/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240123.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, January 23, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 17

                            Headlines

213 RESTAURANT: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Stroude Says
23ANDME INC: Picha Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
3M COMPANY: Cohen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Collins Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Craig Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams

3M COMPANY: Ehlers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Fleming Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
ACUITY BRANDS: To Settle Data Breach Suits in Georgia Court
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Court OK's Settlement in Stewart Suit
ALL AMERICAN HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Quijano Says

ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Nelson Suit Claims
ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES: Hoskins Breach Suit Removed to D. Nevada
ARREOLA TRANSPORTATION: Torres Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid Wages
AUDIOPHILE MUSIC: Class Action Settlement in Tuttle Gets Final Nod
BANK OF AMERICA: Must Produce Additional Swaps Data in Philadelphia

BARK INC: Vernon Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Operators Win Conditional Class Certification
BETH ISRAEL: Fails to Pay Timely Wages Under FLSA, Taylor Alleges
BLOOMINGDALE'S LLC: Zamani Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
BLUE BOTTLE: Greeley Class Suit Removed From State Ct. to N.D. Cal.

BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Grady Suit
BRANCHING OUT: Perez et al. Sue Over Labor Law Violations
CAFE BASIL: Jimenez Sues Over Nonpayment of Overtime Premiums
CANACCORD GENUITY: Court Dismisses NBI Class Suit
CARGILL INC: Target Corp. Alleges Beef Price-fixing Conspiracy

CENTERRA GROUP: 401(k) Plan Participants Class Gets Certification
CIGNA HEALTH: Plaintiff's Bid to Seal Exhibits Denied
COBALT 27: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Troche Class Suit Alleges
CR BARD: Court Denies Class Certification in North Brevard Suit
DADA NEXUS: Wang Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities

DDS INC: Faces Martinez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
DELTA DENTAL: Meeks Sues Over Unprotected Private Information
DUKE UNIVERSITY: Franklin Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
DX ENTERPRISES: Joint Bid to Stay Pending Deadlines OK'd
EIGHT ORANGES: Court OK's Bid for More Response Time to Class Cert

ELECTROSTIM MEDICAL: St. Mary Sues Over Private Data Breach
EXACT CARE: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Bid
EXACT CARE: Everett Seeks Deadline Extension of Class Cert Bid
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Court Strikes Curry's Class Action Complaint
FRANK KENDALL: Bid to Certify Class Withdrawn in Hoffler Suit

GATOS SILVER: Orozco Sues Directors for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
GENERAL MOTORS: Bid for Arbitration Granted; Battle Suit Stayed
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Trauernicht Can File Materials Under Seal
GEORGE MASON: 4th Cir. Flips Denial of Bid to Dismiss Amison Suit
GODADDY.COM LLC: Simon Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices

GROWGENERATION CORP: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HANPOOL INC: Faces Park Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
HEALTH & GLOW: Faces Nunez Suit Over Unfair Labor Practices
HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Rhoade Seeks Proper OT Wages Under FLSA
HEALTHEC LLC: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Palmiter Says

HIS GUAM: Igarashi Wins Class Certification Bid
IDAHO: Prosecutor's Bid to Dismiss Poe Class Suit Nixed
ILLINOIS: Seeks Leave to File Class Reply in Cross Suit
ILLINOIS: Seeks to Withdraw Portions of Romanotto Declaration
INTEGRIS HEALTH: Bointy Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma

INTEGRIS HEALTH: Campbell-Detrixhe Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
INTEGRIS HEALTH: Civi Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
INTEGRIS HEALTH: Leeb Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
INTEGRIS HEALTH: Zinck Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
IROQUOIS NURSING: Bid to Amend Pleading Due Feb. 27 in Pallotta

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Halls Wins Class Certification Bid
JUMP TRADING: Court Dismisses Patterson Suit With Leave to Amend
KAISER FOUNDATION: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 28
KANSAS CITY, MO: Melton's Bid to Amend Pleadings Granted in Part
KAY IVEY: Plaintiffs Seeks Judicial Notice in Council Class Suit

KEEFE COMMISSARY: Settlement Deal in Reichert Suit Gets Final Nod
KEYCORP: Court Appoints Robert Titmas as Lead Plaintiff
LEGENDS OWO: Puller Sues Over Unlawful Ticket Processing Fee
LIV GROUP: Meza-Soliven Sues Over Liquid I.V. Stick Mixes False Ads
LOCAL FAVORITE: Predmore Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks

M&T BANK: McCloud Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
MARRIOTT INT'L: Class Cert. Brief in Breach Suit Due Jan. 26
MASSACHUSETTS: Narrigan Sues Over Unclaimed Property Compensation
MCLANE FOODSERVICE: Madero and Orosco Allege Labor Law Breaches
MDL 3071: Court Denies LRO's Bid to Dismiss in Rental Software Suit

MDL 3071: Court Denies PMDs' Bid to Dismiss Rental Software Suit
MDL 3071: Court Resolves Bids to Dismiss in Rental Software Suit
MDL 3071: TREV's Bid to Dismiss in Rental Software Suit Granted
META PLATFORMS: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Material in Klein Suit
MIDLAND NATIONAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Gail Due Jan. 23

MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Hester Seeks to Certify Class of CSRs
MPM HOLDINGS: $19MM Class Settlement to Be Heard on Feb. 23
MYOVANT SCIENCES: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in Zappia Suit
NAVY FEDERAL: Robinson and Williams Allege Discriminatory Lending
NECSOSA LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Navarro Suit Alleges

NEW YORK: Class Settlement in Bronx v. MTA Has Prelim. Approval
NEXTCARE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, White Suit Claims
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Initial Class Cert. Filing Due Feb. 28, 2025
OLIN CORPORATION: Court Tosses DPPs' Bid for Class Certification
OREGON: Court Appoints Co-Class Counsel in Wyatt B. v. Kotek

OSF HEALTHCARE: Quintanilla Sues Over Unlawful Pay Practices
PARKMOBILE LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Baker Due Feb. 12
PAYSIGN INC: Class Settlement in Securities Suit Has Prelim. Nod
PDM STEEL: Payne & Williams Sue Over Labor Code Breaches
PENNSYLVANIA: Depositions of Plaintiffs' Experts Due Dec. 13

PENNSYLVANIA: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 11
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Rosenbaum Alleges Oil Production Conspiracy
PHILADELPHIA, PA: O'Reilly Sues Over Police Officers' Unpaid OT
PIPELINERS LOCAL: Williams Sues Over Race Discrimination
PIPELINES LOCAL 798: Faces Williams Suit for Racial Discrimination

PLURALSIGHT INC: Bid for Class Certification OK'd in Indiana Public
PLUSHCARE INC: Settles Robbins Auto-Debit Row in California Court
POSTMEDS INC: Moran Files Suit in N.D. California
PRIME HEALTHCARE: Court OK's Bid for Class Certification
PRIME HEALTHCARE: Forcen Suit Removed to C.D. California

PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Clarke Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
RAAKA CHOCOLATE: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
RADIUS GLOBAL: Butts Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
RALPHS GROCERY: Chesnut Suit Removed to C.D. California
REATA PHARMA: $45MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 29

RED BALLOON: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Class Cert Deadlines Extended by 30 Days
RISE SERVICES: Anthony Wins Class Action Certification Bid
ROADRUNNER TRANS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Continued to April 5
ROYAL SWEET BAKERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Canales Suit Claims

SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Bid to Exclude Expert Opinions Tossed
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Class Cert. Bid Partly Granted in Brown
SCHMIDT BAKING: Silva Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
SELENE FINANCE: Milam Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
SIKA AG: H & S Ready Mix Sues Over Alleged Price Fixing of CCAs

SMUGGLER JACK'S: Colak Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SNAP INC: Court Sets Feb. 24 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SRG GLOBAL: Thomure's Bid to Strike Affirmative Defenses Denied
STATE BAR OF GEORGIA: Court Dismisses Mignott Class Suit
STATE FARM: Court Extends Class Cert-Related Deadlines

STATE FARM: Sept. 12 Extension for Class Cert Bids Sought
STG LOGISTICS: Quinones Suit Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement
STRATEGIC STAFFING: Norton Suit Removed to N.D. California
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Hearing in Class Suit to be Held on April 1
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Levings Suit Removed to C.D. California

TELADOC HEALTH: Pattison Files Suit in S.D. New York
TENNESSEE: Clark, et al., Severed from Moore Class Action
TENNESSEE: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in Moore Suit
TILRAY BRANDS: Faces Shareholder Suit in NY Court Over Merger Deal
TK ELEVATOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Machinists, Taylor Says

TRIUMPH ENERGY: Cowan Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Goble Loses Class Certification Bid
TVI INC: Hughes Class Lawsuit Removed from State Ct. to N.D. Cal.
UNION PACIFIC: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings OK'd in Cushman Suit
UNITED AIRLINES: Must Oppose Class Cert. Bid by Feb. 9

UNITED SERVICES: Plaintiffs Seek Hearing on Bid to Compel
UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Ramos Suit Over TPS Designations
VEOLIA WATER: Nicholls Seeks Class Certification
VERADIGM INC: Faces Erwin Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Gabel Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties

VITALS CONSUMER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Jan. 26
VMWARE INC: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by March 15
WAKE COUNTY, NC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
WALGREENS BOOTS: Court Stays Clem Securities Suit
WALGREENS BOOTS: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial Nod

WALMART INC: Court Narrows Claims in Devane Suit
WATA INC: Knight Seeks to Refile Class Certification Bid
WATA INC: Knight Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
WEBMD LLC: Pretrial Class Discovery in Sweeton Due March 27
WEST CAPITAL LENDING: Levison Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Salas Due Sept. 30
WILLIAM VALE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Stroude Claims
WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Fernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
YOUNG LA TRADING: Hindi Files Suit in S.D. Florida
ZAPPOS.COM LLC: Casillas Suit Removed to C.D. California

ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Matczak Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
ZILLOW GROUP: Class Certification Bid in Barua Extended to March 14

                            *********

213 RESTAURANT: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Stroude Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
COLETTE STROUDE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. 213 RESTAURANT CORP., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00021 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2024) is a civil rights action
against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website, www.nanxiangxiaolongbao.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people in violation of their rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights
Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when she
attempted on December 21, 2023 and again on December 22, 2023 to
access Defendant's Website from her home but encountered barriers
that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online content
and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the Website in a
manner that is compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff
was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website,
and was thus denied the benefit of obtaining menu and location
information in order to visit a restaurant, alleges the suit.

Because Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, the suit says.

213 Restaurant Corp. owns the website that offers users the ability
to peruse the restaurants website services to view the menu and
obtain the restaurants location information.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          PeterPaul Shaker, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 102
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com

23ANDME INC: Picha Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
Camie Picha, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 23andMe, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-06719 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 29, 2023) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff against the Defendant on behalf of the victims of
a targeted cyberattack on 23andMe that was announced on October 6,
2023 wherein Plaintiff and the Class members' most sensitive
personally identifiable information and protected health
information was compromised and exfiltrated.

23andMe collects and maintains the genetic information of Plaintiff
and similarly situated customers -- one of if not the most personal
and highly sensitive forms of personally identifiable information
and protected health information in existence. 23andMe profits from
the highly sensitive private information that it collects and
maintains, including through providing direct-to-consumer genetic
testing services. 23andMe recognizes that it has an enormous
responsibility to protect this highly sensitive private
information, and it assures consumers through its privacy and data
protection statement, the suit asserts.

However, 23andMe completely failed to meet these promises and
responsibilities to protect the private information of millions of
its customers. Instead, 23andMe suffered a massive data breach in
which the most highly sensitive private information of
approximately 7 million of its consumers was compromised, says the
suit.

23andMe, Inc. is a genetic testing company that designs its
products in California, and its marketing efforts emanate from
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher L. Springer, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          801 Garden Street, Suite 301
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456-1496
          E-mail: cspringer@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 9f8101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          E-mail: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com

3M COMPANY: Cohen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Mark Cohen, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE
PLUS INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY
PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP,
INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO.,
INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.;
STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc.);
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:23-cv-06492-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 13, 2023), is brought for damages stemming from personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic
acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and
to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting
career and was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer as a direct result of
exposure to Defendants' products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Phone: (843) 546-2408
          Fax: (843) 546-9604
          Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                 rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                 gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

               - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Phone: (540)343-9711
          Email: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com


3M COMPANY: Collins Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Collins, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-06573-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 14,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


3M COMPANY: Craig Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Craig, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE
PLUS INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY
PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP,
INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO.,
INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.;
STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc.);
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:23-cv-06490-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 13, 2023), is brought for damages stemming from personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic
acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and
to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting
career and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a direct result of
exposure to Defendants' products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Phone: (843) 546-2408
          Fax: (843) 546-9604
          Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                 rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                 gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

               - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Phone: (540)343-9711
          Email: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com


3M COMPANY: Ehlers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles D. Ehlers, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE
PLUS INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY
PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP,
INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO.,
INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.;
STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc.);
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:23-cv-06489-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 13, 2023), is brought for damages stemming from personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic
acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and
to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting
career and was diagnosed with Bladder Cancer as a direct result of
exposure to Defendants' products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Phone: (843) 546-2408
          Fax: (843) 546-9604
          Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                 rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                 gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

               - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Phone: (540)343-9711
          Email: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com


3M COMPANY: Fleming Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Fleming, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota) Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE
PLUS INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY
PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP,
INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO.,
INC.; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.;
STEDFAST USA, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix Inc.);
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; Case No. 2:23-cv-06493-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 13, 2023), is brought for damages stemming from personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic
acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and
to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting
career and was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma as a direct
result of exposure to Defendants' products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Phone: (843) 546-2408
          Fax: (843) 546-9604
          Email: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                 rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                 gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

               - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Phone: (540)343-9711
          Email: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com


ACUITY BRANDS: To Settle Data Breach Suits in Georgia Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Acuity Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended November 30, 2023., filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 9, 2024, that on December 1, 2023,
the parties in a putative class action complaint against the
company in the United States District court for the Northern
District of Georgia reached a proposed settlement and release of
all claims in the class action and executed a Settlement Agreement
and Release, which is pending approval from the State Court of
Fulton County, Georgia.

On December 14, 2022, a former associate filed said action on
behalf of all persons whose personal information was compromised as
a result of data security incidents the company experienced in
October 2020 and/or December 2021.

On January 25, 2023, a second putative class action complaint was
filed in the same venue by two other former associates. Both
complaints contain similar allegations and claim that the company
failed to exercise reasonable caution in securing and safeguarding
associate information.

On that basis, the complaints assert claims for negligence, breach
of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach
of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, and breach of confidence.
The plaintiffs seek class certification, monetary damages, certain
injunctive relief regarding the company's data-security measures,
additional credit-monitoring services, other equitable relief
(including disgorgement), attorneys' fees, costs, and pre-and
post-judgment interest. T

Plaintiffs recently filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without
prejudice, and the company continues to prepare its response
strategy to any forthcoming claims.

Acuity Brands, Inc. is an industrial technology company based in
Georgia.


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Court OK's Settlement in Stewart Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended February 25, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 25, 2023, that Circuit Oourt, County
of Multnomah, State of Oregon granted final approval of a class
action lawsuit entitled "Schearon Stewart and Jason Stewart v.
Safeway Inc.," by way of an order dated July 20, 2023 where the
company had a liability recorded equal to the amount of the
settlement, and the company paid the settlement on September 11,
2023. a settlement

Plaintiffs have alleged that Safeway engaged in unfair trade
practices, in violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act
(ORS 646.608), regarding the sale of certain meat products in 2015
and 2016 in the state of Oregon with its "Buy One, Get One Free"
and similar promotions.

On February 17, 2023, plaintiffs and Safeway executed an agreement
that settled all claims in the lawsuit for approximately $107
million, which agreement received preliminary approval by the court
on March 6, 2023. The settlement includes a claim administration
process whereby affected customers, who do not elect to opt out of
the settlement, file a claim to participate in the settlement. The
court had a hearing last July 10, 2023.

Albertsons is a food and drug retailer based in Idaho.


ALL AMERICAN HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Quijano Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL QUIJANO, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALL AMERICAN
HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a New Jersey corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV00930 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 11, 2024) accuses the Defendants
of violating the California Labor Code and the California Business
and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff and class members regularly worked more than eight
hours per day and/or more than 40 hours per week and were not paid
correctly for all of their overtime hours. Defendants did not
accurately record Plaintiff and class members' hours worked,
resulting in the underpayment of regular and overtime wages.
Instead, employees' time cards reflected employees' scheduled
hours, were rounded to the nearest hour, and/or were inaccurate
because Defendants required and/or suffered or permitted Plaintiff
and class members to work off-the-clock, says the suit.

Based in New Jersey, All American Healthcare Services, Inc. is a
nursing staffing agency nursing homes, long-term care and assisted
living facilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald H. Bae, Esq.
          Olivia D. Scharrer, Esq.
          Carson M.Turner, Esq.
          AEQUITAS LEGAL GROUP
          A Professional Law Corporation
          1156 E. Green Street, Suite 200
          Pasadena, CA 91106
          Telephone: (213) 674-6080
          Facsimile: (213) 674-6081

ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Nelson Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GARY NELSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ANHEUSER BUSCH, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00029-UNA (D. Del., January 11, 2024) seeks redress for
unpaid overtime compensation and employee misclassification in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Nelson's job titles at Anheuser-Busch between May 16,
2022 and October 1, 2023 were Group Manager, Process Support
Manager, and Shift Manager. The primary duty of his job was to
package beer and bottle beer on the bottling, canning, and keg
lines. However, he was classified by Anheuser-Busch as exempt from
the overtime provisions of the FLSA. The Plaintiff routinely worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and Defendant failed to pay an
overtime premium when Plaintiff worked nine, 10, and 11 hour days,
says the suit.

Anheuser-Busch is a beer manufacturer that owns and operates twelve
breweries across the United States, including locations in
Merrimack, NH; Baldwinsville, NY; Newark, NJ; Williamsburg, VA;
Columbus, OH; Jacksonville, FL; Cartersville, GA; St. Louis, MO;
Houston, TX; Fort Collins, CO; Los Angeles, CA; and Fairfield, CA.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Christopher J. Brochu, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
          400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          E-mail: bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
                  cbrochu@vandwlaw.com

                  - and -

          Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
          HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
          1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200K
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 559-2411
          E-mail: mhandley@hfajustice.com

                  -  and -

          William A. Anderson, Esq.
          HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
          5353 Manhattan Circle, Suite 204
          Boulder, CO 80303
          Telephone: (303) 800-1952
          E-mail: wanderson@hfajustice.com

                  - and -

          Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
          Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
          919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 777-0300
          Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
          E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
                  mfarnan@farnanlaw.com

ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES: Hoskins Breach Suit Removed to D. Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MARY HOSKINS, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. ARISTOCRAT
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. A-23-879061-C. (Filed Oct. 5, 2023),
was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of
Nevada for Clark County to the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada on Jan. 3, 2024.

The Nevada District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-10021-ADB
to the proceeding.

The suit alleges that Aristocrat "failed to investigate the
vulnerability and any potential attack into their system," and
"failed to inform the Plaintiff and the Class Members that their
personally identifiable information (PII) was at significant risk
of being stolen."

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for negligence, breach of
implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment, and injunctive and declaratory relief.

The Plaintiff asserts these causes of action on behalf of "all
individuals whose PII may have been accessed and/or acquired in the
Data Breach that is the subject of the Notice of Data Breach that
Defendant sent to the Plaintiff and the Class Members around
September of 2023.

Aristocrat designs, manufactures, and markets gaming machines and
software.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jason D. Smith, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Santoro, Esq.
          HOLLEY DRIGGS LTD
          300 South 4th Street, Suite 1600
          Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
          Telephone: (702) 791-0308
          E-mail: jsmith@nevadafirm.com
                  nsantoro@nevadafirm.com

                - and -

          Megan L. Rodgers, Esq.
          Teena-Ann V. Sankoorikal, Esq.
          Micaela R.H. McMurrough, Esq.
          Isaac D. Chaput, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          3000 El Camino Real
          5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
          Telephone: (650) 632-4700
          E-mail: mrodgers@cov.com
                  tsankoorikal@cov.com
                  mmcmurrough@cov.com
                  ichaput@cov.com

ARREOLA TRANSPORTATION: Torres Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE TORRES, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees, v.
J. ARREOLA TRANSPORTATION, INC. (a California corporation), ERICK
ARREOLA TRANSPORTATION (a California Corporation), JORGE ARREOLA
(an individual), ERICK ARREOLA (an individual) and DOES 1 through
25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV00110 (Cal. Super., Jan. 3, 2024)
alleges that the Defendants regularly failed to pay minimum wages
to the Plaintiff pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 1194,
1197, and 1197.1.

The Defendants allegedly did not pay the Plaintiff and the
Aggrieved an hourly wage. Rather, it paid them on a piece rate
basis, based on the tons of material they transported. The
Defendants also did not pay the Plaintiff and the Aggrieved
Employees for any non-driving (non-productive) duties, including
maintaining trucks and completing paperwork. Accordingly, the
Defendants classified the Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees
as independent contractors, rather than employees, says the suit.

The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff any compensation for work he
performed on July 10-14, 2023, or July 17-19, 2023. The Defendants
refused to pay the Plaintiff' final wages, and retained those
wages, without the Plaintiff's agreement or consent, to pay for
damage to the truck the Plaintiff was driving. Furthermore, the
Defendants required the Plaintiff to pay to fix a tire on a Company
truck and did not reimburse him for this. This violates Labor Code
section 2802, which requires employers to reimburse employees for
all necessary business expenses incurred. The Defendants also
failed to reimburse the necessary business expenses of other
Aggrieved Employees, the suit asserts.

The aggrieved employees Plaintiff seeks to represent are: "All
individuals who work (or worked) as Drivers for the Defendants in
the State of California from Oct. 12, 2022, through the date this
matter is resolved."

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from March 2023 through
July 2023 as a driver.

J. Arreola is in the transportation business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy S. Ramsey, Esq.
          ADVANTAGE ADVOCATES, P.C.
          21 Miller Alley, Suite 56
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (626) 310-0101
          Facsimile: (626) 310-0103
          E-mail: aramsey@advantage-law.com

AUDIOPHILE MUSIC: Class Action Settlement in Tuttle Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN J. TUTTLE, et al.,
v. AUDIOPHILE MUSIC DIRECT, INC., et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-01081-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James L. Robart
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motions for final
approval of the parties' class action settlement and for attorneys'
fees, costs, and class representative service awards.

The court orders as follows:

   1. The parties' proposed class action settlement is approved;

   2. The Plaintiffs' request for an award of $290,000 in combined

      attorneys’ fees and costs is granted;

   3. The Plaintiff’s request for $10,000 service awards for
class
      representatives Stephen J. Tuttle and Dustin Collman is
granted;

   4. The Parties are directed to proceed with the settlement
payment
      procedures specified in the settlement Agreement;

   5. The Defendants are directed to fund the settlement;

   6. The Settlement Administrator is authorized to distribute the

      settlement funds; and

   7. The Settlement Administrator is directed to distribute the
      attorneys' fees and service awards as provided in this
order.

      -- Settlement Terms

         The proposed settlement class is comprised of:

         "All original retail consumers in the United States who,
from
         March 19, 2007, through July 27, 2022 purchased, either
         directly from a Defendant or other retail merchants, new
and
         unused Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, Inc. ("MoFi") vinyl
         recordings which were marketed by Defendants using the
series
         labeling descriptors "Original Master Recording" and/or
         "Ultradisc One-Step," that were sourced from original
analog
         master tapes and which utilized a direct stream digital
         transfer step in the mastering chain, and provided that
said
         purchasers still own said recordings."

         Excluded from the Class are persons who obtained subject
         Applicable Records from other sources.

         Thus, individuals who (1) no longer own the Applicable
         Records they purchased, (2) purchased their Applicable  
         Records on the secondary market, or (3) received their  
         Applicable Records from third parties (for example, as
gifts)
         are expressly excluded from the Class.

Audiophile is a producer and seller of vinyl music records.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47yf2Tt at no extra charge.[CC]

BANK OF AMERICA: Must Produce Additional Swaps Data in Philadelphia
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as The City of Philadelphia,
et al., v. Bank of America, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01608-JMF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion to compel the Defendants to Produce
Additional Swaps Data.

-- Most of the Defendants' arguments to the contrary relate to the

    merits of arguments that Plaintiffs may raise in the future
and,
    thus, are premature.

-- The Defendants shall promptly produce the relevant discovery to

    Plaintiffs. With that, "top off" discovery is deemed to be
closed.

Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41ZGPLm at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017

                - and -

          David H. Wollmuth, Esq.
          WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP
          500 5th Ave,
          New York, NY 10110
          Telephone: (212) 382-3300

                - and -

          William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1000 Louisiana. Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77002

BARK INC: Vernon Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------
BARK, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K for January 8, 2024, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 12, 2024,
that on December 12, 2023, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of a putative class action complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against BARK, Inc. and certain
current and former members of its board of directors under the
caption "Vernon v. BARK, Inc. et al.," C.A. No. 2023-0866-PAF as
moot. Said case was filed on August 23, 2023 by plaintiff Geoffrey
Vernon.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that Article Thirteenth
of the company's Third Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation, which provides for the waiver and renunciation of
corporate opportunities related to the company, violates Sections
102(b)(7) and 122(17) of Delaware's General Corporation Law as
impermissibly broad and impermissibly waiving fiduciary duties of
the members of the Board.

On December 12, 2023, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the action as moot, which the court approved by order
dated December 13, 2023. BARK has agreed to pay $95,000, inclusive
of a $500 service award, to plaintiff's counsel to resolve the
anticipated application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses.

Bark Inc. is a dog-specific pet supply company based in New York
NY.


BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Operators Win Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Loretta Fosdick, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Berkeley County,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03375-RMG (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard Mark
Gergel entered an order granting conditional class certification
under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) to:

   "All current and former Berkeley County Convenience Center
   Operators who worked off the clock before and/or after their
   scheduled shift resulting in them not being paid overtime wages
for
   all hours worked in excess of 4 hours per week at any time from

   three years prior to the date of this Order to the present."

The Court approves the proposed notices and consent forms, and
directs Defendant to provide the required information within 15
days of this order. Plaintiff shall comply with the details of this
order when disseminating notice to the Putative Class members.

Plaintiff is also ordered to email, mail and text the approved
notice on the same date. Each individual member of the Putative
class has up to sixty days from that date to return the Consent
Form to Plaintiff's counsel.

The Plaintiff was employed as an operator at Berkeley County's
convenience centers, which are residential waste disposal sites.
Berkeley County operates ten convenience centers. Operator's
primary job duties and responsibilities are to open and close the
convenience centers and to assist residents with their trash
disposal. The operators are paid an hourly rate.

The Plaintiff filed this action alleging that Defendant failed to
pay the convenience center operators for mandatory duties performed
before and after their scheduled shift. The Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendant required operators to arrive approximately fifteen to
twenty minutes before their scheduled to shift to perform duties
before they opened the convenience centers.

Berkeley consists of a low-lying area on the Coastal Plain, with
the suburbs of Charleston at its southern tip.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NXLA2j at no extra charge.[CC]

BETH ISRAEL: Fails to Pay Timely Wages Under FLSA, Taylor Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH TAYLOR, AUBREY ARPIE, KIMBERLY FULLER and PAULA
ROBICHAUD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS HOSPITAL-PLYMOUTH, INC., MERCY
MEDICAL GROUP, INC., TRINITY HEALTH OF NEW ENGLAND CORPORATION,
INC., and HEYWOOD HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-10028 (D.
Mass., Jan. 3, 2024) seeks relief on a collective basis challenging
the Defendants' practice of failing to pay hourly employees the
full amount of wage to which they are entitled for all of their
work in a timely fashion, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs and Collective Members are hourly employees who did
not receive the full amount of wages in a timely fashion as a
result of a data breach on December 11, 2021 ("Kronos Outage"). On
that date, and possibly on others, the Defendants were unable to
access their workforce management software application they used to
process payroll and store data of the Plaintiffs and other
individuals, the lawsuit says.

On December 13, 2021, the Defendants instituted a "payment freeze"
for all hourly employees, such that the pay for each pay period
following that date was set arbitrarily to the period prior to the
freeze, with limited exception.

The Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' representatives made numerous
requests for payment of their wages in full, but these requests
were allegedly denied.

The Plaintiffs and Collective Members were not paid for the full
amount of time they worked in one or more pay periods or in
successive pay periods approximately December 11, 2021, onward. The
Plaintiffs, like all Collective Members, have lost time and
expenses from mitigating the consequences of the delay in payment
of their paychecks.

The Defendants have the resources to accurately track the hours
worked by the Plaintiffs and Collective Members. The Defendants
failed to undertake adequate analyses and testing of its systems,
training of its personnel, and other data security measures to
ensure vulnerabilities were avoided or remedied, the suit contends.


The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are employees who were
not exempt from overtime under the FLSA, were not paid owed minimum
wages and/or for all overtime hours worked, and/or were not paid
owed minimum wages or their proper overtime premium on time, if at
all, for all regular hours and overtime hours worked during and
after the Kronos Outage.

Beth Israel provides medical and surgical hospital services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
          Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP,
          FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          One North Broadway, Suite 900
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3281
          E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
                  jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com

BLOOMINGDALE'S LLC: Zamani Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
FARINASP ZAMANI, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public; Plaintiff
v. BLOOMINGDALE'S, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; MACY'S
INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive;
Defendants, Case No. 24STCV00738 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
January 10, 2024) alleges violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code in connection
with, among other things, the Defendants' failure to pay proper
wages and failure to provide paid rest periods.

Plaintiff Zamani worked for Defendants as a sales associate in Los
Angeles, CA from approximately March 2013 until August 2023.
However, Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Class for
time spent in non-selling activities. Instead, Defendant classified
all of Plaintiff's hours as productive hours even though Plaintiff
was required to spend one hour to 1.5 hours per shift on
non-productive sales activities, says the suit.

Headquartered in New York City, Bloomingdale's LLC operates as a
luxury department store chain. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Omid Nosrati, Esq.
          Rene Maldonado, Esq.
          Amir Navab, Esq.
          NOSRATILAW
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 840
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553-5630
          Facsimile: (310) 553-5691
          Email: omid@nosratilaw.com
                 rene@nosratilaw.com
                 amir.navab@nosratilaw.com

BLUE BOTTLE: Greeley Class Suit Removed From State Ct. to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA GREELEY, MARK
HERNANDEZ, individually, and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. BLUE BOTTLE COFFEE, LLC and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-23-610084 (Filed Oct. 30, 2023) was
removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County
of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on Jan. 3, 2024.

The Northern California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-00052 to the proceeding.

The suit alleges that Blue Bottle "maintained and enforced policies
and/or practices pursuant to which Plaintiffs and Class Members"
were required to work during meal periods and not authorized and
permitted to take legally compliant rest breaks.

The suit also alleges that Blue Bottle entirely failed to "pay
Plaintiffs and Class Members the wages due for missed meal
periods."

The Plaintiffs allege that Blue Bottle's maintenance and
enforcement of these policies and practices was due to Blue
Bottle's misclassification of Cafe Leaders as exempt employees.

Blue Bottle is a coffee roaster and retailer.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Thomas N. McCormick, Esq.
          Jocelyn M. Hoffman, Esq.
          VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
          4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 526-7903
          Facsimile: (949) 526-7903
          E-mail: tnmccormick@vorys.com
                  jmhoffman@vorys.com

BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Grady Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CHARLES LEE GRADY v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION "R" (5), Case No.
2:22-cv-01043-SSV-MBN (E.D. La.), Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued an
Order and Reasons:

   (a) denying the Plaintiff's motion to continue trial and
       pre-trial deadlines;

   (b) denying the Plaintiff's motion to defer briefing on
       Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc. and BP
       America Production Company's motion for summary judgment;
       and

   (c) granting the Defendants' opposed motion for summary
       judgment.

The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic
chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico. The Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to crude oil,
other hydrocarbons, and dispersants from his work as a cleanup
worker. He represents that this exposure has resulted in allergic
rhinitis with chronic sinusitis, and that he has suffered physical,
mental and emotional pain, suffering, and anguish; the need for
medical monitoring; costs and inconvenience associated with
obtaining past and future medical treatment risk and fear of
developing future diseases becoming saddled with financial burden;
inconvenience; and emotional strain as a result of the spill.

The case was filed under the Back End Litigation Option ("BELO")
provisions of the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement reached in the multidistrict litigation previously
pending before Judge Carl Barbier, and is governed by a Case
Management Order ("CMO") generally applicable to all BELO suits.

On the date of the deadline for his expert disclosures, Oct. 13,
2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to continue trial and pre-trial
deadlines. In the motion, he requests a 120-day extension of all
unexpired CMO deadlines to settle ongoing discovery disputes and
provide his experts with additional time to assess the quality of
the data they have. The Defendants oppose the motion, contending
that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that any of the documents
he intends to seek are relevant to the issue of causation.

The Defendants subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment in
accordance with the deadlines set out in the CMO, contending that
the Plaintiff has not produced any admissible expert evidence
regarding causation.

The Plaintiff filed a motion to defer consideration of the motion
for summary judgment on the basis of the ongoing discovery disputes
and the pending motion to continue.

The Court considers four factors in deciding whether a scheduling
order should be modified: (1) the explanation for the failure to
timely comply with the scheduling order; (2) the importance of the
modification; (3) potential prejudice in allowing the modification;
and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice,
citing Squyres v. Heico Cos., 782 F.3d 224, 237 (5th Cir. 2015).

Judge Vance finds that the first factor weighs against granting a
continuance. The Plaintiff has not shown that he has been diligent
in seeking information about the toxicity from available sources,
and there is nothing to indicate that any expert has even begun to
analyze his claims.

The second factor weighs against granting a continuance. The Court
finds that the Plaintiff has not shown that the discovery he seeks
will be important to develop expert causation evidence. The third
factor also weighs against granting a continuance. Judge Vance
points out that the Plaintiff waited to file the motion to continue
until the date of its deadline to disclose expert reports.

Judge Vance notes that this litigation has been lengthy, expensive,
and complicated. Granting the Plaintiff a continuance would result
in further delay and expense, including a greater burden of
discovery and retention of additional experts by defendants to
counteract new evidence propounded by the Plaintiff.

The fourth factor also weighs against granting a continuance, since
the availability of a continuance would not cure the prejudice of
additional expense that the Defendants would incur, Judge Vance
holds.

Considering the relevant Rule 16 factors, the Court finds that the
Defendants have not established that the deadlines cannot
reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party needing the
extension. Thus, the Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to
establish good cause to modify the scheduling order.

In his motion for deferral, the Plaintiff asserts that deferral is
appropriate because (1) there are the outstanding discovery issues
that formed the basis of his motion to continue, (2) plaintiff has
not had time to review discovery that has already been produced,
(3) the complexity of the science at issue here, and (4) he has
been diligent in pursuing discovery.

Because the Court has found that the Plaintiff has not shown good
cause for an extension of his expert disclosure deadline, and he
has not produced expert reports, the Plaintiff cannot produce
expert evidence on the issue of general causation. None of the
Plaintiff's contentions demonstrate how a deferral would produce
specific facts relevant to deciding the motion for summary judgment
within a reasonable timeframe.

Additionally, the Court has already found that the Plaintiff has
not established that the discovery he seeks will be important in
creating a genuine issue of material fact on summary judgment. The
Plaintiff does not point to any specific facts indicating that the
discovery he seeks will help him demonstrate that COREXIT is
capable of causing allergic rhinitis or chronic sinusitis in the
general population.

