, waiting time penalties, retaliatory
practices and violation of unfair competition law.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Watermaster from 1999
to July 2023.

Rancho Esquon, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal
place of business located in Contra Costa County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manny Starr, Esq.
          Joseph Gross, Esq.
          FRONTIER LAW CENTER
          23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 1084
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 914-3433
          Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
          E-mail: manny@frontierlawcenter.com
                  Joseph@frontierlawcenter.com

RCI LLC: Stone Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RCI, LLC. The case is
styled as Shalina Stone, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. RCI, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00291-WMR (N.D.
Ga., Dec. 11, 2023).

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

RCI -- https://www.rci.com/ -- is a timeshare exchange company with
over 4,300 affiliated resorts in 100 countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RE/MAX LLC: Settles Burnett Class Action
-----------------------------------------
RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20, that its
subsidiary RE/MAX, LLC entered into a Settlement Term Sheet on
September 15, 2023 and a Settlement Agreement on October 5, 2023 to
resolve a pending litigation in a class action lawsuits brought by
Scott and Rhonda Burnett et al. in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri, Case No. 4:19-cv-00332-SRB.

On November 20, 2023, the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri granted preliminary approval of the
Settlement Agreement. It remains subject to final court approval
and will be effective following any appeals process, if
applicable.

Remax Holdings is a franchisor in the real estate industry under
the RE/MAX(R) brand and mortgage brokerages in the U.S. under the
Motto(R) Mortgage brand.


RE/MAX LLC: Settles Moehrl Class Action
----------------------------------------
RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20, that its
subsidiary RE/MAX, LLC entered into a Settlement Term Sheet on
September 15, 2023 and a Settlement Agreement on October 5, 2023 to
resolve a pending litigation in a class action lawsuits brought by
Christopher Moehrl et al. in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:19-cv-01610-ARW.

On November 20, 2023, the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri granted preliminary approval of the
Settlement Agreement. It remains subject to final court approval
and will be effective following any appeals process, if
applicable.

Remax Holdings is a franchisor in the real estate industry under
the RE/MAX(R) brand and mortgage brokerages in the U.S. under the
Motto(R) Mortgage brand.


RE/MAX LLC: Settles Nosalek Class Action
-----------------------------------------
RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20, that its
subsidiary RE/MAX, LLC entered into a Settlement Term Sheet on
September 15, 2023 and a Settlement Agreement on October 5, 2023 to
resolve the pending litigation in class action lawsuits brought by
Jennifer Nosalek et al. in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:20-cv-12244-PBS).

On November 20, 2023, the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri granted preliminary approval of the
Settlement Agreement. It remains subject to final court approval
and will be effective following any appeals process, if
applicable.

Remax Holdings is a franchisor in the real estate industry under
the RE/MAX(R) brand and mortgage brokerages in the U.S. under the
Motto(R) Mortgage brand.


ROCKET MORTGAGE: MacDonald Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rocket Mortgage LLC.
The case is styled as Darren MacDonald, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Rocket Mortgage LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-02558-DJH (D. Ariz., Dec. 11, 2023).

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

Rocket Mortgage, LLC -- https://www.rocketmortgage.com/ -- formerly
Quicken Loans, LLC, is an American mortgage lender, headquartered
in Detroit, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN PA
          400 NW 26th St.
          Miami, FL 33127
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

               - and -

          Nathanael Melvin Brown, Esq.
          BROWN PATENT LAW
          15100 N 78th Way
          Scottsdale, AZ 85260
          Phone: (602) 529-8347
          Email: nathan.brown@brownpatentlaw.com


SALEM COMMUNITY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Kamczyc, writing for 21WFMJ, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against the Salem Community Hospital and
Perry Johnson & Associated Inc. (PJ&A) over a data breach it said
occurred between March 2 and May 2.

About 9 million people were impacted by the data breach, according
to the lawsuit, which was filed on Dec. 20.

However, the victims of this data breach weren't alerted to the
incident until November.

The lawsuit, filed by Michael Stone and Leeanne Varner, claims the
defendants waited more than seven months to alert the victims of
the data breach and failed to tell them how many people were
impacted, how the breach happened, or why it took so long to alert
the victims.

