---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 4, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 46

                            Headlines

1ST CLASS CIGAR: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
28FREIGHT LLC: Sosa Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
333 SOUTH SERVICE: Faces Oliva Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
3M COMPANY: Faces Multiple Product Suits in Canadian Courts
3M COMPANY: Faces Multiple Product Suits Over Toxic Substances

AETNA INC: Rougeau Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
AKERO THERAPEUTICS: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Claims
ALCLEAR LLC: Turner Suit Removed to E.D. California
ALLIANCE SERVICES: Bid for Conditional Certification Due May 29
ALTITUDE GROUP: Starr-Harris Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls

ALTRU HEALTH: Class Settlement in Rosenkranz Wins Initial Nod
ALTUS JOBS: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to Certify FLSA Collective Action
AMERICAN HONDA: Class Settlement in Aberin Suit Gets Initial Nod
ANYWHERE REAL: Continues to Defend Batton Class Suit
ANYWHERE REAL: Continues to Defend Bumpus TCPA Class Suit

ANYWHERE REAL: Final Hearing on Burnett Settlements Set for May 9
ANYWHERE REAL: Nosalek Class Suit Stayed for 30 Days
APPLE INC: Court Terminates Barrett Class Cert Bid w/o Prejudice
APPLE INC: Plaintiffs Consider Sealing of Class Cert Docs
ARKANSAS CVS: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Lackie Drug Case

ARPIP DELIVER: Vice Seeks Unpaid Wages & Damages Under FLSA
ASHLEY FURNITURE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 31, 2025
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Edwards Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
ATLANTA WOMEN'S HEALTH: Conoly Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct.
BABY TIME: Faces Perez Wage & Hour Suit in D. New Jersey

BAKKT HOLDINGS: Shareholder Suit Over Merger Ongoing
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Plaintiffs Seek to File Certification Bid
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Bid to Exclude O'Neal Testimony Tossed
BARCLAYS PLC: Faces Shareholders' Class Action Over Debt Sale
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Grover Securities Suit Dismissed

BENCHMARK 237: Hof Appeals Ruling in Discrimination Suit
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Court Enters Scheduling Conference in Paladino
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Final Hearing on Settlement Set for April 23
BOTTOM'S UP: April 19 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Ettinger Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadline OK'd

BRAD LITTLE: Corning Complaint Fails to State Claim, Court Says
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert Bid in Hale Extended to April 1
BUFFALO WILD WINGS: Machuca Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices
CANADA:  ArriveCAN App Violates Canadians' Rights, Suit Says
CAPITAL INFUSION: Cardenas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida

CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL: Pitts Files Suit in S.D. Ohio
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Sim Suit Over Deceptive "360 Savings" Account
CAREMARK PHC: Bid to Dismiss Sogbuyi-Whitney Complaint Nixed
CARIB INC: Faces Lopez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
CDL LAST: Delivery Drivers Can Bring Class Action

CEDAR FAIR: Walker Seeks Leave to File Class Certification Bid
CEDAR FAIR: Walker Suit Seeks Class Certification
CEVA LOGISTICS: Espinoza Suit Removed to N.D. California
CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Seeks Leave to File Supplement for Hearing
CHARLES RIVER: Continues to Defend Putative Securities Class Suit

CHEGG INC: Continues to Defend Keller Class Suit in N.D. Cal.
CHEGG INC: Continues to Defend Leventhal Securities Class Suit
CHEGG INC: Continues to Defend Stansell Class Suit in Delaware
CHICO'S FAS: Mejia Suit Removed to N.D. California
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Terry Sues Over Unlawful Gift Card Refund Policy

CIGNA HEALTH: Court OK's Stipulated Bid to Seal Exhibits in RJ Suit
CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Bid to Dismiss Stadium Suit Granted in Part
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Ross Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
CONTAINER STORE: Parties in Hayes Labor Row OK's Mediation
CORECIVIC INC: Continues to Defend ICE Detainee Labor Class Suit

COSTAR GROUP: Faces Portillo Suit Over Involvement in Price Fixing
CRACKER BARREL: Court Stays Harrington Suit Pending Appeal
CVS HEALTH: Faces Allison Securities Suits Over SEC Disclosures
CVS HEALTH: Faces Multiple Consolidated Securities Suits Over LTC
DCB DELANCEY: Schweitzer Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation

DELTA AIRLINES: Limited Discovery in Haley Suit Closes April 18
DELTA STAR: Hearing on Class Cert. in Wilson Set for Sept. 19
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS: Court Dismisses Hurley Amended Complaint
DIGITAL TURBINE: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Dismissed
DOLLAR TREE INC: Garland Suit Transferred to D. Maryland

DONG BANG: Lee Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
DRIVE NEW JERSEY: Bid to Seal Class Cert. OK'd in Petri Suit
DUNN-EDWARDS: De La Rosa Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
EAGLE DISPOSAL: Bousquet's Conditional Cert Bid Partly OK'd
EDDIE BAUER: Parties Must Comply with M.D. Florida's Local Rules

ELIGO ENERGY: Brous Files Suit in S.D. New York
ELITE BUILDER SERVICE: Faces Sanchez Labor Suit in California Court
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: Kwoka Files Appeal in Mamadou FLSA Suit
ENTERTAINMENT 2851: Court OK's Evans' Proposed Notice
ENVIGO RMS HOLDING: To Settle Greenwell Labor Suit in CA Court

FAIRYTALE BROWNIES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FEDEX GROUND: Bid to Intervene and Amend Martinez Complaint OK'd
FELICIA PITRE: Mitchel Files Suit in N.D. Texas
FINGER MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Martinez
FIRST NATIONAL: Waraich Sues Over Universal Bankers' Unpaid OT

FLINT, MI: Harris Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
FORTRA LLC: Anderson Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
FOUNT SOCIETY: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FOX FACTORY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on April 22
FOX FACTORY: Marselis Seeks Damages for Securities Law Breaches

FREMANTLE TELEVISION: Facing Jury Trial in Labor Class Suit
FS-PRECISION TECH: Ivanez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
GALLEHER ACQUISITION: Smith Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
GEN DIGITAL INC: Faces Lau Privacy Violation Suit in California
GENENTECH INC: Wehner Appeals ERISA Suit Deal Approval

GLASS HOUSE: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Moore Class Cert Bid Granted in Part
GLEIBERMAN PROPERTIES: Centariczki Suit Removed to D. Oregon
GOLDEN ARCH ENTERPRISES: Harris Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GREENSKY INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Belyea Suit Due May 23

GREENWOOD INC: Faces Soto Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super.
GRIMM ALES: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Bid to Amend Scheduling Order Granted in Part
GUNDERSEN LUTHERAN: Doe Suit Remanded to La Crosse County Cir. Ct.
HAIN CELESTIAL: 2nd Cir. Vacates Dismissal of Beech-Nut Case

HAIN CELESTIAL: E.D.N.Y. Dismisses Flora 2nd Amended Complaint
HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS: Antitrust Suits Ongoing in NY Court
HAT WORLD: Coleman Suit Remanded to Superior Court of Alameda
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE: Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN: Berry Loses Class Certification Bid

HENRI LLC: Mojica Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
HOME DEPOT: Allows Google to Eavesdrop on Customer Calls, Suit Says
HOMEADVISOR INC: Class Certification Deadline in Airquip Vacated
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Agrees to Settle Vehicle Theft Suit for $145M
ILLINOIS: Brozak Suit Seeks Class Certification

IMAGINE360 LLC: Collins Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
INOTIV INC: Faces Grobler Securities Suit Over Merger Deal
INSURANCE COMPANY: Appeals Cert. Ruling in Issokson Suit
INTELLIHARTX LLC: Kelly Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
INTELLIHARTX LLC: Mcdavitt Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida

INTELLIHARTX LLC: Terwilliger Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
INTELLIHARTX LLC: Timmons Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
IQIYI INC: Investors Can Amend Fraud Class Action
JG INNOVATIVE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JOSH ROSEBROOK SKIN: Fernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Maslowski Suit Over Unfair Blanket Fees
JUNIPER NETWORKS: $3MM Settlement in Reichert Suit Has Final Nod
KHANNA ENTERPRISES: Kurges Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Class Cert Briefing Sched in Seidner Sought
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by March 29

KINDER MORGAN: Continues to Defend Penderson ERISA Class Suit
KQED INC: Dulaney Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
L'OREAL USA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Zimmerman Due August 22
LABCORP: Kiosk Accessibility Class Action Can Proceed
LABORATORY CORP: Wiggins Sues Over Illegal Use of Patients' Info

LAS VEGAS SANDS: Nevada Court Tosses Second Amended Complaint
LINXX GLOBAL SOLUTIONS: Oliquino Suit Removed to N.D. California
LORI WEAVER: Seeks Denial of Plaintiff's Class Cert Bid
MACKENZIE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
MANHEIM TOWNSHIP, PA: Agrees to Settle Water Charges' Suit for $4M

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Baek Due May 27
MARYGOLD COS.: Continues to Defend Consolidated Lucas Class Suit
MASSIMO ZANETTI: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MDL 2704: Plaintiffs Seeks to File Class Cert Bid
MDL 2904: Bratten Suit Transferred to New Jersey

MDL 2918: Defendants Seek to Seal Portions of EUPs' Oppositions
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Narrows Claims in Bolling Suit
MERCY INVESTMENT: Underwoods' Bid to Seal in Reynolds Suit Granted
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Parties Must Resolve Discovery Row
MINISO GROUP: New York Court Tosses Investors' Class Action

MINUS MOONSHINE: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Schecter Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
NATIONAL HOCKEY: World Association Alleges Antitrust Law Violations
NATIONAL WIRE: Ramirez Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
NATURELO PREMIUM: Wallin Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement

NAVY FEDERAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Racial Discrimination
NCH HEALTHCARE: McFalls Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
NEOGENOMICS INC: Continues to Defend Goldenberg Shareholder Suit
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Seeks to Adjourn Class Cert Briefing
NONNI'S FOODS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Bardsley Due March 4

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Suit Over Train Derailment Mishap
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Secko Files Suit in E.D. New York
NORTHWOOD HOSPITALITY: C.D. California Refuses to Remand Avila Suit
OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Appeals Ruling in Eisenberg Class Suit
ODIN PARKER: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

OTAY LAKES: Court Narrows Claims in Renn Suit
PACIFIC MARKET: Facing Class Action Over Lead Seal in Stanley Cups
PANERA BREAD: Settles Class Action Over Delivery Fees for $2M
PASTELES CAPY LLC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PAUL SCHNELL: Court Denies Avila's Bid to Appoint Counsel

PENNSYLVANIA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Pagan Suit Due Oct. 29
PETER THOMAS ROTH: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PLAID INC: Wilhelm Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection
PLANET BICYCLE: Gettinger Files ADA Suit in M.D. Florida
PORT AUTHORITY: Class Cert Filing in Meinert Extended to March 17

PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Alexander Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
QEII HEALTH: Two Radiologists Sued Over Secret MRI Research
QUAKER OATS: Products Contain Pesticide, Class Action Claims
RECKITT BENCKISER: Scharon Fraud Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y.
REDWIRE CORP: Case Management Deadlines Extended in Lemen Suit

REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces RICO Suits in Massachusetts Court
REHABCARE GROUP: Plaintiffs Seek Substitution of Lead Class Counsel
REYNA HOSPITALITY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
RITHM CAPITAL: Final Hearing on Settlement Set for May 20
ROBERT M. FARRELL: Talasazan Files Suit in C.D. California

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: March 8 Extension of Class Cert Filing Sought
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Tolbert Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
RPA ENERGY INC: Smith Files Suit in S.D. New York
SAINT GOBAIN: Lampton Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement
SAM'S WEST: Sanchez Seeks to Exclude Updated Policies from Evidence

SCOTT ZIMMERMAN: Parties Must File Joint Scheduling Report
SCOUT ENERGY: Bid for Leave to File Conventionally Sustained
SIEMENS MOBILITY: Carrillo Suit Removed to E.D. California
SL ALABAMA: Must Respond to Bastidas Class Complaint, Court Says
SONY ELECTRONICS: Riddick Suit Removed to S.D. California

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces Suit Over Illegal Billing Practices
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Wellman Seeks Damages Over Delayed Bill
STABILITY AI: DeviantArt Loses Bid to Strike in Andersen Suit
STAKE CENTER: Holtsclaw Wage and Hour Lawsuit Removed to D. Colo.
STRANGECAT LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SUB-ZERO GROUP: Time Extension for Class Cert Bid Filing Sought
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Amato Must Submit Class Cert Bid as One Filing
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Aquino Must Submit Class Cert Bid as One Filing
SUBURBAN PROPANE: 2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Consumer Suits
TECH MAHINDRA: Wins Renewed Bid to Dismiss Williams Employee Suit

THEO CHOCOLATE: Court Consolidates Two Actions
TRACY LOGISTICS: Picou Suit Removed to E.D. California
TRANSFORMATIVE HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
TRIANGLE CONSTRUCTION: Williamson Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
TUNNEL BARREL: Settlement in Licona Class Suit Wins Court OK

U.S. HEALTHWORKS: Raines Suit Seeks to Certify Class
UINTAH COUNTY, UT: Lakhumna Ordered to Cure Deficient Complaint
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: Continues to Defend Baker Class Suit
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Crain Seeks to Modify Class Cert Briefing Sched.
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid in Crain by April 12

US FACILITY: Glass Seeks to Certify Collective Action
VERIZON WIRELESS: Nonprofit Criticize Plaintiffs' Lawyers Over Fees
WALGREENS BOOTS: Boswell Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
WALMART INC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Labeling Practices
WALMART INC: Zorich Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri

WAXING THE CITY: Pitts Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Bowles's Bid for Preliminary Injunction Denied
WEEE! INC: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Customers' Data-Breach
WEST VIRGINIA HEALTH: Headlee Suit Transferred to D. West Virginia
WOOD GROUP: Averts Flexpath 401(k) Fund Class Action

XAVIER BECERRA: Hearing on Bid to Appoint Counsel Set for April 15
ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Brantley Suit Transferred to D. Maryland
ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Jacobson Suit Transferred to D. Maryland
ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Mintz Suit Transferred to D. Maryland
ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Neeley Suit Transferred to D. Maryland

[*] Class Action Targets Aggressive Cosmetic Vendors in Hawaii
[] 8th Annual Class Action Conference in May, Register Today!