Thus, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that
deferring consideration of the motion for summary judgment is
warranted.

In their motion, the Defendants contend that they are entitled to
summary judgment because the Plaintiff cannot establish either
general or specific causation. Expert testimony is required to
establish general causation in toxic-tort cases like this one.

Given that the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of his
claims against the Defendants, Judge Vance says his claims must be
dismissed. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment.

For these reasons, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motions to
continue trial and pretrial deadlines and to defer briefing on the
motion for summary judgment. The Court grants the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed
with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated Jan. 4,
2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/mr3wyfdyfrom
PacerMonitor.com.


BRANCHING OUT: Perez et al. Sue Over Labor Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
NEHEMIAS NAVAS PEREZ, ERICK RAMIREZ SANCHEZ, OSCAR ALMAZAN LINARES,
on behalf of themselves, individually, and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRANCHING OUT TREE SERVICE, INC.,
and MICHAEL REITER, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00248 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 11, 2024) arises from the Defendants' unlawful compensation
practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law and asserts claims for unjust enrichment and quantum
meruit.

One of the Plaintiffs, Nehemias Navas Perez, commenced his
employment with Defendants in 2011. Plaintiff Perez worked as a
groundman and truck driver for six years. He was promoted to a
non-exempt "supervisor" in 2017, a position which he held until on
or about May 24, 2023. Despite this title, Plaintiff Perez
continued to perform the same or similar production worker duties
as he did as a groundman and truck driver. Throughout Perez's
employment, Defendants failed to pay him at his statutorily
required overtime rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for their hours worked in excess of 40 hours during
each workweek in violation of the FLSA and NYLL, says the suit.

Branching Out Tree Service, Inc. provides specialized services in
tree removal, trimming and pruning, stump grinding, commercial and
municipal services, land clearing, roof line clearing and aerial
bucket tree removal throughout Long Island, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sara V. Messina, Esq.
          David D. Barnhorn, Esq.
          ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588

CAFE BASIL: Jimenez Sues Over Nonpayment of Overtime Premiums
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mayco Daniel Martinez Jimenez, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated persons, known and
unknown, Plaintiffs v. Cafe Basil Groups, LLC d/b/a Sweet Basil
Restaurant, April Mankiewicz, Basil Group I, LLC, Denise Karonis,
and Jim Karonis, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00305 (N.D. Ill.,
January 11, 2024) seeks redress for Defendants' willful violations
of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act
for failure to pay overtime and/or minimum wages owed.

The Defendants hired Plaintiff to work as a restaurant cook/cleaner
in Algonquin, IL; Plaintiff worked for Defendants in this position
from approximately February 28, 2013 until July 14, 2023. The
Plaintiff was scheduled and required to work for Defendants at
least 70 hours every week. However, Plaintiff was only paid for all
hours worked at straight-time, alleges the suit.

Café Basil Groups, LLC is a restaurant in the Sweet Basil
Restaurant chain d/b/a Sweet Basil Restaurant along with other
Sweet Basil restaurants in Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Mata, Esq.
          James M. Dore, Esq.
          JUSTICIA LABORAL, LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski, #300
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (773) 415-4898
          Email: jmata@justicialaboral.com
                 jdore@justicialaboral.com

CANACCORD GENUITY: Court Dismisses NBI Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORTHWEST BIOTHERPEUTICS,
INC., v. CANACCORD GENUITY LLC, CITADEL SECURITIES LLC, G1
EXECUTION SERVICES LLC, GTS SECURITIES LLC, INSTINET LLC, LIME
TRADING CORP., and VIRTU AMERICAS LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-10185-GHW-GS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gary Stein entered
an order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Since the Court does not believe that an amendment would be futile,
the Court further recommends that Plaintiff be given leave to file
a further amended complaint attempting to cure the deficiencies in
the FAC's loss causation allegations.

Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc., a public biotechnology company
trading under the symbol "NWBO," filed this federal securities
action against the Defendants Canaccord Genuity, LLC, Citadel
Securities LLC, G1 Execution Services LLC, GTS Securities LLC,
Instinet LLC, Lime Trading Corporation, and Virtu Americas LLC.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in illegal market
manipulation by repeatedly "spoofing" the market for NWBO's stock.

Northwest is a clinical stage biotechnology company focused on the
development of personalized cancer vaccines designed to treat a
broad range of solid tumor cancers more effectively than current
cancer treatments, and without the side effects of chemotherapy.

Canaccord is an independent, full-service financial services firm.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48VwFxo at no extra charge.[CC]




CARGILL INC: Target Corp. Alleges Beef Price-fixing Conspiracy
--------------------------------------------------------------
TARGET CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. CARGILL, INC., CARGILL MEAT
SOLUTIONS CORPORATION (a/k/a CARGILL PROTEIN), JBS S.A., JBS USA
FOOD COMPANY, SWIFT BEEF COMPANY, JBS PACKERLAND, INC., NATIONAL
BEEF PACKING COMPANY LLC, TYSON FOODS, INC. and TYSON FRESH MEATS,
INC., Defendants, is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on
behalf of itself and similarly situated purchasers, for Defendants'
alleged engagement in a contract, combination or conspiracy in
restraint of trade or commerce in violation of Section One of the
Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, the goal of the Defendants' conspiracy
was to fix, raise, stabilize and/or maintain the price of beef sold
to Plaintiff and others at supra-competitive levels - that is,
prices artificially higher than beef prices would have been in the
absence of their conspiracy. As alleged in this complaint,
Defendants and their co-conspirators implemented their conspiracy
through one or more anticompetitive means.

The Defendants colluded during the conspiracy period to reduce
supplies of beef in tandem, thereby raising and fixing beef prices
at levels higher than prices that would have prevailed had the beef
market been competitive. As a direct result, Plaintiff suffered
antitrust injury by paying illegally inflated prices for beef it
purchased from Defendants, the suit asserts.

Target Corp. is an American retail corporation that operates a
chain of discount department stores and hypermarkets, headquartered
in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The Defendants are meat processing and packing companies, known in
the industry as meatpackers or packers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip J. Iovieno, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Gravante, Jr., Esq.
          Lawrence S. Brandman, Esq.
          Jack G. Stern, Esq.
          Mark A. Singer, Esq.
          Justin V. Arborn, Esq.
          CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP
          200 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 504-6000
          Facsimile: (212) 504-6666
          E-mail: philip.iovieno@cwt.com
                  nicholas.gravante@cwt.com
                  lawrence.brandman@cwt.com
                  jack.stern@cwt.com
                  mark.singer@cwt.com
                  justin.arborn@cwt.com

CENTERRA GROUP: 401(k) Plan Participants Class Gets Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shawn Williams, David
Green, Jamie Coomes, Malcum Kenner, and Andrew Barrett,
individually and as representatives of a class of participants and
beneficiaries on behalf of the Centerra Group, LLC 401(k) Plan (nka
the Constellis 401(k) Plan), v. Centerra Group, LLC; The Benefit
Plan Committee of the Centerra Investment Group, LLC; The
Investment Committee of the Centerra Group, LLC; AON Hewitt
Investment Consulting, Inc. (nka Aon Investments USA, Inc.); Paul
P. Donahue; Deborah F. Ricci; Marcia Aldrich; and John Does 1–10;
Case No. 1:20-cv-04220-SAL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Sherri A. Lydon
entered an order accepting the parties' joint stipulation, and
grating Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, as follows:

   1. The court certifies the class, which is defined as:

      "all participants and beneficiaries of the Centerra Group,
LLC
      401(k) Plan from July 1, 2016, until January 1, 2019,
excluding
      the Defendants and members of the Benefit Plan Committee of
      Centerra Group, LLC, and the Investment Committee of Centerra

      Group, LLC."

   2. The Plaintiffs Shawn Williams, David Green, Jamie Coomes,
Malcum
      Kenner, and Andrew Barrett are appointed as class
      representatives.

   3. The attorneys of Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP who have
entered
      their appearances in this action and Beth B. Richardson of
      Robinson Gray Stepp & Laffitte, LLC, are appointed class
counsel
      under Rule 23(g), FRCP.

The court also finds the Plaintiffs' lead counsel, Schlichter
Bogard and Denton LLP, and local counsel, Beth B. Richardson of
Robinson Gray Stepp & Laffitte, LLC, are competent and experienced
and do not appear to have any conflicts of interests that would
hinder them from vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of
the class.

The court thus approves the appointment of Schlichter Bogard and
Denton, LLP as Plaintiffs' lead counsel and Beth B. Richardson of
Robinson Gray Stepp & Laffitte, LLC as local counsel.

The Plaintiffs are five current employees of Centerra Group, LLC,
who are participants in the Centerra 401(k) Plan. They aim to
obtain relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended, ("ERISA") and assert claims against Centerra
Group. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants
violated the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty imposed by 29
U.S.C. section§ 1104(a)(1)(A) and (B) and engaged in prohibited
transactions in violation of 29 U.S.C. section 1106(a).

Centerra Group is a global government & critical infrastructure
services company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S2M2h3 at no extra charge.[CC]

CIGNA HEALTH: Plaintiff's Bid to Seal Exhibits Denied
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RJ, et al., v. Cigna
Health & Life Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-02255-EJD
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order
denying the Plaintiffs' motion to seal Exhibits 4 and 10-A.

  -- The Plaintiffs shall file an unredacted version of these
exhibits
     on the public docket.

  -- The Plaintiffs' motion to seal Exhibits 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 15,
16,
     17, 18, 22, and 30 is denied without prejudice to the extent
the
     Plaintiffs seek to seal the entire exhibit.

  -- Within five days of the Order, the Plaintiffs may re-file an
     administrative motion to file either these documents in full
with
     appropriate redactions or an excerpted version of these
     transcripts entirely under seal.

  -- If Plaintiffs do not file another sealing motion within five
     days, they shall file unredacted versions of these exhibits on

     the public docket.

The Court orders sealed the material listed below:

    Document or Portion        Evidence Offered in         Ruling
    of Document Sought to      Support Of be Sealed
                               Sealing

  Exhibit 1 MPI-C0000230       Modiano Dec. section 2    GRANTED

  Exhibit 2 MPI-C0000216       Modiano Dec. section 3,   GRANTED

  Exhibit 3 Gabriel Smith      Modiano Dec. section 4,   DENIED W/O

  DepositionTranscript                                   PREJUDICE

  Exhibit 4 Plan Language      Modiano Dec. section 5    DENIED
  Chart

  Exhibit 5 Michael            Modiano Dec. section 6    DENIED
W/O
  Battistoni Deposition                                  PREJUDICE
  Transcript

  Exhibit 6 Expert Report      Modiano Dec. section 7    GRANTED
  of Mark Hall

Cigna Health offers life and health insurance services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S03DGk at no extra charge.[CC]

COBALT 27: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Troche Class Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA TROCHE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. COBALT 27, LLC, d/b/a CARBON 2 COBALT, Case No.
1:24-cv-00041-JHR (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 3, 2024) sues the Defendant for
their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
Website, https://www.carbon2cobalt.com, to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff has been denied the full use and enjoyment of the
facilities, goods and services offered to the general public on the
Defendant's Website in Bronx County. These access barriers that the
Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of the Plaintiff's full
and equal access multiple times in the past, and now deter the
Plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing the Defendant's website
in the future, the suit claims.

On November 16, 2023, the Plaintiff attempted to access the
information offered on the Defendant's Website, and once she was on
the Home-Page, she requested information on "Women's Fleece Jackets
for under $100.00," and was directed to the "Women's Sale" section
of https://www.carbon2cobalt.com.

The lack of descriptive elements caused the Plaintiff to suffer
confusion and exasperation while navigating
https://www.carbon2cobalt.com. On the first occasion, the Plaintiff
was unable to complete her search for a quality, reasonably priced
fleece jacket and left the subject Website, the suit says.

On November 17, 2023, the Plaintiff returned to the Website in
order to determine whether the Defendant had corrected its
deficiencies. Yet despite the Plaintiff's use of the screen reader,
she was unable to determine whether those items offered on sale met
her requirements. As a result, the Plaintiff did not complete her
purchase of the desired apparel.

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person. The
Plaintiff is unable to utilize a computer or device without the
assistance of screen-reading software, such as Nonvisual Desktop
Access or "NVDA."

Cobalt 27 is a California corporation, and provides to the public a
website, https://www.carbon2cobalt.com, which offers consumers
access to an array of "Quality, unique apparel for all gender,
hats, footwear, flasks, wallets and other assorted curated
products," within their eCommerce platform.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
          Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
          JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
          110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 227-5700
          Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
          E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
                  bennitta@employeejustice.com

CR BARD: Court Denies Class Certification in North Brevard Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORTH BREVARD COUNTY
HOSPITAL DISTRICT D/B/A PARRISH MEDICAL CENTER, v. C.R. BARD, INC.
and BARD ACCESS SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00144-RJS-JCB (D.
Utah), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Shelby entered an order denying
class certification motion.

The Court said, "Parrish has not met its burden for certification
of either a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class or a Rule 23(b)(2)
injunctive class."

Bard's arguments are well-taken, but the court finds Parrish's
request for certification under Rule 23(b)(2) fails for a more
fundamental reason.

The Plaintiff filed a Renewed Motion for Class Certification,
seeking to represent a class of purchasers of select medical
products sold by Defendants.

Parrish alleges Bard unlawfully monopolized the market for
peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) by tying the sale
of its tip-location system (TLS) to its sale of PICCs, in violation
of section 2 of the Sherman Act.

Bard is a medical device manufacturer producing a range of
products, including PICCs, which it sells to hospitals and medical
service providers.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HfpCUC at no extra charge.[CC]

DADA NEXUS: Wang Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities
--------------------------------------------------------------
YAN WANG, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DADA NEXUS LIMITED, JEFF HUIJIAN HE, and
BECK ZHAOMING CHEN, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00239 (C.D. Cal.,
January 10, 2024) seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Dada securities
between May 11, 2023 and January 8, 2024, inclusive. Allegedly,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that Dada revenues from online advertising, marketing
services, and operations and support costs were materially
overstated; as a result, Dada would need to conduct an independent
review to ascertain the financial impact and the scope of
suspicious practices that led to overstated revenues and costs. The
Defendants' false and misleading statements, the market price of
the company's securities was artificially inflated during the class
period, says the suit.

Headquartered in Shanghai, China, Dada is a platform for local
on-demand retail and delivery in China. The company operates
JD-Daojia, one of China's largest local on-demand retail platforms
for retailers and brand owners, and Dada Now, a leading local
on-demand delivery platform open to merchants and individual
senders across various industries and product categories. Dada's
securities trade on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "DADA." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

DDS INC: Faces Martinez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
LIZBETH MARTINEZ, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEIVAN SARRAF, DDS, INC.,
DBA TOTAL CARE DENTAL AND ORTHODONTICS, a California Corporation;
and DOES 1 TO 50, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV00954 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., January 12, 2024) alleges that the Defendants
violated several provisions of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code's Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants within the statutory Class
Period, working as an hourly, non-exempt Dental Receptionist for
Defendants. However, the Defendants failed to fully conform their
pay practices to the requirements of the law. Among other
violations, the Class Members were subject to the control of
Defendants while off-the-clock and did not receive minimum wage for
each hour worked, says the Plaintiff.

Headquartered in Los Angeles County, DDS, Inc. is a preferred
provider organization that provides administrative services for
self-insured group dental plans. [BN]  

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          Meghan N. Higday, Esq.
          Emma McGinn, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 824-3828
          Facsimile: (310) 862-6851
          E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
                  mh@melmedlaw.com
                  em@melmedlaw.com

                  - and -

          Peter Horton, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR EMPLOYEE AND CONSUMER RIGHTS, APC
          3500 West Olive Avenue, Third Floor
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (323) 720-8335
          E-mail: phorton@lfecr.com

DELTA DENTAL: Meeks Sues Over Unprotected Private Information
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MEEKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00202-LB (N.D. Cal., January 11, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and adequate data
security measures to securely maintain personally identifiable
information and protected health information against unauthorized
access and disclosure, alleging claims for negligence and
declaratory judgment, seeking damages and injunctive relief.

Despite Delta Dental's duty to safeguard the PII and PHI of its
members, Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive information was
access and exfiltrated by unauthorized third parties during a
massive data breach that occurred between May 27, 2023, and May 30,
2023. In addition, despite becoming aware of the data breach on
June 1, 2023, Delta Dental waited more than six months to notify
individuals impacted by the breach. Indeed, Defendant waited until
on or about December 14, 2023 to begin notifying its members that
their PII and PHI had been compromised, says the suit.

Delta Dental is a California-based dental insurance company. Its
network and affiliates provide dental insurance to more than 45
million members across 15 states. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jae K. Kim, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          117 East Colorado Blvd., Suite 600
          Pasadena, CA 91105
          Telephone: (626) 550-1250
          E-mail: ekim@lcllp.com

                  - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: gary@lcllp.com

DUKE UNIVERSITY: Franklin Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOY G. FRANKLIN, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. DUKE UNIVERSITY,
THE RETIREMENT BOARD FOR DUKE UNIVERSITY, and JOHN/JANE DOES
1–10, Case No. 1:23-cv-00833-CCE-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying all claims in this
action as a class pursuant to Rules 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiff also moves to be appointed Class Representative
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(c)(1)(B) and have Siri & Glimstad
LLP appointed as Class Counsel for the proposed Class pursuant to
Fed. R.
Civ. Pro. 23(g).

Duke University is a private research university in Durham, North
Carolina, United States.

A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 28, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Sk53N6 at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Smith, Esq.
          Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
          Oren Faircloth, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Telephone: (212) 532-1091
          E-mail: dsmith@sirillp.com
                  lconsidine@sirillp.com
                  ofaircloth@sirillp.com

DX ENTERPRISES: Joint Bid to Stay Pending Deadlines OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McClaine v. DX
Enterprises, Inc. Case No. 3:23-cv-01168 (S.D. Ill., Filed April 6,
2023), the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered an order granting
joint motion to stay all pending deadlines.

The parties are directed to file a joint status report by February
1, 2024 detailing their positions on the continued appropriateness
of the stay, unless events before that date warrant an earlier
report to the Court.

Further, should circumstances change such that additional discovery
becomes necessary or a recognizable prejudice befalls one or more
of the parties during this stay, the parties may move to modify the
stay as may be appropriate.

In light of the Order, the Court cancels all pending deadlines.

In this putative class action, Plaintiff alleges violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Ac. On October 5, 2023, and
at the parties' request, the Court stayed all discovery in this
matter so the parties could engage in settlement negotiations.

This discovery stay has been continued at the parties request on
two occasions. By Agreed Motion dated December 26, 2023, the
parties now request a stay of all pending deadlines, including the
class certification briefing deadlines, in addition to a stay of
discovery.

The nature of suit states Labor - Other Labor Litigation

DX Enterprises is a full service staffing company.[CC]


EIGHT ORANGES: Court OK's Bid for More Response Time to Class Cert
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mangahas v. Eight Oranges
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-04150 (S.D.N.Y., Filed May 20,
2022), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order granting
motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Class
Certification motion.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).[CC]


ELECTROSTIM MEDICAL: St. Mary Sues Over Private Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
TAMARA ST. MARY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELECTROSTIM MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00113 (M.D. Fla., January 11, 2024)
arises from the Defendant’s failure to implement adequate and
reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to
protect the personally identifiable information and personal health
information of approximately 543,000 individuals.

On May 13, 2023, the Defendant detected suspicious activity within
its computer network. In response, Defendant commenced an
investigation, ultimately confirming that an unauthorized party
accessed confidential information stored on Defendant’s network
between April 27, 2023, and May 13, 2023. Despite learning of the
data breach as early as May 13, 2023, Defendant failed to announce
the data breach publicly more than seven months later on or around
December 28, 2023, and did not begin sending out data breach
notification letters to affected individuals until around that
time, says the suit.

Based in Tampa, FL, Electrostim Medical Services, Inc. is a
privately-held medical device company specializing in home
electrical stimulating devices, bracing, and accessories for pain
management and physical rehabilitation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street 6th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

                  - and -

          Jennifer S. Czeisler, Esq.
          STERLINGTON, PLLC
          One World Trade Center 85th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 433-2993
          E-mail: jen.czeisler@sterlingtonlaw.com

                  - and -

          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          STERLINGTON, PLLC
          One World Trade Center 85th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 433-2993
          E-mail: edward.ciolko@sterlingtonlaw.com

                  - and -

          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          EVANGELISTA WORLEY LLC
          10 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 130
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (404) 205-8400
          Facsimile: (404) 205-8395
          E-mail: jim@ewlawllc.com

EXACT CARE: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA EVERETT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V.
EXACT CARE PHARMACY, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-01649-JKM (M.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Julia K. Munley entered an order granting the
plaintiff's unopposed motion for extension of deadline to move for
class certification.

The Plaintiff shall file his motion for class certification on or
before a date to be jointly proposed by the parties in their Joint
Scheduling Report.

ExactCare is a national medication management and pharmacy
provider.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/422t6mQ at no extra charge.[CC]

EXACT CARE: Everett Seeks Deadline Extension of Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA EVERETT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
EXACT CARE PHARMACY, LLC Case No. 4:23-cv-01649-JKM (M.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her unopposed
motion for extension of Lr 23.3 class certification deadline:

Pursuant to Local Rule 23.3, the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is due on January 2, 2024. However, upon a showing of
good cause, including the need to sufficiently develop the record
before moving for certification, courts in this District will
permit an extension of time.

ExactCare is a national medication management and pharmacy care
provider.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 26, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48M2GbX at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard
          Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Court Strikes Curry's Class Action Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marcia Morales Howard of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, strikes the
class action complaint filed in the lawsuit captioned CHRISTINE
CURRY, Plaintiff v. FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC., and
LOANCARE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01508-MMH-MCR (M.D.
Fla.

The Plaintiff initiated the instant action on Dec. 27, 2023, by
filing a seven-count Class Action Complaint. Upon review, the Court
finds that the Complaint constitutes an impermissible "shotgun
pleading."

A shotgun complaint contains multiple counts where each count
adopts the allegations of all preceding counts, causing each
successive count to carry all that came before and the last count
to be a combination of the entire complaint, Judge Howard explains,
citing Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313,
1321 & n.11 (11th Cir. 2015).

As a result, Judge Howard says, most of the counts contain
irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions. Consequently,
in ruling on the sufficiency of a claim, the Court is faced with
the onerous task of sifting out irrelevancies in order to decide
for itself which facts are relevant to a particular cause of action
asserted. Here, Counts II-VII of the Complaint incorporate by
reference all allegations of all the preceding counts.

In the Eleventh Circuit, shotgun pleadings of this sort are
altogether unacceptable, Judge Howard opines, citing Cramer v.
State of Fla., 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997). Indeed, the
Eleventh Circuit has engaged in a thirty-year salvo of criticism
aimed at shotgun pleadings, and there is no ceasefire in sight.

As the Court in Cramer recognized, shotgun pleadings, whether filed
by plaintiff or defendant, exact an intolerable toll on the trial
court's docket, lead to unnecessary and unchanneled discovery, and
impose unwarranted expense on the litigants, the court and the
court's parajudicial personnel and resources.

When faced with the burden of deciphering a shotgun pleading, it is
the trial court's obligation to strike the pleading on its own
initiative, and force the plaintiff to replead to the extent
possible under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, Judge Howard strikes the Class Action Complaint. The
Plaintiff was directed to file a corrected complaint consistent
with the directives of this Order on Jan. 17, 2024. Failure to do
so may result in a dismissal of this action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 4, 2024, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/3bytjscpfrom PacerMonitor.com.


FRANK KENDALL: Bid to Certify Class Withdrawn in Hoffler Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOFFLER v. FRANK KENDALL,
Case No. 8:23-cv-00170 (D. Md., Filed Jan. 23, 2023), the Hon.
Judge Peter J. Messitte entered an order withdrawing motion to
certify Class.

The nature of suit states Administrative Procedure Act/Review or
Appeal of Agency Decision.[CC]


GATOS SILVER: Orozco Sues Directors for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------------
NOAH OROZCO, derivatively on behalf of GATOS SILVER, INC.,
Plaintiff v. JANICE STAIRS, KARL HANNEMAN, DAVID PEAT, CHARLES
HANSARD, IGOR GONZALES, ALI ERFAN, DANIEL MUÑIZ QUINTANILLA, and
STEPHEN ORR, Defendants, and GATOS SILVER, INC., Nominal Defendant,
Case No.1:24-cv-00040-UNA (D. Del., January 11, 2024) alleges the
Company's officers and directors for breaches of their fiduciary
duties between at least March 29, 2021 and January 25, 2022.

Allegedly, the Defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements in connection with, among other things, the company's
initial public offering and the company's secondary public
offering. These statements have exposed the company to substantial
class-wide liability as well as the expenditure of substantial
defense costs in connection with the securities class action
captioned Bilinsky v. Gatos Silver, Inc., et al.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of one and more shareholders of the
company, also asserts claims for unjust enrichment and for
violations of the Securities and Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.

Headquartered in British Columbia, Canada, Gatos Silver, Inc. is a
Delaware corporation that is engaged in silver mining. The
company's common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange
under the ticker symbol "GATO."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Erica L. Stone, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
         Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                estone@rosenlegal.com

                - and -

         Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
         Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
         FARNAN LLP
         919 North Market St., 12th Floor
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 777-0300
         Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
         E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
                 mfarnan@farnanlaw.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Bid for Arbitration Granted; Battle Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MATTHEW BATTLE, et al., Plaintiffs v. GENERAL
MOTORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-10783-MAG-KGA (E.D.
Mich.), Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion
& Order granting:

   (1) the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to modify the scheduling
       order and to file a first amended complaint;

   (2) the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration; and

   (3) joint motion to stay all proceedings.

The Plaintiffs--purchasers of new and used vehicles equipped with
certain eight-speed transmissions--have filed a class action
lawsuit against Defendant General Motors, LLC, based on alleged
defects to those transmissions (the Hydra-Matic 8L90 and
Hydra-Matic 8L45) installed in 2019–2022 model year vehicles.

The Plaintiffs allege that the eight-speed transmissions at issue
have a dangerous shift defect, and that GM concealed this defect.
They seek to bring suit on behalf of "[a]ll original purchasers or
current owners of Class Vehicles who purchased the Vehicles from
authorized GM dealers" in California, Michigan, New Jersey,
Indiana, and Washington. They bring claims under the applicable
state law of where each Plaintiff purchased a vehicle.

Plaintiff Juan Castaneda--a named Plaintiff in the class
action--alleges that he purchased a new 2021 GMC Canyon containing
an 8L90 or 8L45 transmission from Cardinale Oldsmobile GMC Truck, a
dealership in Seaside, California. He alleges that his vehicle's
"transmission exhibited hard shifting, clunking, jerking and
vibrating." He executed an agreement with the dealership entitled,
"Retail Installment Sale Contract - Simple Finance Charge (With
Arbitration Provision)." The agreement includes the terms under
which the dealership financed Castaneda's vehicle purchase. The
agreement also contains an arbitration provision.

GM, a non-party to the arbitration agreements, moves to compel
Castaneda's claims to arbitration. The Plaintiffs seek leave to
modify the scheduling order and to amend their complaint by adding
15 additional plaintiffs from nine states and removing surplus
allegations and causes of action. GM only opposes the Plaintiffs'
motion to the extent that it seeks to add three plaintiffs, who
have signed agreements to arbitrate, Banessa Canales-Carayhua,
Carly Ball, and Robert Krause.

Since the filing of these motions, the parties have filed a joint
motion to stay all proceedings pending the Sixth Circuit's rulings
in two recently granted appeals of certification orders in
automotive-defect class actions: In re General Motors LLC, No.
23-11044 (6th Cir. Oct. 23, 2023), and In re Nissan North America,
Inc., No. 23-0501 (6th Cir. Oct. 24, 2023).

The Court held a status conference to discuss all pending motions
on Dec. 27, 2023. At the status conference, all counsel agreed that
if the Court were to grant GM's motion to compel, it should make
that ruling applicable to any newly added plaintiffs, who have
signed binding arbitration agreements with GM.

Judge Goldsmith notes that this case concerns a "gateway" question
of arbitrability--that is, whether GM, a non-party to the contract,
can enforce Castaneda's agreement to arbitrate. The parties'
dispute centers around who can answer this gateway question. The
Plaintiffs contend that the Court is the appropriate forum, while
GM contends that the gateway question of arbitrability must be
decided by an arbitrator.

GM has the better of the argument, Judge Goldsmith holds. Because
Castaneda's arbitration agreement contains a valid delegation
clause that he has failed to specifically challenge, only an
arbitrator can decide the gateway question of arbitrability.

Mr. Castaneda states that he "only and specifically challenges the
delegation clause nestled within the arbitration provision." But "a
party's mere statement that it is challenging the delegation
provision is not enough; courts must look to the substance of the
challenge," Judge Goldsmith explains, citing In re StockX Customer
Data Sec. Breach Litig., 19 F.4th 873, 885 (6th Cir. 2021).

Here, Mr. Castaneda challenges the delegation clause on the grounds
that the clause cannot be read to include any dispute related to
the vehicle, by non-signatories beyond those identified by the
dealership in the agreement (such as GM).

Judge Goldsmith opines that this is not a specific challenge to the
delegation clause. Lyman v. Ford Motor Co., a recent case where
another judge in this district was faced with facts very similar to
these, is particularly informative, No. 21-CV-10024, 2022 WL 856393
(E.D. Mich. Mar. 22, 2022), Judge Goldsmith explains.

In Lyman, the plaintiffs purchased their vehicles through financing
from a credit company pursuant to an agreement containing an
identical arbitration provision to the one at issue in this case.
Ford Motor Company, a non-party to the contract, sought to enforce
the arbitration agreement against all plaintiffs. The plaintiffs
purported to specifically challenge the delegation clause by
arguing that Ford should not be able to compel arbitration because
it was not a party to that agreement.

The court in Lyman held that this was not a specific challenge to
the delegation clause because it did "not go to the validity of the
delegation clauses" and instead went "to the enforceability of the
whole arbitration agreement." The court left the gateway issue of
whether Ford could enforce the arbitration agreement for an
arbitrator to decide.

The reasoning in Lyman was correct, and the same outcome is
required here, Judge Goldsmith holds. Even though Castaneda
purports to be challenging the delegation clause specifically, in
substance he is challenging the enforceability of the entire
arbitration agreement.

This holding is consistent with the Sixth Circuit's recent cases
explaining that whether a non-party can enforce an arbitration
agreement is a question reserved for the arbitrator, Judge
Goldsmith opines, citing In re StockX, 19 F.4th at 883 (describing
the type of challenge brought by Castaneda as an issue of
enforceability and, thus, a question of arbitrability delegated to
an arbitrator).

Because the Court finds that Castaneda's challenge is not specific
to the delegation clause, the gateway question of whether GM can
compel Castaneda to arbitrate must be decided by an arbitrator.
Judge Goldsmith clarifies that this does not mean that GM, a
non-party to Castaneda's contract, can necessarily force Castaneda
to arbitrate his claims--it simply reserves that question for
arbitration. An arbitrator might still find that the arbitration
agreement is unenforceable as to GM.

For these reasons, the Court grants GM's motion to compel
arbitration, the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the scheduling order
and to file a first amended complaint, and the parties' joint
motion to stay all proceedings. The Plaintiffs were to file an
amended complaint within three days.

Consistent with the parties' agreement at the Dec. 27, 2023 status
conference, this ruling compelling arbitration applies to any newly
added plaintiffs, who have signed binding arbitration agreements
with GM. The case is stayed pending the decision of the Sixth
Circuit in the appeals referenced here or until further order of
the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Jan. 4, 2024,
is available at http://tinyurl.com/4m4fjpfxfrom PacerMonitor.com.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Trauernicht Can File Materials Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peter Trauernicht, et al.,
v. Genworth Financial Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00532-REP (E.D. Va.),
the Hon. Judge Robert E. Payne entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion to file material under seal:

-- The reply Memorandum of law in further support of the
Plaintiffs'
    motion for class certification is filed under seal.

-- Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 to the Decla of John C. Roberts in further

    support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification are
    filed under seal.

Genworth provides life insurance, long-term care insurance,
mortgage insurance, and annuities.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O6aX1P at no extra charge.[CC]


GEORGE MASON: 4th Cir. Flips Denial of Bid to Dismiss Amison Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuits titled KYLIE AMISON, Plaintiff - Appellee v. GEORGE
MASON UNIVERSITY; THE RECTORS AND VISITORS OF GEORGE MASON
UNIVERSITY, Defendants - Appellants, and JOHN DOES 1-25; SOCRATES
DIMITRIADIS, Defendants, Case No. 23-1042 (4th Cir.), and KYLIE
AMISON, Plaintiff - Appellee v. SOCRATES DIMITRIADIS, Defendant -
Appellant, and GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY; RECTORS AND VISITORS OF
GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY; JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
23-1385 (4th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit reverses the district court's orders denying the
Defendants-Appellants' motions to dismiss.

The Appeals are from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria; Claude M. Hilton,
Senior District Judge, Case No. 1:22-cv-00731-CMH-WEF. The matter
was submitted on Oct. 25, 2023, and decided on Dec. 28, 2023. The
matter is before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD,
Senior Circuit Judge.

Reversed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

In these consolidated appeals, Defendants George Mason University
and Socrates Dimitriadis appeal the district court's orders denying
their motions to dismiss. The Court of Appeals reverses the
district court's orders and remands with instructions to dismiss
the amended complaint.

Generally, a district court's denial of a motion to dismiss is not
immediately appealable. However, the Defendants appeal the denial
of sovereign immunity on the claims against the University and the
denial of sovereign and qualified immunity on the claims against
Dimitriadis in his official and individual capacity, respectively.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review the
district court's orders.

Plaintiff Kylie Amison filed this putative class action lawsuit
based on disciplinary proceedings instituted against her while she
was enrolled as a student at Mason. According to Amison's amended
complaint, in May 2020, Dimitriadis, a professor in the Computer
Science Department, accused her of violating the University's Honor
Code by engaging in academic misconduct. Dimitriadis determined
that the program code Amison submitted in one of her assignments in
his course was "unorthodox," and a program he used--Measure of
Software Similarity ("MOSS")--had flagged the assignment for
plagiarism.

Mr. Dimitriadis notified Amison of the alleged violation and
informed her that she would be referred to the Office of Academic
Integrity. Amison asserts that the Computer Science Department
regularly levels false accusations of cheating against students as
a result of inter-departmental politics.

Approximately one month later, Amison appeared before the
University's Honor Committee, and Dimitriadis testified. According
to Amison, despite the fact that her challenged assignment
contained less than two pages of code, and other universities have
found that MOSS is ineffective for reviewing shorter assignments,
Dimitriadis failed to inform the Committee of this limitation.

Ms. Amison also alleged that the Honor Committee failed to afford
her the opportunity to cross-examine Dimitriadis and that she was
otherwise ill-equipped to do so because her expert witness was
sequestered from the hearing during Dimitriadis' testimony. The
Honor Committee found Amison responsible for violating two sections
of the Honor Code; she failed the course and was suspended for one
semester.

Based on these allegations, Amison raised two claims under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983. She argued that the Defendants deprived her of
her right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and,
further, had conspired to deprive her of this right. She also
brought a state law claim of breach of contract against Mason. In
addition to monetary damages, Amison sought declaratory and
injunctive relief declaring the Defendants' actions unlawful and
enjoining investigation and hearing of her and the putative class
because the investigation and hearing was conducted in an
unprofessional and prejudicial manner, it was tainted, and that
evidence obtained through MOSS software be excluded.