" . . . Cybercriminals had unrestricted and unrestrained access to
Plaintiffs' and the Class's highly private Sensitive Information
for perhaps as much as
five weeks. Discovery may reveal that this occurred for a longer
period," the lawsuit claims.

The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, damages, and
restitution together with costs and attorney's fees.

According to PJ&A, a medical vendor that offers medical coding,
transcription, and reporting services to medical providers, the
data breach occurred with a medical transcription service provider
the hospital uses in Nevada.

Although the hospital has yet to file an answer to the complaint,
Debbie Pietrzak, vice president of marketing for the hospital, told
21 News earlier that the leaked data did not include any credit
card information. However, Salem Regional was not clear if any
social security numbers may have been accessed.

The letter from PJ&A states the files accessed contained names,
social security numbers, and one or more of the following: date of
birth, address, phone number, medical record, hospital account
number, and date/s of service.

PJ&A stated in a letter in November that the company is not aware
of any instances of fraud or identity theft involving the data
leak.

Despite this, the lawsuit claims the group's failure to notify the
victims promptly made them vulnerable to identity theft without any
warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to
prevent unauthorized use of sensitive information. [GN]

SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL: Pizana Suit Transferred to D. Utah
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Raul Pizana, Maureen Hobbs, Charles Berglund,
Jeanette Mills, Erica Laroche, Ann Marie Lynch, Oskar Laffont, Sal
Munoz, Keith Barnes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Sanmedica International LLC, Basic Research,
LLC, BR Cos, LLC, Basic Research Holdings, LLC, Basic Research
Intermediate, LLC, Sierra Research Group, LLC, Majestic Media, CRM
Specialists, LLC, Bydex Management, Limitless Worldwide, Novex
Biotech LLC, Bodee Gay, Gina Daines, Haley Blackett, Kimm
Humphries, Mitchell K. Friedlander, Case No. 1:18-cv-00644 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
on Dec. 8, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00889-DBP to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

SanMedica International, LLC develops and distributes anti-aging
products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Katherine A. Bruce, Esq.
          Lauren Anderson, Esq.
          Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
          Celine Cohan, Esq.
          Kelsey J. Elling, Esq.
          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM PC
          22525 Pacific Coast Hwy
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Phone: (213) 788-4050

               - and -

          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          Wesley M. Griffith, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 BROADWAY STE 1070
          OAKLAND, CA 94612
          Phone: (510) 254-6808
          Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com
                 wgriffith@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Matthew Thomas Theriault, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM PC
          9255 Sunset Boulevard, Ste. 804
          Los Angeles, CA 90069
          Phone: (213) 788-4050

The Defendant is represented by:

          David R. Parkinson, Esq.
          Jason M. Kerr, Esq.
          Ronald F. Price, Esq.
          Steven Garff, Esq.
          PRICE PARKINSON & KERR PLLC
          5742 W Harold Gatty Dr., Ste. 101
          Salt Lake City, UT 84116
          Phone: (801) 530-2900
          Fax: (801) 530-2959
          Email: davidparkinson@ppktrial.com
                 jasonkerr@ppktrial.com
                 ronprice@ppktrial.com
                 steven.garff@ppktrial.com

               - and -

          Lisa L. Boswell, Esq.
          Stephen Y. Ma, Esq.
          EARLY SULLIVAN WRIGHT GIZER AND MCRAE LLP
          6420 Wilshire Blvd. 17 FL
          Los Angeles, CA 90048

               - and -

          Christopher B. Sullivan, Esq.
          MITCHELL BARLOW & MANSFIELD PC
          9 Exchange Pl Ste 600
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Phone: (801) 998-8888
          Email: csullivan@mbmlawyers.com

               - and -

          Ryan M. Hemar, Esq.
          EARLY SULLIVAN WRIGHT GIZER AND MCRAE LLP
          6420 Wilshire Blvd., 17 FL
          Los Angeles, CA 90048
          Phone: (323) 301-4660

               - and -

          Chad E. Nydegger, Esq.
          WORKMAN NYDEGGER
          60 E South Temple, Ste. 1000
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Phone: (801) 533-9800
          Email: cnydegger@wnlaw.com

               - and -

          M. Elizabeth Day, Esq.
          DLP PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY US LLP
          2000 University Ave.
          East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2248
          Phone: (650) 833-2000


SANTANDER BANK: Almanzar Files Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Santander Bank, N.A.
The case is styled as Juan B. Almanzar, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Santander Bank, N.A., Case No.
1:23-cv-10706-AS (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act.