                            *********

1ST CLASS CIGAR: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1st Class Cigar
Humidors, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. 1st Class Cigar
Humidors, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01242 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2024).

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

1st Class Cigar Humidors, Inc. -- https://www.1stclasshumidors.com/
-- offers a mix of one-of-a-kind accessories & premium smokes at
deeply discounted prices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


28FREIGHT LLC: Sosa Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 28Freight, LLC. case
is styled as Claudio Sosa, Luis Aguilar, Cristian Lamarque,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
28Freight LLC d/b/a Truckcourier; Richard Marks, individually, Case
No. 2481CV00495 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., Feb. 20, 2024).

The case type is stated as "Contract/Business Cases."

28Freight -- https://28freight.com/ -- is built on three
generations of freight transportation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Rachel Smit, Esq.
          FAIR WORK P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111


333 SOUTH SERVICE: Faces Oliva Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE OLIVA and IRAIDA OLIVA, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 333 SOUTH SERVICE RD, LLC and
CATHERINE DE LUCIA, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01160 (E.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 14, 2024) is a class action brought by Plaintiffs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, on behalf of
themselves, and all others similarly situated, to seek redress
against Defendants for a systematic and collective-wide policy of
requiring employees to perform work off the clock without any
compensation including overtime compensation for such time in
violation of the FLSA and NYLL.

Plaintiffs Jose Oliva and Iraida Oliva worked for the Defendants
performing housekeeping services from April 29, 2023 through July
13, 2023, and from July 30, 2022 through July 13, 2023,
respectively. They assert that throughout their employment, they
were paid solely for their hours on the clock and were not paid any
wages, much less overtime wages for the work they were required to
perform off the clock. Furthermore, they received inaccurate wage
statements each week that did not reflect the actual number of
hours and overtime hours worked for the week, say the Plaintiffs.

333 South Service Road LLC owns and operates a hotel known as Four
Points by Sheraton located in Plainview, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jon Bell, Esq.
          BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC   
          116 Jackson Avenue
          Syosset, NY 11791
          Telephone: (516) 280-3008
          E-mail: JB@Belllg.com

3M COMPANY: Faces Multiple Product Suits in Canadian Courts
-----------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 7, 2024, that in December 2023, a
putative class action was filed against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and
other defendants in British Columbia civil court on behalf of
Canadian individuals alleging personal injuries from exposure to
aqueous film forming foam imported into Canada for firefighting and
other applications.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages,
disgorgement of profits, and the recovery of health care cost
incurred by provincial and territorial governments.

3M is a diversified technology company with a global presence in
the following businesses: Safety and Industrial; Transportation and
Electronics; Health Care; and Consumer. It is among the leading
manufacturers of products for many of the markets it serves. Most
3M products involve expertise in product development, manufacturing
and marketing, and are subject to competition from products
manufactured and sold by other technologically oriented companies.


3M COMPANY: Faces Multiple Product Suits Over Toxic Substances
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 30, 2024, that since 3M manufactured
and marketed aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) containing certain
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) for use in firefighting
from approximately 1963 to 2002, as of December 31, 2023,
approximately 48 putative class actions have been filed against 3M
(along with other defendants) in various state and federal courts.
As further described below, a vast majority of these pending cases
are in a federal multi-district litigation court in South
Carolina.

Additional AFFF cases continue to be filed in or transferred to the
MDL. Claims in the MDL are asserted by individuals, public water
systems, putative class members, state and territorial sovereigns,
and other entities. Plaintiffs seek a variety of relief in cases in
the MDL, including, where applicable, damages for personal injury,
property damage, water treatment costs, medical monitoring, natural
resource damages, and punitive damages.

3M is a diversified technology company with a global presence in
the following businesses: Safety and Industrial; Transportation and
Electronics; Health Care; and Consumer. It is among the leading
manufacturers of products for many of the markets it serves. Most
3M products involve expertise in product development, manufacturing
and marketing, and are subject to competition from products
manufactured and sold by other technologically oriented companies.


AETNA INC: Rougeau Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cindy Rougeau, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Aetna Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00635 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida on Feb. 21, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-20676 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for the
Federal Trade Commission Act.

Aetna Inc. -- https://www.aetna.com/ -- provides health care
services. The Company offers medical, pharmacy, dental, behavioral
health, group life, disability, and health care management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 358
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: (212) 682-5340
          Fax: (212) 884-0988
          Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Marcio W. Valladares, Esq.
          Ra O. Amen, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, Florida 33602
          Phone: (813) 223-5505
          Fax: (813) 223-5402
          Email: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
                 MValladares@forthepeople.com
                 Ramen@forthepeople.com


AKERO THERAPEUTICS: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating
whether Akero Therapeutics, Inc. ("Akero" or "the Company")
(NASDAQ: AKRO) or any of its executive officers or others violated
securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to timely disclose
material, adverse information to investors. The investigation
focuses on investors' losses and whether they may be recovered
under federal securities laws.

What if I purchased Akero securities? If you purchased securities
and suffered significant losses on your investment, join our
investigation now:

Or for more information, contact Jim Baker at
jimb@johnsonfistel.com or (619) 814-4471

There is no cost or obligation to you.

What if I have relevant nonpublic information? Individuals with
nonpublic information regarding the company should consider whether
to assist our investigation or take advantage of the SEC
Whistleblower program. Under the SEC program, whistleblowers who
provide original information may, under certain circumstances,
receive rewards totaling up to thirty percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, contact Jim Baker
at (619) 814-4471 or jimb@johnsonfistel.com.

About Johnson Fistel, LLP:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York, Georgia, and
Colorado. The firm represents individual and institutional
investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action
lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys,
please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.

Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.

Johnson Fistel, LLP has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Frank J. Johnson is the attorney
responsible for its content.

Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
501 W. Broadway, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101
James Baker, Investor Relations or Frank J. Johnson, Esq.,
(619) 814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com or fjohnson@johnsonfistel.com [GN]

ALCLEAR LLC: Turner Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Tyonna Turner, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. ALCLEAR, LLC, a New York
Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV03573 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and
for the County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on Feb. 20, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 2:24-at-00184.

On January 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed an unverified Class Action
Complaint against Defendant which sets forth the following seven
causes of action: Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; Meal Period
Violations; Rest Period Violations; Failure to Pay All Sick Time;
Wage Statement Violations; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to
Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; and Unfair Competition.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eric J. Gitig, Esq.
          Orlando J. Arellano, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
          Phone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          Emails: Eric.Gitig@jacksonlewis.com
                  Orlando.Arellano@jacksonlewis.com


ALLIANCE SERVICES: Bid for Conditional Certification Due May 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROMESHA BIRDSONG, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ALLIANCE
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01057-BHL (E.D. Wis.), the Hon.
Judge Brett H. Ludwig entered a scheduling order as follows:

   1. The parties' initial disclosures as required      Feb. 23,
2024
      by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) must be exchanged on
      or before:

   2. Amendments to the pleadings may be filed          Feb. 23,
2024
      Without leave of Court on or before:

   3. All fact discovery must be completed no           March 26,
2025
      later than:

   4. Primary expert witness disclosures are due        Sept. 11,
2024
      on or before:

   5. Rebuttal expert witness disclosures are           Nov. 13,
2024
      due on or before:

   6. All expert discovery must be completed no         March 26,
2025
      later than:

   7. Motions for conditional certification of a        May 29,
2024
      collective action shall be served and filed
      on or before:

   8. Motions for class certification and motions       Dec. 4,
2024
      to decertify a collective action shall be
      served and filed on or before:

   9. Motions for summary judgment must comply with     May 7,
2025
      Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, Civil L.R. 56 and Civil
      L.R. 7 and shall be served and filed on or
      Before:

Alliance is a healthcare staffing agency.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zrhE4n at no extra
charge.[CC]


ALTITUDE GROUP: Starr-Harris Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Starr-Harris, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Altitude Group, LLC d/b/a Core
Home Security, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 9:24-cv-80170 (S.D. Fla.,
Feb. 14, 2024) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Florida Statute due to
its engagement in telemarketing phone calls.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's alleged illegal conduct, which has resulted in the
invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the
daily life of thousands of consumers. The Plaintiff also seeks
statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies.

The Altitude Group, LLC is a security installation and monitoring
company headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: mike@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          301 E. Bethany Home Road Suite C-195
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com

ALTRU HEALTH: Class Settlement in Rosenkranz Wins Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jana R. Rosenkranz, Joan
Mondry, and Ramona Driscoll, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Altru Health System, the Altru Health
System Retirement Committee, and John Does 1-30, Case No.
3:20-cv-00168-PDW-ARS (D.N.D.), the Hon. Judge Peter D. Welte
entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action
settlement, preliminarily certifying a class for settlement
purposes, approving plan of allocation and scheduling a date for a
fairness hearing.

This action involves claims for alleged violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), with respect to
the Altru Health System Retirement Savings Plan ("Plan").

The terms of the Settlement are set out in the Settlement
Agreement, fully executed as of November 17, 2023, by counsel on
behalf of the Named Plaintiffs, all Class Members, and Defendants,
respectively. Pursuant to the Named Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Preliminary
Certification of a Class for Settlement Purposes, Approving Form
and Manner of Settlement Notice, Preliminarily Approving Plan of
Allocation, and Scheduling a Date for a Fairness Hearing filed on
Nov. 20, 2023, the Court preliminarily considered the Settlement to
determine, among other things, whether the Settlement is sufficient
to warrant the issuance of notice to members of the proposed
Settlement Class.

The Court previously certified a class on September 13, 2022 and
appointed class representatives and class counsel. For purposes of
Settlement, and pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court modifies the previously
certified Class definition and period as follows.

The "Settlement Class" shall be:

    "All persons who participated in the Plan at any time during
the
    Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person
who
    participated in the Plan at any time during September 22, 2014

    through January 30, 2024 and any Alternate Payee of a Person
    subject to a QDRO who participated in the Plan at any time
during
    the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are
    Defendants and their Beneficiaries.

The Court appoints the Named Plaintiffs Jana R. Rosenkranz, Joan
Mondry and Ramona Driscoll, as Class Representatives for the
Settlement Class and Capozzi Adler, P.C., as Class Counsel for the
Settlement Class.

The amount of the Settlement -- $975,000.00 is fair, reasonable,
and adequate, taking into account the costs, risks, and delay of
litigation, trial, and appeal.

Altru is an American healthcare provider.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2Rc7ku at no extra
charge.[CC]

ALTUS JOBS: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to Certify FLSA Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXA KLINAKIS, et al, v.
ALTUS JOBS, LLC, et al, Case No. 6:22-cv-01756-RBD-RMN (M.D. Fla.),
the Lead plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. Certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective
action:

      "All former and current employees of Altus Jobs, LLC who
worked
      for Altus during the Collective Period as recruiters/sales
      people recruiting talent for clients on behalf of Altus and
who
      (A) were not compensated their statutory minimum wage for all

      hours worked per week during one (1) or more weeks, and/or
(B)
      were not compensated time-and-a-half for all hours worked in

      excess of 40 hours, and/or C) were not fully compensated
monies
      owed to them for work performed on behalf of Altus, and/ or
D)
      were retaliated against for filing a complaint against Altus
or
      Saum Sharifi for violating the FLSA  or for challenging
Altus'
      compensation Practices;"

   2. Directing the Defendants to produce within 14 days of the
Order
      granting this Motion, a list of the names, last known
physical
      addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of putative
class
      members who worked at Altus during the Class Period and
      consistent with the conditional class definition;

   3. authorizing counsel to send Notice, as described in Exhibit
4;

   4. providing all putative class members with 100 days from the
      date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to
opt-
      in form; and

   5. any other relief this Court deems just and proper.

Altus is a Professional Recruiting Firm Specialized in the
Architectural, Engineering, & Construction Markets Nationwide.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z8BGnY at no extra
charge.[CC]

AMERICAN HONDA: Class Settlement in Aberin Suit Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDSEY ABERIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-04384-JST (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order preliminarily
approving Settlement, certifying class, approving notice to the
class, and scheduling final approval hearing as modified.

The Plaintiffs seek relief for American Honda's alleged violations
of the consumer protection, fraudulent concealment, and breach of
implied warranty laws of the States of California, Kansas, New
York, and Washington, and claims under the Magnuson Moss Warranty
Act.

The Court preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and 23(e) in this
litigation:

   "all persons who purchased the following Acura vehicles before
the
   vehicles reached 10 years or 120,000 miles, whichever occurred
   first: 2004-2008 TL, 2005-2008 MDX, or 2007-2009 RDX in the
States
   of California, Kansas, New York and Washington."

The Court preliminarily appoints Plaintiffs Lindsay and Jeff
Aberin, Don Awtrey, Charles Burgess, John Kelly, and Joy Matza, the
Named Plaintiffs, as the class representatives for the Settlement
Class, and Seeger Weiss LLP and Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Brody &
Agnello, P.C. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.