Mason moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing,
inter alia, that it was not a "person" amenable to suit under
Section 1983 and that, as a state-supported university, it was
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity as "an arm of the
Commonwealth of Virginia."

The district court summarily denied the motion, stating: "It
appear[s] to the Court that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint states a
claim upon which relief may be granted." Mason moved for
reconsideration and renewed its motion to dismiss under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(1), emphasizing that the court had not addressed
Mason's claim of sovereign immunity. The court summarily denied the
motion.

Mr. Dimitriadis similarly moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1), (6), echoing Mason's sovereign immunity argument and
further contending that he was entitled to qualified immunity for
the claims brought against him in his personal capacity. The court
summarily denied Dimitriadis' motion.

On appeal, the Defendants reiterate their arguments that they are
entitled to sovereign immunity and that Dimitriadis is entitled to
qualified immunity. Turning first to the Defendants' assertion of
sovereign immunity, the Panel notes that it is well established
"that an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal
courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another
State." This immunity also extends to state agencies and other
government entities properly characterized as "arms" of the State.

Like the State itself, state officers acting in their official
capacity are also entitled to Eleventh Amendment protection because
a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is
not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the
official's office and, as such, it is no different from a suit
against the State itself.

Ms. Amison concedes that Mason, as a public university, is an "arm"
of the Commonwealth of Virginia. She argues, however--as she did in
the district court--that her claims fall within the Ex parte Young
209 U.S. 123 (1908) exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity
because she sought injunctive relief.

However, the Panel opines that the Ex parte Young exception is
narrow: it applies only to prospective relief, does not permit
judgments against state officers declaring that they violated
federal law in the past, and has no application in suits against
the States and their agencies, which are barred regardless of the
relief sought. Accordingly, as the Defendants assert, it
necessarily cannot apply to Amison's claims against Mason, which
retains its immunity "against all suits in federal court."

Further fatal to Amison's argument is that her requested relief was
not prospective; rather, she sought a declaration that the
Defendants' actions were unlawful, and requested that the district
court enjoin the investigation and hearing. However, it is clear
from Amison's amended complaint that the investigation and hearing
occurred entirely in the past.

The Court of Appeals finds that the Ex parte Young exception is
inapplicable to Amison's claims, and the Defendants are entitled to
sovereign immunity. Accordingly, the district court erred by
denying Mason's motions to dismiss on this ground. Similarly, as a
state officer, Dimitriadis is entitled to sovereign immunity on the
claims brought against him in his official capacity, and the court
erred by denying his motion to dismiss on this ground.

The Court of Appeals also finds that Dimitriadis is entitled to
qualified immunity, and the district court erred by denying his
motion to dismiss the individual capacity claims against him on
that ground.

Accordingly, the Panel reverses the district court's orders and
remands with instructions to dismiss the amended complaint. The
Panel dispenses with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

Reversed and remanded.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 28, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/cxuk4r2bfrom PacerMonitor.com.

Attorney General Jason S. Miyares -- jmiyares@oag.state.va.us --
Deputy Attorney General Coke Morgan Stewart -- ecms@yahoo.com --
Assistant Attorney General Eli S. Schlam -- eschlam@gmu.edu --
Solicitor General Andrew N. Ferguson -- aferguson@oag.state.va.us
-- Principal Deputy Solicitor General Erika L. Maley --
EMaley@oag.state.va.us -- Deputy Solicitor General Graham K. Bryant
-- gbryant@oag.state.va.us -- Assistant Solicitor General M. Jordan
Minot -- mminot@oag.state.va.us -- OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF VIRGINIA, in Richmond, Virginia, for the Appellants.

Keith Altman -- kalonline@kaltmanlaw.com -- THE LAW OFFICE OF KEITH
ALTMAN, in Farmington Hills, Michigan, for the Appellee.


GODADDY.COM LLC: Simon Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Jason Simon, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-00065-ROS (D. Ariz., January 10, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
common law.

Plaintiff Jason Simon is a resident of Tyler, TX and worked for
Defendant remotely as a care agent from approximately December 2020
to June 2021. Allegedly, Defendant violated the FLSA and common law
by systematically failing to compensate Plaintiff and its other
care agents for work tasks completed before and after their
scheduled shifts when they were not logged into Defendant's
timekeeping system, which resulted in nonpayment of all overtime
hours worked and regular hours in non-overtime workweeks.

Headquartered in Tempe, AZ, GoDaddy.com LLC provides web hosting
and domain registration services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
        Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq.
        SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
        One Towne Square, 17th Floor
        Southfield, MI 48076
        Telephone: (248) 355-0300
        E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                pkennedy@sommerspc.com

                - and -

        Jacqueline Mendez Soto, Esq.
        BARTON MENDEZ SOTO PLLC
        401 W. Baseline Road, Suite 205
        Tempe, AZ 85283
        Telephone: (480) 550-5165
        E-mail: jacqueline@bartonmendezsoto.com

GROWGENERATION CORP: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Growgeneration Corp.
The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Growgeneration Corp., Case No.
1:23-cv-11312 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2023).

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

GrowGeneration -- http://www.growgeneration.com/-- is the nation's
largest hydroponic store and organic garden center supplier selling
hydroponic supplies, commercial grow lights and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HANPOOL INC: Faces Park Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE PARK, CELESTE VARGAS, ALFREDO LARIOS SALVADOR, WILMER ADOLFO
LARIOS SALVADOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. HANPOOL, INC., GAM MEE OK, INC., HYUNG K.
CHOI, JUNSIK MOON (a/k/a DEREK DOE), HONG JUN AN (a/k/a JUN DOE),
and HYUNG MO, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11309 (S.D.N.Y., Dec.
29, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor
practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the state and
federal laws by failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, failing
to provide accurate wage notices, failing to furnish accurate wage
statements, failing to pay wages on a weekly basis, and unlawfully
retaining part of the gratuities earned by Plaintiff and the
Class.

The Plaintiffs were employed as servers and bussers working at the
Defendants' Gammeeok restaurants in New York and New Jersey.

Hanpool, Inc. is engaged in the restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clifford Tucker, Esq.
          SACCO & FILLAS LLP
          3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor
          Astoria, NY 11102
          Telephone: (718) 269-2243
          Facsimile: (718) 559-6517
          E-mail: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com

HEALTH & GLOW: Faces Nunez Suit Over Unfair Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALLEGRA NUNEZ, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH & GLOW PRIMARY CARE & MED SPA LLC and
SWAPNA KALLIKADAN M.D., Individually Defendants, Case No.
8:24-cv-00128 (M.D. Fla., January 12, 2024) alleges violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with the Defendants'
unlawful pay practices as well as asserts claims against the
Defendants for violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff began her employment on or about November 2022, as a
Medical Assistant. Throughout her employment with Defendants,
Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week, for which she was
not compensated at the overtime rate. In addition, Plaintiff was
constructively discharged after expressing disappointment in the
doctor's discriminatory conduct patients. Following her
termination, Plaintiff was also informed that the doctor was
filling prescription medication at a local pharmacy in Plaintiff's
and other employees names, unbeknownst to them, and reselling the
medication to patients at a significantly inflated price, says the
suit.

Based in Tampa, FL, Health & Glow is Florida limited liability
company that operates a primary care clinic with a medical spa and
IV lounge. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
         Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
         FLORIN|GRAY
         16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
         Lutz, FL 33558 Telephone (727) 220-4000
         Facsimile (727) 483-7942
         E-mail: wflorin@floringray.com
                 cgray@floringray.com

HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Rhoade Seeks Proper OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
LAURA RHOADES, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, PLAINTIFF, v. HEALTH MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF
AMERICA et al., Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-60063-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
January 10, 2024), arises from the Defendants' standard and illegal
pay practices and policies of failing to pay their employees proper
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
and the putative class members one and a half times their regular
rate of pay for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek. In addition, the Defendants also failed keep adequate
records of Plaintiff's work hours and pay.

Health Management Corporation of America is a diagnostic imaging
management services company specializing in operating Stand-Up MRI
facilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Noah E. Storch, Esq.
         RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
         10368 West State Road 84, Suite 103
         Davie, FL 33324
         Telephone: (866) 344-9243
         Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
         E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com

HEALTHEC LLC: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Palmiter Says
------------------------------------------------------------
DESTINY PALMITER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. HEALTHEC LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00027 (D.N.J., Jan. 3,
2024) sues the Defendant for failing to safeguard the consumers'
personally identifiable information and private health information
stored on its computer network in a data breach perpetrated by
cybercriminals.

The lawsuit claims that the Data Breach's impact has affected at
least 1 million consumers. HealthEC's breach differs from typical
data breaches because it affects consumers who had no relationship
with HealthEC, never sought one, and never consented to HealthEC's
collecting and storing their information, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Data Breach began on July 14, 2023, and was allowed by the
Defendant to continue until July 23,2023, providing cybercriminals
unfettered access to consumers' highly private information for at
least nine days.

On December 22, 2023, HealthEC finally notified State Attorneys
General and many Class Members about the widespread Data Breach.
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, when Defendant actually discovered the
breach, how the breach happened, or why it took the Defendant five
months after discovering the Breach 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 Plaintiff
says.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on her own behalf and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, brings this lawsuit
seeking injunctive relief, damages, and restitution, together with
costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiff, Destiny Palmiter, is a natural person and citizen of
Michigan, residing in Lincoln Park, Michigan where she intends to
remain. Ms. Palmiter is a Data Breach victim, receiving HealthEC's
Breach Notice on December 22, 2023.

HealthEC is a population health technology company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C.
          8000 Sagemore Drive, Suite 8303
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 751-0868
          E-mail: phoward@smbb.com

                - and -

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

                - and -

          Daniel Srourian, Esq.
          SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 474-3800
          Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
          E-mail: daniel@slfla.com

HIS GUAM: Igarashi Wins Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSAMU IGARASHI, v. H.I.S.
GUAM INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00025 (D. Guam), the Hon. Judge Frances
M. Tydingco-Gatewood entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and appointment of class counsel.

The Plaintiff alleges class members were employees of Defendant,
terminated by Defendant through the same "separation notice," and
the "separation notice" was received by all on May 30, 2020
effective on May 31, 2020 without prior notice.

Managing a class action of this alleged size would not be
particularly difficult because the proposed class all had the same
employer, were terminated at the same time, and in the same way.
The court finds that class certification is superior to other
methods available for adjudicating the proposed class's claims.

During March of 2020, Defendant's employees stopped working due to
the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the employees were not working,
Defendant paid its employees' wages until May 30, 2020.

On May 30, 2020, the Plaintiff along with other allegedly "affected
employees" received a "separation notice" from Defendant stating
employees would be placed on a " furlough status" effective May 31,
2020.

On Sept.16, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint
alleging Defendant violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 2102, when the
Defendant furloughed Plaintiff and "affected employees" without the
60-day advanced notice required by the WARN Act.

HIS Guam is a Guam corporation that operated as a travel service
Agency.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tPYmZS at no extra charge.[CC]



IDAHO: Prosecutor's Bid to Dismiss Poe Class Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAM POE, by and through
her parents and next friends, Penny and Peter Poe; PENNY POE; PETER
POE; JANE DOE, by and through her parents and next friends, Joan
and John Doe; JOAN DOE, and JOHN DOE, v. RAUL LABRADOR, in his
official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Idaho; JAN M.
BENNETTS, in her official capacity as Ada County Prosecuting
Attorney; and the INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE IDAHO CODE COMMISSION,
in their official capacities, Case No. 1:23-cv-00269-BLW (D.
Idaho), the Hon. Judge B. Lynn Winmill entered an order that:

   1. Prosecutor Bennetts' Motion to Dismiss is denied.

   2. Attorney General Labrador and the Idaho Code Commission
Members'
      Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as
      follows:

      -- The motion is granted as to the Idaho Code Commission
         defendants and denied as to Defendant Attorney General
         Labrador.

   3. The Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is
granted.

Accordingly, the Defendants Attorney General Labrador and Ada
County Prosecutor Bennetts and their successors in office are
enjoined from enforcing any provision of House Bill 71 during the
pendency of this litigation.

The Court concludes that the parent plaintiffs have asserted a
fundamental right and that HB 71 must therefore survive strict
scrutiny.

And given that HB 71 is unlikely to survive heightened scrutiny, it
is also unlikely to survive strict scrutiny. The parent plaintiffs
have thus shown they are likely to succeed on the merits of their
claim.

The Court finds that a statewide injunction is appropriate here for
three reasons.

   First, all plaintiffs in this case are proceeding under
pseudonyms,
   and it would be administratively burdensome, if even possible,
to
   fashion an injunction that would allow them to secure relief
   without compromising their anonymity.

   Second, the Ninth Circuit has upheld statewide injunctions in
   similar cases.

   Third, if the Court were to issue a plaintiffs-only injunction,
it
   would likely face a number of follow-on lawsuits by similarly
   situated plaintiffs, which would create needless and repetitive
   litigation.

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Idaho’s
Vulnerable Child Protection Act, which is slated to take effect on
January 1, 2024. The plaintiffs -- two transgender minors and their
parents—allege that the Act's prohibition on the use of puberty
blockers, hormones and other treatments violates the Equal
Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. They ask the Court to
enjoindefendants from enforcing the Act during the pendency of this
lawsuit. Defendants
move to dismiss the complaint and oppose the request for injunctive
relief.  
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47ynO3K at no extra charge.[CC]

ILLINOIS: Seeks Leave to File Class Reply in Cross Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN CROSS, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. BRENDAN KELLY, in
his official capacity as Director of the Illinois State Police,
Case No. 3:23-cv-03165-CRL-KLM (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting his motion for leave to file a
reply in support of his motion for class certification instanter
(unopposed).

   1. The Plaintiff filed a motion to certify this case as a class

      action on Aug. 31, 2023. The Defendant responded in
opposition
      to the motion on Nov. 13, 2023.

   2. In its response, the Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not

      established the "numerosity," "commonality" and "typicality"

      requirements of Fed. R. 23(a). In support, Defendant makes a

      number of factual and legal representations that the
Plaintiff
      believes to be incorrect.

   3. The Plaintiff does not seek leave to file this brief in order
to
      burden Defendant on the Court, but rather to give the Court
the
      necessary information to decide the motion.

   4. The Plaintiff's counsel spoke to Mary Johnston, one of the
      attorneys for Defendant, today, December 28, 2023, regarding
the
      Plaintiff's intent to seek leave to file a reply brief.

Illinois State Police is a multifaceted police agency which
specializes in enforcing the laws and protecting the public.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 28, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3U3MXAe at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adele D. Nicholas, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS
          5707 W. Goodman Street
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: (847) 361-3869
          E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com

                - and -

          Mark G. Weinberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG
          3612 N. Tripp Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60641
          Telephone: (773) 283-3913
          E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net

ILLINOIS: Seeks to Withdraw Portions of Romanotto Declaration
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN CROSS, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. BRENDAN KELLY, in
his official capacity as Director of the Illinois Police, Case No.
3:23-cv-03165-CRL-KLM (C.D. Ill.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order granting his unopposed motion for leave to

    (1) withdraw paragraphs 20, 21, 23, 25 and 26 from Lynn
        Romanotto's declaration;

    (2) file an amended declaration on behalf of Ms. Romanotto with

        those paragraphs withdrawn; and

    (3) file an amended response brief that removes the sections
        that refer to the proposed withdrawn paragraphs of Ms.
        Romanotto's declaration.

The Defendant, Brendan Kelly, in his official capacity as Director
of the Illinois State Police, by his attorney, Kwame Raoul,
Attorney General of Illinois, respectfully moves this Court, for
leave to withdraw five paragraphs of Lynn Romanotto's November 13,
2023 declaration and amend Defendant's Response in Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on August 31,
2023. The Defendant filed his response on November 13, 2023.

Illinois State Police is a multifaceted police agency which
specializes in enforcing the laws and protecting the public.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 29, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O6bil7 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marci L. Sahinoglu, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL
          100 West Randolph Street
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (311) 814-3131
          E-mail: Marci.sahinoglu@ilag.gov

INTEGRIS HEALTH: Bointy Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integris Health, Inc.
The case is styled as Joseph E. Bointy, on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Integris Health, Inc.,
Case No. 5:23-cv-01206-JD (W.D. Okla., Dec. 29, 2023).

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

Integris Health -- https://integrisok.com/ -- is an American 501
not-for-profit organization which manages health care facilities in
the state of Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kennedy Marie Brian, Esq.
          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: (405) 235-1560
          Email: kpb@federmanlaw.com
                 wbf@federmanlaw.com

INTEGRIS HEALTH: Campbell-Detrixhe Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integris Health, Inc.
The case is styled as Dia Campbell-Detrixhe, on behalf of herself
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Integris Health,
Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-01209-R (W.D. Okla., Dec. 29, 2023).

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

Integris Health -- https://integrisok.com/ -- is an American 501
not-for-profit organization which manages health care facilities in
the state of Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kennedy Marie Brian, Esq.
          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: (405) 235-1560
          Email: kpb@federmanlaw.com
                 wbf@federmanlaw.com


INTEGRIS HEALTH: Civi Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integris Health, Inc.
The case is styled as Onur Civi, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Integris Health, Inc., Case No.
5:23-cv-01210-JD (W.D. Okla., Dec. 29, 2023).

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

Integris Health -- https://integrisok.com/ -- is an American 501
not-for-profit organization which manages health care facilities in
the state of Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kennedy Marie Brian, Esq.
          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: (405) 235-1560
          Email: kpb@federmanlaw.com
                 wbf@federmanlaw.com


INTEGRIS HEALTH: Leeb Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integris Health, Inc.
The case is styled as Gregory Leeb, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Integris Health, Inc.,
Case No. 5:23-cv-01207-J (W.D. Okla., Dec. 29, 2023).

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

Integris Health -- https://integrisok.com/ -- is an American 501
not-for-profit organization which manages health care facilities in
the state of Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kennedy Marie Brian, Esq.
          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: (405) 235-1560
          Email: kpb@federmanlaw.com
                 wbf@federmanlaw.com


INTEGRIS HEALTH: Zinck Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integris Health, Inc.
The case is styled as Aaron Zinck, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Integris Health, Inc.,
Case No. 5:23-cv-01208-D (W.D. Okla., Dec. 29, 2023).

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

Integris Health -- https://integrisok.com/ -- is an American 501
not-for-profit organization which manages health care facilities in
the state of Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kennedy Marie Brian, Esq.
          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: (405) 235-1560
          Email: kpb@federmanlaw.com
                 wbf@federmanlaw.com


IROQUOIS NURSING: Bid to Amend Pleading Due Feb. 27 in Pallotta
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jordan Pallotta, v.
Iroquois Nursing Home, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-01197-DNH-ML
(N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered a uniform
pretrial scheduling order as follows:

-- Any motion to join any person as a party          Feb. 27,
2024
    to this action shall be made on or before:

-- Any motion to amend any pleading in this          Feb. 27,
2024
    action shall be made on or before:

-- The parties are directed to file a status         March 5,
2024
    report on or before:

-- Rule 26(a)(1) Mandatory Disclosures are           Jan. 10,
2024
    to be exchanged by:

-- Initial Written Discovery Demands must            Jan. 26,
2024
    be served by:

-- All discovery in this matter is to be             Sept. 27,
2024
    completed on or before:

Iroquois Nursing Home is a Senior Living provider.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47tzN2J at no extra charge.[CC]

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Halls Wins Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK HALL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01833-ZNQ-TJB (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge Zahid N. Quraishi entered an order granting motion for class
certification:

   "All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded

    J&J equity securities, as defined in 15 U.S.C. section 78c(11)
and
    17 C.F.R. section 240.3a11-1, between February 22, 2013 and
    December 13, 2018."

    The following will be excluded from the class: defendants,
present
    or former executive officers of defendants and members of their

    immediate families, present or former directors of defendants
and
    members of their immediate families, any entity in which a
    defendant has a controlling interest, and the legal
    representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of any such
excluded
    party.

SDCERA is certified as Class Representative.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Down LLP is appointed as class.

J&J is a multinational company engaged in research and development,
manufacturing, and sale of a broad range of healthcare products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SklOqv at no extra charge.[CC]

JUMP TRADING: Court Dismisses Patterson Suit With Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Casey Pitts of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants, with leave to amend, the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled NICK PATTERSON, Plaintiff v.
JUMP TRADING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-03600-PCP (N.D.
Cal.).

In this putative securities class action, Lead Plaintiff Michael
Tobias and additional Plaintiff Nick Patterson assert various
securities fraud claims against Defendant Jump Trading LLC for
Jump's involvement in the promotion and sale of cryptocurrency
tokens that dramatically dropped in price within a matter of days
in May 2022. Jump moves to compel arbitration and to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' second amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

This case at one time involved multiple defendants. It now involves
just one: Jump Trading LLC. Jump Trading LLC, in conjunction with
its business division Jump Crypto (together "Jump"), is a Delaware
limited liability company that engages in algorithmic trading of a
variety of asset classes, including digital and traditional
assets.

The Plaintiffs initially brought the seconded amended complaint
against TerraForm Labs Ptd Ltd., Jump Trading LLC, Tribe Capital,
DeFinance Capital/Definance Technologies Oy, Three Arrows Capital
Ptd Ltd., and individual defendants Nicholas Platias and Do Kwon.
The Plaintiffs have since moved to voluntarily dismiss, without
prejudice, Defendants Nicholas Platias, Definance Capital/Definance
Capital OY, Tribe Capital, and Three Arrows Capital Pte. Ltd., as
well as Defendants Terraform Labs, Pte. Ltd., and Do Kwon.

The Plaintiffs allege that Jump colluded with and was a principal
participant in a fraudulent scheme with former Defendants,
including Terraform Labs Pte. Ltd. (TFL) and its Chief Executive
Officer Do Kwon.

In 2018, Mr. Kwon founded TFL, a company headquartered in Singapore
that focuses on developing, marketing, and selling a suite of
digital assets and financial products. Cryptocurrency tokens—one
form of digital asset—are a kind of financial product that is
contractually based (via a 'smart' contract) and is created and
uploaded permanently to a given blockchain. A "blockchain protocol"
is computer code that operates as a set of regulations and
guidelines that govern the functioning of various parts of a
blockchain company's technology.

Cryptocurrency markets are notoriously volatile. "Stablecoins" are
a form of cryptocurrency that purport to solve the problem of wild
fluctuations by attempting to tie or "peg" their market value to an
external collateral with less volatility, such as another currency
(e.g., U.S. dollars), commodity (e.g., gold), or financial
instrument (e.g., stocks, cryptocurrencies, etc.). The price of a
stablecoin is supposed to always remain at $1, or the value of
whatever other external collateral the coin is pegged to.
Stablecoin developers have devised two primary ways to maintain
price stability: overcollateralization with fiat reserves and
algorithmic stablecoins.

TFL operates the "Terra" blockchain and protocol. "Terra Tokens"
refer to the range of TFL's digital assets, including the UST and
LUNA coins, which are TFL's largest Terra ecosystem digital assets
by market cap. The UST is an algorithmic stablecoin that operates
through a pair of tokens (the stablecoin itself and another digital
asset that backs the stablecoin) and a smart contract that
regulates the relationship between the two (i.e., the algorithm).

The UST is pegged to $1 and backed by the LUNA, its companion coin.
While an overcollateralized coin would allow swapping the coin for
$1 in dollar reserves, the algorithmic UST stablecoin instead
allows coin holders to exchange one UST stablecoin for $1 worth of
TFL's LUNA coin. To maintain UST's 1:1 parity with the U.S. dollar,
TFL's algorithm mints and burns UST and LUNA to control the supply
and keep the value of UST steady at $1, while at the same time
incentivizing arbitrageurs to trade the UST back to its peg of $1
if it deviates.

TFL never registered any offering of securities nor registered the
Terra Tokens as a class of securities pursuant to federal
securities law. TFL and Mr. Kwon, however, touted the expertise and
success of the Terraform team and aggressively marketed TFL's
crypto asset securities to U.S. investors. Investors like Mr.
Tobias and Mr. Patterson allegedly invested fiat and digital
currencies to purchase Terra Tokens with the expectation of
profit.

TFL also developed protocols to support the sale and promotion of
Terra Tokens. These protocols operate like company charters with a
set of regulations and guidelines that govern the functioning of
various technologies. TFL launched its most popular protocol, the
Anchor Protocol, in August 2020. The Anchor Protocol allegedly
functions like a type of high-yield savings account whereby
investors can "stake" or deposit UST with TFL in exchange for a
guaranteed 20% rate of return.

Users, including the Lead Plaintiff, accessed the Anchor Protocol
through a web application called the Anchor Protocol Interface
("Interface"). In order to connect to the Interface, users first
had to accept the Anchor Terms of Service (TOS) that explain the
terms and conditions by which users may access and use the
Interface.

Jump has been involved with TFL since at least 2019, when Jump's
President Kanav Kariya met with Mr. Kwon to discuss UST. In
November 2019, TFL loaned Jump 30 million LUNA to improve liquidity
because of LUNA's lackluster performance. Jump began to sell LUNA
into the market in July 2020, thereby allowing investors to
purchase LUNA through transactions in secondary markets.

In September of that year, TFL loaned Jump an additional 65 million
LUNA. To receive the LUNA, Jump had to meet certain thresholds
related to trading in UST. Jump met the first threshold and began
receiving LUNA pursuant to the loan from TFL in January 2021. The
loan and Jump's sales of LUNA allowed public investors, including
U.S. investors, to acquire LUNA through transactions in the
secondary market, and generated speculative interest in LUNA.

In late May 2021, the UST began to de-peg from the U.S. dollar
dropping to nearly $0.90 by May 23, 2021. That morning and
throughout the day, Kwon communicated repeatedly with Jump and
expressed concern over UST's value. After Mr. Kwon discussed with
Jump how to restore UST's peg to the dollar, Jump purchased large
quantities of UST throughout the day on May 23 and continuing
through May 27. Following those purchases, UST's market price began
to rise and eventually was restored to near $1. This conduct was
allegedly central in efforts to mislead investors about the
stability of the algorithm.

Subsequently, Mr. Kwon agreed to remove the loan agreement
conditions requiring Jump to achieve the requisite benchmarks to
receive the loaned LUNA tokens and agreed to deliver the remaining
61,458,334 LUNA tokens to Jump. Those modifications were reduced to
writing in a July 21, 2021 agreement, whose terms promised Jump
LUNA tokens at $0.40 per token during a time when LUNA was trading
at more than $90 in the secondary market.

In total, the Plaintiffs allege that Jump generated profits of
$1.28 billion as a result of its agreements with TFL.

The cause of the re-peg, TFL's loans to Jump, and Jump's role in
increasing the price of Terra Tokens were not publicly disclosed to
investors. Rather, the Plaintiffs allege that Jump joined TFL and
others in misleading investors, who were actively buying and
trading UST, to believe that the algorithm had "self-healed" to
restore the peg without any human involvement.

In January 2022, as part of its efforts to promote the stability of
the algorithm, TFL formed the Luna Foundation Guard--a group of six
venture capital groups that promised to support and fund the Terra
ecosystem and to "defend the peg" in the event that high volatility
caused the UST/LUNA pair to become untethered from one another. Mr.
Kariya served as a founding member of the Luna Foundation Guard's
Governing Council.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Luna Foundation Guard and its
members made a series of statements attributing UST's recovery from
the May 2021 depegging to the resiliency of algorithmic
stablecoins--rather than an infusion of capital without disclosing
the nature of the intervention that restored the UST's peg. In
addition to those statements, the Plaintiffs allege that Jump,
without disclosing its role in stabilizing the peg, made a series
of misleading statements and misrepresentations that are actionable
under the securities laws.

First, on Oct. 11, 2021, Jump published a "now-deleted" blog post
on their website titled "Stablecoins: The Impending Rise of a
Multi-Trillion Dollar Market." Second, on Jan. 28, 2022, Mr. Kariya
posted statements about Terra Tokens on Twitter. Third, in a Luna
Foundation Guard press release issued on Feb. 22, 2022, Mr. Kariya
stated that UST Forex Reserve further strengthens confidence in the
peg of the market's leading decentralized stablecoin UST.

Fourth, on March 1, 2022, the Plaintiffs allege that Kwon appeared
with Jump's Kariya on the Ship Show and promoted the stability and
security of the UST and LUNA peg as Terra's two most "attractive"
features. Fifth, on March 10, 2022, Jump promoted an article titled
"Yield Farming for Serious People" on its website.

The Plaintiffs allege that by May 2022, structural vulnerabilities
within the Terra ecosystem precipitated a massive selloff of both
UST and LUNA. Between May 7 and May 12, 2022, the price of UST and
LUNA Tokens dropped by 91% and 99.7% after it was revealed that
TFL's largest digital assets were unstable and unsustainable.

After purchasing 454,991 Terra Tokens on April 6, 2022, for $1 per
token, Mr. Tobias lost $441,062.82 as a result of the selloff. Mr.
Patterson purchased Terra Tokens in the first few months of 2022 as
well, resulting in significant investment losses because of the
same selloff.

On these allegations, Lead Plaintiff Mr. Tobias and co-plaintiff
Mr. Patterson bring this putative class action alleging several
violations of federal securities law. The Plaintiffs also bring
claims in the alternative under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and for aiding and abetting,
conspiracy, and unjust enrichment under California state law.

Jump now moves to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration
agreement between Mr. Tobias and TFL and to dismiss the second
amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).

When registering to use TFL's Anchor Protocol Interface, Lead
Plaintiff Michael Tobias and TFL agreed that they would arbitrate
certain disputes that might arise between them. It is undisputed
that Jump was not a party to that agreement and has never entered
into any other arbitration agreement with Mr. Tobias.

Jump nonetheless contends that it may invoke Mr. Tobias's agreement
with TFL to compel arbitration of Mr. Tobias's claims against Jump
in this lawsuit. Jump's motion presents two distinct issues: (1)
whether Mr. Tobias has agreed that the arbitrator, rather than this
Court, must determine whether his claims against Jump are subject
to the TFL arbitration agreement, and, if not, (2) whether Mr.
Tobias must arbitrate his claims against Jump. The Court answers
both questions in the negative.

Judge Pitts holds that Jump cannot compel arbitration under the
agreement between Tobias and TFL, and Jump may not compel
arbitration because the Plaintiffs' claims against Jump do not fall
within the arbitration agreement's scope and equitable estoppel
does not require arbitration here.

In its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure
to state a claim, Jump argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to
allege that Jump committed securities fraud under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b), failed to allege that Jump
committed securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rules 10(a) and 10(c), and failed to plead control person
liability for TFL and the Luna Foundation Guard's actions.

Additionally, Jump argues that the plaintiffs have failed to state
alternative claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) and for aiding and abetting, conspiracy,
and unjust enrichment under California state law.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded that
terra tokens are securities. The Court also finds that the second
amended complaint fails to adequately plead that Jump made material
misrepresentations, and that Jump committed a manipulative or
deceptive act.

In sum, Judge Pitts opines, the Plaintiffs have failed to
sufficiently plead a single actionable misrepresentation or
omission under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b). The Court,
therefore, grants Jump's motion to dismiss this claim with leave to
amend.

Because the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently
pleaded that the Terra Tokens are securities, the Court grants
Jump's motion to dismiss those claims without prejudice to their
reassertion in the future should the Court's conclusion that Terra
Tokens are securities be revisited and changed.

For these reasons, Judge Pitts rules that Jump's Motion to Compel
Arbitration is denied and Jump's Motion to Dismiss is granted with
leave to amend. Any amended complaint will be filed within 21 days
of the entry of this order and will include a chart listing
numerically each alleged false or misleading statement, the
speaker, the date, and the arguments supporting the Plaintiffs'
claim of falsity and scienter. The chart will also cite the
paragraphs in the amended complaint where the allegations are
made.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 4, 2024, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/3zmnreusfrom PacerMonitor.com.


KAISER FOUNDATION: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE, JOHN DOE II,
JANE DOE, JANE DOE II, JANE DOE III, JANE DOE IV, and JANE DOE V,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS,
and THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-02865-EMC
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order
granting a joint stipulation regarding case management schedule and
order:

                    Action                         Schedule

  Defendants' Replies ISO Motion to Dismiss       Feb. 14, 2024
  and Motion to Compel Arbitration

  Hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss        March 14, 2024
  and Motion to Compel Arbitration                at 1:30 PM

  Remaining Discovery Begins                      Apr. 1, 202

  Class Certification Motion; Class               June 28, 2024
  Certification Expert Report Deadline.

  Opposition to Class Certification Motion;       Aug. 27, 2024
  Class Certification Rebuttal Expert Report
  Deadline

  Class Certification Hearing                     Nov. 7, 2024

  Hearing Date for Dispositive Motions            July 24, 2025
                                                  at 1:30 PM

  Pretrial Conference                             Oct. 7,2025

On Oct. 10, 2023, the Parties submitted a Joint Rule 26(f) Report
and Case Management Statement where Plaintiffs and Defendants
proposed separate discovery plans and case schedules.

The Parties appeared at the Initial Case Management Conference
before Hon. Edward M. Chen on October 17, 2023.

Kaiser operates as a non-profit health care organization.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vzmnF0 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Melissa L. Yeates, Esq.
          Tyler S. Graden, Esq.
          Jordan E. Jacobson, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 400-3000
          Facsimile: (415) 400-3001
          E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com
                  jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  myeates@ktmc.com
                  tgraden@ktmc.com
                  jjacobson@ktmc.com

                - and -

          James Cecchi, Esq.
          Kevin Cooper, Esq.
          Zachary A. Jacobs, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCI, OLSTEIN, BRODY
          & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  kcooper@carellabyrne.com
                  zjacobs@carellabyrne.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Wynter L. Deagle, Esq.
          Anne-Marie D. Dao, Esq.
          Dane C. Brody Chanove, Esq.
          Tenaya Rodewald, Esq.
          Kari M. Rollins, Esq.
          Charles L. Glover, Esq.
          Nolan J. Walter, Esq.
          Kevin Murphy, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          12275 El Camino Real, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130-4092
          Telephone: (858) 720-8900
          Facsimile: (858) 509-3691
          E-mail: wdeagle@sheppardmullin.com
                  adao@sheppardmullin.com
                  dbrodychanove@sheppardmullin.com
                  trodewald@sheppardmullin.com
                  krollins@sheppardmullin.com
                  cglover@sheppardmullin.com
                  nwalter@sheppardmullin.com
                  kemurphy@sheppardmullin.com

KANSAS CITY, MO: Melton's Bid to Amend Pleadings Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, Western Division, grants in part the
Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend pleadings in the lawsuit
entitled THOMAS MELTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI,
Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00409-RK (W.D. Mo.).

The Plaintiff moves pursuant to Rule 15 to amend his pleadings to
clarify the nature of the Class claims against the City of Kansas
City, Missouri, and to join another named plaintiff (Michael
Collins) as class representative. The Plaintiff also requests that
Mr. Collins' claims relate back to the filing date of the initial
pleading.

The Defendant does not oppose the Plaintiff's proposed amendment
with respect to clarifying the factual allegations in support of
his claims; however, the Defendant opposes the Plaintiff's adding a
new plaintiff, who would also act as an additional class
representative and whose claims would relate back to the date the
Plaintiff filed his initial petition.

Judge Ketchmark grants in part the motion, in that Plaintiff Melton
is granted leave to amend his pleadings to clarify the nature of
the class claims against the City, and to join Michael Collins as
an additional Plaintiff and as an additional class representative,
and denies in part, in that Michael Collins' claims under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") do not relate back to the initial
pleading date of Dec. 13, 2022, but rather are commenced as of the
filing of Collins' Consent to Sue, which occurred on Sept. 11,
2023.