Santander Bank, N.A. -- https://www.santanderbank.com/ -- is an
American bank operating as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Spanish
Santander Group.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq.
          CONSUMER ATTORNEYS PLC
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (718) 770-7901
          Email: dcohen@consumerattorneys.com


SAVANNAH-CHATHAM COUNTY: Frazier Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
RANDOLPH FRAZIER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. SAVANNAH-CHATHAM COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM,
Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00346-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., December 7,
2023) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Savannah-Chatham County Public School System employs numerous
bus drivers such as Plaintiff who help transport he students. These
drivers are paid by hourly wages and certain bonuses at different
times throughout the school year. However, throughout Plaintiff's
and the other bus drivers' employment, SCCPSS failed to include all
bonuses in the regular rate of pay pursuant to the FLSA, says the
suit.

SCCPSS is a school district within the state of Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave, 15th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com

SOUTHEAST QSR: Maddox Files ADA Suit in S.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southeast QSR, LLC.
The case is styled as Lisa Maddox, M.D. individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Southeast QSR, LLC, Does 1 to
25, Case No. 1:23-cv-00185-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., Dec. 7, 2023).

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

Southeast QSR, LLC is a restaurants, and restaurants and bars
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John T. Stembridge, Esq.
          STEMBRIDGE TAYLOR LLC
          2951 Piedmont Road, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Phone: (404) 604-2691
          Email: john@stembridgetaylor.com


SPOILEDCHILD INC: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spoiledchild, Inc.
The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Spoiledchild, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-10719 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2023).

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

SpoiledChild -- https://www.spoiledchild.com/ -- is an e-commerce
company that sells hair products and skin products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 danalgottlieb@aol.com


T-MOBILE USA: Violates Consumers' Right to Free Speech, Juarez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND JUAREZ, ANTHONY FOSTER, ROXY LOPEZ, SHERRI SHERWOOD, and
RACHEL GALARSA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. T-MOBILE, USA Inc. and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV31225 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., December 20, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendant for violation of Civil Code Section 1670.8 and California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200.

According to the complaint, T-Mobile's Website Terms of Use
violated the law by requiring website users and visitors to agree
to its terms by visiting, shopping on, or using its platforms,
including but not limited to t-mobile.com and metrobyt-mobile.com.
The Defendants' conduct is unlawful because it is aimed to stifle
California consumers' right to free speech and the right of the
California public to hear lawful discourse. Moreover, T-Mobile
seeks to have users waive their right as consumers to make negative
statements regarding T-Mobile or its employees, agents, goods or
services, and further threatens to penalize consumers for making
such statements, says the suit.

T-Mobile, USA Inc. is an American wireless network operator
headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Christopher R. Rodriguez, Esq.
         Andrew D. Bluth, Esq.
         John R. Ternieden, Esq.
         Trent J. Nelson, Esq.
         SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP
         1414 K Street, Suite 470
         Sacramento, CA 95814
         Telephone: (916) 248-8478
         Facsimile: (619) 255-1515
         E-mail: crodriguez@singletonschreiber.com
                 abluth@singletonschreiber.com
                 jternieden@singletonschreiber.com
                 tnelson@singletonschreiber.com

TUFT AND NEEDLE: Licea CIPA Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSE LICEA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TUFT AND NEEDLE, LLC, a Delaware
entity d/b/a WWW.TUFTANDNEEDLE.COM, Case No. 23STCV28947, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on December 20, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-10648 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act by aiding and abetting several
spyware companies to use a pen register to access and obtain the
Plaintiff's IP address on his device.