American Honda develops and manufactures automobiles.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0UwR7a at no extra
charge.[CC]

ANYWHERE REAL: Continues to Defend Batton Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from Batton nationwide class
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois Eastern Division.

Batton, Bolton, Brace, Kim, James, Mullis, Bisbicos and Parsons v.
The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp.,
Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates,
LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller
Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois Eastern Division). In this putative nationwide
class action filed on January 25, 2021 (formerly captioned as
Leeder), the plaintiffs take issue with certain NAR policies,
including those related to buyer-broker compensation at issue in
the Moehrl and Burnett matters, as well as those at issue in the
2020 settlement between the DOJ and NAR, but claim the alleged
conspiracy has harmed buyers (instead of sellers).

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made agreements and
engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the
Sherman Act and were unjustly enriched, and seek a permanent
injunction enjoining NAR from establishing in the future the same
or similar rules, policies, or practices as those challenged in the
action as well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest,
and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses.

On July 6, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint substituting
in eight new named plaintiffs and containing allegations
substantially similar to the original complaint but also adding
certain claims under state antitrust statutes and consumer
protection statutes.

Motions to dismiss remain pending and discovery has not commenced.

The Company disputes the allegations against it in this case,
believes it has substantial defenses to plaintiffs’ claims, and
is vigorously defending this litigation.

Madison, NJ-based, Anywhere Real Estate Inc (NYSE: HOUS) provides
franchise and brokerage operations as well as national title,
settlement, and relocation companies and nationally scaled
mortgage origination and underwriting joint ventures. Anywhere's
brand portfolio includes Better Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate,
CENTURY 21(R), Coldwell Banker(R), Coldwell Banker Commercial(R),
Corcoran(R), ERA(R), and Sotheby's International Realty(R).
Moody's expects 2023 revenue of over $5.5 billion.



ANYWHERE REAL: Continues to Defend Bumpus TCPA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from Bumpus Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) class suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Bumpus, et al. v. Realogy Holdings Corp., et al. (U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division).

In this class action filed on June 11, 2019, against Anywhere Real
Estate Inc. (f/k/a Realogy Holdings Corp.), Anywhere Intermediate
Holdings LLC (f/k/a Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC), Anywhere
Real Estate Group LLC (f/k/a Realogy Group LLC ), Anywhere Real
Estate Services Group LLC (f/k/a Realogy Services Group LLC), and
Anywhere Advisors LLC (f/k/a Realogy Brokerage Group LLC and NRT
LLC), and Mojo Dialing Solutions, LLC, plaintiffs allege that
independent sales agents affiliated with Anywhere Advisors LLC
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) using
dialers provided by Mojo and others.

Plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of a National Do Not Call Registry
class, an Internal Do Not Call class, and an Artificial or
Prerecorded Message class.

In March 2022, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification for the foregoing classes as to the Anywhere
defendants but not as to co-defendant Mojo and dismissed Mojo from
the case.

Plaintiffs and the Anywhere defendants' cross-motions for summary
judgment were denied without prejudice on May 11, 2022.

The Company's petition for permission to appeal the class
certification filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was
denied and the plaintiffs' class notice plan was approved on May
26, 2022.

Plaintiffs had claimed that approximately 1.2 million Do Not Call
calls and approximately 265,000 Pre-Recorded Messages qualified for
inclusion in the classes, but on March 29, 2023, filed a motion to
narrow the classes to approximately 321,000 Do Not Call calls and
approximately 165,000 Pre-Recorded Messages.

On April 12, 2023, the Company opposed Plaintiffs' motion to modify
the classes and sought to decertify them.

The Court vacated the January 29, 2024 jury trial date (which had
previously been rescheduled several times) and a status hearing is
currently set for May 23, 2024.

Plaintiffs' motion to narrow the classes, the Company's opposition
seeking to decertify the classes, as well as other pre-trial
motions, are pending.

The Company disputes the allegations against it in this case,
believes it has substantial defenses to both plaintiffs' liability
claims and damage assertions, and is vigorously defending this
action.

Madison, NJ-based, Anywhere Real Estate Inc (NYSE: HOUS) provides
franchise and brokerage operations as well as national title,
settlement, and relocation companies and nationally scaled
mortgage origination and underwriting joint ventures. Anywhere's
brand portfolio includes Better Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate,
CENTURY 21(R), Coldwell Banker(R), Coldwell Banker Commercial(R),
Corcoran(R), ERA(R), and Sotheby's International Realty(R).
Moody's expects 2023 revenue of over $5.5 billion.









ANYWHERE REAL: Final Hearing on Burnett Settlements Set for May 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2024, that the
final approval hearing of the three settlements in the Burnett
class suit is set for May 9, 2024.

Burnett, Hendrickson, Breit, Trupiano, and Keel v. The National
Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of
America, Inc., BHH Affiliates LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC,
and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri).

This is a now-certified class action complaint, which was filed on
April 29, 2019 and amended on June 21, 2019, June 30, 2021 and May
6, 2022 and tried with a jury verdict on October 31, 2023 (formerly
captioned as Sitzer).

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a continuing
contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade
and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because
defendant NAR allegedly established mandatory anticompetitive
policies and rules for the multiple listing services and its
members that require an offer of buyer-broker compensation when
listing a property. The plaintiffs' experts argue that "but for"
the challenged NAR policies and rules, these offers of buyer-broker
compensation would not be made and plaintiffs seek the recovery of
full commissions paid to buyers' brokers as to both brokerage and
franchised operations in the relevant geographic area.

The plaintiffs further allege that commission sharing, which
provides for the broker representing the seller sharing or paying a
portion of its commission to the broker representing the buyer, is
anticompetitive and violates the Sherman Act, and that the
brokerage/franchisor defendants conspired with NAR by requiring
their respective brokerages/franchisees to comply with NAR’s
policies, rules, and Code of Ethics, and engaged in other allegedly
anticompetitive conduct including, but not limited to, steering and
agent education that allegedly promotes the practice of paying
buyer-broker compensation and discourages commission negotiation.

Plaintiffs' experts dispute defendants’ contention that the
practice of offering and paying buyer-broker compensation is based
on natural and legitimate economic incentives and benefits that
exist irrespective of the challenged NAR policies and rules and
plaintiffs also contend that international practices are comparable
benchmarks.

The antitrust claims in the Burnett litigation are limited both in
allegations and relief sought to home sellers who from April 29,
2015, to the present used a listing broker affiliated with one of
the brokerage/franchisor defendants in four multiple listing
services ("MLSs") that primarily serve the State of Missouri,
purportedly in violation of federal and Missouri antitrust laws.

The plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief enjoining the defendants
from requiring home sellers to pay buyer-broker commissions or from
otherwise restricting competition among brokers, an award of
damages and/or restitution for the class period, attorneys' fees
and costs of suit.

Plaintiffs allege joint and several liability and seek treble
damages.

In addition, the plaintiffs had included a cause of action for
alleged violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, or
MMPA, on behalf of Missouri residents only, with a class period
that commences April 29, 2014, but in October 2023, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion to dismiss that cause of action and the
Missouri antitrust claims.

In September 2019, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed a
statement of interest and appearances for this matter and, in July
2020 and July 2021, requested the Company provide it with all
materials produced in this matter.

The Court granted class certification on April 22, 2022 and as
certified, includes, according to plaintiffs, over 250,000
transactions for which the plaintiffs are seeking a full refund of
the buyer-broker commissions.

The Company and the plaintiffs engaged in several mediation
sessions, the most recent of which was held at the end of August
2023 and resulted in a settlement of the litigation as against
Anywhere (with one other corporate defendant entering into a
separate settlement in September 2023).

On September 5, 2023, the Company notified the court that it had
entered into nationwide settlement with the Burnett and Moehrl
plaintiffs and obtained a stay of all proceedings as to the Company
while the parties finalized a long form written settlement
agreement ("Anywhere Settlement").

On October 5, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the motion for preliminary
approval of both the Anywhere Settlement and the settlement with
another corporate defendant.

The court granted preliminary approval of the Anywhere Settlement
on November 21, 2023.

Notice to the class was issued on February 1, 2024.

On February 1, 2024, a third corporate dependent entered into a
settlement agreement, which was preliminarily approved by the court
on the same day.

A hearing for final approval of all three settlements is scheduled
for May 9, 2024.

Madison, NJ-based, Anywhere Real Estate Inc (NYSE: HOUS) provides
franchise and brokerage operations as well as national title,
settlement, and relocation companies and nationally scaled
mortgage origination and underwriting joint ventures. Anywhere's
brand portfolio includes Better Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate,
CENTURY 21(R), Coldwell Banker(R), Coldwell Banker Commercial(R),
Corcoran(R), ERA(R), and Sotheby's International Realty(R).
Moody's expects 2023 revenue of over $5.5 billion.




ANYWHERE REAL: Nosalek Class Suit Stayed for 30 Days
----------------------------------------------------
Anywhere Real Estate Group LLC disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2024, that the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts stayed the
Nosalek class suit for 30 days and subject for extension when
necessary.

Nosalek, Hirschorn and Hirschorn v. MLS Property Information
Network, Inc., Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America,
Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and
Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts). This is a putative class action filed on
December 17, 2020 (formerly captioned as Bauman), wherein the
plaintiffs take issue with policies and rules similar to those at
issue in the Moehrl and Burnett matters, but rather than objecting
to the national policies and rules published by NAR, this lawsuit
specifically objects to the alleged policies and rules of a
multiple listing service (MLS Property Information Network, Inc.)
that is owned by realtors, including in part by one of the
Company's company-owned brokerages.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made agreements and
engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the
Sherman Act and seek a permanent injunction, enjoining the
defendants from continuing conduct determined to be unlawful, as
well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest, and
reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses.

On December 10, 2021, the Court denied the motion to dismiss filed
in March 2021 by the Company (together with the other defendants
named in the complaint) and in January 2022, the plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint which, among other things, redefined the
covered area as limited to home sales in Massachusetts (removing
New Hampshire and Rhode Island).

The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of sellers who paid a broker
commission in connection with the sale of a property listed in the
MLS Property Information Network, Inc.

On January 23, 2023, MLS Property Information Network, Inc.,
HomeServices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates,
LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. filed their
answer to the second amended complaint.

The Anywhere defendants filed their answer to the second amended
complaint on February 21, 2023.

Discovery in the case has commenced.

On September 5, 2023, following its initial motion seeking
preliminary approval of a settlement that had been filed on June
30, 2023 and a court hearing held on August 9, 2023, the MLS
Property Information Network, Inc. filed a motion for preliminary
approval of an amended settlement covering sellers who paid, and/or
on whose behalf sellers' brokers paid, buyer-broker commissions
during the settlement class period in connection with the sale of
residential real estate listed on the centralized listing database
of MLS Property Information Network, Inc.

The corporate defendants, including Anywhere, are not a party to
the motion or settlement.

The settlement, if finally approved by the Court, requires MLS
Property Information Network, Inc to eliminate the requirement that
a seller must offer compensation to a buyer-broker and to change
various other rules to give sellers various notices and rules
relating to negotiation of buyer-broker compensation.

In addition to the foregoing injunctive relief, MLS Property
Information Network, Inc. has agreed to pay $3 million into a
settlement fund.

On September 7, 2023, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and set a hearing date of January 4, 2024 for final
approval, which the court subsequently moved to March 7, 2024, in
response to a statement of interest and motion to extend filed by
the DOJ so that it could evaluate the proposed settlement and its
competitive effects. O

n February 14, 2024, the court stayed the case pending the outcome
of a motion which was filed on December 27, 2023 by the plaintiffs'
counsel in the Moerhl litigation to designate the various seller
antitrust lawsuits that have been filed since the judgment was
entered in the Burnett litigation as multidistrict litigation and
consolidate them for administration purposes before a single
court.

Given that no class has yet been certified in the Nosalek
litigation, it is expected that the purported class members of the
Nosalek litigation will be included in the nationwide class
certified by the court for settlement purposes under the Anywhere
Settlement, and final approval of the Anywhere Settlement would
accordingly resolve the Nosalek litigation as to the Company.

Relatedly, on October 27, 2023, the Nosalek court granted the joint
motion filed by the plaintiffs and Anywhere to stay the Nosalek
litigation against the Company for 30 days (subject to extension as
necessary).

Madison, NJ-based, Anywhere Real Estate Inc (NYSE: HOUS) provides
franchise and brokerage operations as well as national title,
settlement, and relocation companies and nationally scaled
mortgage origination and underwriting joint ventures. Anywhere's
brand portfolio includes Better Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate,
CENTURY 21(R), Coldwell Banker(R), Coldwell Banker Commercial(R),
Corcoran(R), ERA(R), and Sotheby's International Realty(R).
Moody's expects 2023 revenue of over $5.5 billion.



APPLE INC: Court Terminates Barrett Class Cert Bid w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL BARRETT, et al., v.
APPLE INC., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-04812-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order terminating motion for
class certification without prejudice.

On Jan. 5, 2024, the Court directed the parties to show cause why
the pending motion at ECF No. 238 should not be terminated without
prejudice subject to re-filing at a later date given the parties
representations regarding settlement.

On Jan. 10, 2024, the parties filed a joint response to the Court's
Order stating that the parties do not object to the Court
terminating ECF No. 238 without prejudice subject to re-filing as a
later date if settlement efforts are unsuccessful.

Apple designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer
software, and online services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z25MTl at no extra
charge.[CC] 


APPLE INC: Plaintiffs Consider Sealing of Class Cert Docs
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs Robert
Pepper, Stephen H. Schwartz, Edward W. Hayter, and Edward Lawrence
submit an administrative motion to consider whether another Party's
material should be sealed pursuant to and Civil Local Rules 7-11(a)
and 79-5(f).