The Plaintiff filed his complaint, styled a collective action under
Missouri Wage and Hour law and the FLSA, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, on Dec. 13, 2022, in state court. The
Plaintiff is a firefighter, and the Collective Class are similarly
situated members of the International Association of Fire Fighters,
Local 42 (IAFF).

In his complaint, the Plaintiff claims the Defendant failed to
properly calculate and pay overtime hours in violation of Missouri
Wage and Hour law and the FLSA based on the terms of a Collective
Bargaining Agreement effective from May 1, 2021, to present at the
time of filing.

The complaint alleges (1) that on Jan. 10, 2019, IAFF members
brought a collective class action against the Defendant in Adams v.
City of Kansas City, Missouri, 19-CV-00093 (W.D. Mo. Feb 8, 2019);
(2) thereafter, in September of 2021, Judge Gaddy, who presided
over the Adams action, found that the Defendant had violated the
FLSA; and thus (3) the Defendant's violations of Missouri Wage and
Hour law and the FLSA subsequent to Judge Gaddy's Order were
knowing and willful."

The Plaintiff attached to the complaint a blank Consent to Sue
form, but not a Consent to Sue form signed by the Plaintiff.
Between the filing of the initial Collective Action Petition on
Dec. 13, 2022, and the filing of the Plaintiff's motion to amend
pleadings on Aug. 3, 2023, there were no signed Consent to Sue
forms filed in this case.

Although not relevant for ruling on the present motion, the Court
notices that both Plaintiff Thomas Melton and Michael Collins filed
a signed Consent to Sue on March 20, 2020, in the Adams case.
Melton and Collins were member of the collective class that sought
specialty overtime pay from the Defendant under the IAFF's 2015
collective bargaining agreement. As part of the dispositive
settlement agreement, Melton received a payout of $6,634.14, and
Collins did not receive a payout because Collins was one of the
thirty-seven (37) class members, who either did not work overtime
or the difference between calculated damages and actual pay was
zero or less than zero.

Judge Ketchmark says granting leave to amend pleadings is within
the discretion of the trial court and should be freely given when
justice so requires. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is granted leave to
amend his pleadings to clarify the nature of the class claims
against the Defendant.

Plaintiff Melton has not filed a (signed) Consent to Sue, Judge
Ketchmark notes. Thus, Plaintiff Melton's collective cause of
action has not commenced for statute of limitations purposes.
Collins' Consent to Sue was filed on Sept. 11, 2023, thus,
commencing his claims as of that date. Collins, however, is
time-barred from pursuing any claims for non-willful violations of
FLSA.

Because Collins has filed a signed Consent to Sue, albeit after the
briefing on the motion, the Court finds nothing in the FLSA
language and interpreting authority that would prevent the
Plaintiff from adding Collins as a named plaintiff in his FLSA
collective action at this juncture.

The Court agrees with the Defendant that the FLSA statute of
limitations does not allow relation back and controls the analysis
here, rather than the general provisions for relation back provided
in Rule 15. However, even if Rule 15 applied, the Plaintiff's
argument for relation back of Collins' FLSA claims to the filing
date of the Plaintiff's complaint fails under the Rule's
parameters.

The Court finds the Defendant only had notice that it would be
called on to defend claims asserted by Collins and those similarly
situated as of the filing of Collins' Consent to Sue on Sept. 11,
2023. Judge Ketchmark opines that the Defendant would be unfairly
prejudiced in maintaining a defense against Collins for a time
period based upon Melton's Dec. 13, 2022 filing of a complaint in
which Collins was not named and in which he had not filed a Consent
to Sue.

Because the requirements of notice and lack of unfair prejudice are
not satisfied for purposes of the relation back doctrine, the Court
finds that the Plaintiff's amendment adding Collins as an
additional named plaintiff and class representative does not relate
back to the filing of the original complaint on Dec. 13, 2022.

In other words, any claim by Collins for violation of the FLSA that
was not willful is time barred, and the relevant time period for
Collins' claims of willful violation of the FLSA can only
potentially cover Sept. 11, 2020, to April 30, 2021.

Accordingly, and after careful consideration, Judge Ketchmark rules
that the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend pleadings is granted
in part, in that the Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his
pleadings to clarify the nature of the class claims against the
City of Kansas City, Missouri, and to join Michael Collins as named
plaintiff and class representative, and denied in part, in that
Michael Collins' claims under the FLSA do not relate back to Dec.
13, 2022, but rather are commenced as of the filing of his Consent
to Sue, on Sept. 11, 2023.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 4, 2024, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yc29jtjafrom PacerMonitor.com.


KAY IVEY: Plaintiffs Seeks Judicial Notice in Council Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT EARL COUNCIL AKA
KINETIK JUSTICE, et al, v. KAY IVEY, et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-00712-CLM-JTA (M.D. Ala.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
take judicial notice, pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence, of Exhibits A–H, J–V, and HH to the Declaration of
Amanda C. Lynch in Support of their Motion for Preliminary
Injunction and Provisional Class Certification and Request for
Judicial Notice.

The Plaintiffs include Lee Edward Moore Jr., Jerame Aprentice Cole,
Frederick Denard McDole, Michael Campbell, Arthur Charles Ptomey
Jr., and Alimireo English.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vzMhbx at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Rubin, Esq.
          Barbara J. Chisholm, Esq.
          Connie K. Chan, Esq.
          Amanda C. Lynch, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post St., Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          E-mail: mrubin@altber.com
                  bchisholm@altber.com
                  cchan@altber.com
                  alynch@altber.com

                - and -

          Janet Herold, Esq.
          JUSTICE CATALYST LAW
          40 Rector Street, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10008
          Telephone: (518) 732-6703
          E-mail: jherold@justicecatalyst.org

                - and -

          Lauren Faraino, Esq.
          FARAINO, LLC
          2647 Rocky Ridge Ln.
          Vestavia Hills, AL 35216
          Telephone: (205) 737-3171
          E-mail: lauren@farainollc.com

KEEFE COMMISSARY: Settlement Deal in Reichert Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY REICHERT and GARY
MOYER, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, 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.
3:17-cv-05848-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Benjamin H. Settle
entered an order that:

   1. The Settlement Agreement is approved as fair, reasonable, and

      adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and its terms shall bind
      class members, except any members who timely opted out. The
      Plaintiffs' motion for final approval is granted.

   2. Class counsel is awarded attorney fees, litigation costs, and

      reimbursement of costs of notice and administration, as set
      forth above. These amounts are authorized and directed to be

      paid to class counsel from the Qualified Settlement Fund.
      Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees is granted.

   3. Class counsel and/or Kroll is also authorized to distribute
      checks to class members and the Plaintiffs in accordance with

      the Settlement Agreement and this Order.

      These amounts are authorized to be paid from the Qualified
      Settlement Fund.

   4. Case contribution awards of $11,000 to each Plaintiff,
totaling
      $22,000, is approved, and class counsel and/or Kroll is
      authorized to distribute that sum from the Qualified
Settlement
      Fund.

   5. Class counsel and/or Kroll is authorized to pay the
continuing
      costs of claims administration and class notice from the
      Qualified Settlement Fund.

On September 8, 2023, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed
Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs Jeffrey Reichert and Gary
Moyer, each on their own behalf and on behalf of the National Class
and Washington State Subclass and Defendants Rapid Investments,
Inc. and Cache Valley Bank.

On September 22, 2023, the Court approved Kroll as the Notice and
Claims Administrator. In conjunction with that Order, the Court
directed Kroll to:

   (1) provide direct United States mailed short form or summary
       notice to those class members with valid addresses, or
       addresses that have been returned with a forwarding
address;

   (2) provide email notice to those class members where emails are

       available; and

   (3) provide telephone support in both English and Spanish.

Keefe supplies food, personal care products, electronics and
clothing to correctional facilities.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NK7hTn at no extra charge.[CC]

KEYCORP: Court Appoints Robert Titmas as Lead Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MENACHEM GUREVITCH,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
KEYCORP, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01520-DCN (N.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Donald C. Nugent entered an order:

-- Appointing Robert J. Titmas as Lead Plaintiff; and

-- Approving the law firm of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP to serve as
Lead
    Counsel and the law firm of Cummins Law LLC to serve as Liaison

    Counsel.

The Complaint asserts that "this is a federal securities class
action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities
other than Defendants [who] purchased or otherwise acquired
[KeyCorp] securities between February 27, 2020, and June 9, 2023,
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff Gurevitch is an investor who purchased 1,000 shares
of KeyCorp securities in June 2020.

KeyCorp operates as a holding company for KeyBank National
Association, which provides various retail and commercial banking
products and services in the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47OM2XT at no extra charge.[CC]

LEGENDS OWO: Puller Sues Over Unlawful Ticket Processing Fee
------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL PULLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LEGENDS OWO, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00209-RA (S.D.N.Y., January 10, 2024) alleges Defendant's
violations of the New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law.

On January 20, 2023, Plaintiff purchased two tickets to One World
Observatory on Defendant's website and was forced to pay
Defendant's processing fee. In addition, the Defendant failed to
disclose the total cost of their tickets, including Defendant's
processing fee, throughout the online ticket purchase process, says
the suit.

Headquartered in New York, NY, Legends OWO, LLC is a Delaware
limited liability company that owns and operates One World
Observatory. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com

                  - and -

          Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: sbogdanovich@bursor.com

LIV GROUP: Meza-Soliven Sues Over Liquid I.V. Stick Mixes False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA MEZA-SOLIVEN, MICHAEL BETZAG and LINDA ESOPA on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE LIV GROUP, INC.
and UNILEVER NORTH AMERICA, Case No. 3:24-cv-00019-TWR-DDL (S.D.
Cal., Jan. 3, 2024) contends that the Defendants have falsely
represented its Liquid I.V. hydration electrolyte drink powder
stick mixes by dressing the Product as a health halo and touting
its clean label features promising their Products to be free from
GMO, dairy, gluten, soy, artificial sweeteners, flavors, and
colors.

The Defendants claim to have developed "smart hydration technology"
that "hydrate[s] better than water alone," a system "designed to
enhance rapid absorption of water and other key ingredients." By
using a "specific ratio of glucose, sodium, and potassium," Liquid
I.V. claims to deliver "water and key nutrients directly to the
body faster and more efficiently than water alone."

Unfortunately, the claim that their Products contain "No
Preservatives" is false, as they each contain a significant amount
of the preservatives including, most prominently, citric acid.
Citric acid's primary use is as a preservative, despite potentially
having additional functions. It functions as a preservative in the
Products, regardless of the Defendants' subjective purpose(s) for
adding it to the Products, and regardless of any other functions
citric acid may perform, says the suit.

The Defendants have profited from consumers' preference for
products that are perceived to be healthier by being preservative
free, the suit claims.

As a result of this false and misleading labeling, the Defendants
were able to sell these Products to hundreds of thousands of
unsuspecting consumers throughout California, New York, and the
United States.

The Plaintiffs allege Defendants' conduct is in breach of warranty,
violates California's Business and Professions Code section 17200,
et. seq., California's Business & Professions Code section l7500,
et. seq., California Civil Code section 1750, et seq., N.Y. Gen.
Bus U. Law section 349 et seq., N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section 350 et
seq., and is otherwise grounds for restitution on the basis of
quasi-contract/unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff Meza-Soliven is a resident of San Diego, California.

Liv Group manufactures, markets, and sells a line of hydrating
electrolyte drink mixes.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          KUZYK LAW, LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (213) 401-4100
          Facsimile: (213) 401-0311
          E-mail: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com

                - and -

          Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
          1307 Chalkstone Avenue
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 831-7730
          Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
          E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com

LOCAL FAVORITE: Predmore Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jaclyn Predmore and Danielle Foster, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Local Favorite
Operations LLC d/b/a Snuffer's Restaurant & Bar, Defendant, Case
No. 3:23-cv-02874 (N.D. Tex., Dec. 29, 2023) is a collective action
against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant pays all its servers and
bartenders, including Plaintiffs, wages that are less than the
minimum wage. Instead of paying the federally mandated minimum
wage, Defendant is purportedly trying to take a credit for the tips
its employees earn to meet the minimum wage requirement. The
Defendant also engages in unlawful kickbacks as Plaintiff-Predmore
and Bartender Collective Members were required to pay for certain
expenses and non 203(m) items including walked tabs and cash
shortages, the suit says.

Plaintiffs Predmore and Foster were employed by Defendant within
the three-year period preceding the filing of this lawsuit as a
bartender and a server, respectively.

Local Favorite Operations LLC d/b/a Snuffer's Restaurant & Bar is
engaged in a restaurant business located in Dallas, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479-9229
          Facsimile: (817) 840-5102
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
                  pamela@herrmannlaw.com

M&T BANK: McCloud Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
----------------------------------------------
Delores McCloud, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. M&T Bank Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00045 (W.D.N.Y., January 11, 2024) alleges violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff McCloud was employed by Defendant as a customer service
representative from about April 1, 2019 through approximately
September 26, 2023. The Defendant regularly required Plaintiff to
work in excess of 40 hours in given workweek. However, when such
overtime hours were recorded by Defendant, Defendant paid Plaintiff
at one-and-half times her base rate of pay, without including
Plaintiff's non-discretionary performance based bonus payments in
her regular rate of pay. In addition, the Defendant failed to make,
keep and preserve records of the unpaid work performed by Plaintiff
and other similarly-situated employees when not clocked in, says
the suit.

Headquartered in Buffalo, NY, M&T Bank Corporation is a bank
holding company that is engaged in retail and commercial banking,
trust, wealth management and investment services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
           NILGES DRAHER LLC
           1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
           Cleveland, OH 44114
           Telephone: (216) 438-9115
           Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
           E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

                   - and -

           James L. Simon, Esq.
           SIMON LAW CO.
           11 1/2 N. Franklin Street
           Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
           Telephone: (216) 816-8696
           E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com

MARRIOTT INT'L: Class Cert. Brief in Breach Suit Due Jan. 26
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In Re: Marriott
International, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation
Case No. 8:19-md-02879-JPB (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge John Preston
Bailey entered an order setting a class certification briefing
schedule as follows:

  -- Class certification brief by                  Jan. 26, 2024
     the Plaintiff:

  -- Class certification Opposition                Feb. 23, 2024
     Brief by the Plaintiffs:

  -- Class certification reply brief by            March 8, 2024
     the Plaintiffs:

  -- Plaintiffs' expert disclosures are due        March 1, 2024
     on or before:

  -- Defendants' expert disclosures are due        April 1, 2024
     on before:

  -- Discovery must be completed on or before:     July 1, 2024

  -- Discovery must be completed on or before:     July 1, 2024

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HnwkYR at no extra charge.[CC]

MASSACHUSETTS: Narrigan Sues Over Unclaimed Property Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS R. NARRIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEBORAH B. GOLDBERG, in her
official capacity As Treasurer and Receiver General of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10107
(D. Mass., January 12, 2024) challenges the constitutionality under
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution of the provisions of the statute of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts concerning abandoned and unclaimed property,
Massachusetts General Laws, which requires the Commonwealth to take
for public use, without paying just compensation, private property
that the Commonwealth classifies as "presumed abandoned."

The Massachusetts Act limits and sets out certain criteria for any
payment to the owner or person entitled to recover the unclaimed
property that is over and above the original amount received by the
Treasurer, and it does not permit payment of the just compensation
due from the Commonwealth for the use of that property while in
state custody. Thus, Plaintiff Narrigan argues that this Act
violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and Article X of
the Massachusetts Constitution because it denies just compensation
to the owner or person entitled to recover the unclaimed property,
says the suit.

The class action also challenges the Act under the Takings Clause,
Article X of the Massachusetts Constitution.

Deborah B. Goldberg has been serving as the Treasurer of
Massachusetts since January 2015. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          BRODERICK LAW, P.C
          176 Federal Street, Fifth Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 738-7080
          Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
          E-mail: ted@brodericklaw.com

                  - and -

          Terry Rose Saunders, Esq.
          THE SAUNDERS LAW FIRM
          120 North LaSalle Street, 20th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-444-9656
          E-mail: tsaunders@saunders-lawfirm.com

                  - and -

          Arthur Susman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ARTHUR SUSMAN
          1540 N. Lake Shore Drive
          Chicago, IL 60610
          Telephone: (847) 800-2351
          E-mail: arthur@susman-law.com

MCLANE FOODSERVICE: Madero and Orosco Allege Labor Law Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN OROZCO MADERO and ESTEBAN OROSCO on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. McLANE FOODSERVICE,
INC., a Texas Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 5:24-cv-00073 (C.D. Cal., January 12, 2024) alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor
Code, and the Unfair Competition Law in connection with the
Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages and to reimburse for work
expenses.

Plaintiff Madero worked for Defendants from approximately August
2019 to September 11, 2023 while Plaintiff Orosco worked for them
from approximately July 2018 to November 10, 2023. Both Plaintiffs
were deprived of proper overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours each week due to Defendants' illegal pay
procedures, says the suit.

McLane is a trucking and logistics company that operates out of
Temple, TX. With over 80 distribution across the United States,
McLane is one of the largest supply chain service leaders,
providing grocery and food service solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
         Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
         DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C.
         3200 Bristol St., Suite 650
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Telephone: (949) 614-5830
         Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
         E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com
                       adrianne@desai-law.com

MDL 3071: Court Denies LRO's Bid to Dismiss in Rental Software Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, denies the LRO
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Multifamily Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Complaint in the multidistrict litigation entitled IN RE:
REALPAGE, INC., RENTAL SOFTWARE ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. II), Case
No. 3:23-md-03071, MDL No. 3071 (M.D. Tenn.).

Bell Partners, Inc., Brookfield Properties Multifamily LLC, CONAM
Management Corporation, ECI Group, Inc., Equity Residential,
Independence Realty Trust, Inc., Mid-America Apartment Communities,
Inc., Mid-America Apartments, L.P., Morgan Properties Management
Company, LLC, The Related Companies, L.P., Related Management
Company, L.P., Security Properties Residential LLC, Simpson
Property Group, LLC, Thrive Communities Management, LLC, Windsor
Property Management Company, WinnCompanies LLC, and WinnResidential
Manager Corp. (collectively the "LRO Defendants") filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Multifamily Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint and
Memorandum in Support on Oct. 9, 2023. The Multifamily Plaintiffs
responded, and the LRO Defendants filed a Reply.

The LRO Defendants are Owner-Operators and Managers, who used one
of RealPage's revenue management services, Lease Rent Options
("LRO"), during the relevant period. The Motion is not joined by
all Defendants alleged to have used LRO. Furthermore, several of
the 16 LRO Defendants bringing this motion are also alleged to have
use RealPage's YieldStar or AIRM in addition to LRO.

RealPage, Inc., developed an integrated technology platform that
provides software solutions for the multifamily housing market.
RealPage rolled out its first revenue management software,
YieldStar, after acquiring it from Camden Property Trust in 2002.
From 2002 to early 2016, YieldStar operated as a rent advisory
service.

In early 2016, RealPage transitioned YieldStar to become a
"rent-setting software." RealPage then acquired Lease Rent Options
("LRO") from Rainmaker Group in 2017. It integrated LRO and
YieldStar into a "unified platform." RealPage launched AI Revenue
Management ("AIRM"), a combination of its legacy revenue management
platforms YieldStar and LRO and a super-charged price optimization
and revenue management tool. Today, RealPage operates this full
suite of revenue management services, which also includes RealPage
Revenue Management ("RPRM") (collectively the "Revenue Management
Solutions" or "RMS").

RealPage's clients include owners of residential properties
("Owners"), companies that serve as both owners and operators of
residential properties ("Owner-Operators"), and property management
companies ("Managers"). These companies are horizontal competitors.
As of December 2020, RealPage had over 31,700 clients, including
owner operators and each of the 10 largest multifamily property
management companies in the United States.

The Multifamily Plaintiffs allege that RealPage and its clients
have formed an illegal price-fixing cartel. It begins when RealPage
touts its ability to help clients obtain the optimal price for
multifamily housing units regardless of market forces. RealPage's
clients, including the Owner, Owner-Operator, and Manager
Defendants, each separately contract with RealPage, paying RealPage
periodic fees and, critically, providing RealPage their independent
commercially sensitive pricing data.

RealPage then applies its revenue management algorithm to this data
pool of competitor information to determine optimal rent prices for
each of RealPage clients, which is then available for each RealPage
client to apply to multifamily and student apartment units in each
of the markets where those clients are located.

Not all RealPage clients utilize RealPage's entire RMS suite; for
example, some use only LRO while others have used YieldStar, LRO,
and AIRM. But regardless of which services a client subscribes to,
by no later than 2020, all RealPage RMS were combined into a single
unified database.

By using the RMS, RealPage's clients are able to price their units
according to their collective goal of securing revenue lifts by
increasing rents without regard for the typical market forces that
drive supply and demand in a competitive environment. They do this
by (1) collectively agreeing to price their rental units in
accordance with RealPage's RMS pricing recommendations; (2)
controlling the supply of rental units by allowing a larger share
of their units to remain vacant; and (3) staggering lease renewals
to minimize naturally occurring periods of oversupply.

This collective behavior, driven by RealPage's pricing
recommendations, has resulted in "parallel pricing that cannot be
explained by typical economic factors" among the Owners,
Owner-Operators, and Managers, who use RealPage's RMS.
Additionally, between March 2015 and March 2023, increased usage of
RealPage's RMS corresponded with increasing rents over the same
period.

To state a plausible claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, a
plaintiff must allege three elements: 1) the existence of a
contract, combination, or conspiracy among two or more separate
entities that 2) unreasonably restrains trade and 3) affects
interstate or foreign commerce.

The LRO Defendants' Motion attacks only the first element. They
argue that a necessary ingredient to the alleged conspiracy is
RealPage's use of its clients' non-public, proprietary commercial
information to make pricing decisions. They further argue that,
contrary to this central conspiracy feature, the Multifamily
Plaintiffs' earlier-filed complaints alleged that LRO uses only
public data to make its pricing recommendations, and Multifamily
Complaint does not specifically allege that after acquiring LRO,
RealPage began to use non-public information as part of LRO's
algorithm.

Because the Multifamily Plaintiffs have not alleged a central
feature of the conspiracy as to LRO, the LRO Defendants argue that
dismissal of the Section 1 Sherman Act claims, as they relate to
LRO, is required. The Multifamily Plaintiffs oppose the motion
because the LRO Defendants misconstrue the allegations from their
earlier-filed complaints, including their reliance upon a
ProPublica article, "Rent Going Up? One Company's Algorithm Could
Be Why."

Judge Crenshaw opines that there are at least three reasons why the
LRO Defendants' motion must be denied:

   1. The Multifamily Complaint adequately alleges that the
      "enhanced" LRO uses private data;

   2. The Multifamily Plaintiffs' earlier filed complaint does
      not contradict the operative complaint; and

   3. The Multifamily Plaintiffs' earlier-filed statements are
      possible evidentiary admissions not appropriate for
      judicial notice.

In short, Judge Crenshaw says, the Multifamily Plaintiffs and LRO
Defendants appear to agree on one thing--that the use of non-public
proprietary data is a component of the alleged price fixing
conspiracy.

Judge Crenshaw finds that the Multifamily Plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged that the LRO service offered by RealPage both
collected this non-public data from LRO clients and used this
non-public data in LRO's algorithm. The Court will not dismiss the
claims as they relate to LRO from the Multifamily Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Dec. 28,
2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/2fpa9ptnfrom
PacerMonitor.com.


MDL 3071: Court Denies PMDs' Bid to Dismiss Rental Software Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled IN RE: REALPAGE, INC., RENTAL SOFTWARE
ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. II), Case No. 3:23-md-03071, MDL No. 3071
(M.D. Tenn.), Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division,
denies the Property Management Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Pending before the Court is Defendants Apartment Management
Consultants, LLC ("AMC"), Avenue5 Residential, LLC, Bozzuto
Management Company ("BMC"), First Communities Management, Inc.
("FMC"), FPI Management, Inc. ("FPI"), Pinnacle Property Management
Services, LLC, Rose Associates, Inc., and ZRS Management, LLC's
("ZRS") (collectively, the "Property Management Defendants" or
"PMDs") Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Plead Agency Liability.

Judge Crenshaw considers as true the allegations from the
Multifamily Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("Multifamily
Complaint") to resolve the pending motion.

RealPage, Inc., developed an integrated technology platform that
provides software solutions for the multifamily housing market.
RealPage rolled out its first revenue management software,
YieldStar, after acquiring it from Camden Property Trust in 2002.
From 2002 to early 2016, YieldStar operated as a rent advisory
service.

In early 2016, RealPage transitioned YieldStar to become a
"rent-setting software." RealPage then acquired Lease Rent Options
("LRO") from Rainmaker Group in 2017. It integrated LRO and
YieldStar into a "unified platform." In 2020, RealPage launched AI
Revenue Management ("AIRM"), a combination of its legacy revenue
management platforms YieldStar and LRO and a super-charged price
optimization and revenue management tool.

Today, RealPage operates a full suite of revenue management
services, which also includes RealPage Revenue Management
(collectively the "Revenue Management Solutions" or "RMS").
RealPage's clients include owners of residential properties
("Owners"), companies that serve as both owners and operators of
residential properties ("Owner-Operators"), and property management
companies ("Managers"). These companies are horizontal
competitors.

As of December 2020, RealPage had over 31,700 clients, including
owner operators and each of the 10 largest multifamily property
management companies in the United States.

The Multifamily Plaintiffs allege that RealPage and its clients
have formed an illegal price-fixing cartel. It begins when RealPage
touts its ability to help clients obtain the optimal price for
housing units regardless of other normal market forces. RealPage's
clients each separately contract with RealPage, paying RealPage
periodic fees and, critically, providing RealPage their independent
commercially sensitive pricing data.

RealPage then applies its revenue management algorithm to this data
pool of competitor information to "recommend" optimal rent prices
for each of RealPage clients, which is then available for each
RealPage client to apply to multifamily and student apartment units
in each of the markets where those clients are located.

To be sure, not all RealPage clients utilize RealPage's entire RMS
suite; for example, some use only LRO while others have used
YieldStar, LRO, and AIRM. But regardless of which services a client
subscribes to, by no later than 2020, all RealPage RMS were
combined into a single unified database.

By using the RMS, RealPage's clients are able to price their units
according to their collective goal of securing revenue lifts by
increasing rents without regard for the typical market forces that
drive supply and demand in a competitive environment. They do this
by (1) collectively agreeing to price their rental units in
accordance with RealPage's RMS pricing recommendations; (2)
controlling the supply of rental units by allowing a larger share
of their units to remain vacant; and (3) staggering lease renewals
to minimize naturally occurring periods of oversupply.

This collective behavior, driven by RealPage's pricing
recommendations, has resulted in parallel pricing that cannot be
explained by typical economic factors among the Owners,
Owner-Operators, and Managers, who use RealPage's RMS.
Additionally, between March 2015 and March 2023, increased usage of
RealPage's RMS corresponds with increasing rents over the same
period.

The Property Management Defendants make two arguments for
dismissal. First, the Multifamily Complaint does not plausibly
allege that the PMDs directly participated in the conspiracy to use
RMS and follow its rent recommendations. Second, the Multifamily
Complaint does not plausibly allege that any PMD can be liable as
an agent of its owner or owners.

The Court finds that neither argument requires dismissal. Judge
Crenshaw opines that the Multifamily Complaint plausibly alleges
that the PMDs directly participated in the alleged conspiracy, and
that the PMDs should be liable as agents. The PMDs' motion cannot
succeed in the face of these allegations, Judge Crenshaw points
out.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Dec. 28,
2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/25rz7ncafrom
PacerMonitor.com.


MDL 3071: Court Resolves Bids to Dismiss in Rental Software Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, issued an Omnibus
Order resolving several motions to dismiss in the matter captioned
IN RE: REALPAGE, INC., RENTAL SOFTWARE ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO.
II), Case No. 3:23-md-03071, MDL No. 3071 (M.D. Tenn.).

The multidistrict litigation involves two complaints alleging
unlawful price-fixing schemes among landlords organized by a
software algorithm company: RealPage. "Landlords" here refers to
all Defendants named in the complaints, save RealPage, Inc., and
its private-equity owners.

One complaint (the Multifamily Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint) alleges an unlawful agreement
to use RealPage software recommendations to raise multifamily
rental housing prices. The second (the Student Plaintiffs' First
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint) alleges a similar
scheme to artificially inflate the prices of student housing.

RealPage, the complaints allege, unlawfully combines competing
landlords' decisionmaking on housing prices. To participate in the
service, landlords must share in "realtime" their "non-public,"
"competitively sensitive" data, including actual rents paid,
occupancy rates, and records of lease transactions. RealPage then
feeds this data into a common algorithm, which uses these common
data for a single, common purpose: to generate forward-looking,
unit-specific pricing and supply recommendations for all
participating landlords.

To ensure that the landlords abide by these "recommendations,"
RealPage puts significant "pressure" on them "to implement
RealPage's prices," including by requiring clients to submit
requests to deviate to the "corporate office" and tracking the
identity of the client's staff that requested a deviation. As a
result, landlords using RealPage adopt RealPage's recommendations
80-90% of the time.

The complaints allege that RealPage was clear about the purpose of
its common pricing scheme: to increase prices above competitive
levels through collaboration. RealPage's own marketing materials
make clear that it utilizes the competitive data of competitors to
allow those competitors to outperform the market. As RealPage
allegedly put it, it offered clients the ability to "outsource
daily pricing and ongoing revenue oversight" to RealPage," allowing
RealPage to set prices for its clients' properties as though it
owed them itself. Collaboration on prices, including via sharing
nonpublic pricing and supply information, is thus the central
feature of the product.

Put simply, RealPage allegedly replaces independent competitive
decisionmaking on prices, which often leads to lower prices for
tenants, with a price-fixing combination that violates Section 1 of
the Sherman Act.

For the reasons in the Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 685), Judge
Crenshaw rules that Thoma Bravo Defendants' Motions to Dismiss
Multifamily Plaintiffs' Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint and the Student Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint are denied.

For the reasons in the Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 686), TREV
Management II LLC's Motion to Dismiss Student-Housing Plaintiffs'
First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint is granted. TREV
Management II LLC is dismissed with prejudice from the Student
Complaint.

For the reasons in the Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 687), the
Motion to Dismiss LRO Claims for Failure to State a Claim is
denied. For the reasons in the Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 688),
Certain Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Plead Agency
Liability is denied.

For the reasons in the Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 690), the
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Student Plaintiffs' First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint is granted. The Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Multifamily Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint is denied.

For the reasons in the Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 689), the
Defendants' Motion to Enforce Class Action Waivers is granted in
part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to the class
action waiver of Selena Vincin and her class action claims are
dismissed without prejudice. The motion is denied as to the class
action waivers for Brandon Watters and Jeffrey Weaver. The motion
is granted in part and denied in part as to the class action
waivers for Joshua Kabisch and Meghan Cherry.

A full-text copy of the Court's Omnibus Order dated Dec. 28, 2023,
is available at http://tinyurl.com/46rjanafrom PacerMonitor.com.

A full-text copy of each of the Memorandum Opinions are available
from PacerMonitor.com at:

   * Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 685) --
     http://tinyurl.com/2hm9n5rw;

   * Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 686) --
     http://tinyurl.com/bdfncdw7;

   * Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 687) --
     http://tinyurl.com/2fpa9ptn;

   * Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 688) --
     http://tinyurl.com/25rz7nca;

   * Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 689) --
     http://tinyurl.com/mraz3sk5;and

   * Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 690) --
     http://tinyurl.com/c876d728.


MDL 3071: TREV's Bid to Dismiss in Rental Software Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, grants TREV
Management II LLC's Motion to Dismiss the Student Plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint in the multidistrict litigation captioned IN RE:
REALPAGE, INC., RENTAL SOFTWARE ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. II), Case
No. 3:23-md-03071, MDL No. 3071 (M.D. Tenn.). THIS DOCUMENT RELATES
TO: 3:23-cv-00792.

RealPage, Inc., provides revenue management software that "collects
realtime pricing and supply levels" from its clients, who are
horizontal competitors in the student housing market. RealPage then
compiles this data into a common algorithm that sends the
participants unit-specific pricing and supply recommendations.
RealPage rolled out its first revenue management software,
YieldStar, after acquiring it from Camden Property Trust in 2002.

In 2009, RealPage launched its first revenue management software
aimed at the student housing market, YieldStar Student Housing.
Today, RealPage operates a full suite of revenue management
services for student housing, including YieldStar Student, RealPage
Student Revenue Management ("Student RPRM"), and Student Lease Rent
Options ("Student LRO") (collectively, the "Student Revenue
Management Solutions" or "Student RMS").

RealPage's student housing clients include large property managers
and lessors of student housing ("Lessors"). These companies are
horizontal competitors. In 2019, YieldStar Student had more than 50
clients with more than three million rental units.

The Student Plaintiffs allege that RealPage and its clients have
formed an illegal price-fixing cartel. It begins when RealPage
touts its ability to help clients obtain the optimized price for
student housing units regardless of market forces. RealPage's
clients, including the Defendants, each separately contract with
RealPage, paying RealPage annual license fees as well as periodic
fees and providing RealPage their commercially sensitive pricing
and supply data.

RealPage then applies its revenue management algorithm to this data
pool of competitor information to determine optimal rent pricing
for RealPage clients' student apartment units in each of the
markets where those clients are located.

Not all RealPage clients utilize RealPage's entire suite of RMS
services; while the Student Plaintiffs allege most student housing
clients use only YieldStar Student, they also allege that at least
Greystar uses other student housing RMS through RealPage in
addition to YieldStar Student.

The Student Plaintiffs allege that RealPage's student housing RMS
provides the platform and the algorithms for collusion, giving its
clients the unprecedented ability to facilitate collaboration among
operations and track [the] competition's rent with precision. They
do this by collectively agreeing to price their rental units in
accordance with RealPage's RMS recommendations. This has resulted
in higher rents among the Lessor Defendants' student housing
properties than properties not using RealPage.

TREV argues that the Student Plaintiffs have not alleged any
participation by TREV in the alleged conspiracy aside from its
ownership of BH Management Services LLC and B.HOM Student Living.
Specific to TREV, the Student Plaintiffs allege that TREV owns, as
its affiliate, B.HOM Student Living ("B.HOM"), a client of
RealPage. In fact, their only allegations against TREV are
contained in two paragraphs of their 107-page complaint.

Judge Crenshaw notes that those two paragraphs do not raise any
plausible allegation of independent action in the conspiracy beyond
"mere ownership" of B.HOM.

Perhaps knowing that their allegations against TREV are
insufficient, the Student Plaintiffs argue that regardless of its
role in the conspiracy, TREV can be sued as part of "one economic
entity" with B.HOM. They derive this argument from Copperweld Corp.
v. Indep. Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984).

The Student Plaintiffs argue that a logical conclusion of
Copperweld's holding is that parent companies are liable alongside
their wholly-owned subsidiaries for the anticompetitive conduct of
those subsidiaries. They are not the first to advance this "single
entity" argument, Judge Crenshaw says.

In Arandell Corp. v. Centerpoint Energy Services, Inc., 900 F.3d
623 (9th Cir. 2018), the Ninth Circuit addressed this "novel"
approach to Copperweld. Likewise, in Lenox MacLaren Surgical v.
Medtronic, Inc., 847 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2017), the Tenth Circuit
addressed this somewhat unusual antitrust theory.

Judge Crenshaw holds that the Student Plaintiffs' interpretation of
the single enterprise doctrine and the Arandell and Lenox cases is
strained at best. Judge Crenshaw explains that Arandell does not
help the Student Plaintiffs here. In contrast to Arandell, TREV's
motion argues that the Student Plaintiffs have not alleged any
conduct on its part in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.