Tuft and Needle, LLC is an American mattress and bedding
manufacturing company headquartered in Arizona. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Nick S. Pujji, Esq.
         Kimberly G.A. Dennis, Esq.
         DENTONS US LLP
         601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Telephone: (213) 623-9300
         Facsimile: (213) 623-9924
         E-mail: nick.pujji@dentons.com
                 kimberly.dennis@dentons.com

TW SERVICES: Ewing Sues Over Unfair Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------
BRITTNEY LEANN EWING, as an aggrieved employee, and on behalf of
all other aggrieved employees under the Labor Code Private
Attorneys' General Act of 2004, Plaintiff v. TW SERVICES, INC., a
California STOCK corporation; RICHARD LNU, an individual; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV29952 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 7, 2023) seeks to recover civil
penalties under the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the complaint, the Defendants had and have a policy or
practice of failing to provide Plaintiff and other aggrieved
employees a 30-minute uninterrupted, timely, and complete meal
period for days on which the employee worked in excess of five and
ten hours per day without being afforded uninterrupted, timely, and
complete 30-minute meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof
including, without limitation, by interrupting meal periods; not
providing timely meal periods; failing to provide first and second
meal periods; providing short meal periods; requiring that
employees carry cellular telephones or walkie-talkies during meal
periods; not permitting employees to leave the premises; otherwise
requiring on-duty/on-call meal periods; and auto-deducting meal
periods that could not be auto-deducted by law or during which
employees worked, as required by California wage and hour laws.

Based in California, TW Services, Inc. provides distribution
services throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
         Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
         Jared Walder, Esq.
         BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
         8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
         Beverly Hills, CA 90211
         Telephone: (310) 438-5555
         Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
         E-mail: david@tomorrawlaw.com
                 jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
                 jared@tomorrowlaw.com

UNITED STATES: Tucker Files Suit in S.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA, et al. The case
is styled as Travius Kentrell Tucker, and all others similarly
situated v. State of Illinois, Case No. 3:23-cv-03877-SMY (S.D.
Ill., Dec. 8, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

The U.S. -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- is a country of 50 states
covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the
northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the
Pacific Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Suit Over Misleading Medicare Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Estate Of Bibi Ahmad, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., United
Healthcare Inc., and DOES 1-50 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
8:23-cv-02303 (C.D. Cal., December 7, 2023) arises from the
misleading Medicare Advantage (MA) advertising practices of United
Healthcare and UnitedHealth Group and asserts claims against the
Defendants for, among other things, misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, breach of express warranty, and for violations of the
California Business and Professions Code.

According to the complaint, United's conscious non-disclosure of
material facts to their MA enrollees of their highly restricted and
shrinking MA network of participating hospitals and providers,
limited geographic area of services, substantially restricted
skilled nursing facility services, restricted specialist access,
prior authorization requirements and known improper denials,
pre-payment medical record reviews, and high rate of improper
payment denials are core to its oversized MA member enrollment. As
a result, United MA members incorrectly present and use their
government issued Original Medicare cards for services, which are
ultimately denied by OM and United -- and payment becomes the full
responsibility of the beneficiary to bear out-of-pocket, says the
suit.

Headquartered in Minnetonka, MN, UnitedHealth Group, Inc. is a
publicly held Delaware corporation that conducts insurance
operations nationwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Gloria Juarez, Esq.
           LAW OFFICES OF GLORIA JUAREZ
           28202 Cabot Road, Suite 300
           Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
           Telephone: (949) 288-3402
           E-mail: gloria@thegjlaw.com

USHEALTH ADVISORS: Human TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Daniel Human, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. USHealth Advisors, LLC, John and Jane
Does 1 through 9, Case No. 23SL-CC04820 was removed from the St.
Louis County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for Southern
District of Florida on Dec. 11, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-01586 to the
proceeding.

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

USHEALTH Group -- https://www.ushealthgroup.com/ -- is a leading
health coverage provider, offering affordable and personalized
plans for everyone looking for a custom coverage solution.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher D. Baucom, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP - St. Louis
          7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1800
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: (314) 621-5070
          Fax: (314) 621-5065
          Email: cbaucom@atllp.com


VACO LLC: Montenegro Alleges Misclassification, Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL D. MONTENEGRO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VACO LLC, a Tennessee limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01265 (M.D. Tenn.,
Dec. 1, 2023) alleges that Plaintiff and others similarly situated
were unlawfully misclassified as salaried-exempt employees and were
denied overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek at the rates required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed with Defendant from approximately
November 2022 through June 16, 2023 as a recruiter. He asserts that
in misclassifying him and similarly situated recruiters as exempt
from the overtime provisions of the FLSA, Defendant failed to
properly evaluate their actual job duties.