The Plaintiffs move to seal portions of the Declaration of Minjae
Song, Ph.D. in Response to Order for Supplemental Information in
Further Support of Renewed Motion for Class Certification.

The document contains information defendant Apple Inc. has
previously designated as confidential under the Protective Order
entered in this case and has previously requested the Court seal in
the parties' Joint Omnibus Sealing Motion Re: Plaintiffs' Renewed
Motion for Class
Certification and Related Filings.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WyrpdB at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
          Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
          Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 1820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
                  byrd@whafh.com
                  rifkin@whafh.com
                  guiney@whafh.com
                  burt@whafh.com

                - and -

          David C. Frederick, Esq.
          Aaron M. Panner, Esq.
          Kyle M. Wood, Esq.
          KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL &
          FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
          1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 326-7900
          Facsimile: (202) 326-7999
          E-mail: dfrederick@kellogghansen.com
                  apanner@kellogghansen.com
                  kwood@kellogghansen.com

                - and -

          Michael Liskow, Esq.
          GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Telephone: (561) 232-6002
          Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
          E-mail: mliskow@4-justice.com

ARKANSAS CVS: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Lackie Drug Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARKANSAS CVS PHARMACY, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order dated January 30, 2024 entered in the
lawsuit styled LACKIE DRUG STORE, INC., Plaintiff v. ARKANSAS CVS
PHARMACY, L.L.C.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; CAREMARK, L.L.C.;
CAREMARKPCS, L.L.C.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS; ESI MAIL PROCESSING, INC.;
ESI MAIL PHARMACY SERVICE, INC.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS PHARMACY;
MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.; MEDIMPACT DIRECT, LLC; OPTUMRX,
INC.; OPTUMRX PHARMACY, INC.; and PHARMACEUTICAL CARE MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-01515-JM, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

The suit was removed from the Circuit Court of Lonoke County,
Arkansas, to the Eastern District of Arkansas on December 30,
2020.

Plaintiff Lackie Drug alleges that the Pharmacy Benefit Manager
Defendants do not allow Lackie Drug access to their Maximum
Allowable Cost pricing list or pricing methods. According to Lackie
Drug, the reimbursement system controlled by the PBM Defendants
often causes Lackie Drug to lose money in the sales transaction
because Lackie Drug's cost for the medication is higher than the
PBMs final reimbursement. Further, Lackie Drug alleges that PBM
Defendants use lower reimbursement rates for Lackie Drug than for
their affiliates. Lackie Drug alleges that the PBM Defendants are
conspiring with their affiliates to put Lackie Drug and other
independently owned drug stores in Arkansas out of business by
using anticompetitive and unconscionable practices.

Lackie Drug filed suit against the Defendants for violating the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Secrets Act, the Trade Practices Act, the
Unfair Trade Practices Act, and for common law conspiracy. The
Plaintiff seeks a declaration by the Court that Defendants have
violated Ark. Code Ann. Section 17-92-507.

On June 9, 2023, Defendant OptumRx Inc filed a motion to compel
arbitration which the Court denied on January 30, 2024 through an
Order entered by Judge James M. Moody.

The appellate case is captioned as Lackie Drug Store Inc. v.
OptumRx, Inc., Case No. 24-1231, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on Feb. 7, 2024.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript is due on or before March 18, 2024;

   -- Appendix is due on March 28, 2024;

   -- BRIEF APPELLANT, OptumRx, Inc. is due on March 28, 2024; and

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

Defendant-Appellant OptumRx, Inc. is represented by:

          Katherine Maddox Davis, Esq.
          GIBSON & DUNN
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036-5306
          Telephone: (202) 955-8500

               - and -

          Megan D. Hargraves, Esq.
          Graham C. Talley, Esq.
          MITCHELL & WILLIAMS
          425 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 688-8800

Plaintiff-Appellee Lackie Drug Store Inc., on behalf of itself and
Arkansas similarly situated, is represented by:

          Preston Tull Eldridge, Esq.
          ELDRIDGE LAW FIRM
          407 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 201
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 940-8510

               - and -

          Robert Clay Ellis, II, Esq.
          Philip Daniel Holland, Esq.
          Scott E. Poynter, Esq.
          POYNTER LAW GROUP
          407 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 201
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 812-3943

               - and -

          Shelby Nicole Howlett, Esq.
          Rodney Paul Moore, I, Esq.
          WRIGHT & LINDSEY
          200 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3699
          Telephone: (501) 371-0808

               - and -

          Darren O'Quinn, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DARREN O'QUINN
          36 Rahlings Circle, Suite 4
          Little Rock, AR 72223
          Telephone: (501) 817-3124

               - and -

          Sean F. Rommel, Esq.
          James Clark Wyly, Esq.
          WYLY & ROMMEL
          4004 Texas Boulevard
          Texarkana, TX 75503
          Telephone: (903) 334-8646

               - and -

          John R. Whaley, Esq.
          NEBLETT & BEARD
          P.O. Box 1190
          Alexandria, LA 71309
          Telephone: (318) 487-9874

ARPIP DELIVER: Vice Seeks Unpaid Wages & Damages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Vice, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Arpip Deliver, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00314-JMS-MKK
(S.D. Ind., February 20, 2024), accuses the Defendant of violating
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a delivery driver from
December 3, 2021 until May 19, 2023. Over the last three years,
Defendant allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated
drivers time and one-half their respective regular rates of pay for
all hours worked over 40 in each seven-day workweek. The Plaintiff
and class members seek all damages available under the FLSA.

Headquartered in South Bend, IN, Arpip operates as a delivery
service provider for Amazon. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          WAGE AND HOUR FIRM     
          5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75254
          Telephone: (214) 489-7653
          Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
          E-mail: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
                  rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com

ASHLEY FURNITURE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 31, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER FLOYD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, LLC, a foreign limited liability
company doing business as ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC.; ASHLEY
GLOBAL RETAIL, LLC, a foreign limited liability company doing
business as ASHLEY; ASHLEY PACIFIC NORTHWEST, LLC, a foreign
limited liability company, Case No. 2:23-cv-01756-BJR (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Barbara J. Rothstein, entered an order setting the
following deadlines and briefing schedule:

                    Deadline                        Date

  Joinder of Parties Deadline                  Feb. 28, 2024

  Amended Pleadings                            Mar. 11, 2024

  Deadline to complete discovery on class      Dec. 2, 2024
  certification (not to be construed as a
  bifurcation of discovery)

  Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Motion       Jan. 31, 2025
  for Class Certification

  Deadline for Defendants to file Response     Mar. 17, 2025
  to Motion for Class Certification

  Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Reply        Marc. 31, 2025
  in Support of Motion for Class
  Certification

Ashley is an American home furnishings manufacturer and retailer.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DJFUnb at no extra
charge.[CC]

ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Edwards Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Assertio Holdings
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Conrad Edwards, and others
similarly situated v. Assertio Holdings Inc., Brittany K. Bradrick,
Guggenheim Securities LLC, Jeffrey L. Vacirca, Juhyun Lim, Seth
H.Z. Fischer, Thomas J. Riga, William L. Ashton, Case No. 2024-0151
(Del. Chancery Ct., Feb. 19, 2024).

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

Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.assertiotx.com/-- is an
American specialty pharmaceutical company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ernst, Ryan M, Esq.
          BIELLI & KLAUDER LLC
          1204 N King St
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 321-5411
          Fax: (302) 397-2557
          Email: rernst@bk-legal.com


ATLANTA WOMEN'S HEALTH: Conoly Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlanta Women's
Health Group, P.C., et al. The case is styled as Christy Conoly, on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Atlanta Women's Health
Group, P.C., Case No. 24CV001873 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty., Feb.
20, 2024).

The case type is stated as "Tort/Negligence."

Atlanta Women's Healthcare Specialists -- https://awhg.org/ -- is a
group of ob/gyn physician practices providing women\'s healthcare
in metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles Hale Van Horn, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE of CHARLES S. HALE, II PLLC
          620 Cumberland Street, Suite 101
          Bristol VA, 24201
          Phone: 276-285-3310
          Fax: 276-285-3311


BABY TIME: Faces Perez Wage & Hour Suit in D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
LILIA PEREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. BABY TIME INTERNATIONAL INC., DREAMSCAPE BEDDING INNOVATIONS
INC., DREAMSCAPE SLEEP INNOVATIONS INC., and SHAUL REJWAN, Case No.
2:24-cv-00960 (D.N.J., February 20, 2024) seeks unpaid overtime
wages for Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey
Wage Payment Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt
factory worker from in or about the middle of 2020 until November
2023. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay him and
similarly situated employees overtime premiums for all the overtime
hours they worked. The Defendants allegedly have intentionally,
willfully, and repeatedly engaged in a pattern and practice of
violating labor laws, the Plaintiff added.

Baby Time manufactures and markets baby products, with its
principal place of business located in Passaic, NJ. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Harrison, Esq.
     HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOC., LTD      
     110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor
     Red Bank, NJ 07701
     Telephone: (888) 239-4410
     E-mail: dharrison@nynemploymentlaw.com

BAKKT HOLDINGS: Shareholder Suit Over Merger Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Bakkt Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q/A report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2024, that it is
facing a putative class action was filed against Bakkt Holdings,
Inc. and certain of its directors and officers prior to the VIH
Business Combination in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of certain purchasers of securities
of VIH and/or purchasers of Bakkt Class A common stock issued in
connection with the VPC Impact Acquisition Holdings merger.

Said case was filed on April 21, 2022 and seeks damages as well as
fees and costs.

On March 14, 2023, the parties reached a settlement in principle.
on April 12, 2023, the parties completed a stipulation of
settlement resolving the litigation for $3.0 million, subject to
Court approval. A motion for preliminary approval was filed with
the court on April 17, 2023. The motion remains pending.

Bakkt Is a crypto custodian, with a platform that holds crypto for
individual and institutional customers, and buys, sells, sends and
receives crypto to fulfill buy and sell orders of such customers.


BANK OF AMERICA: Class Plaintiffs Seek to File Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as trueEX LLC v. Bank Of
America Corporation et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05361-JPO (S.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order:

    (1) permitting Class Plaintiffs to file a motion for
certification
        of a Rule 23(c)(4) issue class and

    (2) granting the pending motion to preliminarily approve the
$25
        million settlement agreement between Class Plaintiffs and
        Defendant Credit Suisse.

The Court Should Permit Plaintiffs To File A Motion For
Certification Of A Rule 23(c)(4) Issue Class Pursuant to Rule
23(c)(4), the Plaintiffs seek leave to file for certification of a
class limited to
the core liability issue of whether the Defendants agreed to
boycott all-to-all anonymous ("AA2A") trading platforms in the
market for interest rate swaps ("IRS"), in violation of Section 1
of the
Sherman Act. Certifying this Rule 23(c)(4) issue class is the most
efficient path forward for this case.

The question of whether Defendants conspired -- as distinct from
issues of antitrust impact and damages -- is unquestionably common
to the approximately 8,000 members of the proposed class. It makes
no sense to hold many individual trials on that common issue.

The Class Plaintiffs allege that Defendants -- eleven of the
largest banks in the world -- conspired to boycott AA2A platform
trading of IRS. Dkt. 723 at 1. In the existing over-the-counter
("OTC") market structure, Defendants act as intermediaries for most
IRS trades, collecting "spreads" between the bid and ask prices.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3WlXSG at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

                - and -

          Robert P. Cummins, Esq.
          THE CUMMINS LAW FIRM P.C.
          161 North Clark Street, Suite 2550
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 578-0500

                - and -

          Michael Guzman, Esq.
          KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL
          & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
          1615 M St NW 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 326-7900

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Bid to Exclude O'Neal Testimony Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN WALDEN, LESLIE
WALDEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED; v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, BNY MELLON,
N.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-01972-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia
Reed Eddy entered an order denying BNY Mellon's motion to exclude
the testimony of Dr. O'Neal.

The Court said, "BNY argues that other courts have rejected Dr.
O'Neal's opinions as lacking a factual basis and based on this
alone the Court should deem his testimony inadmissible. While this
may be true, just because a court has rejected or failed to credit
an expert’s opinion as lacking factual basis in one case does not
automatically mean his opinion should be excluded in another case.
The Court sees no basis to exclude Dr. O'Neal's opinions based on
the cases cited by BNY Mellon."


This putative class action was initiated in W.D. Pennsylvania Court
on Dec. 21, 2020 by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants.

The Waldens generally assert breach of contract claims and claims
under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law ("UTPCPL") in connection with investment management
services BNY Mellon provided to the Waldens under investment
management agreements.

The Waldens seek to certify the following class:

   "All persons who, or entities that, during the period 2014 to
   present, contracted with BNY Mellon to receive investment advice

   for their investment assets and for whom BNY Mellon used its
   discretionary authority to purchase, or recommend, or otherwise

   caused, the purchase of, investment fund vehicles that were
   financially affiliated with BNY Mellon or BNY Corp. or the
deposit
   of cash into bank accounts at BNY Mellon or related banks."

Bank of New York Mellon offers investment management, investment
services, and wealth management services.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 30, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oLBA2Y
at no extra charge.[CC]
 


BARCLAYS PLC: Faces Shareholders' Class Action Over Debt Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zacks Equity Research reports that Barclays Plc BCS will face a
proposed class action by shareholders, accusing the bank of
securities fraud related to the sale of debt in excess of what was
allowed by regulators.

This means that the securities Barclays issued in previous years
were not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC").

U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla in Manhattan said
shareholders adequately alleged that Barclays' failure to disclose
internal controls failures, which led to five years of unregistered
securities sales of $17.7 billion, was an important omission of
fact. Shareholders could also proceed with claims that executives
had been careless in reassuring investors about the bank's
compliance with securities laws.