The Student Plaintiffs ask the Court to ascribe B.HOM's conduct to
TREV. But they have not adequately alleged any facts to advance
such an inference, as the plaintiffs did in Arandell, Judge
Crenshaw opines. In short, there are no factual allegations that
TREV acted in furtherance of the conspiracy or that it did anything
to accomplish B.HOM's alleged anticompetitive conduct.

Applying Arandell's analysis, Judge Crenshaw holds the Student
Complaint fails to state a claim.

Lenox is even less helpful to the Student Plaintiffs' arguments,
Judge Crenshaw says. The Lenox court did not adopt the Student
Plaintiffs' "single enterprise" approach. Thus, neither Lenox nor
Arandell allows plaintiffs to sue a parent company under Section 1
of the Sherman Act without pleading any independent action on the
part of that parent.

The other cases Student Plaintiffs cite to support their single
enterprise theory are equally unpersuasive, Judge Crenshaw holds.

Judge Crenshaw says it is true that if private plaintiffs, who do
not have access to inside information, are to pursue violations of
the law, the pleading standard must take into account the fact that
a complaint will ordinarily be limited to allegations pieced
together from publicly available information.

But the Student Plaintiffs have not even met the "publicly
available information" standard in their allegations against TREV,
Judge Crenshaw points out. Because the Student Plaintiffs have not
alleged any independent conduct in the conspiracy by TREV, their
claims against TREV must be dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Dec. 28,
2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/bdfncdw7from
PacerMonitor.com.


META PLATFORMS: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Material in Klein Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. META
PLATFORMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation headquartered in
California, Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD (N.D. Cal.), Meta file a
supplemental administrative motion to seal materials submitted in
connection with class certification and Daubert briefing.

On Nov. 21, 2023, the parties filed an omnibus motion to seal
certain portions of the parties' class certification and Daubert
briefing.

On Dec. 1, 2023, Meta filed a supplemental motion to seal
addressing twelve of Meta's sealing requests that were
inadvertently omitted from the proposed order submitted in
connection with the omnibus motion
to seal.

Meta is an American multinational technology conglomerate based in
Menlo Park, California.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 28, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vD3H7m at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sonal N. Mehta, Esq.
          David Z. Gringer, Esq.
          Ross E. Firsenbaum, Esq.
          Ryan Chabot, Esq.
          Paul Vanderslice, Esq.
          Ari Holtzblatt, Esq.
          Molly M. Jennings, Esq.
          Michaela P. Sewall, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
          AND DORR LLP
          2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: (650) 858-6000
          E-mail: Sonal.Mehta@wilmerhale.com
                  David.Gringer@wilmerhale.com
                  Ross.Firsenbaum@wilmerhale.com
                  Ryan.Chabot@wilmerhale.com
                  Paul.Vanderslice@wilmerhale.com
                  Ari.Holtzblatt@wilmerhale.com
                  Molly.Jennings@wilmerhale.com
                  Michaela.Sewall@wilmerhale.com


MIDLAND NATIONAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Gail Due Jan. 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GAIL J. ZIMMERMAN, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MIDLAND
NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-00345-RGE-WPK
(S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge William P. Kelly entered A scheduling
and trial setting order as follows:

  -- Initial Disclosures shall be made by:          Jan. 16, 2024

  -- Motions to add parties shall be filed by:      June 26, 2024

  -- Motions for leave to amend pleadings           June 26, 2024
     shall be filed by:

  -- Non-expert discovery shall be completed by:    Dec. 6, 2024

  -- Substantial production of all documents        Aug. 30, 2024
     shall be completed by (for documents
     requested by Jan. 16, 2024):

  -- Deadline for Plaintiff's motion for Class      Jan. 23, 2025
     Certification and any supporting
     declarations or evidentiary submissions
     shall be on or before: Jan. 23, 2025:

  -- Deadline for Defendant's Resistance to         April 24, 2025
     the Motion for Class Certification and
     any supporting declarations or evidentiary
     submission shall be on or before:

  -- Deadline for Plaintiff's Reply in support      July 2, 2025
     of the Motion for Class Certification shall
     be on or before:

  -- The Plaintiff shall designate expert           Oct. 3, 2025
     witnesses and disclose their written
     report per Federal Rule of Civil
     Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) by:

  -- The Defendant shall designate expert           Dec. 1, 2025
     witnesses and disclose their written
     report per Federal Rule of Civil
     Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) by:

Midland offers annuities and life insurance products and services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O6tcUV at no extra charge.[CC]

MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Hester Seeks to Certify Class of CSRs
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHA HESTER, on behalf
of herself and all other persons similarly situated, v. MOLINA
HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-08006-MEMF-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying
the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class and implementing
a procedure whereby potential opt-in plaintiffs are notified of
Plaintiff's FLSA claims and given an opportunity to join this
collective action as party plaintiffs:

   "All former and current customer service representatives or
persons
   with jobs performing substantially identical functions and/or
   duties to customer service representatives employed by Molina
   Healthcare, Inc. within the three year period prior to the
filing
   of this lawsuit."

On Sept. 25, 2023, Ms. Hester initiated the FLSA collective action
against Molina Healthcare. The Plaintiff alleged that the
Defendant, as a result of its practices and policies of not paying
its non-exempt customer service representatives, including
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, the rate of one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all of the hours
they worked over 40 each workweek, violated the FLSA.

The Plaintiff, a remote customer service representative, and other
similarly situated employees were not paid for work performed
before their scheduled start times, and for work generally
performed outside their scheduled work times.

Molina Healthcare, Inc. is a managed care company headquartered in
Long Beach, California.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 26, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48O9MvZ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Wilens, Esq.
          Macy Wilens, Esq.
          LAKESHORE LAW CENTER
          18340 Yorba Linda Blvd., Suite 107-610
          Yorba Linda, CA 92886
          Telephone: (714) 854-7205
          Facsimile: (714) 854-7206
          E-mail: jeff@lakeshorelaw.org
                  macy@lakeshorelaw.org

                - and -

          David J. Steiner, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 250
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: david@lazzarolawfirm.com

MPM HOLDINGS: $19MM Class Settlement to Be Heard on Feb. 23
-----------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

In RE MPM HOLDINGS INC. APPRAISAL AND STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION

CONSOLIDATED

C.A. No. 2019-0519-NAC

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION,
SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR

TO:

All record holders and beneficial owners of MPM Holdings Inc.
("MPM") common stock who held such shares as of May 15, 2019 (the
date of the Merger's closing) and who received or were entitled to
receive $32.50 in cash per share of MPM common stock as Merger
consideration.1

PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending
in the Court.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that plaintiff Frank Funds ("Plaintiff"), on
behalf of itself and the Class, defendants Apollo Global
Management, Inc., Apollo Management Holdings GP, LLC, Euro VI (BC)
S.A.R.L., John G. Boss, Samuel Feinstein, Robert Kalsow-Ramos,
Scott M. Kleinman, Jeffrey M. Nodland, and Marvin O. Schlanger
("Defendants"), and MPM (together with Plaintiff and Defendants,
the "Settling Parties") have reached a proposed settlement for
$19,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). The terms of the Settlement
are stated in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement,
Compromise, and Release entered into by the Settling Parties, dated
November 17, 2023 (the "Stipulation"), a copy of which is available
at www.MPMHoldingsStockholderLitigation.com. The proposed
Settlement, if approved, will resolve the Class Claims asserted in
the Action, and the Class Claims will be dismissed with prejudice.

A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on February 23,
2024 at 11:00 a.m., before The Honorable Nathan A. Cook, Vice
Chancellor, in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center,
500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, to, among other
things: (i) determine whether the Action may be finally maintained
as a non-opt-out class action and whether the Class should be
finally certified, for purposes of the Settlement, pursuant to
Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (ii)
determine whether Plaintiff may be finally appointed as
representative for the Class and Plaintiff's Counsel, Labaton
Sucharow LLP and Anderson Sleater Sianni LLC, may be finally
appointed as counsel for the Class, and whether Plaintiff and
Plaintiff's Counsel have adequately represented the interests of
the Class in the Action; (iii) determine whether the proposed
Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the
Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and
should be approved by the Court; (iv) determine whether a Judgment,
substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D to the Stipulation,
should be entered dismissing the Class Claims asserted in the
Action with prejudice; (v) determine whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and
should therefore be approved; (vi) determine whether the
application by Plaintiff's Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees
and litigation expenses should be approved; (vii) hear and rule on
any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation,
and/or to the application by Plaintiff's Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses; and (viii) consider any other matters
that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with
the Settlement. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing,
including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates
regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be
posted to the Settlement website,
www.MPMHoldingsStockholderLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the
Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting A.B.
Data, Ltd. at (877) 495-0892 or
Info@MPMHoldingsStockholderLitigation.com. A copy of the Notice can
also be downloaded from the Settlement website,
www.MPMHoldingsStockholderLitigation.com.

If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to "Eligible Class Members" in accordance with the proposed
Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of
allocation as is approved by the Court. Under the proposed Plan of
Allocation, "Eligible Class Members" consist of all Class Members
who held shares of MPM common stock at the closing of the Merger on
May 15, 2019 (the "Closing") and therefore received or were
entitled to receive the Merger Consideration of $32.50 per share
for their "Eligible Shares". Pursuant to the proposed Plan of
Allocation, each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to receive
a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to the
product of (i) the number of Eligible Shares held by the Eligible
Class Member and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" for the Settlement,
which will be determined by dividing the total amount of the Net
Settlement Fund by the total number of Eligible Shares. As
explained in further detail in the Notice, pursuant to the Plan of
Allocation, payments from the Net Settlement Fund to Eligible Class
Members will be made in the same manner in which Eligible Class
Members received the Merger Consideration. Eligible Class Members
do not have to submit a claim form to receive a payment from the
Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Plaintiff's Counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with the Settlement must
be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiff's Counsel and
Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than
February 8, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this notice. All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or
Plaintiff's Counsel.

Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement
Administrator:

Info@MPMHoldingsStockholderLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to
Plaintiff's Counsel:

         Ned Weinberger
         Labaton Sucharow LLP
         222 Delaware Ave., Suite 1510
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         (866) 640-7254
         DelawareSettlements@labaton.com

BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF
CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

1 Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by
definition, as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement
Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice"). Any capitalized terms
used in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined in this
Summary Notice shall have the meanings given to them in the Notice
or the Stipulation, both of which are available at
www.MPMHoldingsStockholderLitigation.com.

Contacts
Ned Weinberger
(866) 640-7254
DelawareSettlements@labaton.com


MYOVANT SCIENCES: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in Zappia Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in the lawsuit captioned JOSEPH
ZAPPIA, Individually and, on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated Plaintiff v. MYOVANT SCIENCES LTD., MYOVANT SCIENCES,
INC., SUMITOMO PHARMA AMERICA, INC., TERRIE CURRAN, MARK GUINAN,
DAVID MAREK, NANCY VALENTE, AND MATTHEW LANG, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-08097-JSR (S.D.N.Y.).

In this putative class action, Lead Plaintiff Joseph Zappia alleges
that Myovant Sciences Ltd. and other Defendants filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission a materially false and
misleading proxy statement in connection with Myovant's
acquisition, in violation of Rule l4a-9 promulgated under Section
14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

In particular, Zappia takes issue with the proxy statement's
representation that Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, the
law firm hired to represent Myovant's special committee for the
acquisition, had an "absence of conflicts" and was "independent."
In reality, Zappia contends, Skadden had a conflict and lacked
independence because of its representation of companies that shared
"informal business relations" with, and small indirect ownership
interests in, Myovant's acquirer.

The Court now grants defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint because it fails to plausibly allege a materially false
or misleading statement or omission.

Defendant Myovant, a biopharmaceutical company that has developed
drugs to treat hormone-sensitive conditions, was acquired by its
majority shareholder Sumitovant Biopharma Ltd. in an all-cash
merger on March 10, 2023. Sumitovant is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Japanese pharmaceutical company Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd.,
itself majority—owned (51.76%) by Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd..

Sumitomo Pharma and Sumitomo Chemical are members of the "Sumitomo
Group," a leading keiretsu in Japan. As the Amended Complaint
alleges, keiretsu are networks of Japanese businesses connected by
cross-shareholdings and informal business relations, which
typically feature a member bank that lends funds to other companies
in the keiretsu. That member bank for the Sumitomo Group is
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation ("Sumitomo Banking"), which
provided the financing for Sumitovant's $1.7 billion acquisition of
Myovant. Sumitomo Banking owns approximately 1.4% of Sumitomo
Chemical, the corporate grandparent of Sumitovant.

On Jan. 23, 2023, Myovant's board filed, with the authorization of
the Individual Co-Defendants, a proxy statement with the SEC,
soliciting Myovant's public shareholders to vote in favor of the
acquisition by Sumitovant. Co-Defendants Terrie Curran, Mark
Guinan, David Marek, Nancy Valente, and Matthew Lang were at all
times relevant members of Myovant's board of directors. Curran,
Guinan, and Valente, the non—officer directors, comprised the
special committee.

The merger was expressly conditioned not only on approval by a
majority of Myovant public shareholders -- which could be satisfied
with Sumitovant's vote alone, because Sumitovant then owned
approximately 52% of Myovant -- but also approval by a majority of
Myovant's minority shareholders.

Those conditions were satisfied on March 1, 2023, when Sumitovant
and a majority of Myovant's other public shareholders voted in
favor of the merger for $27 per share. That price had been
negotiated by a special committee of Myovant's three independent
directors, which retained Goldman Sachs as its financial advisor
and Skadden as its legal advisor.

As a result of the special committee's negotiations, Sumitovant
over time increased its initial offer of $22.75 per share, to
$25.25 per share, to $26.25 per share, to $26.75 per share, and
ultimately to its best and final offer of $27 per share, which the
special committee eventually accepted and shareholders approved.

On Sept. 13, 2023, Joseph Zappia, who owned Myovant shares at the
time of the merger and voted in the merger's favor, filed this
putative class action against Myovant, Myovant's U.S. subsidiary
(Myovant Sciences, Inc.) that employed its executives, Sumitomo
Pharma America, Inc., and five of Myovant's officers and/or
directors, alleging' that the proxy statement contained materially
false and misleading statements in violation of Section 14(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act and accompanying Rule l4a-9. On July 1,
2023, Sumitovant and other U.S. subsidiaries of Sumitomo Pharma
were combined into Sumitomo Pharma America, Inc.

On consent, the Court appointed Zappia as Lead Plaintiff on Oct.
10, 2023, and Zappia filed an Amended Complaint on Oct. 17, 2023.
The Amended Complaint takes issue with Myovant's representation in
the proxy statement that the Skadden law firm was chosen as a legal
advisor to Myovant's special committee based on, among other
things, the absence of conflicts on the part of Skadden and the
related representation in the proxy statement that Skadden was
"independent."

Mr. Zappia alleges that Skadden was in fact conflicted in its
representation of the special committee because Skadden was
concurrently representing and had previously represented Sumitomo
Banking, which financed the merger, and other members of the
Sumitomo Group, in other (unrelated) matters. He further alleges
that the Individual Co—Defendants are liable as control persons
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. He adds that the
Defendants were at least negligent in filing the Proxy with these
material misrepresentations and omissions.

On Oct. 31, 2023, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint. After full briefing, the Court heard oral argument on
Dec. 12, 2023.

Whether assessed under the usual plausibility standard of Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the more
stringent standard of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
(PSLRA), Judge Rakoff finds that the Amended Complaint fails to
adequately allege a false or misleading statement or misleading
omission. Additionally, the information supposedly omitted from the
alleged misstatements was a matter of public knowledge. Finally, an
independent basis for dismissal is that the Amended Complaint fails
to adequately allege negligence, Judge Rakoff points out.

Because the Amended Complaint fails to plausibly allege a violation
of Rule l4a-9, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
At oral argument, Judge Rakoff says the Plaintiffs' counsel,
confronted with all the arguments considered here, could not
identify a single additional fact that any Second Amended Complaint
would allege beyond what has already been pleaded.

Accordingly, Judge Rakoff rules that the dismissal is with
prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close documents 23 and 27 on
the docket, enter final judgment, and close this case.

While briefing on the motion to dismiss was underway, Zappia and
another potential plaintiff, Baruch Halberstam, moved to appoint
Halberstam as Co—Lead Plaintiff. The Court's dismissal of the
Amended Complaint and entry of final judgment render that motion
moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Dec. 28,
2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/452hhh8zfrom
PacerMonitor.com.


NAVY FEDERAL: Robinson and Williams Allege Discriminatory Lending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Robinson and Elise Simone Williams, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Navy Federal
Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00049-LMB-WEF (E.D. Va.,
January 10, 2024) alleges that the Defendant discriminated against
Plaintiffs and the class based on race in connection with the
denial of their mortgage applications.

Allegedly, Navy Federal had a statistically significant denial rate
between Black and White applicants for Veterans Affairs home loans,
which are loans backed by the federal government. While other
lenders made changes their automated systems to try to account for
inherent bias, Navy Federal failed and refused to make any changes
to account for the unprecedented racial disparity, says the suit.

Headquartered in Vienna, VA, Navy Federal is a not-for-profit,
federally chartered credit union that serves members of the Armed
Forces, Department of Defense, veterans, and their families and
provides a wide range of financial services and products to its
members. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan M. Petty, Esq.
          Christopher P. Yakubisin, Esq.
          PHELAN PETTY PLC
          3315 West Broad Street
          Richmond, VA 23230
          Telephone: (804) 980-7100
          E-mail: jpetty@phelanpetty.com

                  - and -

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Scott Harris, Esq.
          Michael Dunn, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          900 W. Morgan St.
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          E-mail: dbryson@milberg.com
                  sharris@milberg.com
                  michael.dunn@milberg.com

                  - and -

          Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          E-mail: gabramson@milberg.com

NECSOSA LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Navarro Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE NAVARRO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NECSOSA LLC and DAVID DE LA CRUZ MEDINA,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00199 (D.N.J., January 11, 2024) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff seeking to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

From August 2022 until February 2023, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants to work as a construction assistant/mason at Necsosa
LLC. He worked approximately 66 hours weekly. However, the
Defendant did not possess a time clock in order to record,
document, and memorialize Plaintiff's work hours. As a result, the
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime for those hours he
worked beyond 40 hours per week, says the suit.

Headquartered in Blairstown, NJ, Necsosa is domestic limited
liability company that provides construction services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Lina Stillman, Esq.
         STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
         42 Broadway, 12t Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 203-2417
         Website: www.stillmanlegalpc.com

NEW YORK: Class Settlement in Bronx v. MTA Has Prelim. Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued an amended order granting motion for
preliminary approval of class settlement in the lawsuit styled
BRONX INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES, a nonprofit organization;
DISABLED IN ACTION OF METROPOLITAN NEW YORK, a nonprofit
organization; ROBERT HARDY, an individual; and RODOLFO DIAZ, an
individual; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, a
public benefit corporation; JANNO LIEBER, in his official capacity
as chairman and chief executive officer of the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority; NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a public
benefit corporation; and RICHARD DAVEY, in his official capacity as
president of the New York City Transit Authority; Defendants.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Intervenor v. METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY and NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05023-ER (S.D.N.Y.).

On June 28, 2016, Plaintiffs Bronx Independent Living Services,
Disabled In Action of Metropolitan New York, Robert Hardy, and
Rodolfo Diaz filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (No.
16-CV-5023 (ER) (the "Action") with allegations related to the
Defendants' failure to install elevators at the Middletown Road
subway station during the Defendants' renovation of that station.

On Feb. 23, 2017, the Plaintiffs amended their complaint. On March
13, 2018, Plaintiff-Intervenor the United States of America filed a
Complaint-in-Intervention against the Defendants alleging that they
failed to install elevators at the Middletown Road subway station
during their renovation of that station.

On April 25, 2018, the Court a) certified a class of "all persons
with mobility disabilities who cannot currently use the Middletown
Road subway station because of accessibility barriers at that
station and who would use the station if it were made accessible";
b) appointed Plaintiffs as class representatives, and c) appointed
Disability Rights Advocates as Class Counsel.

On March 5, 2019, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment. The Plaintiff Class seeks relief against
the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Janno Lieber, in his
official capacity as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New York City Transit
Authority, and Richard Davey, in his official capacity as President
of the New York City Transit Authority (collectively, "Defendants")
for alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Intervenor, and the Defendants
(collectively, the "Parties"), through their respective counsel
have entered into a Settlement Agreement, dated Sept. 29, 2023,
which if approved by the Court resolves the class claims raised in
this Action by the Plaintiffs and provides for the dismissal of
this Action.

The Plaintiffs previously moved the Court, pursuant to Rule
23I(1)(c) for (i) preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement,
a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit 1 to the Rodgers Declaration
dated Sept. 29, 2023; (ii) approval of the Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Class Notice," comprised of the Full
Notice and Short Form Notice), Exhibit 2 to the Rodgers
Declaration; (iii) approval of a plan for providing notice to the
Class; and (iv) assuming the preliminary approval was granted, for
a Fairness Hearing to be conducted no earlier than 104 days after
the date that preliminary approval is granted.

The Plaintiff-Intervenor and the Defendants did not oppose the
Plaintiffs' Motion. The Court adopted and issued an Order Granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement;
Directing Issuance of Settlement Notice; and Scheduling Hearing on
Final Approval on Oct. 2, 2023.

The Parties have requested the Court adjourn the Fairness Hearing
contemplated by the October 2 Order to a later date. The deadlines
with respect to the Issuance and Posting of the Settlement Notice
and for Class Member Objections contained in Paragraphs 7, 13, and
14 of the October 2 Order are not altered and are reproduced here.

Judge Ramos finds that the Proposed Settlement Agreement is fair
and warrants the dissemination of notice to the Class Members to
apprise them of the Settlement.

The Court grants preliminary approval of the terms and conditions
contained in the Proposed Settlement Agreement. The Court
preliminarily finds that the terms of the Agreement appear to be
within the range appropriate for approval, pursuant to Rule 23(c)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable law.

The Court approves the Class Notice. Within thirty days of the
October 2 Order, the Class Notice will be disseminated in both
English and Spanish to the Class, substantially in the form
attached as Exhibit 2 to the Rodgers Declaration by the following
means:

   a. Class Counsel will post the Class Notice in a prominent
      place on its website and will distribute the Class Notice
      by email to stakeholders;

   b. Plaintiffs BILS and DIA will distribute the Notice
      electronically to their consumers/members;

   c. The Defendants will translate the Notice into Spanish, post
      the Notice, in both English and Spanish on at least two
      places on their website, including their "Accessibility"
      page, and will distribute the Notice via the Systemwide
      Accessibility Team's newsletter;

   d. The Notice will be provided in a format that is accessible
      to persons with disabilities; and

   e. Each party will bear its own costs of providing any Notice
      required by this Order.

A Fairness Hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure will be held before Judge Ramos on April 11, 2024,
at 2:30 p.m.

At least fourteen days before the Fairness Hearing, counsel for the
Defendants and Class Counsel will each provide a declaration to the
Court attesting to the manner in which they disseminated the Class
Notice consistent with the Agreement.

Any member of the Class may enter an appearance on his or her own
behalf in this action through that Class Member's own attorney (at
their own expense) but need not do so. Class Members who do not
enter appearances through their own attorneys will be represented
by Class Counsel.

As provided in the October 2 Order, any member of the Class may
object to the proposed Settlement Agreement. Any Class Member who
fails to properly and timely file and serve objections or comments
will be foreclosed from objecting to the Stipulation of Settlement,
unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

Class Counsel and counsel for the Defendants will respond to any
timely filed objections not later than fourteen days prior to the
Fairness Hearing.

The Plaintiffs will file their Motion for Final Approval of
Settlement no later than fourteen days before the Fairness
Hearing.

The Court further orders that pending further order from the Court,
all proceedings in this Action, except those contemplated herein
and in the Stipulation of Settlement, will be stayed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Amended Order dated Dec. 28, 2023,
is available at http://tinyurl.com/mr7rj8bafrom PacerMonitor.com.


NEXTCARE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, White Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Paige M. White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Nextcare, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00064-JFM (D. Ariz., January 10, 2024)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from approximately July 2022
through November 10, 2023 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. The
Plaintiff and those similarly situated have regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours a week and have been paid some overtime for
those hours but at a rate that does not include Defendant's shift
differentials and non-discretionary bonuses as required by the
FLSA, says the suit.

Headquartered in Phoenix, AZ, Nextcare, Inc. operates urgent care
clinics that medical care services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                 - and -

         Jacqueline Mendez Soto, Esq.
         BARTON MENDEZ SOTO PLLC
         401 W. Baseline Road, Suite 205
         Tempe, AZ 85283
         Telephone: (480) 550-5165
         E-mail: jacqueline@bartonmendezsoto.com

O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Initial Class Cert. Filing Due Feb. 28, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN LILLMAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. O'REILLY
AUTOMOTIVE STORES, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01648-MEM (M.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Malachy E. Mannion entered a case management conference
order as follows:

   1. The final date for the joining of          Jan. 25, 2024
      additional parties is:

   2. The final date for the amendment           March 15, 2024
      of pleadings is:

   3. All fact discovery shall be                Oct. 7, 2024
      completed by:

   4. Expert reports will be due                 Nov. 6, 2024
      from the Plaintiff on or
      before:

   5. All expert discovery shall                 Feb. 3, 2025
      be completed by:

   6. Motion for Preliminary                     Feb. 28, 2025
      Class Certification shall
      be filed on or before:

   7. The Defendant's opposition brief           April 25, 2025
      shall be filed on or before:

   8. The Plaintiff's reply brief                May 30, 2025
      shall be filed on or before:

   9. Motion(s) for Summary Judgment             Feb. 28, 2025
      and supporting brief(s) shall be
       filed on or before:

  10. Opposing brief(s) shall be filed           March 28, 2025
      on or before:

O'Reilly is an American auto parts retailer that provides
automotive aftermarket parts, tools, supplies, equipment, and
accessories

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48pcloi at no extra charge.[CC]

OLIN CORPORATION: Court Tosses DPPs' Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIAMI PRODUCTS & CHEMICAL
CO., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, et al.,
v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00385-EAW-MJR
(W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford entered an order:

-- Denying Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' (DPPs') motion for class
    certification;

-- Denying as moot Shintech's motion to exclude certain of Dr.
Lamb's
    opinions;

-- Denying DPPs' motion to strike and exclude certain of Dr.
    Johnson's opinions and proposed testimony;

-- Denying as moot Formosa's motion to exclude certain of Dr.
Lamb's
    opinions; and

-- Denying as moot Defendants' joint motion to exclude certain of
Dr.
    Lamb's opinions and proposed testimony.

The Court's denial of the parties' motions to strike/exclude shall
not preclude the parties from raising any issues related to the
admissibility of expert testimony in motions in limine filed
pursuant to a pretrial order entered at a later stage of this
case.

DPPs allege that the Defendants have violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1, by entering into a combination or
conspiracy to artificially reduce or eliminate competition for the
pricing of caustic soda sold to purchasers in the United States.

DPPs seek to certify a class with the following definition:

   "All persons and entities who purchased in the United States
   directly from one or more of the Defendants (or from any of the

   Defendants' predecessors, subsidiaries, or affiliates) liquid
forms
   of membrane or diaphragm grade Caustic Soda at any time between

   October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018."

   Excluded from the class are Defendants, their predecessors,
   parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and all government
entities,
   agencies, and instrumentalities. For purposes of this exclusion,

   "predecessors" includes The Dow Chemical Company, whose chlor-
   alkali business was acquired by Olin effective October 5, 2015,
and
   Axiall Corporation, which was acquired by Westlake effective
August
   31, 2016. Also excluded are purchases under: (i) long-term
fixed-
   price contracts that predate October 1, 2015, (ii) costbased
   contracts (such as cost-plus contracts) with no component of
price
   based on a Caustic Soda index, and (iii) contracts that are
priced
   on an ECU (electrochemical unit) basis with no component of
price
   based on a Caustic Soda index.

Olin is a vertically-integrated global manufacturer and distributor
of
chemical products and a U.S. manufacturer of ammunition.

A copy of the Court's decision and order dated Dec. 28, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47B6pr5 at no
extra charge.[CC]

OREGON: Court Appoints Co-Class Counsel in Wyatt B. v. Kotek
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon, Eugene Division, grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint
Co-Class Counsel in the lawsuit entitled WYATT B., et al.,
Plaintiffs v. TINA KOTEK, et al., Defendants, Case No.
6:19-cv-00556-AA (D. Or.).

The Plaintiffs move to appoint Steven Rizzo and Mary Skjelset of
Rizzo Bosworth Eraut PC as co-class counsel to represent the
certified class and subclasses in this action.

Mr. Rizzo and Ms. Skjelset affirm that they have familiarized
themselves with the docket, the pleadings, and the significant
motions in this case in order to prepare themselves to assist with
the late stages of litigation and with the upcoming trial.

Judge Aiken finds that the Declarations of Mr. Rizzo and Ms.
Skjelset demonstrate that both attorneys have considerable
experience litigating tort and civil rights claims involving the
children in the Oregon foster care system. Although the
Declarations reflect limited experience with class actions, both
Mr. Rizzo and Ms. Skjelset have a great deal of relevant experience
with litigating claims involving the Department of Human Services
("DHS") and with interpreting and assessing DHS practices and
records.

Giving due consideration to the factors outlined in Rule 23(g) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court concludes that Mr.
Rizzo and Ms. Skjelset have met the standards for appointment as
co-counsel for the class and subclasses in this case.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Aiken grants the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Appoint Co-Class Counsel. Steven Rizzo, Esq., and Mary
Skjelset, Esq., of Rizzo Bosworth Eraut PC are appointed as
co-class counsel to represent the class and subclasses in this
action, joining with existing class counsel A Better Childhood,
Disability Rights Oregon, and Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Jan. 4, 2024,
is available at http://tinyurl.com/4z9bm3cbfrom PacerMonitor.com.


OSF HEALTHCARE: Quintanilla Sues Over Unlawful Pay Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
TRACY QUINTANILLA, individually and for others similarly situated
v. OSF HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, Case No. 1:24-cv-00294 (N.D. Ill.,
January 11, 2024), arises from the Defendant's uniform auto-deduct
policy that violates the Fair Labor Standards Act by depriving
Plaintiff Quintanilla and the other patient care employees of
overtime wages for all overtime hours worked.

Plaintiff Quintanilla worked for OSF as a Surgical Tech in
Evergreen Park, IL from approximately March 2021 until February
2023. Throughout her employment, OSF subjected Quintanilla to its
common practice of automatically deducting 30 minutes a day from
her recorded work time for so-called "meal breaks." However,
Plaintiff did not actually receive bona fide meal breaks. As a
result, OSF failed to pay Quintanilla and the other patient care
employees wages (including overtime) for the compensable work they
performed during their unpaid meal breaks, says the suit.

Headquartered in Peoria, IL, OSF is an Illinois not-for-profit
corporation that operates 16 hospitals--10 acute care, five
critical access, one transitional care--with 2,131 licensed beds
throughout Illinois and Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com

                 - and -

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

                  - and -

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

PARKMOBILE LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Baker Due Feb. 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER BAKER, MARIAM
GEORGE, EMMA JACKSON, SAIT KURMANGALIYEV, GREGORY MANSON, HERIBERTO
TRAVIESTO and JACK WEAVER, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. PARKMOBILE, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02182-SCJ
(N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Steve C. Jones entered an order granting
unopposed motion for extension of deadline for the Plaintiffs to
file motion for class certification:

-- The Plaintiffs have until February 12, 2024, to file their
motion
    for class certification.

-- The Defendant has eight weeks after Plaintiffs serve their
motion
    for class certification to submit an opposition.

-- The Plaintiffs will have eight weeks after Defendant serves its
opposition to file any reply in support of their motion.

Parkmobile provides mobile parking solutions.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RWEMTL at no extra charge.[CC]

PAYSIGN INC: Class Settlement in Securities Suit Has Prelim. Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada grants preliminary approval of the parties' class action
settlement in the lawsuit captioned IN RE PAYSIGN, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-00553-GMN-DJA (D. Nev.).

Lead Plaintiffs Johann Francisconi and Raheel Shahzad, on behalf of
themselves and the Settlement Class, and Defendants Paysign, Inc.,
Mark Newcomer, Mark Attinger, Daniel Spence, signed a stipulation
dated Dec. 15, 2023, for the proposed settlement and dismissal of
this securities class action lawsuit (the "Action").

Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and for the purposes of the Settlement only, Judge
Navarro preliminarily certifies the Action as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class consisting of all persons and
entities, who purchased or acquired Paysign common stock between
March 12, 2019, and March 31, 2020, both dates inclusive and were
damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class are the Released Defendant
Parties, including the Defendants and those persons, who file valid
and timely requests for exclusion.

Pursuant to Rule 23, preliminarily and for the purposes of this
Settlement only, Judge Navarro certifies the Plaintiffs as the
class representatives on behalf of the Settlement Class and Lead
Counsel, previously selected by the Plaintiffs and appointed by the
Court, are appointed as Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class.

The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement, subject to further
consideration at a hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") pursuant to
Rule 23(e), which is scheduled to be held before the Court on April
17, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.

The Court approves the form, substance and requirements of (a) the
Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class ("Long
Notice"), (b) the Proof of Claim and Release Form, (c) the Summary
Notice of Pendency and Proposed Class Action Settlement; and (d)
the Postcard Notice, all of which are attached as Exhibits A-1,
A-2, A-3 and A-4, respectively, to the Stipulation.

For settlement purposes only, Strategic Claims Services is
appointed and approved as the Claims Administrator to supervise and
administer the notice procedure as well as the processing of
claims.

The Escrow Agent may, at any time after entry of this Order and
without further approval from the Defendants or the Court, disburse
at the direction of Class Counsel up to $175,000 from the
Settlement Fund prior to the Effective Date to pay Notice and
Administration Expenses.

In order to be entitled to participate in recovery from the Net
Settlement Fund after the Effective Date, each Settlement Class
Member will take the action set in the Stipulation and be subject
to the conditions therein. Each Settlement Class Member must submit
a properly completed and executed Claim Form to the Claims
Administrator: (a) electronically through the Claims
Administrator's website, www.strategicclaims.net/Paysign/, by 11:59
p.m. EST, on March 4, 2024; or (b) at the Post Office Box indicated
in the Notice, postmarked no later than March 4, 2024 (forty-four
(44) calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing). Such deadline
may be further extended by Order of the Court.

All Settlement Class Members, who do not submit a valid and timely
Claim Form, will be forever barred from receiving any payments from
the Net Settlement Fund, but will in all other respects be subject
to and bound by the provisions of the Stipulation and the Order and
Final Judgment, if entered.

Settlement Class Members will be bound by all determinations and
judgments in this Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, unless
such Persons request exclusion from the Settlement Class in a
timely and proper manner, as provided in the Stipulation.

All Persons, who submit a valid, timely and unrevoked request for
exclusion, will be forever barred from receiving any payments from
the Net Settlement Fund.

The Court reserves the right to alter the time or the date of the
Settlement Hearing without further notice to the Class Members. The
Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the Action to consider
all further matters arising out of, or relating to, the
Stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 4, 2024, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/2nmfymtffrom PacerMonitor.com.

POMERANTZ LLP -- Joshua B. Silverman -- jbsilverman@pomlaw.com --
Omar Jafri -- ojafri@pomlaw.com -- in Chicago, Illinois 60603, Lead
Counsel.