Vaco LLC is a management consulting company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC
          200 31st Ave North
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
               - and -

          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          Laura Supanich, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 824-3828
          E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
                  lms@melmedlaw.com

VALLEY NATIONAL: White Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Bridgette White, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Valley National Bancorp doing
business as: VALLEY BANK, Case No. 8:23-cv-01897 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 Dec.
8, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-13027-ADB to the
proceeding.

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

Valley National Bancorp doing business as Valley Bank --
https://www.valley.com/ -- is a regional bank holding company
headquartered in Morristown, New Jersey.[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 Defendant is represented by:

          Natalia Cristina San Juan, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2400-2500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (305) 810-2532
          Email: nsanjuan@huntonak.com

               - and -

          Tania Cruz, Esq.
          MCCARTER ENGLISH, LLP/MIAMI
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 300
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: (786) 385-7372
          Email: tcruz@mccarter.com


WESTLAKE, OH: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Hamilton et al. Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA HAMILTON, GREG WELLMAN, JOANNE SEGUL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF WESTLAKE, OHIO,
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the City as dispatchers but were
not paid overtime on all hours worked over 40 per seven-day period,
says the suit.

Defendant's Police Department oversees and is responsible for the
staffing of the 911-Emergency Telephone Systems Board, located in
the City of Westlake.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Danielle M. Chaffin, Esq.
          OHIO PATROLMEN'S BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION
          10147 Royalton Road, Suite J
          North Royalton, OH (44133)
          Telephone: (440) 237-7900
          Facsimile: (440) 237-6446
          E-mail: dchaffin@opba.com

YARDI SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Over Unfair Tenant Screening Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., RENTGROW, INC., and CLEARA, LLC.
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-10118 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 1, 2023) is a
class action brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The suit seeks class relief under the FCRA for all consumers that
have been subjected to RentGrow's illegal conduct in failing to
conduct a prompt reinvestigation, as well as an individual action
for failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum
possible accuracy of information before publishing that the
Plaintiff was a sex offender.

According to the complaint, when the Plaintiff applied for an
apartment, he was denied housing when the landlord obtained a
tenant screening consumer report from RentGrow, a consumer
reporting agency wholly owned and controlled by Yardi. The report
contained sex offender information about the Plaintiff that the
California Supreme Court determined to be unreportable more than a
decade earlier and, thus, was inaccurate in 2023 when RentGrow
reported it to Plaintiff's prospective landlord. It was illegal for
RentGrow to report the sex offender information on Plaintiff's
report in the first place, which was made worse when Plaintiff
disputed the information to RentGrow and it refused to conduct a
reinvestigation unless the Plaintiff first completed a proprietary
form, the suit asserts.

Yardi Systems, Inc. offers management software and client support
services. The Company provides services to investment management
firms, housing projects, property management firms, and
construction management companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jenna Dakroub, Esq.
          CONSUMER ATTORNEYS
          6345 Balboa Boulevard, Suite 247
          Encino, CA 91316
          Telephone: (602) 807-1525
          Facsimile: (718) 715-1750
          E-mail: E: jdakroub@consumerattorneys.com

YOUNG HARRIS COLLEGE: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
Frangie Espinal, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. YOUNG HARRIS COLLEGE, Case No.
1:23-cv-10778 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2023), is brought this civil
rights action against the Defendant for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, § 504
et seq. ("RA") prohibiting discrimination against the blind.
Because Defendant's interactive website, https://yhc.edu, including
all portions thereof or accessed thereon, including, but not
limited to, https://yhcathletics.com and
https://www.bkstr.com/youngharrisstore, (collectively the "Website"
or "Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA and the RA.
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website
available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader
programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired
individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services—all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals—thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.