In 2022, the bank agreed to pay $361 million to resolve civil
claims by the SEC over the matter. The shareholders, who are
seeking to represent buyers of the company's American Depositary
Receipts from February 2021 to February 2023, claimed that the
matter resulted in a drop in the stock price.

In March 2022, BCS said that it expected to incur a £450-million
loss for issuing structured products in excess of what it had
registered for sale. The bank revealed that it registered with U.S.
regulators for the sale of investment products worth up to $20.8
billion in August 2019 but ended up issuing products worth $36
billion. In July, it increased the oversold amount by $2.4
billion.

BCS had offered to buy back the excess securities. On July 28,
2022, it said it had kept £1.59 billion for the over-issuance.

On Sep 15, 2022, BCS said that investors submitted claims covering
$7 billion of the securities.

Over the past year, BCS shares have gained 1.8% compared with the
8.9% rise of the industry.

Currently, BCS carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). You can see the
complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.

Malpractices by Other Firms
A class-action lawsuit has been filed by five customers against
JPMorgan JPM, claiming that the bank charged unconscionable fees
for unintentionally depositing checks that bounced.

Per the suit filed in the White Plains, New York federal court, JPM
charged customers up to $30 for a "deposited item return fee" after
checks they tried to deposit bounced for no fault of theirs.JPM's
customers called the bank's "junk fees" for returned checks
"predatory." The customers cited an October 2022 U.S. Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") bulletin that said that
indiscriminately charging such fees was likely illegal.

HSBC Holdings plc HSBC was fined £57.4 million by Bank of England
("BoE") for "serious failings" over its measures to protect
customer deposits between 2015 and 2022. The fine is the
second-biggest fine ever imposed by the regulator, which reflects
the seriousness of the failings.

BoE's Prudential Regulation Authority said that HSBC failed to
accurately identify deposits eligible for Britain's Financial
Services Compensation Scheme, which protects up to GBP85,000 in
customer bank accounts. [GN]

BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Grover Securities Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 27, 2023, that in July 2023, the
company and certain of its officers were named in a class action
complaint captioned "Grover J. Kelley et al. v. Baxter
International Inc. et al." that was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This matter
was voluntarily dismissed on December 3, 2023.

The plaintiff, who allegedly purchased securities during the
specified class period, filed this putative class action on behalf
of himself and shareholders who acquired Baxter securities on the
public market between May 25, 2022, and February 8, 2023.

The plaintiff alleges that the company and certain officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly false and misleading statements and
failing to disclose material facts relating to supply chain and
financial guidance.

Baxter International Inc. is a healthcare company based in
Illinois.


BENCHMARK 237: Hof Appeals Ruling in Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Joseph A. Hof filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled Joseph Hof and Scott Mcpherson, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BENCHMARK 237,
LLC, BENCHMARK REAL ESTATE TRUST, SLLC, CANVAS INVESTMENT PARTNERS,
LLC, CANVAS PROPERTY GROUP, LLC, JULIET TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and
FARADAY FUTURE INTELLIGENT ELECTRIC, INC., Case No. 654311/2023, in
the New York Supreme Court for New York County.

The appellate case is captioned as Joseph A. Hof et al. vs.
Benchmark 237, LLC et al., Case No. 2024-00888, in the New York
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, filed
on Feb. 11, 2024.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is
brought involving the underserved communities of New York City's
affordable housing, civil rights and the law of corporations as a
result of the Defendants harming Class Members through a variety of
schematic practices that have a discriminatory effect.

The Defendants represented themselves as incorporated, and mixed
business operations and assets contrary to elementary notions of
prudent business judgment. Instead of being open and honest with
others, Defendants used a false brand image of themselves to market
themselves in a way to induce others intentionally. In addition to
making false statements, Defendants omitted material, contrary
information to others, says the suit.

The Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of
others. The Defendants' violated New York's laws of corporations,
and notions of fair housing. The Defendants breached implied
warranties with vulnerable populations, the suit adds.

The Plaintiffs seek on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, compensatory relief, injunctive relief, interim
relief, punitive relief, and the reimbursement of attorneys' fees
and costs.[BN]

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Court Enters Scheduling Conference in Paladino
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Meghan Riley Paladino, v.
Boston Scientific Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01246-JJT
(D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge John J. Tuchi entered an order setting
Rule 16 scheduling conference:

Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed.
R. Civ. P.), a Telephonic 1 Pretrial Scheduling Conference is set
for March 28, 2024, at 9:00 AM (Arizona time), Courtroom No. 505,
Fifth Floor, Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 W. Washington
Street, Phoenix, Arizona. Counsel -- which includes
self-represented parties -- are directed to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 for
the objectives of this conference.

All parties are directed to meet at least 21 days before the
Pretrial Scheduling Conference, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(f), to discuss each of the following matters:

  1. The possibility of consent to trial before a United States
     Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(c), or the
use
     of any alternative dispute resolution mechanism, or the
referral
     of this matter to a special master;

   2. Any matters relating to jurisdiction, venue, or joinder of
      additional parties;

   3. The nature and bases of their claims and defenses and the
      possibilities for prompt settlement or resolution of the
case;
      and

   4. A schedule of all pretrial proceedings, including any
      evidentiary hearings pursuant to Rule 702 of the Federal
      Rules of Evidence (Fed. R. Evid.).

Boston Scientific is a biomedical/biotechnology engineering firm
and multinational manufacturer of medical devices used in
interventional medical specialties.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OsKs2j at no extra
charge.[CC]

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Final Hearing on Settlement Set for April 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
annual period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2024, that the final
approval hearing for the proposed settlement in the Jevons class
suit is set for April 23, 2024.

On December 4, 2020, Enrique Jevons, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
against the Company, Michael F. Mahoney and Daniel J. Brennan,
stemming from the recall and retirement of the LOTUS Edge Aortic
Valve System (LOTUS System) in United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.

On December 14, 2020, the parties agreed to transfer the case to
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.


On December 16, 2020, Mariano Errichiello, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a second, materially
similar class action complaint against the Company, Michael F.
Mahoney, Joseph M. Fitzgerald, and Daniel J. Brennan in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Subsequently, on March 30, 2021, the Court consolidated the two
actions, and appointed Union Asset Management Holding AG as the
lead plaintiff.

The plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in June 2021 that seeks
unspecified compensatory damages in favor of the alleged class as
well as unspecified equitable relief.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss in July 2021, which, in
December 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part.

On October 23, 2023, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with the lead plaintiff to settle the case.

The settlement in principle is subject to approval of the Court.

The Court granted the motion for preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement on December 27, 2023, and scheduled a final
approval hearing for April 23, 2024.

Boston Scientific is a biomedical/biotechnology engineering firm
and multinational manufacturer of medical devices used in
interventional medical specialties.[CC]




BOTTOM'S UP: April 19 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA McKENZIE, and all
others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), v. BOTTOM'S UP
BEVERAGE OF FLORIDA, LLC, and JULIANN PETTICREW, Case No.
2:23-cv-14403-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order allowing her up to and including April 19, 2024, to
file for Class Certification:

The Plaintiff filed her class action Complaint on Dec. 16, 2023,
and effected service on the Defendants on Dec. 18, 2023.

The Defendants filed their Answer and Affirmative Defenses on
January 9, 2024.

The Defendants responses to the Plaintiff's initial discovery
requests are not due until Feb. 14, 2024.

The Plaintiff is in the process of coordinating Defendants 30(b)(6)
deposition at a date shortly after Defendants discovery responses
are due.

On Jan. 23, 2024, the Court entered its Scheduling Order.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ifs3LI at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Dennis Card Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
          721 US Highway 1, Suite 201
          North Palm Beach, FL 33408
          Telephone: (561) 822-3446
          Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
          E-mail: dennis@cloorg.com

BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Ettinger Bid to Extend Class Cert Deadline OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ETTINGER v. BOZZUTO
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-03687 (D.D.C., Filed Dec. 11,
2023), the Hon. Judge James E. Boasberg entered an order granting
the Plaintiff's motion to extend:

The class-certification motion is not due until further Order of
the Court.

The nature of suit states Constitutionality of State Statutes.

Bozzuto is a real estate developer that serves the Arlington, VA
area and specializes in Earthwork.[CC]

BRAD LITTLE: Corning Complaint Fails to State Claim, Court Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SETH CORNING, v. BRAD
LITTLE; IDAHO BOARD OF CORRECTION; GOVERNING MEMBER; JOSH TEWALT;
RANDY VALLEY; TIMOTHY McKAY; JIM LAU; VERNON GREENLAND; and STATE
OF IDAHO, Case No. 1:23-cv-00457-DCN (D. Idaho), the Hon. Judge
David C. Nye entered an order that the Complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.

The Plaintiff has 28 days within which to file a second amended
complaint. Alternatively, the Plaintiff may file a Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal if Plaintiff no longer intends to pursue this
case.

If Plaintiff does not file a timely second amended complaint, this
case may be dismissed with prejudice and without further notice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, failure
to prosecute, or failure to comply with a Court order.

The Plaintiff's request for class certification (contained in the
amended complaint) is denied.

The Clerk of Court conditionally filed Plaintiff Seth Corning's
Complaint as a result of Plaintiff's status as an inmate and in
forma pauperis request

The Plaintiff is a prisoner in the custody of the Idaho Department
of Correction, currently incarcerated at the Idaho State
Correctional Center.

The Plaintiff alleges that, in an effort to contain the COVID-19
pandemic and in response to understaffing, prison officials
undertook various actions that allegedly violated prisoners’
rights to religious exercise.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WtHspa at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert Bid in Hale Extended to April 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA HALE and JESUS
GOMEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
and the general public, v. BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation; BRINKER INTERNATIONAL PAYROLL COMPANY, L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership; BRINKER RESTAURANT CORPORATION, a
Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive Case No.
3:21-cv-09978-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered
an order extending time for the Plaintiffs to file motion for class

certification and continuing related dates as modifed:

         Deadline/Hearing             Current       Modified
                                      Date          Date

  Plaintiffs' Motion for Class    Feb. 7, 2024    Apr. 1, 2024
  Certification

  Defendants' Opposition          Mar. 6, 2024    May 1, 2024

  Plaintiffs' Reply               Mar. 27, 2024   May 22, 2024

  Hearing on Motion for           Apr. 25, 2024   Jun. 6, 2024
  Class Certification             at 10:00 a.m.   at 10:00 a.m.

Brinker is an American multinational hospitality industry company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HQd9EI at no extra
charge.[CC]

BUFFALO WILD WINGS: Machuca Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Machuca, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated v. BUFFALO WILD WINGS, INC., a Minnesota
Corporation; BWW RESOURCES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company; INSPIRE BRANDS, INC., a Georgia Corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV01590 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., Jan. 19, 2024), is brought pursuant to California
Code of Civil Procedure challenging Defendants' systemic illegal
employment practices resulting in violations of California Labor
Code; California Business and Professions Code ("Unfair Competition
Law"); and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Order.

The Defendants have maintained policies and practices across its
locations which have failed and continue to fail to pay Plaintiff
and other non-exempt employees all wages, as well as overtime wages
earned. Further, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and other
non exempt employees with compliant meal breaks, as the result of,
inter alia, frequently interruptions or ongoing work duties.
Additionally, Defendants failed to provide compliant rest breaks;
or any rest breaks whatsoever. No premiums were paid in lieu of the
non-compliant rest breaks.

In light of the foregoing, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff
and other non-exempt employees with compliant wage statements.
Moreover, Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff and other
non-exempt employees for business expenses, such as, for example,
use of their personal cell phones for work-related purposes.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that
Defendants have engaged in, among other things a system of willful
violations of the Labor Code and the applicable IWC wage orders by
creating and maintaining policies, practices and customs that
knowingly deny employees the above stated rights and benefits, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff works as a Server at Defendants' Buffalo Wild Wings
restaurant in Cerritos, California.

The Defendants have operated in California as proprietors and/or
operators of restaurant(s) known as Buffalo Wild Wings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Lirit A. King, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP
          31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Phone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                 kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                 lking@bradleygrombacher.com


CANADA:  ArriveCAN App Violates Canadians' Rights, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron D'Andrea reports at globalnews.ca that a proposed
class-action lawsuit is seeking damages as it alleges the
controversial ArriveCAN app was a violation of Canadians' rights.

Consumer Law Group of Canada filed a proposed class-action lawsuit
in Federal Court on Feb. 16 against the Attorney General of
Canada.

It centres around the "wrongful quarantine" of Quebec residents E.
Sabbag and D. Rossner, and claims the attorney general is liable
for the acts and omissions of its "servants/agents" - including the
Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), the Public Health Agency of
Canada (PHAC) and Public Services and Procurement Canada, which
were responsible for the contracting, development and
implementation of ArriveCAN.

On May 18, 2022, Sabbag and Rossner allege they were unable to
access ArriveCAN - a tool launched in April 2020 as a way to manage
travel during the COVID-19 pandemic - on their devices before
returning to the land border after an overnight stay in Lake
Placid, N.Y., the statement of claim reads.

When they arrived at the Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, Que., border
stop, they explained the situation to the border agent.

"However, because they were not able to submit the requirement
documentation by electronic means, they were instructed to
quarantine. The plaintiffs attempted to show the border agent their
proof of vaccination to no avail," the statement of claim reads.

"The plaintiffs called the border and spoke to a ‘manager' who
informed them that there's nothing they can do as they have been
instructed to send all persons that fail to show their ArriveCAN
information directly into quarantine without exception."

It went on to say Sabbag and Rossner called PHAC and were told they
had to wait for the results of self-administered COVID-19 tests
before being allowed out of quarantine.