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP -- Daniel J. Tyukody -- tyukodyd@gtlaw.com
-- in Los Angeles, California 90067, Counsel for the Defendants.


PDM STEEL: Payne & Williams Sue Over Labor Code Breaches
--------------------------------------------------------
CALVIN PAYNE and JOHNNY WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. PDM STEEL SERVICE CENTERS, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV00942
(Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., January 12, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of violating several provisions of the California Labor
Code, including the minimum wage and overtime provisions.

The Defendants employed Plaintiffs Payne and Williams machinery
maintenance helpers at Defendants' location at 3535 E. Myrtle
Street, Stockton, CA. Allegedly, they engaged unlawful labor
practices against Plaintiffs and their hourly-paid and/or
non-exempt employees. These unlawful practices include requiring
Plaintiffs and the class members to work off-the-clock without
compensation, failing to properly pay minimum wages or regular
rate/straight time wages for all hours worked, failing to properly
pay all overtime wages, failing to provide all meal and rest breaks
to which they were entitled and failing to pay meal and rest break
premiums when due.

PDM Steel Service Centers, Inc. manufactures and distributes steel
products. It employs workers throughout the state of California,
including in Los Angeles County, Fresno County, and other counties
in the state. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
         Barbara DuVan-Clarke, Esq.
         Alexander K. Spellman, Esq.
         P.J. Van Ert, Esq.
         Annabel Blanchard, Esq.
         BLACKSTONE LAW, APC
         8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745
         Beverly Hills, CA 90211
         Telephone: (310) 622-4278
         Facsimile: (855) 786-6356
         E-mail: jgenish@blackstonepc.com
                 BDC@blackstonepc.com
                 aspellman@blackstonepc.com

PENNSYLVANIA: Depositions of Plaintiffs' Experts Due Dec. 13
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMEY v. THE PENNSYLVANIA
STATE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00753 (W.D. Pa., Filed May 26,
2020), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Colville entered an order setting
additional deadlines as follows:

-- All depositions of Plaintiffs experts         Dec. 13, 2024
    shall be completed by:

-- All depositions of Defendants experts         Jan. 24, 2025
    shall be completed by:

The nature of suit Contract -- Other Contract.

Pennsylvania State University is a public state-related land-grant
research university.[CC]


PENNSYLVANIA: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 11
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN RAMEY, TYLER
THOMSON, and JEFFREY BINET, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Case No.
2:20-cv-00753-RJC (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Colville
entered a case management order as follows:

   1. The parties shall move to add new parties or amend pleadings
by
      Jan. 17, 2024.

   2. The parties shall complete class certification discovery by
      Sept. 16, 2024.

   3. The parties will file expert reports in conjunction with any

      Motion for Class Certification.

   4. The parties shall complete the ADR process they selected by
      Feb. 16, 2024.

   5. The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Class
Certification
      by Oct. 11, 2024.

   6. The Defendant shall file its response to Plaintiff's Motion
for
      Class Certification by December 13, 2024.

   7. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply by Jan. 24, 2025.

Pennsylvania State University is a public state-related land-grant
research university.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H0S3We at no extra charge.[CC]

PERMIAN RESOURCES: Rosenbaum Alleges Oil Production Conspiracy
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL ROSENBAUM; RENELDO RODRIGUEZ; and THOMAS CARON, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v.
PERMIAN RESOURCES CORP. f/k/a CENTENNIAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT,
INC.; CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION; CONTINENTAL RESOURCES INC.;
DIAMONDBACK ENERGY, INC.; EOG RESOURCES, INC.; HESS CORPORATION;
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION; and PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00103 (D. Nev., January 12,
2024) arises from Defendants' conspiracy to coordinate, and
ultimately constrain, domestic shale oil production, which has had
the effect of fixing, raising, and maintaining the price of retail
gasoline in and throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' cartel is an unlawful
restraint of trade under numerous state antitrust and competition
laws. They bring this class action to recover from the substantial
harm they have suffered from the supracompetitive prices they paid
for retail gasoline for personal use as a direct and proximate
result of the cartel to constrain domestic production of shale oil
in the United States.

Headquartered in Midland, TX, Permian Resources Corporation,
formerly known as Centennial Resource Development, is an oil and
gas production company that acquires and processes shale oil in
Texas and New Mexico. The company's common stock is listed and
traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the trading symbol PR.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

        Christopher A. Turtzo, Esq.
        MORRIS, SULLIVAN & LEMKUL, LLP
        3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 400
        Las Vegas, NV 89169
        Telephone: (702) 405-8100
        Facsimile: (702) 405-8101
        E-mail: turtzo@morrissullivanlaw.com

                - and -

        Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
        Carmen Medici, Esq.
        Fatima Brizuela, Esq.
        Daniel J. Brockwell, Esq.
        SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
        600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
        San Diego, CA 92101
        Telephone: (619) 233-4565
        E-mail: pcoughlin@scott-scott.com
                cmedici@scott-scott.com
                fbrizuela@scott-scott.com
                dbrockwell@scott-scott.com

PHILADELPHIA, PA: O'Reilly Sues Over Police Officers' Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH O'REILLY, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-05188 (E.D. Pa., Dec. 29, 2023) is a class and collective
action lawsuit against Defendant, the City of Philadelphia, seeking
all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law, and Pennsylvania common law.

The Plaintiff is a current City of Philadelphia police officer in
the K9 unit, as are his similarly situated colleagues. He asserts
the Defendant's failure to pay proper overtime wages and willful
policy and practice of denying him and the Pennsylvania Class
Plaintiffs their full wages for work performed caring for K9
Partners off the clock.

The Plaintiff brings this action to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, unlawfully withheld wages,
statutory penalties and damages owed to him and all similarly
situated current and former City of Philadelphia K9 officers.

City of Philadelphia is a municipality of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ian M. Bryson, Esq.
          DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2950
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 391-4790
          E-mail: ian@dereksmithlaw.com

PIPELINERS LOCAL: Williams Sues Over Race Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------
Tareck Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PIPELINERS LOCAL 798 OF THE UNITED ASSOCIATION OF
JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY
OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO, MICHELS PIPELINE, INC.,
and MICHEL'S CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-05189 (M.D. Pa., Dec.
29, 2023), is brought arising out of Defendants' uniform pattern
and practice of race discrimination against Plaintiff and the other
Class members, including disparate treatment discrimination,
disparate impact discrimination, hostile work environment
harassment, and retaliation.

The Plaintiff, a member of the Local 798 labor union, was hired as
a welder's helper at the Michel's Pipeline worksite in
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, on April 28, 2023. This is not the
first time Plaintiff has worked at a Michel's worksite. Within two
weeks of working as a helper at the Michel's worksite, Plaintiff
began to experience a racially hostile environment, highlighted by
severe and pervasive harassment that changed the terms and
conditions of his employment.

From that point on, on a daily or near-daily basis, Plaintiff
incrementally experienced verbal, written, symbolic, and overt
racial discrimination from his coworkers and superiors that
worsened over time including but not limited to: a. Being
sexualized and stereotyped constantly by Daniel Parmateer and Kevin
Woods because of his race through the repeated, unwanted reference
and jokes about his "big black cock." b. Being taunted by Daniel
Parmateer and Kevin Woods, with derogatory pictures of malnourished
and impoverished African children and families that were
distributed and compared to the resemblance to Plaintiff's family.
c. Being compared to and called apes and monkeys, through the
display and dissemination of photos and the comparison of
Plaintiff's facial features by Kevin Woods and Daniel Parmateer. d.
Being subjected to "jokes" about watermelon, Moon Pies, fried
chicken and chittlins during lunch breaks. e. Being called "Boy"
regularly and repeatedly despite being asked to be called by his
name. f. Being called "Nigger," which was also generically used to
refer to all Black people. g. Having White coworkers, including but
not limited to Kevin Woods and Daniel Parmateer, speak in a louder
than usual tone saying the word "Niggers" when Plaintiff was seen
approaching. h. Being directly called a "Nigger" by white coworkers
and supervisors, including but not limited to Kevin Woods and
Daniel Parmateer, even after asking that they did not call him
that. i. Subjected to nooses at the worksite. j. Being threatened
by Daniel Parmateer with a story of the murder of a Black welder's
helper who was also a Local 798 member being made to look like a
suicide.

Black union members at the worksite were in the minority of people
at the worksite and White workers were a significant majority. The
sheer number of racially discriminatory acts by the White workers
far outnumbered the amount of Black Workers that were actually at
these sites, but the White workers felt like welding was the last
frontier for White worker's monopoly of an industry. The White
workers were visibly offended by Plaintiff's presence because of
his race, and they let him know about it, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a Black man and a resident of Easton,
Pennsylvania, and citizen of Pennsylvania, has been a member of
Defendant Local 798 since April of 2017 and was an employee of
Michel's since April 28, 2023.

Local 798, which is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, is a member
organization of the United Association of Journeyman and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, AFL-CIO.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald S. Pollack, Esq.
          POLLACK LAW, LLC
          210 E. Street Road. Suite 3A
          Feasterville, PA 19053
          Office: 215-396-9660
          Fax: 215-396-9690
          Email: ron@fightingforpeople.com


PIPELINES LOCAL 798: Faces Williams Suit for Racial Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------
TARECK WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PIPELINERS LOCAL 798 OF THE UNITED
ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND
PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO,
MICHELS PIPELINE, INC., and MICHEL'S CORPORATION, Defendants, Case
No. Case 3:24-cv-000003-MEM (M.D. Pa., Jan. 2, 2024) arises from
the Defendants' uniform pattern and practice of racial
discrimination against Plaintiff and the other Class members,
including disparate treatment discrimination, disparate impact
discrimination, hostile work environment harassment, and
retaliation.

The Plaintiff brings his claims individually, and on behalf of a
Class of similarly situated present and former Black members of
Local 798 who worked at Michel's at any time between the date four
years prior to the date of filing of this complaint and the date of
judgment, seeking damages and other relief resulting from
Defendants' discriminatory practices, which deprived Plaintiff and
the other Class members of the benefits of their employment to
which they are legally entitled.

Pipeliners Local 798, which is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, is
a member organization of the United Association of Journeyman and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, AFL-CIO.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald S. Pollock, Esq.
          FIGHTING FOR PEOPLE INJURY LAW
          Pollack Law, LLC
          210 E. Street Road, Suite 3A
          Feasterville, PA 19053
          Telephone: (215) 396-9660
          Facsimile: (215) 396-9690
          E-mail: ron@fightingforpeople.com

PLURALSIGHT INC: Bid for Class Certification OK'd in Indiana Public
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT
SYSTEM and PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND OF
CHICAGO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PLURALSIGHT, INC., AARON SKONNARD, and JAMES BUDGE,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00128-DBB-DAO (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge David
Barlow entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

   1. The class of plaintiffs is defined as follows:

      "All persons who purchased the Class A common stock of
      Pluralsight from January 16, 2019 through July 31, 2019,
      inclusive and were damaged thereby."

      Excluded from the Class are (i) all defendants; (ii) members
of
      the immediate families of the defendants; (iii) any of the
      selling stockholders listed in the Offering Documents; (iv)
      members of the immediate families of any of the selling
      stockholders listed in the Offering Documents; (v) the
      subsidiaries and affiliates of any defendants or the selling

      stockholders listed in the Offering Documents; (vi) any
person
      or entity who is a partner, executive officer, director or
      controlling person of any defendants or selling stockholders

      listed in the Offering Documents (including any of their
      subsidiaries or affiliates); (vii) any entity in which any
      defendant has a controlling interest; and (viii) the legal
      representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of any such
      excluded party.

   2. The Plaintiffs Indiana Public Retirement System and Public
      School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago are
      appointed as Class representatives.

   3. The firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is appointed
as
      Class counsel.

The parties shall meet and confer on the form and manner of
providing notice, and within 60 days of this Memorandum Decision
and Order, submit a joint proposal for notice to the Class for the
court’s approval.

Pluralsight is a software company that sells a cloud-based
technology platform offering skills courses, skill and role
assessments, learning paths, and business analytic tools.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SidMQ7 at no extra charge.[CC]

PLUSHCARE INC: Settles Robbins Auto-Debit Row in California Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Accolade, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended November 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 8, 2024 that in September 2023 the company's
wholly owned subsidiary, PlushCare, Inc. paid the settlement in
full pursuant to the terms of the court-approved settlement of a
purported class action complaint captioned "Robbins v. PlushCare,
Inc. et al.," was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on May 8, 2021 against the
company's wholly owned subsidiary, PlushCare, Inc. The parties have
tentatively agreed on a settlement and the company has recorded a
contingent liability.

The complaint, as amended, alleges that certain of PlushCare's
subscription payment practices violate California and other state
automatic renewal laws and the Federal Electronic Funds Transfer
Act, among other claims, arising from allegations that PlushCare
failed to provide adequate disclosures to members.

The lawsuit seeks restitution of subscription fees, statutory
damages for each violation, subject to trebling, reasonable
attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. Under the terms of the
agreement to purchase PlushCare, the selling shareholders will
indemnify Accolade for losses related to this matter, subject to a
cap.

Accolade, Inc. provides care delivery services based in Washington
State.


POSTMEDS INC: Moran Files Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PostMeds, Inc. The
case is styled as Meliza Moran, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PostMeds, Inc. doing business as:
Truepill, Case No. 3:23-cv-06411-AGT (N.D. Cal., Dec. 13, 2023).

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

PostMeds, Inc., doing business as TruePill --
https://www.truepill.com/ -- provides online pharmacy delivery
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-7300
          Fax: (612) 336-2940
          Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com


PRIME HEALTHCARE: Court OK's Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit in re: Prime Healthcare ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 8:20-cv-01529-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order granting the motion for
class certification, with the following terms and conditions:

   (1) The following Rule 23(b)(1) classes are certified:

       Challenged-Funds and Expense-Monitoring Class: All
participants
       and beneficiaries in the Prime Healthcare Services, Inc.
401(k)
       Plan on or after August 18, 2014, to the present, including
any
       beneficiary of a deceased person who was a participant in
the
       Plan at any time during that period.

       Recordkeeping-Fees Class: All participants and beneficiaries
in
       the Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. 401(k) Plan at any time
on
       or after August 18, 2014, to July 31, 2019, including any
       beneficiary of a deceased person who was a participant in
the
       Plan at any time during that period.

   (2) Named Plaintiffs Horton and Ornelas are appointed as class
       representatives for both classes identified above, while
Named
       Plaintiff Cervantes is appointed as class representative for

       only the second class identified above.

   (3) James E. Miller, Alec J. Berin, and Mark K. Gyandoh are
       appointed as class counsel.

   (4) The Court directs the parties to meet and confer, and to
submit
       an agreed-upon form of class notice that will advise class
       members of, among other things, the relief sought and their

       rights to intervene, submit comments, and contact class
       counsel.

The Court certifies the following classes:

-- Challenged-Funds and Expense-Monitoring Class:

    "All participants and beneficiaries in the Prime Healthcare
    Services, Inc. 401(k) Plan on or after August 18, 2014 to the

    present, including any beneficiary of a deceased person who was
a  
    participant in the Plan at any time during that period."

-- Recordkeeping-Fees Class:

    "All participants and beneficiaries in the Prime Healthcare
    Services, Inc. 401(k) Plan at any time on or after August 18,
2014
    to July 31, 2019, including any beneficiary of a deceased
person
    who was a participant in the Plan at any time during that
period."

The Plaintiffs are current and former participants in the Prime
Healthcare Services, Inc. 401(k) Plan, a tax-deferred, defined
contribution retirement plan.

They bring a putative class action against Defendants Prime
Healthcare Services, Inc. and the Administrative Committee of the
Plan, alleging that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4b8M3J0 at no extra charge.[CC]

PRIME HEALTHCARE: Forcen Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Arlene Forcen, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and as a proxy of the State of
California on behalf of all aggrieved employees v. PRIME HEALTHCARE
FOUNDATION, INC.; PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.; PRIME HEALCARE
MANAGEMENT, INC.; and PRIME HEALCARE SERVICES--SHASTA, LLC, Case
No. CIVSB2117283 was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 27, 2023, and
assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-02626.

On October 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed her "First Amended Class
Action Complaint" in the Superior Court of California for the
County of San Bernardino which added Defendants Prime Healcare
Management, Inc. and SRMC ("FAC"). The FAC alleges causes of action
for Failure to Provide Meal Periods, or Compensation in Lieu
Thereof; Failure to Provide Rest Periods, or Compensation in Lieu
Thereof; Failure to Keep Accurate Payroll Records; Failure to
Furnish Accurate Wage Statements; Waiting Time Penalties;
Reimbursement of Business Expenses; Unfair Competition and Unlawful
Business Practices; and Civil Penalties Pursuant to PAGA.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Geoffrey C. Westbrook, Esq.
          Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300
          Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
          Phone: (916) 448-0159
          Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
          Email: gwestbrook@seyfarth.com
                 pebsworth@seyfarth.com


PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Clarke Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kimberly Clarke, Alexander Hagen, on behalf of
her minor child and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Progress Software Corporation, Greater Rochester Independent
Practice Association, Inc., Case No. 6:23-cv-06665 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
Dec. 29, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-13231-ADB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frederic D. Ostrove, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, PC
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Phone: (516) 873-9550
          Fax: (516) 747-5024
          Email: rostrove@lmblaw.com


RAAKA CHOCOLATE: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Raaka Chocolate, Inc.
The case is styled as Rhondine Melendez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Raaka Chocolate, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-09532-FB-VMS (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2023).

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

Raaka Chocolate -- https://www.raakachocolate.com/ -- is a
manufacturing company that offers delicious unroasted dark
chocolate made from scratch.[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


RADIUS GLOBAL: Butts Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Wayne Butts, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Radius Global Solutions, LLC, Case
No. 0:23-cv-02663 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on Dec. 29, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12986-ADB to the
proceeding.

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

Radius Global Solutions -- https://www.radiusgs.com/ -- is a
leading provider of accounts receivable, customer relations and
revenue cycle management solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          Joseph Nelson, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 333-8844
          Fax: (612) 339-6622
          Email: dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
                 dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                 jnelson@gustafsongluek.com

               - and –

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas H. Schaefer, Esq.
          ERSTAD & RIEMER, P.A.
          7301 Ohms Lane, Suite 400
          Minneapolis, MN 55439
          Phone: (952) 837-3250
          Fax: (952) 837-3250
          Email: tschaefer@erstad.com


RALPHS GROCERY: Chesnut Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Robert Chesnut, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Case No.
30-2023-01361799-CU-BT-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California, Orange County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California. on Dec. 28, 2023, and
assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-02479.

The Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of a putative class of
California consumers for violations of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA"), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), as well as
(3) a claim for unjust enrichment.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jacob M. Harper, Esq.
          James H. Moon, Esq.
          Peter K. Bae, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, 24th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
          Phone: (213) 633-6800
          Fax: (213) 633-6899
          Email: jacobharper@dwt.com
                 jamesmoon@dwt.com
                 peterbae@dwt.com


REATA PHARMA: $45MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 29
------------------------------------------------------------
TO: All persons and entities who, during the period between
November 14, 2016 through December 8, 2021 inclusive, purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Reata" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RETA) (the "Settlement Class"),
including all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Reata common stock pursuant and/or traceable to Reata's
2019 Offering and/or 2020 Offering (the "Offerings Subclass").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class
Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement;
(II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached
a proposed settlement of the Action for $45,000,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.

A hearing is scheduled to be held on March 29, 2024 at 9:00 a.m.,
before the Honorable Amos L. Mazzant III at the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Paul Brown United
States Courthouse, 101 East Pecan Street, Sherman, Texas 75090, to
determine whether: (i) the proposed Settlement should be approved
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated October 30, 2023 (and in the Notice) should be
granted; (iii) the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved
as fair and reasonable; and (iv) Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be
approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Doyle v. Reata
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., c/o Epiq, P.O. Box 5566, Portland, OR
97228-5566, 1-877-664-7398. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can
also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims
Administrator, www.ReataSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form online, by email, or by mail postmarked no
later than April 24, 2024. If you are a Settlement Class Member and
do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to
share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement,
but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than March 8, 2024, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than March 8, 2024, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants, or
their counsel, regarding this notice. All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement, should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

         Doyle v. Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
         c/o Epiq
         P.O. Box 5566
         Portland, OR, 97228-5566
         1-877-664-7398
         www.ReataSecuritiesLitigation.com
         info@ReataSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

         KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
         Daniel Hume, Esq.
         250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
         New York, NY 10177
         (212) 371-6600
         www.kmllp.com
         dhume@kmllp.com

By Order of the Court

URL: www.ReataSecuritiesLitigation.com,
www.kmllp.com/cases-investigations/doyle-v-reata-pharmaceuticals


RED BALLOON: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Red Balloon
Childrenswear, LLC. The case is styled as Hakan Durantas, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Red Balloon
Childrenswear, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09544 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28,
2023).

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

The Red Balloon Childrenswear, LLC --
https://theredballoonshop.com/ -- offers specialty Luxury Fashion
for Babies, Kids, & Teens.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Class Cert Deadlines Extended by 30 Days
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Buffalo Seafood House LLC,
et al., v. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Case No.
7:22-cv-01242-RMG (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard M. Gergel
entered an order granting requesting an extension to the expert
schedule to allow Defendants' expert an additional 30 days to
complete its written report; and for a corresponding 30-day
adjustment as to the dates for when Plaintiffs must file a class
certification motion, for when Defendants must file a response, and
for when Plaintiffs must file a reply:

   A. Defendants' Motion for Relief

   B. Plaintiffs' Fourth Motion to Compel

   C. Defendants' Motion to Compel

   D. Defendants' Motion to Amend Scheduling Order

Republic Services is a North American waste disposal company whose
services include non-hazardous solid waste collection, waste
transfer, waste disposal, recycling, and energy services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47wk0jw at no extra charge.[CC]

RISE SERVICES: Anthony Wins Class Action Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Deion Anthony, v. Rise
Services Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00268-GMS (D.
Ariz.), the Hon. Judge G. Murray Snow entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion for Rule 23 class action certification.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Rise implemented a temporary hazard
pay policy for DSPs working in "hazardous" environments.

Retroactive to March 11, 2020, this policy would pay DSPs time and
a half for working in environments where there would be direct
contact with clients who tested positive for COVID-19.

The Defendant employed Plaintiff Deion Anthony as a DSP by
Defendant from September 2, 2021, until January 23, 2022.

The Plaintiff alleges that while employed by Defendant he never
received hazard pay, despite being entitled to it.

The Plaintiff further alleges that he was denied pay for training
he was required to complete off-the-clock.

Rise Services is a Utah corporation that provides services to
people with development and intellectual disabilities.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H9bL23 at no extra charge.[CC]



ROADRUNNER TRANS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Continued to April 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GRISELDA JAUREGUI,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., an
unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive Case No.
2:21-cv-04657-SPG-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace
Garnett entered an order granting the joint stipulation to continue

motion for class certification deadlines:

-- Motion for Class Certification Deadline           April 5, 2024

    is set for:

-- Opposition to Motion for Class                    May 6, 2024
    Certification Deadline is set for:

-- Reply to Opposition to Motion for                 June 3, 2024
    Class Certification Deadline is
    set for:

-- Hearing on Motion for Class                       June 17, 2024

    Certification Deadline is set for:

Roadrunner is an asset-light transportation and logistics service
provider.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TWXygg at no extra charge.[CC]

ROYAL SWEET BAKERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Canales Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
NOLVIA CANALES, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROYAL SWEET BAKERY, INC., and any
other related entities and MIKHAIL YUSIM, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 501337/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., January 12, 2024)
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation and
spread of hours compensation, as well as damages arising from Wage
Notice Violations, pursuant to the New York Labor Law and 12 New
York Codes, Rules, and Regulations.

The Plaintiff is a non-exempt employee who worked for Defendants
from approximately 2013 to August 31, 2023. Plaintiff mainly worked
as a baker for Defendants, but was also regularly assigned cleaning
duties. He routinely worked in excess of ten hour days, and in
excess of 40 hours per week. However, she was not paid at the
overtime rate of one and one-half times her regular hourly rate for
the hours over 40 she worked each week, says the suit.

Royal Sweet Bakery, Inc produces a wide variety of baked goods,
which are distributed nationwide. It has two locations in New York
and is involved in manufacturing, importing, and distributing food
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
         Leonor H. Coyle, Esq.
         VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
         40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 943-9080
         Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
         E-mail: lcoyle@vandallp.com

SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Bid to Exclude Expert Opinions Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin Brown, et al., v.
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-00242-JL (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Joseph N. Laplante
entered an order that the Defendants' motion to exclude the
opinions of the plaintiffs' fate and transport expert witnesses is
granted as to Dr. James Vernon and is otherwise denied.

The plaintiffs' motion to exclude the opinions of the Defendants'
experts is granted-in-part and denied-in-part, as described in
Sections III.B and III.D. Finally, the Defendants' motions to
exclude the plaintiffs' damages experts are denied.

The "proposed class consists of residential property owners within
defined geographic areas" who are allegedly "impacted by"
groundwater contamination related to PFOA emissions from the
Saint-Gobain facility.

The class includes individuals who obtain their household water
from two sources—private wells and municipal water, or
theMerrimack Village District Water Works system.

The putative class and two subclasses are defined as follows:

   "All persons who on or after March 4, 2016 own or owned
residential
   properties with private wells in the Private Well Property
Owners
   Class Geographic Area or residential properties in the Merrimack

   Village District Water Works (MVDWW) Class Geographic Area which

   are supplied household water by MVDWW (Property Damage Class)."

   -- Subclass A:

      "All persons who on or after March 4, 2016 own or owned
      residential properties with private groundwater wells within
the
      Private Well Class Geographic Area (Private Well Property
Owners
      Property Damage Subclass).

      Subclass B:

      "All persons who on or after March 4, 2016 own or owned
      residential properties in the Merrimack Village District
Water
      Works (MVDWW) Class Geographic Area which are supplied
household
      water by MVDWW (MVDWW Property Owners Property Damage
Subclass).

St-Gobain produces a wide range of polymer applications, materials,
and solutions.

A copy of the Court's memorandum order dated Dec. 29, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vIstmo at no
extra charge.[CC]

SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Class Cert. Bid Partly Granted in Brown
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin Brown et al, v.
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00242-JL
(D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Joseph N. Laplante entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

   -- The court certifies a liability class with respect to the
      trespass, negligence, and negligent failure to warn claims,
but
      denies certification as to the nuisance claim. If and when
      liability is established, the court will proceed to the
damages
      phase of the case.

   -- Thus, based on the record presently before it, the court
      concludes that the plaintiffs lack a common or manageable
method
      for allocating damages to individual class members,
precluding
      certification as to damages.

   -- The court is convinced, however, that several core liability

      issues can be proven on a class-wide basis, and these common

      issues predominate over the individualized inquiries
pertaining
      to damages.

The proposed class consists of property owners within two defined,
contiguous areas surrounding the facility, who derive their water
from two allegedly contaminated sources—private groundwater wells
or the Merrimack Village District Water Works (MVDWW) municipal
water system.

The plaintiffs alternatively propose two subclasses of property
owners in the same locations who source their water from the
private wells, on one hand, or from the MVDWW system, on the
other.

The defendants argue that class treatment is improper because the
plaintiffs’ claims present myriad individual factual and legal
issues, which are not susceptible to class-wide proof.

The "proposed class consists of residential property owners within
defined geographic areas" who are allegedly "impacted by"
groundwater contamination related to PFOA emissions from the
Saint-Gobain facility.

The class includes individuals who obtain their household water
from two sources—private wells and municipal water, or the MVDWW
system. The putative class and two subclasses are defined as
follows:

   "All persons who on or after March 4, 2016 own or owned
residential
   properties with private wells in the Private Well Property
Owners  
   Class Geographic Area or residential properties in the Merrimack

   Village District Water Works (MVDWW) Class Geographic Area which

   are supplied household water by MVDWW (Property Damage Class).

   -- Private Well Property Owners Property Damage Subclass A:

      "All persons who on or after March 4, 2016 own or owned
      residential properties with private groundwater wells within
the
      Private Well Class Geographic Area."


   -- MVDWW Property Owners Property Damage Subclass B:

      "All persons who on or after March 4, 2016 own or owned
      residential properties in the Merrimack Village District
Water
      Works (MVDWW) Class Geographic Area which are supplied
household
      water by MVDWW.

The plaintiffs define the MVDWW Class Geographic Area to reflect
the
MVDWW service map, and they define the Private Well Class
Geographic area as follows.

In Bedford and Merrimack, the geographic area west of the Merrimack
Riverwithin three (3.0) miles of the property boundary of the
Saint-Gobain Site; in Litchfield, the Geographic area bounded by
the Merrimack River on the west, Cummings Drive on the South,
extended east to the Merrimack River and west to the Londonderry
Town line, and the Londonderry Town line on the East and the City
of Manchester on the North and East, and the geographic area in
Manchester bounded by Raymond Wieczorek Drive on the North and
East, and the geographic area in Manchester bounded by Raymond
Wieczorek Drive on the North and is depicted in Appendix A, Private
Well Class Geographic Area Map.

St-Gobain produces a wide range of polymer applications, materials,
and solutions.

A copy of the Court's memorandum order dated Dec. 29, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S2K1kU at no
extra charge.[CC]



SCHMIDT BAKING: Silva Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Nathaniel Silva and Phil Rothkugel, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SCHMIDT BAKING
DISTRIBUTION, LLC and SCHMIDT BAKING COMPANY, INC., Case No.
HHD-CV23-6175772-S was removed from the Superior Court in the State
of Connecticut for the County of Hartford, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut on Dec. 29, 2023, and
assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01695.

The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges two causes of action: Unlawful
Deductions under Connecticut Wage Law and Connecticut Overtime
Violations.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          William J. Anthony, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          900 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022.3298
          Phone: 212.583.9600
          Facsimile: 212.832.2719
          Email: wanthony@littler.com

               - and –

          Joshua B. Waxman, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          815 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202.789.3406
          Facsimile: 202.478.2623
          Email: jwaxman@littler.com

               - and –

          Michael McIntosh, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1800 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 500
          Tysons Corner, VA 22102
          Phone: 703.286.3118
          Facsimile: 703.991.8016


SELENE FINANCE: Milam Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
RAMONA MILAM, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SELENE FINANCE, LP, a Texas Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00317 (N.D. Ill., January 12, 2024)
seeks redress from Defendant's systematic use of unlawful and
unfair debt collection practices to collect upon residential
consumer mortgage loans in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.

During the relevant time period, Selene sent borrowers form letters
alleging that the borrowers are in default of their mortgages and
that the failure to cure the default may result in acceleration of
their loan. However, the false ultimatum contained in the Final
Letter sent to Plaintiff contradicts Selene's actual policies
regarding acceleration and foreclosure. The Final Letter contains
false and misleading threat of acceleration and foreclosure, which
are designed intimidate borrowers into making payments to Selene
that are beyond their means and beyond what is necessary to avoid
acceleration and save their homes from foreclosure, says the suit.

Headquartered in Coppell, TX, Selene Finance is a residential
mortgage servicing company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: sharris@milberg.com

                  - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com

SIKA AG: H & S Ready Mix Sues Over Alleged Price Fixing of CCAs
---------------------------------------------------------------
H & S READY MIX, INC., ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff v. SIKA AG; SIKA CORPORATION; CHRYSO, INC.; GCP
APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN S.A.; SAINT-
GOBAIN NORTH AMERICA; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS ADMIXTURES U.S.,
LLC; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; CINVEN LTD.;
CINVEN, INC.; THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY; RPM INTERNATIONAL INC.;
AND DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00164 (E.D. Pa.,
January 12, 2024) arises from the Defendants' unlawful agreement to
fix the prices for concrete and cement admixtures and alleges that
the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct violates Sections 1 and 3
of the Sherman Act.

Beginning no later than May 11, 2018, Defendants entered into an
agreement to consolidate their control over the global manufacture
of CCAs and charge supracompetitive prices for CCAs through price
increases and surcharges. This agreement, effectuated at least in
part through common trade association membership, resulted in
Plaintiff and members of the Class paying supra-competitive prices
for CCAs in the United States and its territories. Accordingly,
Plaintiff seeks to recover the overcharges it paid to Defendants,
says the suit.

SIKA AG is a Swiss corporation that manufactures and sells CCAs
around the world, including in the United States, directly and
through its predecessors, affiliates, and/or subsidiaries,
including Sika Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          Daniel N. Gallucci, Esq.
          Michele S. Burkholder, Esq.
          NASTLAW LLC
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923-9300
          Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
          E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
                  dgallucci@nastlaw.com
                  mburkholder@nastlaw.com

                  - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
          Matt Jacobs, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 So. Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
                  mjacobs@gustafsongluek.com

SMUGGLER JACK'S: Colak Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALI COLAK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SMUGGLER JACK'S, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-00019 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2024) is a civil rights action
against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website, www.smugglerjacks.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people in violation of their rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights
Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was unable to understand
and properly interact with the website and was thus denied the
benefit of obtaining location and menu information in order to
visit a restaurant. Because the Defendant's website is not equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Smuggler Jack's, Inc. owns the website that offers users the
ability to peruse the restaurant's menus and obtain location
information.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          PeterPaul Shaker, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 102
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com

SNAP INC: Court Sets Feb. 24 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Snap Inc. (NYSE: SNAP) announced the filing of a Form 8-K with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to an Amended
Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement executed on December 15,
2023 by the parties to the lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware captioned Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters'
Pension Fund v. Snap Inc. et al., Docket No. 2022-0679-PAF
(formerly captioned City of Warwick v. Snap Inc. et al.). The
complete Form 8-K filing is available at www.sec.gov or on the
Investor Relations section of Snap Inc.'s website.

Pursuant to that Amended Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement,
Snap Inc. is publishing an amended summary notice of pendency and
proposed settlement of action. The full text follows below.

AMENDED SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY
AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF ACTION

TO: (1) ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF SHARES OF CLASS
A, CLASS B OR CLASS C COMMON STOCK OF SNAP INC. AS OF THE DATE OF
THE AMENDED STIPULATION ("CURRENT STOCKHOLDERS") AND (2) ALL RECORD
HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF SHARES OF CLASS A COMMON STOCK OF
SNAP INC. AS OF JULY 19, 2022, TOGETHER WITH THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS,
TRANSFEREES, AND SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST, IN EACH CASE SOLELY IN
THEIR CAPACITY AS HOLDERS OR OWNERS OF CLASS A COMMON STOCK OF SNAP
INC. (THE "CLASS").

PLEASE READ THIS AMENDED NOTICE CAREFULLY. THIS AMENDED NOTICE
RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF A LAWSUIT AND CONTAINS
IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING THE RIGHTS OF CLASS MEMBERS AND
CURRENT STOCKHOLDERS OF SNAP INC.

Any capitalized terms used herein that are not otherwise defined
herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Amended
Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement dated December 15, 2023
(the "Amended Stipulation").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned action (the "Action"), which was brought by a
stockholder of Snap Inc. ("Snap" or the "Company") asserting claims
on behalf of itself and a Class and/or derivatively on behalf of
the Company, is pending in the Court.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED, pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery Rules
23(a), 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), and 23.1 and an Order of the Court, that
the Action has been preliminarily certified for the purposes of
settlement as a non-opt out class action on behalf of the Class, as
set forth in the full printed Amended Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Action (the "Amended Long-Form Notice"). The
Class is defined in the Amended Stipulation as all record and
beneficial holders of shares of Snap Class A common stock that were
issued and outstanding as of July 19, 2022, together with their
heirs, assigns, transferees, and successors-in-interest, in each
case solely in their capacity as holders or owners of such shares,
except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the
Class by definition.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that, after arms-length negotiations,
Plaintiff Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund
("Plaintiff"), on behalf of itself, Snap, and the Class, has
reached a proposed settlement with Defendants. The Defendants are
Snap, Evan Spiegel, Robert Murphy, Kelly Coffey, Joanna Coles, Liz
Jenkins, Michael Lynton, Stanley Meresman, Scott Miller, Poppy
Thorpe, and Fidel Vargas.