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

The Defendant operates the YHC online retail store as well as the
YHC interactive website and advertises, markets, and operates in
the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          44 Court Street, Suite 1217
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com


[*] 6th Cir. Strikes Down Class Certification Order in PFAS Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory N. Heinen, Esq., Elizabeth S. Stone, Esq., and Grace E.
Stippich, Esq., of Foley & Lardner, disclosed that "Seldom is so
ambitious a case filed on so slight a basis." This is not the
accolade any plaintiff wants to receive, and especially not on
behalf of 11.8 million class members. But on November 27, the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals held that a proposed class lacked standing
to proceed with PFAS claims, denied of "one of the largest class
actions in history," and even worse, ordered dismissal of the case
entirely.

PFAS Plaintiff Asserts Nationwide Class
Plaintiff Kevin Hardwick sued a group of 10 manufacturers and
distributors of specialty chemicals. Per- and polyfluoraylkyl
substances (PFAS), nicknamed "forever chemicals" because they do
not break down in the environment and comprise a diverse group of
many man-made chemicals that have been used in commercial products
and industrial processes worldwide since the 1940s. Hardwick's
personal-injury class action alleged that he had trace levels of
five separate PFAS compounds in his blood even though he did not
know which of the many defendant companies contributed the
chemicals to his bloodstream. Notably, the chemicals did not make
Hardwick sick either, and he did not know whether they would ever
make him sick.

Hardwick's proposed class is perhaps the most notable aspect of his
case. Initially, Hardwick sought to include "nearly every American"
in a proposed nationwide class because, according to him, PFAS has
contaminated the blood of almost all Americans and allegedly pose
harm to humans at any dose. He argued this created sufficient
cohesion among the members to form a class. Although the Ohio
federal district court rejected his proposed nationwide class, it
nonetheless certified a class of "nearly all 11.8 million residents
of Ohio, along with anyone else otherwise subject to its laws."

Sixth Circuit Reverses Class Certification and Dismisses Case
The Sixth Circuit struck down this class certification order on
November 27, and instructed the district court to dismiss the case.
The Sixth Circuit focused on standing—a prerequisite to a federal
court's jurisdiction. To pursue a case in federal court, the
doctrine of standing requires a plaintiff to show three things: (1)
the plaintiff suffered an injury; (2) that injury can be traced to
the defendant; and (3) a court can redress the injury. Without
standing, a federal court lacks power to adjudicate a plaintiff's
claim.

The Sixth Circuit held that Hardwick failed to show the second
element of standing: traceability. The court explained that
traceability "requires a showing that the plaintiff's 'injury was
likely caused by the defendant'—or in this case, by each of the
ten defendants." Hardwick failed to make this showing, for two
reasons.

First, Hardwick treated the ten defendants in the case "as a
collective," referring only to their actions as a group. But a
plaintiff must trace his injury to each defendant individually.
Hardwick did not make this defendant-specific showing.

Second, Hardwick's allegations were "conclusory," and therefore,
not sufficient to show traceability. The case was still in the
early stages of litigation (the parties filed "pleadings," which
mean the documents Hardwick filed to initiate the lawsuit and the
defendants' papers filed to respond to the allegations), but that
the parties had yet to engage in "discovery." This means Hardwick
did not yet have information produced by the defendants available
to prove traceability. But the Sixth Circuit held that even at the
pleadings stage, a plaintiff must do more than make a conclusory
"'the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me-accusation.'" Hardwick failed
to allege facts "supporting a plausible inference that any of these
defendants caused these five particular PFAS to end up in his
blood." Unable to meet this burden, Hardwick lacked standing to sue
the manufacturer and distributor defendants. The Sixth Circuit
accordingly vacated the district court's class certification order
and remanded the case for the district court to dismiss entirely.

Looking Ahead
The Sixth Circuit's standing analysis suggests that courts will
only go so far in entertaining novel theories of recovery in PFAS
cases. Absent significant evidentiary development up front, PFAS
plaintiffs may struggle to trace an injury to a particular
defendant in order to make legally sufficient allegations of
traceability. This decision could pose a material barrier to PFAS
plaintiffs' ability to pursue litigation at the outset,
particularly if other circuits adopt a similar approach. [GN]


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***