Sabbag had to wait a week for his results to arrive, while Rossner
got his results in three to four days.

Given the time they spent in quarantine, the statement of claim
alleges Rossner and Sabbag suffered damages that included
cancelling scheduled events and obstruction to daily life.

"Both plaintiffs had to reorganize their lives as they would have
seen friends and family, gone outdoors, gone grocery shopping, and
generally had a life outside of their quarantine residence during
the period during which they were subjected to a wrongful
quarantine," it reads.

"In addition, they have suffered pain and suffering, stress,
trouble and inconvenience, anxiety, lost hours making phone calls
and dealing with the issues relating to the alleviation of the
wrongful quarantine, and loss of enjoyment of life."

The statement of claim goes on to list other instances where
Canadians allegedly ran into issues with ArriveCAN.

"Many people have had many issues with the ArriveCAN app, including
inability to load, inability to submit the required information,
submission failure codes, or wrongly receiving robocalls to
quarantine," it reads.

The proposed class action is open to all persons who travelled to
Canada between Nov. 21, 2020 and Oct. 1, 2022, and either used or
attempted to use ArriveCAN and who believe they were wrongly
instructed to isolate and monitor for COVID-19 symptoms, despite
being otherwise quarantine exempt where they submitted or attempted
to submit the required documentation to CBSA.

The statement adds that the attorney general's alleged negligence
violated the plaintiff and class's Charter rights to life and
liberty, and against arbitrary detention or imprisonment.

It did not state a dollar value it is seeking, rather stating that
would be determined.

The CBSA did not return Global News' comment request by publication
time. The attorney general has a month to respond to the
class-action application. Ten additional days are available upon
request.

The statement also cites the auditor general of Canada's Feb. 12
report into ArriveCAN, which found the government agencies behind
ArriveCAN "repeatedly failed" to follow best practices in its
development.

The auditor general was tasked on Nov. 2, 2022, with looking into
ArriveCAN, which ultimately proved to be a controversial tool
fraught with technical setbacks.

There was also the issue of price: an early estimate for the app's
preliminary development put the cost at just $80,000 — but the
total price tag has since soared to more than $54 million.

Auditor General Karen Hogan's Feb. 12 report singled out the CBSA,
whose "documentation, financial records, and controls were so poor
that we were unable to determine the precise cost" of ArriveCAN.

Hogan's office estimated ArriveCAN actually cost $59.5 million. It
found that 18 per cent of invoices submitted by contractors that it
tested did not provide enough information to determine whether
expenses related to ArriveCAN or another IT project, making it
"impossible to accurately attribute costs to projects."

Hogan told MPs it's possible ArriveCAN could've cost less than her
office estimated, but it's hard to determine because the
bookkeeping, she said, was the "worst" she's seen in years.

The CBSA had to rely on external resources for ArriveCAN as it
didn't have the resources to create and maintain it, therefore
driving up the cost, the report said.


The auditor general estimated the average per diem cost for
ArriveCAN external resources was $1,090, whereas the average daily
cost for equivalent IT positions in the government of Canada was
$675.

The report added that the CBSA's "disregard for policies, controls,
and transparency in the contracting process restricted
opportunities for competition and undermined value for money."

ArriveCAN "was an effective and necessary tool to collect mandatory
health information while facilitating travel and trade," the
agencies responsible for ArriveCAN said in a Feb. 12 news release.

"Beyond the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the app remains
available for travellers who want to make their customs
declarations in advance and save time at the border.

"Despite these circumstances, we recognize that the gaps found by
the auditor general are unacceptable and we are taking steps to
ensure all government departments are better positioned to
undertake projects of this nature in the future."[GN]

CAPITAL INFUSION: Cardenas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Infusion LLC.
The case is styled as Erica Cardenas, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Capital Infusion LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-20647-CMA (S.D. Fla., Feb. 20, 2024).

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

Capital Infusion -- https://www.capital-infusion.com/ -- provides
asset-based lending, lines of credit, business team loans,
equipment, and invoice financing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          31 Samana Drive
          Miami, FL 33133
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

               - and -

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


CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL: Pitts Files Suit in S.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Financial
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Shantell Pitts,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One, N.A., Case No.
3:24-cv-00047-MJN-CHG (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 19, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Capital One Financial Corporation -- https://www.capitalone.com/ --
is an American bank holding company specializing in credit cards,
auto loans, banking, and savings accounts, headquartered in McLean,
Virginia with operations primarily in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


CAPITAL ONE: Faces Sim Suit Over Deceptive "360 Savings" Account
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAY SIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION and
CAPITAL ONE, N.A. Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01222-GW-JC (C.D.
Cal., Feb. 14, 2024) is a proposed class action on behalf of
California consumers seeking monetary damages, restitution, and
equitable relief from Defendant Capital One's promises,
misrepresentations, and omissions concerning the interest rate paid
on its online "360 Savings" account, and its deceptive and bad
faith conduct with respect to setting that rate.

According to the complaint, Capital One has advertised the 360
Savings account to California consumers as a "high interest"
account with "great rate" savings, since its introduction in 2013.
Then, around September 2019, Capital One abruptly and without
notice stopped offering the 360 Savings account to new customers
and, instead, began offering a new, virtually identical account
with a highly similar name, the "360 Performance Savings" account,
which it advertised as a "high yield" online savings account and,
from its launch to the present, offered a significantly higher
interest rate than the 360 Savings account. Everything about the
two accounts, including the name, were essentially identical,
except for the stark difference in interest rates Capital One paid
on each account: At the time of its launch, the 360 Performance
Savings account paid a 1.90% interest rate while the 360 Savings
account paid 1.00% interest rate.

Capital One's failure to notify 360 Savings accountholders of the
higher interest rate that is available to them through the
identical 360 Performance Savings account was deliberate. Capital
One strategically and deliberately attempted to conceal this new,
higher-interest account from the 360 Savings accountholders for its
own financial gain, beginning with the highly similar name for the
new account. As long as the 360 Savings accountholders maintained
their deposits in that account, Capital One would be paying less in
interest than if they simply transferred to 360 Performance Savings
account, asserts the suit.

The Plaintiff has been a 360 Savings accountholder since about
2005. He still holds a 360 Savings account as of the filing of this
complaint.

Capital One Financial Corporation provides commercial banking
services with its headquarters and principal place of business in
McLean, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIEL GOLD PLLC
          15th Street NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783   
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielgold.com 1100

               - and -

          Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL GOLD PLLC
          950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com  

               - and -

          Chris Gold, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.  
          20900 NE 30th Ave.
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (786) 673-2405
          E-mail: chris@edelsberglaw.com

CAREMARK PHC: Bid to Dismiss Sogbuyi-Whitney Complaint Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CECILA SOGBUYI-WHITNEY and
ALIZA WHITESIDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CAREMARK PHC LLC, CVS HEALTH SOLUTIONS LLC, CORAM
ALTERNATE SITE SERVICES INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00055-MSM-LDA
(D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge Mary S. McElroy entered an order denying
the defendant's motion to dismiss.

Ms. Whiteside and Ms. Sogbuyi-Whitney allege that non-South-Asian
QAs were repeatedly, over the course of their time working for CVS,
subject to discrimination on account of their protected
characteristics, including by being routinely excluded from
meetings in which work opportunities were presented, and that the
defendants' discriminatory conduct culminated in their termination
between
May and June 2022.

Because Ms. Whiteside and Ms. Sogbuyi-Whitney allege a continuing
violation, the Court will not at this stage limit them to
recovering damages only for conduct occurring on or after January
6, 2022.

The plaintiffs, Cecilia Sogbuyi-Whitney and Aliza Whiteside, filed
this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, alleging that they were terminated or otherwise
discriminated against on account of their race, color, national
origin, or gender and seek relief pursuant to Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The named plaintiffs, Ms. Sogbuyi-Whitney and Ms. Whiteside were
Quality Assurance Consultants ("QAs") employed by Gardner Resources
Consulting, a staffing agency for IT and Life Sciences companies.

Caremark was founded in 1994. The Company's line of business
includes the practice of general and specialized medicine and
surgery for various licensed practitioners.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 29, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aE92GQ
at no extra charge.[CC]

CARIB INC: Faces Lopez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
HUGO LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
CARIB INC. d/b/a BISTRO 38, and ABBAI TAGHA VITALAB, Case No.
1:24-cv-01237 (S.D.N.Y., February 20, 2024) accuses the Defendants
of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt cook and
food preparer for Defendants' restaurants from October 2022 until
on or about January 6, 2024. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
failed to pay him proper overtime compensation, with work performed
above 40 hours per week not paid at the statutory rate of time and
one-half as required by state and federal law.

The Plaintiff was also not provided with proper and accurate wage
statements identifying his actual hours worked, gross wages,
deductions, and net wages. Defendants knowingly and willfully
committed such actions which are in violation of the FLSA and the
NYLL, the lawsuit claims.

Carib Inc. owns and operates "Bistro 38", an American-style
restaurant located at 28 West 38th Street, New York NY 10018. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Justin Cileni, Esq.
        Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
        CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC     
        60 East 42nd Street- 40th Floor
        New York, NY 10165
        Telephone: (212) 209-3933
        Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
        E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com

CDL LAST: Delivery Drivers Can Bring Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Alex Ebert, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a group of at
least 100 New Jersey CDL Last Mile Solutions delivery drivers can
bring a class action complaint against the logistics company
because a state court on Feb. 26 refused to use New York's
business-favoring arbitration law.

New York City-based CDL seemed to have contract terms on its side:
binding deals with all of the drivers in a New Jersey warehouse
classified those workers as independent contractors; key provisions
required disputes be arbitrated; and class actions were banned.
That would be a strong defense applying New York law, but the state
court opted to apply New Jersey's more stringent standard. [GN]


CEDAR FAIR: Walker Seeks Leave to File Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONEVA WALKER, et al., v.
CEDAR FAIR, L.P., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02176-JGC (N.D. Ohio),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for
leave to file motion for class Certification and Exhibits
Designated as confidential under seal.

Cedar is a publicly traded master limited partnership headquartered
at its Cedar Point amusement park in Sandusky, Ohio.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qL5Od0 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
          60 South Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Telephone: (440) 352-3391
          Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
          E-mail: nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
                - and -

          Jonas Jacobson, Esq.
          Simon Franzini, Esq.
          DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
          201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 656-7066
          Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
          E-mail: jonas@dovel.com
                 simon@dovel.com

                - and -

          Richard M. Kerger, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Conklin, Esq.
          THE KERGER LAW FIRM, LLC
          4159 N. Holland-Sylvania Rd. Suite 101
          Toledo, OH 43623
          Telephone: (419) 255-5990
          Facsimile: (419) 255-5997
          E-mail: rkerger@kergerlaw.com
                  kconklin@kergerlaw.com

CEDAR FAIR: Walker Suit Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONEVA WALKER, JONATHAN
BROWN, HOLLY POTEAT, KELLY SHEPPERSON, MANDI STEWART, NOELANI MORI,
and SHANE FOSHIA, each individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. CEDAR FAIR, L.P., and CEDAR FAIR MANAGEMENT,
INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02176-JGC (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order granting motion for class
certification.

Cedar Fair owns thirteen amusement parks. The Plaintiffs and of
others bought 2020 season passes to the parks. All passes offered
unlimited visits to consumers' park of choice throughout the 2020
season.

But due to the pandemic, Cedar Fair could provide only a fraction
of the 2020 season (or no 2020 season at all). Cedar Fair then
refused refunds and kept all the money that passholders paid for a
2020 season it could not provide. The Plaintiffs and the proposed
classes seek proportionate refunds.

The Plaintiffs move to certify two classes:

   1. Ohio Consumer Protection Class

      This class asserts an Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act
claim.
      This claim alleges that Cedar Fair's ads misled reasonable
      consumers to believe that, if Cedar Fair could not provide
the
      promised 2020 season, passholders would receive proportionate

      refunds.

   2. Equitable Claims Class

      This class asserts unjust enrichment and money had and
received
      claims, on behalf of passholders to parks that never opened
in
      2020.

      The claims allege that it was unjust for Cedar Fair to take
the
      money that passholders paid for 2020 passes, but provide no
      bargained-for consideration in return.

Cedar Fair owns and operates thirteen amusement parks in the United
States and Canada.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 1, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vTuab7 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonas Jacobson, Esq.
          Simon Franzini, Esq.
          DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
          201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 656-7066
          Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
          E-mail: jonas@dovel.com
                  simon@dovel.com

                - and -

          Richard M. Kerger, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Conklin, Esq.
          THE KERGER LAW FIRM, LLC
          4159 N. Holland-Sylvania Rd. Suite 101
          Toledo, OH 43623
          Telephone: (419) 255-5990
          Facsimile: (419) 255-5997
          E-mail: rkerger@kergerlaw.com
                  kconklin@kergerlaw.com

                - and -

          Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
          60 South Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Telephone: (440) 352-3391
          Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
          E-mail: nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com

CEVA LOGISTICS: Espinoza Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Freddy Espinoza, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. CEVA LOGISTICS U.S., INC., a Delaware
corporation; CEVA FREIGHT, LLC, a Delaware corporation; CEVA
FREIGHT MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
24-CIV-00257 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of San Mateo, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 20, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01022.