This Amended Summary Notice advises Snap stockholders and potential
members of the Class of information about the Action and the
proposed Settlement. You may obtain a copy of the Amended Long-Form
Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator at A.B. Data,
Ltd. at 1-877-495-0883 or info@snapstockholderlitigation.com. A
copy of the Amended Long-Form Notice can also be downloaded from
the Settlement website, www.snapstockholderlitigation.com. The
Amended Stipulation is on file with the Office of the Register in
Chancery for the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street,
Wilmington, Delaware 19801.

If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims in
the Action as against Defendants. If you are a Snap stockholder
and/or a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the
pending Action and the Settlement.

A settlement hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on
February 26, 2024 at 3:15 p.m., before the Court at the Leonard L.
Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington,
Delaware 19801 for the Court to: (a) determine whether the
provisional class action certification should be made final; (b)
determine whether Plaintiff should be finally certified as class
representative and Plaintiff's counsel finally certified as class
counsel, and whether Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel have
adequately represented the interests of the Class in the Action;
(c) determine whether the proposed Settlement, on the terms and
conditions provided for in the Amended Stipulation, is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of Snap, the
Class, and the Current Stockholders; (d) determine whether the
Court should finally approve the Settlement and enter the Judgment
as provided in the Amended Stipulation, finally certifying the
Class, dismissing the Action against Defendants with prejudice, and
extinguishing and releasing the Released Claims; and (e) consider
Plaintiff's counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses (the "Fee and Expense Application"). The Court will
also hear and consider any objections to the proposed Settlement,
the class action determination, and Plaintiff's counsel's Fee and
Expense Application. Any objections must be filed with the Register
in Chancery and delivered to counsel for the parties such that they
are received no later than February 11, 2024, in accordance with
the instructions in the Amended Long-Form Notice.

The Court has reserved the right to change the date or time of the
Settlement Hearing, including consideration of Plaintiff's
counsel's Fee and Expense Application, without further notice to
Current Stockholders or the Class other than by announcement at the
Settlement Hearing or any adjournment thereof, or notation on the
docket in the Action.

The Action and Settlement address Plaintiffs' claims (i) that Snap
violated Section 242(b)(2) of the Delaware General Corporation Law
by not obtaining a separate vote of Class A shares on an amendment
to its certificate of incorporation (the "Charter Amendment"), and
(ii) that Snap's board of directors (the "Board") and its
Co-Founders breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
Charter Amendment, the Stock Dividend (as defined in the Amended
Stipulation), and the related agreements. Defendants deny any and
all allegations of wrongdoing, liability, violations of law, or
damages arising out of or related to any of the conduct,
statements, acts, or omissions alleged in the Action, and maintain
that their conduct was at all times proper, in the best interests
of Snap and its stockholders, and in compliance with applicable
law. Defendants have nevertheless determined to settle the Action
on the terms and conditions set forth in the Amended Stipulation to
eliminate the uncertainty, risk, burden, and expense of further
litigation, and to permit the operation of Snap without further
distraction and diversion of its Board and personnel with respect
to the Action.

The terms of the Settlement are stated in the Amended Stipulation
between Plaintiff and Defendants, dated December 15, 2023. For a
more detailed statement of the matters involved in the Action and
the terms of the Settlement, Snap stockholders and members of the
Class should review the Amended Long-From Notice that may be
obtained from the Settlement Administrator or downloaded from the
Settlement website: www.snapstockholderlitigation.com. You may also
inspect the pleadings, the Amended Stipulation, the Orders entered
by the Court, and other papers filed in the Action at the Office of
the Register in Chancery for the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King
Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, during regular business hours
of each business day.

If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Action will be dismissed with prejudice and the
Releasees (including Defendants and other Defendant Releasees) will
be released by Plaintiffs, Defendants, Snap, the members of the
Class, and Snap's stockholders (solely with respect to derivative
claims), on behalf of themselves and any other person or entity who
could assert any of the Released Claims on their behalf, in such
capacity only, on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth
in the Amended Stipulation.

Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this notice. All questions about this Amended
Notice or the proposed Settlement should be directed to Plaintiff's
Counsel.

Requests for the Amended Long-Form Notice should be made by
contacting A.B. Data, Ltd., at 1-877-495-0883 or
info@snapstockholderlitigation.com, or you can download a copy of
the Amended Long-Form Notice from the Settlement website,
www.snapstockholderlitigation.com. Inquiries, other than requests
for the Amended Long-Form Notice, may be made to following
Plaintiff's Counsel:

         Mark Richardson
         Labaton Sucharow LLP
         222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         1-866-640-7254
         delawaresettlements@labaton.com

Dated: December 19, 2023                              

BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF
DELAWARE


SRG GLOBAL: Thomure's Bid to Strike Affirmative Defenses Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denies the
Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses in the lawsuit
titled DOROTHY THOMURE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SRG GLOBAL COATINGS, LLC, d/b/a
SRG GLOBAL FARMINGTON, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00375-HEA (E.D.
Mo.).

The putative class action case alleges that the Defendant released
hazardous chemicals and metals into the environment and surrounding
properties around its facility located in Farmington, Missouri. The
Plaintiff claims the release of the chemicals and metals has caused
injury to the Plaintiff and the putative members of the class. The
Plaintiff has brought claims of negligence, private nuisance,
medical monitoring, and trespass against the Defendant.

The Plaintiff brings the Motion to Strike to strike the Defendant's
affirmative defenses, arguing that the affirmative defenses are
insufficiently pled and fail to comply with Rule 8(c) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court
to strike from a pleading any redundant, immaterial, impertinent,
or scandalous matter. A court is given liberal discretion under
Rule 12(f), however, motions to strike are viewed with disfavor and
rarely granted.

Judge Autrey notes that the purpose of an affirmative defense is to
prevent unfair surprise. The bare assertion of a defense that is
not articulated with any rigorous degree of specificity is
sufficient, Judge Autrey says, citing Zotos v. Lindbergh Sch.
Dist., 121 F.3d 356, 361 (8th Cir. 1997).

The Plaintiff has not argued any basis for striking these
affirmative defenses other than they fail to include any factual
allegations to support them, Judge Autrey notes. Under the "bare
assertions" standard, Judge Autrey holds that the Defendant's
affirmative defenses are sufficient.

Furthermore, Judge Autrey adds, the Plaintiff makes no argument or
showing that these affirmative defenses prejudice the Plaintiff in
any way. Therefore, the Court finds no basis on which to strike the
Defendant's affirmative defenses.

Based upon the recent decision in Crutcher v. MultiPlan, Inc., 22
F.4th 756 (8th Cir. 2022), Judge Autrey finds that the Plaintiff's
Motion to Strike Defendant's affirmative defenses is without
merit.

Accordingly, Judge Autrey denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike
Affirmative Defenses.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion, Memorandum and Order dated
Jan. 4, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/2yr6ybrpfrom
PacerMonitor.com.


STATE BAR OF GEORGIA: Court Dismisses Mignott Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARSHA W. MIGNOTT,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
STATE BAR OF GEORGIA FOUNDATION, INC., et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-01834-ELR (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Eleanor L. Ross
entered an order granting the Defendants' "Motion to Dismiss" to
the extent that motion requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Court dismisses without prejudice this action.
Next, the Court denies as moot Plaintiff's "Motion to Certify
Class" and denies the Plaintiff's "Motion for Leave to Amend and
Supplement Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss."

On April 23, 2023, the Plaintiff Mignott initiated this putative
class
action case against the Defendants State Bar of Georgia Foundation,
Inc.; State Bar of Georgia Office of the General Counsel; and
William Van Hearnburg, Jr., in his official capacity.

The Plaintiff brings one claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
According to Plaintiff, the Defendants "engaged in racial
discrimination against [Plaintiff and other] African American
attorneys who are members of the State Bar of Georgia" by

     (i) discriminatorily pursuing fraudulent grievances against
         African American attorneys;

    (ii) discriminatorily subjecting them to sham and illegitimate

         disciplinary proceedings;

   (iii) subjecting Proposed Class members to discriminatory
sanctions
         and or disbarment from the practice of law;

    (iv) subjecting Proposed Class members to disparate terms and
         conditions during the State Bar Disciplinary process,
         including but not limited to harm to the Proposed Class
         members' reputation; and

     (v) subjecting Proposed Class members to unequal grievance and

         disciplinary proceedings relative to their white peers.

State Bar of Georgia is an educational Organization.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tTB85a at no extra charge.[CC]

STATE FARM: Court Extends Class Cert-Related Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Meave v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 4:22-cv-00438 (N.D. Okla.,
Filed Oct. 11, 2022), the Hon. Judge Claire V. Eagan entered an
order granting joint motion to extend discovery and related class
certification deadlines.

  -- The Plaintiff's deadline to submit            April 18, 2024
     expert identification and reports
     is extended to:

  -- The Defendant's deadline to submit           June 17, 2024
     expert identification and reports
     is extended to:

  -- Discovery Cutoff is extended to:             Aug. 15, 2024

  -- Deadline for all motions for class           Sept. 12, 2024
     certification and any other
     dispositive motions extended to:

  -- Response thereto extended to:                Oct. 17, 2024

  -- Replies due:                                 Nov. 7, 2024

The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract --
Insurance.

State Farm is a group of mutual insurance companies.[CC]

STATE FARM: Sept. 12 Extension for Class Cert Bids Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GABRIELLA E. MEAVE, v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
4:22-cv-00438-CVE-SH (N.D. Okla.), the Parties request that the
Court grant their second Joint Motion to Extend Discovery and Class
Certification Related Deadlines as follows:

  -- The Plaintiff's deadline to submit expert       April 18, 2024

     identification and reports:

  -- Defendant's deadline to submit expert           June 17, 2024

     identification and reports:

  -- Discovery Cutoff:                               Aug. 15, 2024

  -- The deadline for all motions for                Sept. 12,
2024
     class certification and any other
     dispositive motions:

     The opposition to these motions are:            Oct. 17, 2024

     The replies to these motions are:               Nov. 7, 2024

State Farm is a group of mutual insurance companies throughout the
United State.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 22, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S96myn at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Derek Ingle, Esq.
          Sidney A. Martin II, Esq.
          BOETTCHER | DEVINNEY | INGLE | WICKER
          1721 S. Baltimore Ave
          Tulsa, OK 74119
          Telephone: (918) 728-6500
          Facsimile: (539) 664-4129
          E-mail: Derek.Ingle@BDIWlaw.com
                  Sid.Martin@BDIWlaw.com

                - and -

          Lloyd K. Benedict, Esq.
          BENEDICT LAW OFFICE
          10032 S. Sheridan Rd., Suite O
          Tulsa, OK 74133
          E-mail: lloyd@benedictlawoffice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John S. Gladd, Esq.
          Galen L. Brittingham, Esq.
          Trey Purdom, Esq.
          ATKINSON, BRITTINGHAM, GLADD, FIASCO & EDMONDS
          1500 ParkCentre, 525 South Main Street
          Tulsa, OK 74103-4524
          Telephone: (918) 582-8877
          Facsimile: (918) 585-8096
          E-mail: jgladd@abg-oklaw.com
                  gbrittingham@abg-oklaw.com
                  tpurdom@abg-oklaw.com

                - and -

          J. Russell Jackson, Esq.
          Michael J. Kuhn, Esq.
          Arin H. Smith, Esq.
          DOWD BENNETT LLP
          7676 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1900
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 889-7300
          Facsimile: (314) 863-2111
          E-mail: rjackson@dowdbennett.com
                  mkuhn@dowdbennett.com
                  asmith@dowdbennett.com

STG LOGISTICS: Quinones Suit Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MILTON QUINONES, an
individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v.
STG LOGISTICS, INC., a California corporation; STG CARTAGE, LLC, a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive Case No.
2:23-cv-01301-AB-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

-- Granting preliminary approval of the parties' class action and

    PAGA representative settlement;

-- Approving the form and manner of giving notice to the proposed

    class of the proposed settlement;

-- Appoint CPT Group as the Settlement Administrator;

-- Approving the PAGA settlement and $150,000.00 PAGA payment to
the
    California Labor and Workforce Development Agency;

-- Certifying the proposed class for settlement purposes; and

-- Scheduling a hearing regarding final approval of the proposed
    Settlement and the request for attorneys' fees, costs, and
    enhancement award payment.

STG Logistics is a provider of port-to-door services and supply
chain solutions for cargo owners and logistics providers.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vpGk15 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
          Shaun Markley, Esq.
          Jordan Belcastro, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  smarkley@nicholaslaw.org
                  jbelcastro@nicholaslaw.org

STRATEGIC STAFFING: Norton Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Paula Norton, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated individuals v. Strategic Staffing
Solutions-S3, L.L.C., a Florida corporation; Cynthia J. Pasky, an
individual; and Does 1-100, Case No. CGC-23-610255 was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. on Dec. 28, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-06648.

The Complaint asserts the following causes of action on behalf of
the putative class: failure to pay minimum wages for all hours
worked; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal
periods or premium pay in lieu thereof; failure to provide rest
periods or premium pay in lieu thereof; failure to reimburse
necessary business expenses; failure to provide and maintain
accurate payroll records; failure to pay wages when due; PAGA
penalties; and violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eileen R. Ridley, Esq.
          Jason Y. Wu, Esq.
          Evan L. Hamling, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          555 California Street, Suite 1700
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1520
          Phone: 415.434.4484
          Facsimile: 415.434.4507
          Email: eridley@foley.com
                 jwu@foley.com
                 ehamling@foley.com

               - and -

          Kaleb N Berhe, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          555 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2418
          Phone: 213.972.4500
          Facsimile: 213.486.0065
          Email: kberhe@foley.com


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Hearing in Class Suit to be Held on April 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

IN RE: SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL
DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

Lead Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-VAB

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
OF STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION
TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF SYNCHRONY
FINANCIAL ("SYNCHRONY" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK AS
OF DECEMBER 12, 2023.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS NOTICE
RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF
STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT
INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS.

IF THE COURT APPROVES THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DERIVATIVE ACTION,
CURRENT SYNCHRONY STOCKHOLDERS WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM
CONTESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL
WITH PREJUDICE, AND FROM PURSUING RELEASED CLAIMS.

THIS ACTION IS NOT A "CLASS ACTION." THUS, THERE IS NO COMMON FUND
UPON WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A CLAIM FOR A MONETARY PAYMENT.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this action is being settled on the terms
set forth in a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated
December 12, 2023 (the "Stipulation"). The purpose of this Notice
is to inform you of:

   * the existence of the above-captioned consolidated derivative
action pending in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut (the "Court") captioned In re: Synchrony Financial
Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:19-cv-00130-VAB (the
"Action"),

   * the proposed settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendants
(together, "Parties") reached in the Action (the "Settlement"),

   * the hearing to be held by the Court to consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement and dismissal of the
Action with prejudice,

   * Plaintiffs' Counsel's application to the Court for a Fee and
Expense Amount, and

   * Plaintiffs' Counsel's application to the Court for case
Service Awards to the two Plaintiffs.

This Notice describes what steps you may take in relation to the
Settlement. This Notice is not an expression of any opinion by the
Court about the truth or merits of Plaintiffs' claims or
Defendants' defenses. This Notice is solely to advise you of the
proposed Settlement of the Action and of your rights in connection
with the proposed Settlement.

Summary

On December 12, 2023, Synchrony, in its capacity as a nominal
defendant, entered into the Stipulation to resolve the Action,
which Stipulation was filed in the Court. The Action was prosecuted
derivatively on behalf of Synchrony against certain current and
former directors and officers of the Company and against the
Company as a nominal defendant. The Stipulation and the settlement
contemplated therein (the "Settlement"), subject to the approval of
the Court, are intended by the Parties to fully, finally, and
forever compromise, resolve, discharge, and settle the Released
Claims and to result in the complete dismissal of the Action with
prejudice, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth
in the Stipulation. The proposed Settlement requires the Company to
adopt and maintain certain corporate governance reforms and
procedures, as outlined in Exhibit A to the Stipulation (the
"Reforms").

In recognition of the substantial benefits conferred upon Synchrony
as a direct result of the Reforms achieved through the prosecution
and Settlement of the Action, and subject to Court approval, the
Parties agreed on August 9, 2023 that Synchrony's insurer shall pay
to Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount
of eight hundred and eighty-five thousand dollars ($885,000.00)
(the "Fee and Expense Amount"), subject to Court approval.
Plaintiffs' Counsel shall also apply to the Court for service
awards to be paid to the two Plaintiffs in an amount of up to two
thousand dollars ($2,000.00) each (the "Service Awards"), to be
paid out of the Fee and Expense Amount.

This notice is a summary only and does not describe all of the
details of the Stipulation.

For full details of the matters discussed in this summary, please
see the full Stipulation and its exhibits posted on the investor
relations page of the Company's website,
https://investors.synchrony.com, contact Plaintiffs' Counsel as set
forth below, or inspect the full Stipulation filed with the Clerk
of the Court.

What is the Lawsuit About?

The Action is brought derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant
Synchrony and alleges that, inter alia, beginning January 19, 2018,
at least, the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties
by issuing and/or causing the Company to issue false and misleading
statements and omissions to the public regarding the pushback
Synchrony was receiving from its retail partners based on: (1)
adjustments the Company had made to its underwriting practices; and
(2) Synchrony's process of making less credit available to certain
Company borrowers. Plaintiffs also allege that the Individual
Defendants caused Synchrony to repurchase its own stock at
artificially inflated prices while certain of them engaged in
insider sales of Company stock. The Action alleges that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Company experienced reputational and
financial harm.

Defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the
claims and allegations of wrongdoing asserted in the Action.

Why is there a Settlement of the Action?

The Court has not decided in favor of Defendants or Plaintiffs.
Instead, the Parties agreed to the Settlement to avoid the
distraction, costs, and risks of further litigation, and because
the Parties agree, and the Company determined, that the Reforms
that the Company will adopt, implement, and maintain as part of the
Settlement provide substantial benefits to Synchrony and
its stockholders.

Defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the
claims and contentions alleged by the Plaintiffs in the Action.
Defendants have expressly denied and continue to deny all charges
of wrongdoing or liability against them arising out of any of the
conduct, statements, acts, or omissions alleged, or that could have
been alleged, in the Action. Nonetheless, Defendants have concluded
that it is desirable for the Action to be fully and finally settled
in the matter and upon the terms and conditions set forth in this
Stipulation.

The Settlement Hearing, and Your Right to Object to the Settlement

On December 21, 2023, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the Stipulation and the Settlement contemplated therein
(the "Preliminary Approval Order") and providing for notice of the
Settlement to be provided to current Synchrony stockholders
("Current Synchrony Stockholders"). The Preliminary Approval Order
further provides that the Court will hold a hearing (the
"Settlement Hearing") on April 1, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. before the
Honorable Victor A. Bolden at the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut, Courtroom 2 of the Richard C. Lee,
United States Courthouse, 141 Church Street, New Haven, Connecticut
06510 to, among other things: (i) determine whether the proposed
Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best
interests of the Company and its stockholders; (ii) consider any
objections to the Settlement submitted in accordance with this
Notice; (iii) determine whether a judgment should be entered
dismissing all claims in the Action with prejudice, and releasing
the Released Claims against the Released Persons; (iv) determine
whether the Court should approve the agreed-to Fee and Expense
Amount; (v) determine whether the Court should approve the two
Service Awards, which shall be funded from the Fee and Expense
Amount to the extent approved by the Court; and (vi) consider any
other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in
connection with the Settlement. Upon final approval of the
Settlement, the Plaintiffs will voluntarily dismiss their
complaints with prejudice.

The Court may, in its discretion, change the date and/or time of
the Settlement Hearing without further notice to you. If you intend
to attend the Settlement Hearing, please consult the
Court's calendar, for any change in the date or time of the
Settlement Hearing.

Any Current Synchrony Stockholder who wishes to object to the
fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement as set
forth in the Stipulation, or to the Fee and Expense Amount or
Service Awards, may file with the Court a written objection. An
objector must, at least twenty-one (21) calendar days prior to the
Settlement Hearing: (1) file with the Clerk of the Court and serve
(either by hand delivery or by first class mail) upon the below
listed counsel a written objection to the Settlement setting forth
(i) a written notice of objection with the case name and number (In
re: Synchrony Financial Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No.
3:19-cv-00130-VAB (D. Conn.)); (ii) the Person's name, legal
address, and telephone number; (iii) notice of whether such Person
intends to appear at the Settlement Hearing and the reasons such
Person desires to appear and be heard, and whether such Person is
represented by counsel and if so, contact information for counsel;
(iv) competent evidence that such Person held shares of Synchrony
common stock as of
the date of the Stipulation and continues to hold such stock as of
the date the objection is made, including the date(s) such shares
were acquired; (v) a statement of objections to any matters before
the Court, the grounds therefor, as well as all documents or
writings such Person desires the Court to consider; and (vi) the
identities of any witnesses such Person plans on calling at the
Settlement Hearing, along with a summary description of their
expected testimony. Any objector who does not timely file and serve
a notice of intention to appear in accordance with this paragraph
shall be foreclosed from raising any objection to the Settlement
and from objecting at the Settlement Hearing, except for good cause
shown.

IF YOU MAKE A WRITTEN OBJECTION, IT MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE CLERK
OF THE COURT NO LATER THAN MARCH 11, 2024. The Clerk's address is:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut,
Courtroom 2, Richard C. Lee, U.S. Courthouse
141 Church Street
New Haven, CT 06510

YOU ALSO MUST DELIVER COPIES OF THE MATERIALS TO PLAINTIFFS'
COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL SO THEY ARE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN
MARCH 11, 2024.

Counsel's addresses are:

Counsel for Plaintiffs:
THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C.
Timothy Brown
767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (516) 922-5427

Counsel for Defendants:
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
Jared Gerber
One Liberty Plaza
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 225-2507

An objector may file an objection on his, her, or its own or
through an attorney hired at his, her, or its own expense. If an
objector hires an attorney to represent him, her, or it for the
purposes of making such objection, the attorney must serve (either
by hand delivery or by first class mail) a notice of appearance on
the counsel listed above and file such notice with the Court no
later than twenty-one (21) calendar days before the Settlement
Hearing. Any Synchrony stockholder who does not timely file and
serve a written objection complying with the above terms shall be
deemed to have waived, and shall be foreclosed from raising, any
objection to the Settlement, and any untimely objection shall be
barred.

Any objector who files and serves a timely, written objection in
accordance with the instructions above, may appear at the
Settlement Hearing either in person or through counsel retained at
the objector's expense. Objectors need not attend the Settlement
Hearing, however, in order to have their objections considered by
the Court.

If you are a Current Synchrony Stockholder and do not take steps to
appear in this action and object to the proposed Settlement, you
will be bound by the Judgment of the Court and will forever be
barred from raising an objection to the settlement in the Action,
and from pursuing any of the Released Claims.

CURRENT SYNCHRONY STOCKHOLDERS AS OF DECEMBER 12, 2023 WHO
HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE SETTLEMENT DO NOT NEED TO APPEAR AT THE
SETTLEMENT HEARING OR TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION.

Interim Stay and Injunction

Pending the Court's determination as to final approval of the
Settlement, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel, and any Current
Synchrony Stockholders, derivatively on behalf of Synchrony, are
barred and enjoined from commencing, prosecuting, instigating, or
in any way participating in the commencement or prosecution of any
action asserting any Released Claims derivatively against any of
the Released Persons in any court or tribunal.

Scope of the Notice

This Notice is a summary description of the Action, the complaints,
the terms of the Settlement, and the Settlement Hearing. For a more
detailed statement of the matters involved in the Action, reference
is made to them in the Stipulation and its exhibits, copies of
which may be reviewed and downloaded at the investor relations page
of the Company's website, https://investors.synchrony.com.

* * *

You may obtain further information by contacting Plaintiffs'
Counsel at: Timothy Brown, The Brown Law Firm, P.C., 767 Third
Avenue, Suite 2501, New York, NY 10017, Telephone:
(516) 922-5427, E-mail: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net. Please Do Not
Call the Court or Defendants with Questions About the Settlement.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Levings Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Daryl Levings, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Synchrony Financial, Case No.
23STCV28308 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec.
27, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-10830 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Synchrony -- https://www.synchrony.com/ -- is one of the largest
issuers of store credit cards in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


TELADOC HEALTH: Pattison Files Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teladoc Health, Inc.
The case is styled Adeline Pattison, Dominique Durso, Jean Charter,
Liane Tuomala, Michelle Grenon, Teresa Hale, Zeshaan Ahmed,
individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Teladoc Health, Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-11305-NSR
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2023).

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

Teladoc Health, Inc. -- http://www.teladochealth.com/-- is a
multinational telemedicine and virtual healthcare company
headquartered in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


TENNESSEE: Clark, et al., Severed from Moore Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA MOORE, JAMES W.
CLARK, JR., DELMAR MACK, and KEVIN FORMAN, v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
OF CORECTIONS, FRANK STRADA, GREGORY WILLIAMS, BRET COBBLE,
ARAMARK, and JOHN DOE Case No. 1:23-cv-00311-TRM-SKL (E.D. Tenn.),
the Hon. Judge Travis R. McDonough entered an order severing
Plaintiffs Clark, Mack, and Forman from this action.

The Court directs the Clerk to open a new civil action for each of
these Plaintiffs using a copy of the complaint and exhibits filed
in this case. The Court further directs the Clerk to transfer each
Plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of fees to their
respective civil actions and file a copy of this Order in each
newly opened action.

This leaves Plaintiff Joshua Moore, who will proceed as the sole
Plaintiff in this case. Because it appears that Plaintiff Moore
lacks sufficient financial resources to pay the filing fee in a
lump sum, the Court grants his motion to proceed without prepayment
of fees.

Tennessee Department of Correction operates safe and secure prisons
and provides effective community supervision in order to enhance
public safety.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TW6TFa at no extra charge.[CC]



TENNESSEE: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in Moore Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA MOORE, JAMES W.
CLARK, JR., DELMAR MACK, and KEVIN FORMAN, v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
OF CORECTIONS, FRANK STRADA, GREGORY WILLIAMS, BRET COBBLE,
ARAMARK, and JOHN DOE Case No. 1:23-cv-00311-TRM-SKL (E.D. Tenn.),
the Hon. Judge Travis R. McDonough entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of counsel to represent
their certified class. But the Court has determined that class
certification is improper.

Finally, the Plaintiff Moore is ordered to immediately inform the
Court and Defendants or their counsel of record of any address
changes in writing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.13, it is the duty of
a pro se party to promptly notify the Clerk and the other parties
to the proceedings of any change in his or her address, to monitor
the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action
diligently.

Tennessee Department of Correction operates safe and secure prisons
and provides effective community supervision in order to enhance
public safety.

A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Dec. 22, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48Etqu8 at no
extra charge.[CC] 


TILRAY BRANDS: Faces Shareholder Suit in NY Court Over Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tilray Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 9, 2023, that on August 21,
2023, the U.S. District Court granted Tilray's motion for
reconsideration and dismissed a second amended complaint with leave
to amend one final time. On September 27, 2023, plaintiff filed a
third amended complaint.

On May 4, 2020, Ganesh Kasilingam filed a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
against Tilray Brands, Inc., Brendan Kennedy and Mark Castaneda, on
behalf of himself and a putative class, seeking to recover damages
for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that Tilray and the individual defendants
overstated the anticipated advantages of the company's revenue
sharing agreement with Authentic Brands Group (ABG), announced on
January 15, 2019, and that the plaintiff suffered losses when
Tilray's stock price dropped after Tilray recognized an impairment
with respect to the ABG deal on March 2, 2020. On August 6, 2020,
the court entered an order appointing Saul Kassin as Lead Plaintiff
and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Lead Counsel.

Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 5, 2020, which
asserts the same Sections 10(b) and 20(a) claims against the same
defendants on largely the same theory, and includes new allegations
that Tilray's reported inventory, cost of sales, and gross margins
in its financial reports during the class period were false and
misleading because Tilray improperly recorded unsellable "trim" as
inventory and understated the cost of sales for its products.

On September 27, 2021, the U.S. District court entered an Opinion
and Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint
in the Kasilingam litigation. On December 3, 2021, the lead
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging similar claims
against Tilray and Brendan Kennedy.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on February
2, 2022. On September 28, 2022, the court granted in part and
denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint. On October 12, 2022, the company filed a motion for
reconsideration and/or interlocutory appeal of this court decision.


Tilray Brands, Inc. is a global cannabis-lifestyle and consumer
packaged goods company based in Ontario.


TK ELEVATOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Machinists, Taylor Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMARKAL TAYLOR, Individually, and on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. TK
ELEVATOR MANUFACTURING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02018
(W.D. Tenn., January 10, 2024) alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated were employed by
Defendant as an hourly-paid machinist and routinely worked 40 hours
or more per week within weekly pay periods. However, the Defendant
has had a common practice of inducing, expecting, encouraging,
and/or suffering and permitting, Plaintiff and those similarly
situated to perform work "off the clock" prior to the beginning of
their scheduled shifts without compensating them for such
compensable time. In addition, the Defendant also failed to keep
timely and accurate payroll time records of Plaintiff and those
similarly situated, says the suit.

Headquartered in Memphis, TN, TK Elevator Manufacturing, Inc.
manufactures elevators, escalators, moving sidewalks and accessible
solutions and currently is the fourth largest elevator manufacturer
in the world. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
           J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
           James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
           J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
           JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
           262 German Oak Drive
           Memphis, TN 38018
           Telephone: (901) 754-8001
           Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
           E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                   rbryant@jsyc.com
                   jholt@jsyc.com
                   jleatherwood@jsyc.com

TRIUMPH ENERGY: Cowan Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Craig Cowan, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. Triumph Energy
Partners, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00300-JAR (E.D. Okla.), the Class
Representative file motion for final approval of class action
settlement & brief in support.

The Court already certified the following Settlement Classes:

   -- Class I

      "All non-excluded persons or entities who are or were royalty

      owners in Oklahoma wells, where Triumph Energy Partners, LLC
was
      the operator (or a working interest owner) who marketed its
      share of gas production and royalties on such marketed gas
was
      paid to such royalty owners. The claims in this matter relate
to
      royalty payments for gas and its constituents (including, but

      not limited to, residue gas, natural gas liquids, helium,
      nitrogen, drip condensate, or gas used off the lease
premises)."

   -- Class II

      "All non-excluded persons or entities who received late
payments
      under the Production Revenue Standards Act from Triumph
Energy
      Partners, LLC (or its designee) for oil-and-gas proceeds from

      Oklahoma wells and whose payments did not include the
statutory
      interest required by the Production Revenue Standards Act."

      Excluded from Class I and II are: (1) Triumph Energy
Partners,
      LLC and the Released Parties and their respective affiliates,

      predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; (2)
      agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United
States
      of America or the State of Oklahoma; (3) any publicly traded

      company or its affiliated entity that produces, gathers,
      processes, or markets gas; and (4) any Indian tribe as
defined
      at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian allottee as defined at
30
      U.S.C. section 1702(2).

Triumph Energy provides oil and gas exploration and production
services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 28, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SgDhRA at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
          Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
          BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
          431 W. Main Street, Suite D
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 698-2770
          E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
                  ryan@bradwil.com

TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Goble Loses Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN GOBLE, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TRUMBULL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-05577-SDM-CMV (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered an order denying
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, appointment of
class representatives, and appointment of class counsel.

The Gobles seek to act as class representatives with regard to
Trumbull's practice of depreciating labor from ACV payments and
propose the following class for certification:

   "All Trumbull Insurance Company policyholders (or their lawful
   assignees) who made: (1) a structural damage claim for property

   located in Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland,
   Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and
   Wisconsin; and (2) for which Trumbull itself accepted coverage
and
   then chose to calculate actual cash value exclusively pursuant
to
   the replacement cost less depreciation methodology and not any
   other methodology, such as fair market value; and (3) which
   resulted in an actual cash value payment during the class period

   from which non-material depreciation was withheld from the
   policyholder; or which should have resulted in an actual cash
value
   payment but for the withholding of non-material depreciation,
   causing the loss to drop below the applicable deductible."

   In this definition, "nonmaterial depreciation" means application
of
   either the "depreciate removal," "depreciate non-material"
and/or
   "depreciate O&P" option settings within Xactimate (TM) software
or
   similar depreciation option settings in competing commercial
   software programs.

   The class excludes any claims for which the applicable limits of

   insurance have been exhausted by initial actual cash value
   payments.

   The class also excludes any claims arising under a policy
   containing Mississippi endorsement HW 01 44 09 19. The class
also
   exclude[s] members of the judiciary and their staff to whom this

   action is assigned; Trumbull and its affiliates, officers and
   directors; and Plaintiffs' counsel.

   For Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee,
   Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin policyholders, the class period

   only includes policyholders with claims having a date of loss on
or
   after October 26, 2018, through the present.

   For Maryland, Mississippi, and Utah policyholders, the class
   period only includes policyholders with claims having a date of

   loss on or after October 26, 2017, through the present.

In addition, the Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause within
fourteen days of the opinion and order why Count II of amended
complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

For a named plaintiff to represent a class effectively, the
representative aspects of their claim must take precedence over
individualized ones. For the Gobles, this hierarchy is inverted.
Therefore, the adequacy prerequisite for class certification is not
met.

Because the Gobles are not adequate class representatives, the
Court need not address the other prerequisites of Rule 23(a), the
requirements of Rule 23(b)(3), or whether their proposed class is
sufficiently ascertainable.

In seeking prospective relief, the Gobles allege that Trumbull
continues to depreciate the cost of labor from ACV payments in
violation of its standard form policy. However, they fail to
explain how they face a significant possibility of future injury as
a result of this ongoing conduct

The class action claims arise out of dispute over the meaning of
"actual cash value" ("ACV") in Trumbull's standard form insurance
policy; namely, whether the policy permits depreciation of labor
costs from ACV payments.

Trumbull provides fire and casualty insurance services.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Dec. 29, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HjMEK1 at no
extra charge.[CC]

TVI INC: Hughes Class Lawsuit Removed from State Ct. to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SHEA HUGHES, an individual,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TVI, INC., a
Washington Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. (Filed
Nov. 28, 2023) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California - County of Solano to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 3, 2024.

The Eastern California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:24-at-00008 to the proceeding.

TVI operates a chain of thrift stores.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Adam Y. Siegel, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
          Telephone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          E-mail: Adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com

UNION PACIFIC: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings OK'd in Cushman Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL CUSHMAN, v. UNION
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Case No. 8:23-cv-00196-BCB-SMB (D. Neb.),
the Hon. Judge Brian C. Buescher entered an order granting Union
Pacific's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Cushman's Complaint fails to allege that Union Pacific
discriminated against him because of a disability. The Court also
grants Cushman's Motion to Amend Complaint because Cushman has
shown good cause and that amendment may not be futile. Cushman has
14 days from the date of this Order to file an Amended Complaint.

The Court concludes that Cushman has demonstrated the requisite
"good cause" to amend his Complaint after the scheduling deadline.

The Plaintiff Cushman has sued his former employer defendant Union
Pacific Railroad Company under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Cushman alleges he is a former member of the now-decertified Harris
class that sued Union Pacific for violations under the ADA.