On January 12, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a civil action against
Defendants which asserted the following causes of action: failure
to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure
to pay hourly and overtime wages; failure to indemnify; failure to
provide accurate written wage statements; failure to timely pay all
final wages; and unfair competition.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Conor J. Dale, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          50 California Street, 9th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
          Phone (415) 394-9400
          Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
          Email: conor.dale@jacksonlewis.com


CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Seeks Leave to File Supplement for Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY REUSCHEL, as
Executrix of the Estate of LOUISE MCGRAW, deceased; LORETTA
HOLCOMB, as Executrix of the Estate of CHARLOTTE RODGERS, deceased;
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CHANCELLOR
SENIOR MANAGEMENT, LTD., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279 (S.D.W. Va.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for
leave to file a supplement to its motion for evidentiary hearing on
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Chancellor is a dynamic company that develops, owns, and operates
properties that provide seniors with housing and health care
options.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 1, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RhkOGW at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          W. Michael Frazier, Esq.
          FRAZIER & OXLEY, L.C.
          Huntington, WV 25727
          Telephone: (304) 697-4370

                - and -

          Dan W. Goldfine, Esq.
          Claire E. F. Eichmann, Esq.
          Adam T. Walton, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT, LLP
          1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 285-5000

                - and -

          Avrum Levicoff, Esq.
          Robert L. Hogan, Esq.
          THE LEVICOFF LAW FIRM, P.C.
          4 PPG Place, Suite 200
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 434-5200


CHARLES RIVER: Continues to Defend Putative Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles River Laboratories International disclosed in its Form 10-K
Report for the annual period ending December 31, 2023 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2024, that
the company continues to defend itself from the putative securities
class suit in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

A putative securities class action was filed on May 19, 2023
against the Company and a number of its current/former officers in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.


On August 31, 2023, the court appointed the State Teachers
Retirement System of Ohio as lead plaintiff.

An amended complaint was filed on November 14, 2023 that, among
other things, included only James Foster, the Chief Executive
Officer and David R. Smith, the former Chief Financial Officer as
defendants along with the Company.

The amended complaint asserts claims under §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) on behalf of
a putative class of purchasers of Company securities from May 5,
2020 through February 21, 2023, alleging that certain of the
Company’s disclosures about its practices with respect to the
importation of non-human primates made during the putative class
period were materially false or misleading.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss.

While the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter, it
believes the class action to be without merit and plans to
vigorously defend against it.

The Company cannot reasonably estimate the maximum potential
exposure or the range of possible loss in association with this
matter.

Headquartered in Wilmington, MA, Charles River is a full-service,
non-clinical global drug development partner with a mission to
create healthier lives. The company shares trade on the New York
Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "CRL." [BN]

CHEGG INC: Continues to Defend Keller Class Suit in N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chegg Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period
ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 20, 2024, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the Keller class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

On November 9, 2022, Plaintiff Joshua Keller, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (Case No. 22-cv-06986) on behalf of
individuals whose data was allegedly impacted by past data
breaches.

On August 15, 2023, the Company received an order granting its
motion to compel arbitration, and the case will be stayed and
administratively closed pending the conclusion of arbitration.

The Company disputes these claims and intends to vigorously defend
itself in this matter.

Chegg, Inc. is a provider of online research tools, tutoring
services, textbook rentals and other educational resources.[BN]


CHEGG INC: Continues to Defend Leventhal Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chegg Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period
ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 20, 2024, that the Company continues to
defend itself from Leventhal securities fraud class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On December 22, 2021, Steven Leventhal, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, filed a purported securities
fraud class action on behalf of all purchasers of Chegg common
stock between May 5, 2020 and November 1, 2021, inclusive, against
Chegg and certain of its current and former officers in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case
No. 5:21-cv-09953), alleging that Chegg and several of its officers
made materially false and misleading statements in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On September 7, 2022, KBC Asset Management and The Pompano Beach
Police & Firefighters Retirement System were appointed as lead
plaintiff in the case.

On December 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and expenses,
including counsel and expert fees.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the case, which is
pending before the Court. The Company disputes these claims and
intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Chegg, Inc. is a provider of online research tools, tutoring
services, textbook rentals and other educational resources.[BN]



CHEGG INC: Continues to Defend Stansell Class Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chegg Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period
ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 20, 2024, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the Stansell class suit in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware.

On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff Brian Stansell, individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated stockholders of Chegg, filed a
putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware (Case No. 2023-0180) on behalf of all Chegg
stockholders who were eligible to vote at Chegg's 2022 Annual
Stockholders' Meeting, asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims
against the members of Chegg's Board.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the case, which is
pending before the Court.

The Company disputes these claims and intends to vigorously defend
itself in this matter.

Chegg, Inc. is a provider of online research tools, tutoring
services, textbook rentals and other educational resources.[BN]





CHICO'S FAS: Mejia Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Marlin Mejia, an individual, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. CHICO'S
FAS, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 23CV003799 was removed from the Superior Court of California
for the County of Monterey, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Feb. 20, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 5:24-cv-01007-SVK.

The Complaint purports to bring eight class-wide claims against
Defendant stemming from Plaintiff's employment with Defendant.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges causes of action for: unfair
business practices; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay
overtime wages; failure to provide required meal periods; failure
to provide required rest periods; failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements; failure to reimburse employees for
required expenses; and failure to pay sick wages. The Complaint
contains no specific allegation as to the amount of damages
alleged.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Melinda S Riechert, Esq.
          Julia C Riechert, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          1000 Marsh Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
          Phone: +1 650 614 7400
          Facsimile: +1 650 614 7401
          Email: mriechert@orrick.com
                 jriechert@orrick.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Terry Sues Over Unlawful Gift Card Refund Policy
------------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY BARTON TERRY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Case No.
8:24-cv-00354 (C.D. Cal., February 20, 2024), accuses the Defendant
of violating the California Unfair Competition Law and the
Wisconsin Consumer Act.

The Plaintiff brings this class action over Defendant's refusal to
refund purchases made with gift cards. Defendant operates a
nationwide chain of "fast casual" restaurants and offers gift cards
which it sells directly to customers in its restaurants and through
its website, and via third-party vendors. Plaintiff purchased a
Chipotle gift card via a third-party vendor and used it alongside
her credit card to place an order through Chipotle's website.

When the order was delivered, Plaintiff noticed a number of missing
items and immediately contacted Chipotle's customer service to
request a refund. Plaintiff received a refund for the portion of
the order which was paid via credit card but she was told that
purchases made with gift cards could not be refunded. Plaintiff was
instead offered three meal vouchers subject to certain limitations
that effectively render them worthless.

The Defendant's gift card refund policy is allegedly unlawful,
unfair, and deceptive, and Plaintiff is seeking damages and other
relief arising from Defendant's alleged violations, the suit
asserts.

Chipotle is an American chain of fast casual restaurants with its
principal place of business located in Newport Beach, CA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Alex R. Straus, Esq.
        MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC     
        280 S. Beverly Drive, PH Suite
        Beverly Hills, CA 90212
        Telephone: (866) 252-0878
        Facsimile: (615) 921-6501

                - and –
     
        Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
        ADEMI LLC
        3620 East Layton Avenue
        Cudahy, WI 53110
        Telephone: (414) 482-8000
        Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
        E-mail: bslatky@ademilaw.com

CIGNA HEALTH: Court OK's Stipulated Bid to Seal Exhibits in RJ Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RJ, et al., v. CIGNA
HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
5:20-cv-02255-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila
entered an order granting stipulated administrative motion to
seal.

On Dec. 27, 2023, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs’ request to file under seal
certain exhibits to their moving and reply papers filed in support
of their motion for class certification.

Specifically, the Court denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
request to seal in their entirety Exhibits 3, 5, 8–10, 15–18,
22,
and 30 to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, as well as
Exhibits 2, 3, and 9–13 to the Plaintiffs' reply in support of
its motion for class certification.

Subsequently, the Plaintiffs and Defendants each filed a motion to
seal related to the Motion Exhibits and Reply Exhibits.

On Jan. 22, 2024, the Court issued an order granting the sealing
requests with respect to Motion Exhibits 8–10, 16, 18, and 22 and
Reply Exhibits 2, 3, 11, and 12, and denying without prejudice the
sealing requests with respect to Motion Exhibits 3, 5, 15, 17, and
30 and Reply Exhibits 9, 10, and 13.

Cigna offers life and health insurance services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=34wpPb at no extra
charge.[CC]

CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Bid to Dismiss Stadium Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Arun Subramanian of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled STADIUM CAPITAL
LLC, Plaintiff v. CO-DIAGNOSTICS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-06978-AS (S.D.N.Y.).

Defendant Co-Diagnostics makes tests to diagnose diseases. When the
COVID-19 pandemic hit, its business skyrocketed. After $215,000 in
revenue in 2019, it made $74.5 million in 2020 and $97.9 million in
2021. From the second quarter of 2020 through the first quarter of
2022, it made at least $20 million per quarter. Then came the
falloff. For the second quarter of 2022, Co-Diagnostics reported
revenue of just $5 million.

Shortly after those earnings were reported in August 2022,
Plaintiff Stadium Capital brought this putative class action for
securities fraud. The class period runs from May 12, 2022, to Aug.
11, 2022. The complaint says Co-Diagnostics, its CEO Dwight Egan,
and its CFO Brian Brown (also Defendants) made false or misleading
statements in May and June 2022, violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC Rule
10b-5(b). Stadium points to several statements from a May 12 press
release, an earnings call that same day, Co-Diagnostics'
first-quarter 2022 10-Q also filed the same day, and a June 15
presentation to investors.

Co-Diagnostics also filed a request for full context review and/or
judicial notice. It asks the Court to consider 13 documents outside
the complaint. Although Co-Diagnostics frames this issue as a clash
between substantive securities law and the federal rules, Judge
Subramanian notes that all these documents fall into the categories
just described: SEC filings, publicly available documents used for
the fact that statements were made, and documents incorporated by
reference or integral to the complaint. So, the Court can consider
them for certain limited purposes, but they ultimately make little
difference.

The Court finds that some of Co-Diagnostics' statements were
misleading. Judge Subramanian holds that Stadium plausibly alleges
that by May 12, it was clear that something was up (or down,
rather) with demand. It was misleading to describe the situation as
"fluctuations" or to disclose the company's difficulty in
forecasting near-term demand without disclosing that demand was
already declining rapidly, Judge Subramanian points out.

The Court also finds that the statements do not fall under the safe
harbor for forward-looking statements. At the threshold, Judge
Subramanian says some of Co-Diagnostics' statements are simply not
forward-looking. Judge Subramanian adds, among other things, that
Stadium has also plausibly alleged a Section 10(b) claim based on
an Item 303 violation.

Judge Subramanian holds that Stadium has pleaded a strong inference
of scienter. To establish a strong inference of scienter, Stadium
must allege facts showing (1) that the Defendants had the motive
and opportunity to commit fraud, or (2) strong circumstantial
evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness. If no motive or
opportunity (other than a generalized business motive) is shown,
the circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior must be
correspondingly greater and show highly unreasonable behavior or
that which evinces an extreme departure from the standards of
ordinary care.

Stadium has gone the reckless route. It says Brown and Egan had
knowledge or access to facts contradicting their statements.
Stadium alleges that Brown and Egan had full access to the
Company's books and records, and it points to statements Egan made
before and after the class period. Stadium infers that Egan and
Brown either knew that demand had fallen by May 12 or at least had
access to that information.

Bolstering its inference is the so-called core-operations doctrine,
Judge Subramanian notes. Though the sweep of that doctrine is
contested, it simply reflects the commonsense assumption that
executives are likely to know more about things central to their
business. Here, Brown and Egan were likely to know whether demand
had fallen substantially for the product that accounted for more
than 99% of the company's revenue.

Judge Subramanian also opines, among other things, that the
complaint alleges a strong inference of scienter with respect to
the Item 303 violation. To the extent that Brown and Egan monitored
demand and federal funding accounted for a substantial chunk of it,
Stadium says the effects of the end of federal funding were already
obvious by May 2022. So the allegations give rise to a strong
inference that expiration of federal funding was a "known" trend
under Item 303 and that its omission was at least reckless under
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA").

Finally, in one sentence in its brief, Co-Diagnostics asserts that
Stadium's Section 20(a) claim fails because the complaint fails to
allege any facts showing Brown or Egan "controlled"
Co-Diagnostics.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Judge Subramanian holds that Stadium
adequately pleaded that the CEO and CFO of the company had
the power to direct the management and policies of that company.
Stadium says Brown and Egan (1) had direct and supervisory
involvement in the day-to-day operations of the Company and (2)
were provided with the statements at issue here and had the ability
to prevent the issuance of the statements or cause the statements
to be corrected. Those allegations are enough, Judge Subramanian
points out.

For these reasons, Judge Subramanian rules that the motion to
dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is
granted with respect to Stadium's claims based on paragraphs 47,
51, 53, and 54 of the complaint. The motion is denied with respect
Stadium's claims based on paragraphs 44, 45, 46, and 50. The Clerk
of Court is directed to terminate Dkt. 32.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Feb. 5, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/3r3mhft6from
PacerMonitor.com.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Ross Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dennis Ross, Angela Schuh, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Community Health
Systems, Inc. CHSPSC, LLC, Wilkes-Barre Hospital Company, LLC doing
business as: Commonwealth Health, Moses Taylor Hospital, Regional
Hospital of Scranton, Scranton Hospital Company, LLC, Wilkes-Barre
General Hospital, Case No. 3:23-cv-02128 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Feb.
20, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-20651 to the
proceeding.

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

Community Health Systems -- https://www.chs.net/ -- is one of the
nation's leading healthcare providers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael S. Friedman, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1350
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (267) 319-7802
          Fax: (215) 399-2249
          Email: michael.friedman@jacksonlewis.com


CONTAINER STORE: Parties in Hayes Labor Row OK's Mediation
----------------------------------------------------------
The Container Store Group disclosed in its Form 10-K report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2024,
that the company was named as a defendant in a putative class
action and representative action was filed on February 10, 2020 in
Santa Clara Superior Court by Rashon Hayes, a former, hourly-paid
employee who was employed from April 2019 to June 2019.