Cushman brings two claims under the ADA against Union Pacific
alleging disability discrimination due to disparate treatment.
Union Pacific moved for judgment on the pleadings.

Union Pacific is a Class I freight-hauling railroad that operates
8,300 locomotives over 32,200 miles routes in 23 U.S. states west
of Chicago and New Orleans.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47AQgCj at no extra charge.[CC]

UNITED AIRLINES: Must Oppose Class Cert. Bid by Feb. 9
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SAMBRANO, ET AL., v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-01074-P (N.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Mark T. Pittman entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' consent motion for extension of time.

Accordingly, the following schedule shall govern briefing on the
motion for class certification:

   1. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed
on
      or before January 12, 2024.

   2. The Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification shall be filed on or before February 9, 2024.

   3. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class
      certification shall be filed on or before February 23, 2024.

United Airlines is a major American airline headquartered at the
Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TMCk4G at no extra charge.[CC]



UNITED SERVICES: Plaintiffs Seek Hearing on Bid to Compel
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN HORLIECA AND DARRYL
WARNER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION AND USAA
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:23-cv-00278-KK-SP (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs request a hearing before the Court on their
First Motion to Compel by Jan. 30, 2024.

The case was previously assigned to the Honorable Jesus G. Bernal.
Judge Bernal's Civil Trial Scheduling Order indicates that
"discovery disputes have been referred to the United States
Magistrate Judge assigned to this case."

On November 20, 2023, the case was ordered transferred to the
Honorable Judge Kenly Kiva Kato. Judge Kato's Standing Order
provides that "all discovery matters have been referred to the
assigned magistrate judge, who will hear all discovery disputes."

The Plaintiffs herein request an Order compelling USAA to fully
respond to Interrogatory No. 8 from the Plaintiffs' Second Set of
Interrogatories to Defendants, served on October 19, 2023, and to
produce documents responsive to Request for Production No. 73 from
Plaintiffs' Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents to
Defendants, served on October 19, 2023.

The Plaintiffs bring this motion to compel USAA to produce the
putative class members' contact information as requested by
Plaintiffs in their Interrogatory No. 8 and RFP No. 73.

The Defendants request that the Court deny Plaintiffs' motion to
compel production of the absent putative class members’ personal
information because it is neither necessary nor relevant given the
extensive anonymized data already produced to Plaintiffs and
because Plaintiffs' purported reasons for needing the information
are not only invalid, but they do not outweigh third-party
insureds’ privacy rights.

United Services is an American financial services company providing
insurance and banking products exclusively to members of the
military, veterans, and their families.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 20, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NOtcsF at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert S. Levin, Esq.
          James E. Hoffmann, Esq.
          LEVIN & HOFFMANN, LLP
          23622 Calabasas Road, Suite 253
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 990-2370
          Facsimile: (800) 572-9590

                - and -

          Steven R. Young, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN R. YOUNG
          95 Enterprise Suite 340
          Aliso Viejo, CA 92656

                - and -

          Franklin D. Azar, Esq.
          Michael D. Murphy, Esq.
          Dezarae D. Lacrue, Esq.
          Timothy L. Foster, Esq.
          Brian Hanlin, Esq.
          Kevin J. Dolley, Esq.
          FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          14426 East Evans Avenue
          Aurora, CO 80014
          Telephone: (303) 757-3300
          Facsimile: (720) 213-5131

The Defendants are represented by:

          John S. Purcell
          Douglas E. Hewlett jr.
          ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP
          555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90013-1065
          Telephone: (213) 629-7400
          Facsimile: (213) 629-7401
          E-mail: john.purcell@afslaw.com
                  douglas.hewlett@afslaw.com

                - and -

          Paula M. Ketcham, Esq.
          Jay Williams, Esq.
          James D. Cromley, Esq.
          ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 7100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 258-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 258-5600
          E-mail: paula.ketcham@afslaw.com
                  jay.williams@afslaw.com
                  james.cromley@afslaw.com

UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Ramos Suit Over TPS Designations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
lawsuit entitled CRISTA RAMOS, et al., Plaintiffs v. KIRSTJEN
NIELSEN, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01554-EMC (N.D.
Cal.).

The Plaintiffs are individuals, some noncitizen adults and some
citizen children with noncitizen parents, who live in the United
States legally. The noncitizen individuals have permission to be in
the country pursuant to the Temporary Protected Status ("TPS")
designations for six countries, specifically: (1) Sudan; (2) Haiti;
(3) Nicaragua; (4) El Salvador; (5) Honduras; and (6) Nepal.

The Plaintiffs filed suit in 2018 and 2019, challenging the Trump
administration's termination of the TPS designations for those six
countries. In October 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs a
preliminary injunction. The government appealed and prevailed, but,
subsequently, in February 2023, the Ninth Circuit granted the
Plaintiffs' petition for an en banc hearing.

Shortly before the en banc hearing, the government announced that
it would be rescinding the 2017 and 2018 terminations of the TPS
designations for El Salvador, Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua. By
that time the government had already newly designated Haiti and
Sudan for TPS. The government thereafter voluntarily moved to
dismiss its appeal with the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit
granted that relief.

Following the appellate proceedings, the Plaintiffs took the
position before the Court that the case was still not moot. The
Court allowed the Plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended
complaint.

The government then filed the pending motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. The government primarily argues that
the case should be dismissed based on mootness, whether the
Plaintiffs are arguing (1) that the Trump administration's TPS
terminations were improper, or (2) that the government has
improperly charged TPS holders from Haiti or Sudan a $50
registration fee.

In the operative class action amended complaint ("CAC"), the
Plaintiffs note that Congress established the TPS program through
the Immigration Act of 1990. The TPS statute is codified at 8
U.S.C. Section 1254a. Under the program, foreign nationals of
designated countries are given lawful immigrant status because they
cannot safely return home. Specifically, the Attorney General has
the authority to issue a TPS designation based on certain criteria
-- e.g., an ongoing armed conflict or an environmental disaster,
such as an earthquake or flood.

Before the designation can become effective, the Secretary of
Homeland Security ("DHS") must publish a notice in the Federal
Register that includes, among other things, a statement of
findings, the effective date of the designation, and a tally of
eligible foreign nationals. Thereafter, the Secretary engages in a
periodic review of TPS designations.

In 2017 and 2018, the Trump administration terminated the TPS
designations of four countries: (1) Sudan, (2) Haiti, (3)
Nicaragua, and (4) El Salvador. The termination was based on a new
interpretation of the TPS statute. According to the Plaintiffs, DHS
abandoned a long-established practice under which it considered all
current conditions -- including intervening events -- in deciding
whether to extend or terminate a country's TPS designation.

In its place, DHS adopted a new, narrow practice in which DHS
considers only whether the original conditions that initially gave
rise to the TPS designation persist, and only those ongoing harms
directly tied to those original conditions.

The Plaintiffs allege that the new interpretation was motivated by
intentional race- and national-origin-based animus against
individuals from what former President Trump referred to as
"shithole countries." i.e., non-white, non-European immigrants.

In October 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction, barring enforcement of the decisions to
terminate TPS for Sudan, Haiti, El Salvador, and Nicaragua. The
government appealed to the Ninth Circuit. However, pending appeal,
it agreed to issue periodic Federal Register notices automatically
extending TPS status and employment authorization for TPS holders
from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan for at least nine
months at a time.

The government later agreed to the same procedure for Nepal and
Honduras, after it was announced their TPS designations would also
be terminated. The challenge to the TPS terminations for Nepal and
Honduras were initially brought in a different case, Bhattarai v.
Nielsen, No. C-19-0731 EMC (N.D. Cal.). Bhattarai was subsequently
consolidated with this case.

In September 2020, a Ninth Circuit panel reversed this Court's
decision granting a preliminary injunction. The Plaintiffs sought
rehearing en banc.

In January 2021, President Joe Biden took office. Shortly
thereafter, the Plaintiffs asked the Ninth Circuit to stay
proceedings on their petition, citing President Biden's stated
intention to take swift action on TPS. In June 2021, the parties
jointly moved the case to be referred to the Ninth Circuit's
mediation program.

In August 2021, DHS published a Federal Register notice designating
Haiti for TPS for 18 months. The Federal Register notice cites
human rights violations and abuses by law enforcement officials and
non-state actors; serious security concerns, including violent
criminal gangs; a dire economic situation, including a poverty rate
of nearly 60%; a weak healthcare system suffering from the
lingering impact of the 2010 earthquake and Hurricane Matthew in
2016; and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Haiti was
subsequently redesignated for TPS.

DHS published a Federal Register notice designating Sudan for TPS
for 18 months. The Secretary explained that he had determined that
an eighteen-month designation is warranted because of the
extraordinary and temporary conditions, including ongoing armed
conflict and civil unrest, political instability, flooding,
droughts, widespread poverty, and deteriorating economic
conditions. Sudan was later redesignated for TPS.

In October 2022, after settlement negotiations between the parties
were not successful, the Ninth Circuit released the appeal from the
mediation program. In February 2023, the Ninth Circuit granted a
rehearing en banc.

On June 13, 2023, one week before the en banc oral argument in the
Ramos appeal, DHS announced in a press release that it was
rescinding the Trump administration's terminations of TPS for the
remaining four countries at issue -- i.e., El Salvador, Honduras,
Nepal, and Nicaragua. DHS also stated that it would be extending
the TPS designations for those countries. The next day, the
Defendants moved to voluntarily dismiss the Ramos appeal.

On June 21, 2023, one day before the en banc oral argument, DHS
published Federal Register notices announcing the rescission of the
TPS terminations and the extension of the TPS designations.

On June 29, 2023, the Ninth Circuit granted the Defendants' motion
to voluntarily dismiss the appeal. That court did not address
whether the Defendants' actions related to the countries at issue
had mooted the case. In addition, the Plaintiffs allege that, for
Haiti and Sudan, there is another problem related to TPS
designations. Specifically, in redesignating Haiti and Sudan for
TPS, DHS required Haitian and Sudanese TPS holders to file a
request for TPS as new applicants, which requires the payment of a
$50 fee which does not apply to TPS holders renewing their
registrations.

Based on, inter alia, these allegations, the Plaintiffs assert the
following claims for relief:

   (1) Violation of equal protection;

   (2) Violation of due process;

   (3) Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). The
       Defendants violated the APA by making a sudden and
       unexplained departure from decades of decision-making
       practices and ordinary procedures;

   (4) Violation of the APA. The Defendants did not interpret the
       TPS statute in accordance with the law;

   (5) Violation of the APA. The parties agree that this claim is
       now moot;

   (6) Violation of due process. The parties agree that this
       claim is now moot; and

   (7) Violation of due process. The due process rights of U.S.
       citizen children have been violated. They have an absolute
       right to live in the United States and they have a
       fundamental right to live with and be raised by their
       parents.

In the pending motion, the government argues that the Plaintiffs'
case is now moot.

In the instant case, the government makes both a facial attack and
a factual one. The government makes a facial attack to the extent
the Plaintiffs are challenging the Trump administration's TPS
terminations. The government makes a facial and a factual attack to
the extent the Plaintiffs are asserting that the government has
failed to refund the $50 registration fee to TPS holders from Haiti
and Sudan.

While an express repudiation of prior policy may make for an
exceptionally clear case for mootness, unequivocal action which
implicitly repudiates prior policy may also establish mootness,
particularly when all or nearly all the Rosebrock factors are
satisfied, Judge Chen opines, citing Rosebrock v. Mathis, 745 F.3d
963, 971 (9th Cir. 2014).

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the government has met its
burden of showing that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be
expected to recur. The Plaintiffs' challenge to the TPS
terminations is moot.

The Plaintiffs argue that, even if the Court finds their challenge
to the TPS terminations moot, the case still has another live
component. The Plaintiffs have alleged that, when DHS issued new
TPS designations for Haiti and Sudan (in August 2021 and April
2022), it required TPS holders from those countries to pay a $50
registration fee -- which does not apply to TPS holders renewing
their registrations.

The government argues that any injury claimed by the Plaintiffs
with respect to the $50 registration fee is at most a collateral
consequence (the primary injury being the TPS terminations by the
Trump administration). The Plaintiffs somewhat disagree, asserting
that the injury here could be construed as an ongoing injury, and
not just a collateral consequence.

Judge Chen notes that how exactly the injury is characterized is
not material. The government's position is that: (1) the Plaintiffs
themselves have not suffered that injury -- i.e., those Plaintiffs,
who are from Haiti or Sudan, did not themselves pay a $50
registration fee even if other Haitian or Sudanese TPS holders did;
(2) Even if the Plaintiffs could amend to correct this deficiency
(either amending to allege that they suffered this injury or
amending to add a new plaintiff who did), the latest amended
complaint seeks only declaratory and injunctive relief, and a moot
case seeking such relief cannot be revived by a damages claim
raised for the first time in briefing challenging mootness; and (3)
Even if the Court were inclined to allow a damages claim, there is
sovereign immunity.

For purposes of this order, the Court need only address the first
argument. The Plaintiffs agree that no named Plaintiff has paid a
$50 registration fee following the new designations of Haiti and
Sudan. That being the case, there is no Plaintiff in this case who
has standing to proceed with this claim, Judge Chen points out.

For these reasons, the Court grants the government's motion to
dismiss. The Plaintiffs' claims challenging the TPS terminations
are moot. Those claims are therefore dismissed. The dismissal is
with prejudice as the Plaintiffs have not indicated that they could
plead additional facts to overcome this deficiency.

As for the Plaintiffs' claim challenging the $50 registration fee,
it is also dismissed but based on lack of standing. The Court will
give the Plaintiffs sixty (60) days to file an amended complaint to
the extent they wish to pursue any claim based on the $50
registration fee.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 28, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/2ms9p33xfrom PacerMonitor.com.


VEOLIA WATER: Nicholls Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMIAH NICHOLLS, WALTER
GOODROW, WESLEY DINSMORE, and RICHARD RUPPERT, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. VEOLIA WATER
CONTRACT OPERATIONS USA, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-30034-MGM (D.
Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
class certification of similarly situated individuals who have been
affected by the Defendant's failure to pay the prevailing wage
rates required pursuant to the Massachusetts Prevailing Wage Law.

Veolia operates, maintains and manages water and wastewater
systems.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 29, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48TEjZh at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Terence E. Coles, Esq.
          PYLE ROME EHRENBERG PC
          2 Liberty Square, 10th Floor,
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 367-7200
          E-mail: tcoles@pylerome.com

VERADIGM INC: Faces Erwin Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Veradigm Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K for January 5, 2024, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 10, 2024,
that on November 22, 2023, the company and certain of its former
officers were named as defendants in a putative securities class
action captioned "Erwin v. Veradigm Inc. et al.," Case No.
1:23-cv-16205, which is pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.  

The complaint for the Class Action Lawsuit alleges violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on
allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions in
connection with the company's previously disclosed revenue
misstatements resulting from certain internal control failures.

An amended complaint was filed on January 5, 2024, adding
allegations related to the previously disclosed Nasdaq process and
previously announced management changes. The plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages

Veradigm provides physician practices, hospitals, and other
healthcare providers with practice management and electronic health
record technology.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Gabel Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------------
GERRY GABEL, derivatively on behalf of VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC.,
Plaintiff v. HANS VESTBERG, MATTHEW ELLIS, CLARENCE OTIS, JR.,
SHELLYE L. ARCHAMBEAU, ROXANNE S. AUSTIN, MARK T. BERTOLINI,
VITTORIO COLAO, MELANIE L. HEALEY, LAXMAN NARASIMHAN, DANIEL H.
SCHULMAN, RODNEY E. SLATER, CAROL B. TOMÉ, GREGORY G. WEAVER,
LOWELL C. MCADAM, RICHARD CARRIÓN, FRANCES KEETH, and KATHRYN
TESIJA, Defendants, and VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., Nominal
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00132 (D.N.J., January 9, 2024) alleges
claims for, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties,
unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and violations of the
Securities Exchange Act.

The shareholder derivative action, filed by Plaintiff Gabel on
behalf of one or more shareholders, stems from Verizon's
long-standing decision to leave toxic cable wires buried in the
ground throughout the country, which allowed these wires to
contaminate ground water and pose potential health risks to those
exposed to these wires. Plaintiff Gabel asserts that Verizon
violates its disclosure obligations and fiduciary duties by
concealing such practice from nearby residents as well as from
investors.

Headquartered in New York, NY, Verizon is incorporated under the
laws of the state of Delaware. The company provides wireless,
Internet, television, and telephone services throughout the United
States. Its stock trades on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "VZ."
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 313-1887
          Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

                  - and -

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Erica L. Stone, Esq.
          275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  estone@rosenlegal.com

VITALS CONSUMER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Jan. 26
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMERA SWEETON, et al., v.
VITALS CONSUMER SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00088-BCW (W.D.
Mo.), the Hon. Judge Brian C. Wimes entered an order granting the
Parties' Second Joint Motion to Extend Case Deadlines:

-- Plaintiff's motion for class                Jan. 26, 2024
    certification to:

-- All pretrial class discovery shall be       March 27, 2024
    completed by:

-- The Plaintiff's motion for class            April 26, 2024
    certification shall be filed by:  

Vitals Consumer provides healthcare medical information solutions.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41P49v8 at no extra charge.[CC]

VMWARE INC: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by March 15
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM LAMARTINA,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
VMWARE, INC., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-02182-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order adding the following
deadlines to the case management schedule.

                  Event                       Deadline

  Substantial Completion of Defendants'    Jan. 31, 2024
  Document Production

  Defendants to respond to Lead            Mar. 15, 2024
  Plaintiff's class certification
  motion

  Lead Plaintiff's reply in support        May 17, 2024
  of class certification motion

VMware is an American cloud computing and virtualization technology
company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vzyLVt at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq.
          Laurie L. Largent, Esq.
          Scott H. Saham, Esq.
          Ashley M. Kelly, Esq.
          Ting H. Liu, Esq.
          Stephen Johnson, Esq.
          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: spenceb@rgrdlaw.com
                  llargent@rgrdlaw.com
                  scotts@rgrdlaw.com
                  ashleyk@rgrdlaw.com
                  tliu@rgrdlaw.com
                  sjohnson@rgrdlaw.com
                  shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Maeve L. O'connor, Esq.
          Elliot Greenfield, Esq.
          Matthew J. Sorensen, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
          66 Hudson Boulevard
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 909-6000
          E-mail: mloconnor@debevoise.com
                  egreenfield@debevoise.com
                  mjsorensen@debevoise.com

                - and -

          Asim M. Bhansali, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Roethlisberger, Esq.
          KWUN BHANSALI LAZARUS LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 750
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415)630-2350
          E-mail: abhansali@kblfirm.com
                  nroethlisberger@kblfirm.com

WAKE COUNTY, NC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMIA CHAPLIN, KEVIN
SPRUILL, ROTESHA MCNEIL, QIANA ROBERTSON, YOUSEF JALLAL, MESSIEJAH
BRADLEY, PAULINO CASTELLANOS, ROBERT LEWIS AND ALLEN SIFFORD, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. WILLIE
R. ROWE, in his capacity as Sheriff of Wake County, et al., Case
No. 1:23-cv-00423-WO-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Defendants request the
Court extend the deadline for them to respond to the Class
Certification Motion until 30 days after the Court issues its
ruling on the Defendants' motions to dismiss or, in the
alternative, extend by 21 days Defendants' deadline to respond to
the Class Certification Motion, through and including January 26,
2024.

The Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on May 23, 2023.

Pursuant to Local Rule 23.1(b), the Plaintiffs were required to
move for class certification within 90 days of filing a complaint.
Plaintiffs did not move for class certification within this 90-day
deadline, which was August 21, 2023.

On October 4, 2023, the Plaintiffs moved for an extension of time
to move for class certification.

The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for an extension and
extended Plaintiffs' deadline to move for class certification until
December 15, 2023.

The Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint on October 27,
2023.

The Defendants Brian Estes and The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company
have filed responses to the Complaint.

The Defendants include BRIAN ESTES, in his official capacity as the
Sheriff of Lee County, THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, as the
surety for the Sheriff of Wake County and as surety for the Sheriff
of Lee County, TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., NORTH CAROLINA
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, RYAN BOYCE, in his official
capacity as the Executive Director of the North Carolina
Administrative Office of the Courts, BRAD FOWLER, in his official
capacity as the ecourts Executive Sponsor and Chief Business
Officer of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts,
BLAIR WILLIAMS, in his official capacity as the Wake County Clerk
of Superior Court, SUSIE K. THOMAS, in her official capacity as the
Lee County Clerk of Superior Court, JOHN DOE SURETY, as the surety
for the Wake County Clerk of Superior Court and the Lee County
Clerk of Superior Court, and DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TYvWr0 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory L. Skidmore, Esq.
          H. Hunter Bruton, Esq.
          ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
          101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900
          Charlotte, NC 28246
          Telephone: (704) 377-2536
          Facsimile: (704) 378-4000
          E-mail: gskidmore@robinsonbradshaw.com
                  hbruton@robinsonbradshaw.com

                - and -

          Elizabeth Curran O'Brien, Esq.
          N.C. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
          Telephone: (919) 716-6800
          Facsimile: (919) 716-6755
          E-mail: eobrien@ncdoj.gov

                - and -

          James R. Morgan, Jr., Esq.
          WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
          One West Fourth Street
          Winston-Salem, NC 27101
          Telephone: (336) 721-3710
          Facsimile: (336) 733-8394
          E-mail: Jim.Morgan@wbd-us.com

                - and -

          Roger A. Askew, Esq.
          Robert J. Lane, Esq.
          WAKE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          Raleigh, NC 27602
          Telephone: (919) 856-5500
          Facsimile: (919) 856-5504
          E-mail: Roger.Askew@wake.gov
                  Robert.Lane@wake.gov

WALGREENS BOOTS: Court Stays Clem Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2024, that a suit
filed by a putative shareholder in the District Court of Delaware
captioned "Clem v. Skinner, et. al," (Case No. 21-CV-406) on March
19, 2021 against certain current and former Walgreens directors and
officers has been stayed.

Said case sought damages based on alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty and seeking contribution under Section 21D of the Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, arising out of transactions contemplated by a
merger agreement between the company and Rite-Aid Corp. Plaintiffs
allege that the company and certain of its officers made false or
misleading statements regarding the transactions.

The case had been stayed since its inception given the pending
class action in the . The stay was lifted following the Court's
rulings on summary judgment motions in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a retail company based in
Illinois.


WALGREENS BOOTS: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report
for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2024, that the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted
preliminary approval of a settlement of a putative class action
lawsuit arising out of transactions contemplated by a merger
agreement between the company and Rite-Aid Corp.

This was granted by the court on October 23, 2023 and set a date of
February 7, 2024 for the final settlement approval hearing.

On December 11, 2017, purported Rite-Aid shareholders filed an
amended complaint alleging that the company and certain of its
officers made false or misleading statements regarding the
transactions. Fact and expert discovery have concluded. The court
denied both plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgement and
the company's motion for summary judgment on March 31, 2023. Trial
is scheduled for January 29, 2024.

On August 23, 2023, the company, the other defendants and the lead
plaintiffs entered into a binding agreement to settle all claims.
The settlement of approximately $193 million provides for the
dismissal of the class action with prejudice.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a retail company based in
Illinois.


WALMART INC: Court Narrows Claims in Devane Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY DEVANE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. WALMART INC. f/k/a
WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00709-ECM-SMD (M.D. Ala.),
the Hon. Judge Emily C. Marks entered an order granting the
Walmart's motion for judgment on the pleadings to the extent that
the ADTPA claims, Count V, are dismissed with prejudice.

-- The motion is denied in all other respects.

-- Without recounting the entire docket in this case, the Court
notes
    the long journey this case has taken through the federal
judiciary
    and states the following facts relevant to the issues currently

    before the Court.

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores.

A copy of the Court's memorandum, opinion and order dated Dec. 22,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TOEpgw
at no extra charge.[CC]

WATA INC: Knight Seeks to Refile Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB KNIGHT, JACK CRIBBS,
JASON DOHSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. WATA INC., COLLECTORS UNIVERSE, INC. Case No.
1:22-cv-01873-GPG-KAS (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting their unopposed motion by the plaintiffs
for leave to re-file plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
compliance with uniform civil practice standards.

On December 11, 2023, the Plaintiffs Jacob Knight, Jack Cribbs and
Jason Dohse filed their Motion for Class Certification and a
Declaration of Janeen Carlberg and Supporting Evidence.

The Motion for Class Certification was made pursuant to the Court's
Scheduling Order which called for the simultaneously filing of
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment on the same date, December 11, 2023.

Unfortunately, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification did
not comply with Judge Gallagher's Uniform Practice Standards.

On December 19, 2023, the Court entered an Order striking
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs' counsel is aware of mistakes that were made in the
originally filed Motion for Class Certification and desires the
opportunity to correct those errors to bring the papers in full
compliance with Uniform Practice Standards and Local Rules.

The Plaintiffs' counsel has personally reviewed the court ruling
and revised the motion and supporting evidence to comply with the
rules.

Wata was a Colorado corporation selling grading, authentication and
encapsulation services for collectible video games.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 20, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4aJtcUr at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Janeen Carlberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JANEEN CARLBERG
          1912 N. Broadway, Suite 106
          Santa Ana, CA 92706
          Telephone: (714) 665-1900
          E-mail: jcarlberg@lawfirmoc.com

WATA INC: Knight Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB KNIGHT, JACK CRIBBS,
JASON DOHSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. WATA INC., COLLECTORS UNIVERSE, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-01873-GPG-KAS (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying Classes:

   Class:

   "All individuals in the United States who directly purchased
   encapsulation and video game grading services from Wata, Inc.
from
   May 10, 2019 through May 10, 2022 who did not have their orders
   returned within the turnaround times stated by Wata, Inc. on
the
   company's website."

   Proposed Subclass of "California Residents":

   "All California residents who directly purchased encapsulation
and
   video game grading services from Wata, Inc. from May 10, 2019
   through May 10, 2022 who did not have their orders returned
within
   the turnaround times stated by Wata, Inc. on the company's
   website."

   Proposed Subclass "After Sale Subclass":

   "All individuals in the United States who directly purchased
   encapsulation and video game grading services from Wata, Inc.
or
   Collectors Universe from July 1, 2021 through May 10, 2022 who
did
   not have their orders returned within the turnaround times
stated
   by Wata on the company's website."

The Defendants have the class list and have refused to turn the
information over to the Plaintiffs in discovery, maintaining that
such information would be appropriate in the event of class
certification.

The Defendants clearly have the residential addresses of members of
the class as Wata had to mail games there. Defendants also have
e-mail
addresses for each member of the class since it was required as
part of the account creation and online transaction procedures.

As such, should the court grant the motion for class certification,
the Plaintiffs request 60 days to meet and confer with Defendants
to attempt to reach an agreement regarding a class notice program
and submit a motion to approve class notice.

The case involves allegations of misconduct by video game grading
company Wata, now known as Collectors Universe. Wata, by
and through its then-President Deniz Kahn, along with James
Halperin, the founder of an associated auction house called
Heritage Auctions, and several other Wata associates engaged in a
plan to inaccurately publicize the sale of a collectible Nintendo
Entertainment
System (NES) video game, Super Mario Bros., in order to profit from
the corresponding run up of demand for services and prices in the
retro video game market.

Wata saw a surge in demand for services and charged customers based
on the speed of turnaround times and based on the value of the game
submitted. The company could not manage all the orders it received
and was immediately backlogged. Despite being well aware of its
inability to meet turnaround times purchased by customers, Wata
continued advertising the false turnaround times and accepting
orders and payments from customers, resulting in customers having
their valuable property held for extended periods.

The Plaintiff Knight resides in California and has resided in
California his entire life.

Knight made his purchase from Wata on June 8, 2020.

Wata was a Colorado corporation selling grading, authentication and
encapsulation services for collectible video games.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47sHAxI at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Janeen Carlberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JANEEN CARLBERG
          1912 N. Broadway, Suite 106
          Santa Ana, CA 92706
          Telephone: (714) 665-1900
          E-mail: jcarlberg@lawfirmoc.com

WEBMD LLC: Pretrial Class Discovery in Sweeton Due March 27
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMERA SWEETON, et al., v.
WEBMD, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00094-BCW (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Brian C. Wimes entered an order granting the second amended
scheduling order for class certification as follows:

-- All other deadlines and requirements previously set forth
remain
    in effect and unaltered. The Court is not inclined to grant any

    further extensions relative to the Scheduling Order for Class
    Certification.

-- All pretrial class discovery shall be completed by March 27,
2024.

-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed
by
    April 26, 2024

-- The telephone conference scheduled on June 26, 2024 is
canceled.

WebMD provides a full-service Internet healthcare portal.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41Mja0R at no extra charge.[CC]

WEST CAPITAL LENDING: Levison Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against West Capital Lending,
Inc. The case is styled as Brent Alan Levison, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. West Capital Lending,
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-24939-BB (S.D. Fla., Dec. 29, 2023).

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

West Capital Lending -- https://westcapitallending.com/ -- is a
mortgage broker offering several choices of home loans and reverse
mortgage options.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 533-4092
          Email: meisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

               - and -

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


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Salas Due Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORLANDO SALAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION and AIG WARRANTYGUARD, INC., Case No.
5:23-cv-01549-AB-kk (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr.
entered an order approving joint stipulation for schedule on class
certification:

                  Activity                          Date

  Deadline to complete class discovery          Sept. 23, 2024

  Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for     Sept. 30, 2024
  class certification

  Defendant's deadline to file an opposition    Dec. 5, 2024
  To motion for class certification

  Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply in       Jan. 20, 2025
  support of motion for class certification

  Class Certification Motion Hearing            Feb. 28, 2025

Whirlpool is an American multinational manufacturer and marketer of
home appliances.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RXAfk4 at no extra charge.[CC]

WILLIAM VALE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Stroude Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COLETTE STROUDE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE WILLIAM VALE HOTEL, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00210 (E.D.N.Y., January 10, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation
of the  Americans with Disabilities Act and New York City Human
Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide its
online content and services in a manner that is compatible with
screen reader technology. Defendant's denial of full and equal
access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered
thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA and
NYCHRL. Accordingly, 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.

The William Vale Hotel owns and operates the website,
www.thewilliamvale.com, which serves as an online platform for the
hotel to feature its variety of rooms and suites with city and
neighborhood views, dining options, and amenities like the VALE
Pool and The Turf Club rooftop bar. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          PeterPaul Shaker, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 102
          E-mail: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com

WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Fernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Christian Fernandez, individually and on
behalf of other persons similarly situated v. WORLDWIDE FLIGHT
SERVICES, INC., an active Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through
10, Case No. 23STCV23197 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 13,
2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-10435-DSF-JPR.

On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
(the "FAC"), which is the operative complaint in this action. The
FAC purports to state causes of action for: "Failure to Provide
Meal Periods"; "Failure to Provide Paid Rest Periods"; "Failure to
Pay Wages"; "Failure to Timely Pay Wages at
Termination/Separation"; "Failure to Timely Pay Vacation Wages at
Termination"; "Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements";
"Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses"; "Violation of Unfair
Business Practices Act – Bus. & Prof. Code"; and "Penalties
Pursuant to Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA")."[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          James C. Fessenden, Esq.
          Steven D. Eheart, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Phone: (858)597-9600
          Facsimile: (858)597-9601
          Email: jfessenden@fisherphillips.com
                 seheart@fisherphillips.com


YOUNG LA TRADING: Hindi Files Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Young LA Trading, Co,
LLC. The case is styled as Jamil Hindi, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Young LA Trading, Co, LLC, Case
No. 0:23-cv-62424-DPG (S.D. Fla., Dec. 29, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

YoungLA -- https://www.youngla.com/ -- is a clothing brand
headquartered in the heart of Los Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 533-4092
          Email: meisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com


ZAPPOS.COM LLC: Casillas Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Miltita Casillas, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ZAPPOS.COM LLC doing business as:
www.zappos.com, Case No. 23STCV28343 was removed from the Los
Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Dec. 29, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-10876-WLH-JPR to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights
Act.

Zappos.com -- https://www.zappos.com/ -- is an American online shoe
and clothing retailer based in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
          4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (949) 706-6464
          Fax: (949) 706-6469
          Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James H. Moon, Esq.
          Marcy Gray Blattner, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street 24th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
          Phone: (213) 633-6800
          Fax: (213) 633-6899
          Email: jamesmoon@dwt.com
                 marcymicale@dwt.com


ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Matczak Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LACY MATCZAK and FELIZITAS COX, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and
DOLLAR TREE, INC. and FAMILY DOLLAR, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-00015-RDB (D. Md., Jan. 3, 2024) alleges that the
Defendants failed to safeguard the highly sensitive personal
identifying information entrusted to them by employees and
customers.

The compromised information includes full names, dates of birth,
and Social Security Number, the Plaintiffs claim. At least as early
as Aug. 8, 2023, Zeroed-In became aware of a major breach of its
systems, which occurred between August 7, 2023 and August 8, 2023.

By August 31, 2023, Zeroed-In had identified that PII had been
compromised for around 1,977,486 people. However, neither Dollar
Tree nor Zeroed-In provided any notice to Customers until Nov. 27,
2023, when they began to send out written notices.

Because of the extraordinary negligence in delaying announcing the
data breach and in notifying those directly affected, the
Defendants created uncertainty and allowed criminals to commit
identity theft and fraud crimes against victims who had not been
informed of the breach. The Plaintiffs and class members had to
engage in an expensive and time-consuming process to properly
protect their identity which caused significant stress, anxiety,
and loss of valuable time, the suit asserts.

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, allege claims of Negligence, Breach of Implied Contract,
and Unjust Enrichment.

Plaintiff Felizitas Cox is a resident and citizen of Stockton,
California and a former employee of Defendant Dollar Tree. She
received a notification that her personal information may have been
breached on Nov. 28, 2023.

Plaintiff Lacy Matczak is a resident and citizen of New Castle,
Delaware and a former employee of Defendant Dollar Tree. She
received a notification that her personal information may have been
breached on Nov.28, 2023.

Zeroed-In is a data technology and analysis consulting company that
provides analytical services to customers including Dollar
Tree.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq.
          THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM
          1100 N Glebe Rd, Suite 1010
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Telephone: (703) 665-9529
          E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com

                - and -

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          2001 Union St, Ste 200
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law
                  aschubert@sjk.law

ZILLOW GROUP: Class Certification Bid in Barua Extended to March 14
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIBAKAR BARUA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ZILLOW GROUP, INC., RICHARD BARTON, ALLEN PARKER, and JEREMY
WACKSMAN, Case No. 2:21-cv-01551-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge
Thomas S. Zilly entered an order granting stipulated motion to
amend scheduling order:

              Event                        Current          New
                                           Deadline        
Deadline

  Class Certification/Amendments       March. 11, 2024    March 11,
2024
  Discovery on Class Certification
  Issues (Excluding Class
  Certification Expert  Witness
  Depositions) Completed By

  Motion for Class Certification       May 9, 2024       Mar. 14,
2024
  and produce Rule 26(b)(4)(C)
  material

  Deadline for Joining Additional      May 9, 2024       Mar. 14,
2024
  Parties

  Discovery Motion Cutoff              Sept. 26, 2024    Sept. 5,
2024

  Oppositions to any Dispositive       Jan. 2, 2025      Dec. 19,
2024
  or Daubert Motions

  Replies to any Dispositive or        Jan. 24, 2025     Feb. 7,
2025
  Daubert Motions

Zillow Group is an American tech real-estate marketplace company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tBtyMe at no extra charge.[CC]


                            *********

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 2024. 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 ***