The First Amended Complaint was filed on August 3, 2020 and claims
unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period
premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid, wages
not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage statements,
failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed business
expenses, violation of California Business and Professions Code
section 17200, and violation of the California Private Attorneys
General Act.

The lawsuit seeks restitution of unpaid wages for plaintiff and
other class members, pre-judgement interest, appointment of class
administrator, and attorney's fees and costs. The parties are
currently engaged in the discovery process and have agreed to
participate in a mediation on February 21, 2024.

The Container Store Group, Inc. is a holding company, of which a
majority stake was purchased by Leonard Green and Pa that operates
a specialty retail chain company that operates "The Container
Store," which offers storage and organization products, and custom
closets.


CORECIVIC INC: Continues to Defend ICE Detainee Labor Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CoreCivic Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual
period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 20, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from ICE Detainee Labor class suit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.
.
On May 31, 2017, two former ICE detainees, who were detained at the
Company's Otay Mesa Detention Center ("OMDC") in San Diego,
California, filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.

The complaint alleged that the Company forces detainees to perform
labor under threat of punishment in violation of state and federal
anti-trafficking laws and that OMDC's Voluntary Work Program
("VWP") violates state labor laws including state minimum wage law.


ICE requires that CoreCivic offer and operate the VWP in
conformance with ICE standards and ICE prescribes the minimum rate
of pay for VWP participants.

The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, exemplary damages,
restitution, penalties, and interest as well as declaratory and
injunctive relief on behalf of former and current detainees.

On April 1, 2020, the district court certified a nationwide
anti-trafficking claims class of former and current detainees who
participated in an ICE VWP at a CoreCivic facility.

It also certified a state law class of former and current detainees
who participated in a VWP wherever the Company held ICE detainees
in California.

The court did not certify any claims for injunctive or declaratory
relief.

On March 10, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted
CoreCivic's petition to appeal the class certification ruling.

On June 3, 2022, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed
the class certification ruling.

Following the three-judge panel affirmance, the Company petitioned
the Ninth Circuit for a discretionary appellate review, which was
denied.

On January 3, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court granted the Company's
motion to stay its mandate during the pendency of the Company's
petition for Supreme Court review.

On June 12, 2023, the Supreme Court dismissed the Company's
petition.

The claims resulting in certified classes will now proceed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.

CoreCivic is a private corrections and detention-management company
with whom various governmental entities have contracted to operate
correctional facilities.



COSTAR GROUP: Faces Portillo Suit Over Involvement in Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------------
JEANETTE PORTILLO, ALICIA COAKLEY, FREDDY BARAJAS, HERIBERTO
VALIENTE, DAVID CONCEPCION, DANIEL KASSL, and DANIEL SMITH,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CoSTAR GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; STR, INC., a Delaware
corporation, HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS INC., a Delaware
corporation, HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, LOEWS
HOTELS HOLDING CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, and ACCOR MANAGEMENT
US INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00229 (W.D.
Wash., February 20, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the
Sherman Act.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and
all persons who rented rooms in the Luxury Hotel Metropolitan
Markets from a Defendant or co-conspirator from February 21, 2020
through the present. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in
the luxury hotel industry have an ongoing "information exchange"
agreement that allows them to set hotel room prices higher than
they would have been.

The accused luxury hotel operators allegedly share detailed
information about their prices, supply, and future plans through an
intermediary, Smith Travel Research, which is owned by Defendant
CoStar Group. The accused hotel operators operate the vast majority
of luxury hotels in the major cities across the U.S. Plaintiffs
claim the information-sharing enables conspirator hotel operators
to engage in price fixing which violates the Sherman Act, says the
suit.

Headquartered in Washington, DC, CoStar provides industry-leading
data benchmarking and analytics services to the hospitality
industry. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     Theodore Wojcik
     Xiaoyi Fan
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP     
     1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Telephone: (206) 623-7292
     Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
     E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
             tedw@hbsslaw.com
             kellyf@hbsslaw.com

             - and –
     
     Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300
     Berkeley, CA 94710
     Telephone: (510) 725-3000
     Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
     E-mail: riop@hbsslaw.com

CRACKER BARREL: Court Stays Harrington Suit Pending Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andrew Harrington, et al.,
v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Incorporated, Case No.
2:21-cv-00940-DJH (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Diane J. Humetewa
entered an order granting in part and denying in part Cracker
Barrel's "Motion for Clarification, or, in the Alternative,
Reconsideration."

The Court further ordered that:

  -- The collective class of potential plaintiffs is conditionally

     certified under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and shall consist of
all
     current and former Cracker Barrel servers who (a) worked for
     Cracker Barrel from September 6, 2019, to the present in
states
     where Cracker Barrel pays its employees under the 29 U.S.C.
     section 203(m) tip credit scheme.

  -- The remainder of the March 31, 2023, Order is otherwise
affirmed.

  -- The Plaintiffs' request for equitable tolling is construed as
a
     motion and is granted. The three-year statute of limitations
on
     the putative collective's FLSA claims shall be tolled from
Sept.
     6, 2022—the date Plaintiffs' meritorious certification
motion
     became ripe for review—until the date on which notice is
sent to
     disseminated to the putative collective.

  -- the Cracker Barrel's "Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal"
is
     granted in part and denied in part. Cracker Barrel may seek
     appeal under 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b) of the March 31, 2023,

     Order regarding arbitration and specific personal jurisdiction
in
     FLSA collective actions.

  -- Cracker Barrel's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Notice of
     Supplemental Authority is granted.

  -- Cracker Barrel's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal is

     granted.

Cracker is an American chain of restaurant and gift stores.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yFqPXL at no extra
charge.[CC]

CVS HEALTH: Faces Allison Securities Suits Over SEC Disclosures
---------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 7, 2024, that in January 2022, a
shareholder class action complaint was filed in the Northern
District of Illinois captioned "Allison v. Oak Street Health, Inc.,
et al."

Defendants include Oak Street Health and certain of its
pre-acquisition officers and directors. The putative plaintiffs
assert causes of action under various securities laws premised on
allegations that defendants made omissions and misrepresentations
to investors relating to marketing conduct they allege may violate
the False Claims Act.

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries is a leading
health solutions company with more than 9,000 retail locations,
more than 1,000 walk-in medical clinics, 204 primary care medical
clinics, a leading pharmacy benefits manager with approximately 108
million plan members and expanding specialty pharmacy solutions,
and a dedicated senior pharmacy care business serving more than one
million patients per year.


CVS HEALTH: Faces Multiple Consolidated Securities Suits Over LTC
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 7, 2024, that beginning in February
2019, multiple class action complaints, as well as a derivative
complaint, were filed by putative plaintiffs against the company
and certain current and former officers and directors.

The plaintiffs in these cases assert a variety of causes of action
under federal securities laws that are premised on allegations that
the defendants made certain omissions and misrepresentations
relating to the performance of the company's long-term care
pharmacy (LTC) business unit. Since filing, several of the cases
have been consolidated, and two have resolved, including the
first-filed federal case, City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police
Officers' Retirement Trust, et al. (formerly known as Anarkat), the
dismissal of which the First Circuit affirmed in August 2022.

The company and its current and former officers and directors are
defending themselves against remaining claims. The company has
moved to dismiss the amended complaint in "In re CVS Health Corp.
Securities Act Litigation (formerly known as Waterford)." In "In re
CVS Health Corp. Securities Litigation (formerly known as City of
Warren and Freundlich)," the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss in February 2023 and the plaintiffs have filed a notice of
appeal.

CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries is a leading
health solutions company with more than 9,000 retail locations,
more than 1,000 walk-in medical clinics, 204 primary care medical
clinics, a leading pharmacy benefits manager with approximately 108
million plan members and expanding specialty pharmacy solutions,
and a dedicated senior pharmacy care business serving more than one
million patients per year.


DCB DELANCEY: Schweitzer Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH SCHWEITZER, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. KRISTIN M. VINCENT, DCB DELANCEY CORP., and
DCB ELMWOOD, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01081 (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 14, 2024) 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, for approximately the last five months
of his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff Schweitzer was not
paid any wages for his services despite repeated promises by
Defendant Vincent that he would be made whole. The Defendants
refused to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
the wages they are owed in large part because Defendant Vincent
borrowed $900,000 from the Company in connection with a potential
hotel acquisition unrelated to the business of the Company. The
Plaintiff complained of Defendants' failure to pay him his wages,
and he objected to Ms. Vincent's unfair conduct and her refusal to
disclose said conduct to the Company's investors. As a result,
Defendants terminated Mr. Schweitzer's employment, alleges the
suit.

Plaintiff Schweitzer became an employee of DCB Delancey on March
16, 2020 and he became an employee of DCB Elmwood on January 2,
2021. His title was Senior Manager and his duties included, without
limitation, overseeing the general manager, managing vendor
relationships, getting liquor licenses renewed, tracking revenue
and sales, investigating customer complaints, and software
implementation.

DCB Delancey Corp. operates the Manhattan, New York location of Sel
Rrose, an oyster bar and restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yale Pollack, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C.
          66 Split Rock Road
          Syosset, NY 11791
          Telephone: (516) 634-6340
          E-mail: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com

DELTA AIRLINES: Limited Discovery in Haley Suit Closes April 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patrick Haley and Randal
Reep, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
Delta Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01076-SEG (N.D. Ga.), the
Hon. Judge Sarah E. Geraghty entered an order setting the following
deadlines for Limited Discovery and Supplemental Briefing:

        Event                               Deadline

  Limited Discovery Reopens               Jan. 26, 2024

  Limited Discovery Closes                April 18, 2024

  Defendant's Supplemental Brief Due      May 9, 2024

  Plaintiffs' & Best's Supplemental       May 30, 2024
  Brief Due

Delta offers airline tickets & flights to over 300 destinations in
60 countries.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dit9Gj at no extra
charge.[CC]

DELTA STAR: Hearing on Class Cert. in Wilson Set for Sept. 19
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Max Wilson, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, v. Delta Star, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive; Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Laurel Berrer entered an order extending the Plaintiff's
motion to file his motion for class certification:

-- Updated joint case-management-conference            Oct. 3,
2024
    Statement:

-- Further case-management conference:                 Oct. 10,
2024

-- Hearing on class-certification:                     Sept. 19,
2024

-- Non-expert discovery completion date:               Feb. 17,
2025

-- Expert disclosures required by                      March 17,
2024
    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

-- Rebuttal Expert disclosures:                        April 17,
2024

Delta manufactures medium-power transformers, mobile transformers,
and mobile substations.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8Aetvu at no extra
charge.[CC]

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS: Court Dismisses Hurley Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL HURLEY, v.
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No.
8:23-cv-00327-MSS-NHA (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mary S. Scriven
entered an order dismissing Hurley's amended complaint as barred by
res judicata and for failure to state a claim.

-- Because a more carefully drafted complaint could not state a
    claim, Hurley is not granted leave to amend. All pending
motions
    are denied as moot. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

The only claim that Hurley could not have raised in the first,
second, and third federal civil rights cases is his challenge to 28
U.S.C. section 1915(g), the PRLA's three "strikes" provision.

Hurley, a state prisoner, sues the United States, the State of
Florida, and the Secretary for the Florida Department of
Corrections for federal civil rights violations.

In his amended complaint, Hurley alleges that a state prosecutor in
Hillsborough County, Florida, charged him with six crimes, the
trial court granted the defense motion to sever several counts, the
trial court appointed new counsel to represent Hurley in the new
case with the severed counts, new counsel moved for a continuance,
and Hurley objected.

Hurley alleges that he is a member of a class defined as:

   "all persons who, now, or in the future will be incarcerated as

   inmates in a facility run by the Florida Department of
Corrections
   [and] who have legal needs and no means by which to purchase
legal
   assistance or advice."

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uhwihu at no extra
charge.[CC]

DIGITAL TURBINE: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Digital Turbine, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 8, 2023, that on July 19, 2023, the Western
District Court of Texas granted the company's motion to dismiss
consolidated case captioned "In re Digital Turbine, Inc. Securities
Litigation" (Case No. 1:22-cv-00550-DAE). The plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on August 23, 2023, the company filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint on September 22, 2023, and briefing
on the motion to dismiss is complete as of November 13, 2023.

On June 6, 2022 and July 21, 2022, stockholders of the company
filed class action complaints against the company and certain of
its officers in the Western District of Texas related to Digital
Turbine, Inc.’s announcement in May 2022 that it would restate
some of its financial results. The claims allege violations of
certain federal securities laws.

Digital Turbine, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is an independent
mobile growth platform that levels up the landscape for
advertisers, publishers, carriers, and device original equipment
manufacturers that offers end-to-end products and solutions
leveraging proprietary technology to all participants in the mobile
application ecosystem, enabling brand discovery and advertising,
user acquisition and engagement, and operational efficiency for
advertisers.


DOLLAR TREE INC: Garland Suit Transferred to D. Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dominick Garland, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Dollar Tree Inc. doing business
as: Dollar Tree, Zeroed-In Technologies, LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-01208 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland on Feb. 20, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00506-BAH to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- https://www.dollartree.com/ -- is an American
multi-price-point chain of discount variety stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sharon J. Zinns
          ZINNS LAW, LLC
          4243 Dunwoody Club Drive, Suite 104
          Atlanta, GA 30350
          Phone: (404)882-9002
          Email: sharon@zinnslaw.com

               - and -

          Maureen M. Brady MO #57800
          Lucy McShane MO #57957
          MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC
          1656 Washington Street, Suite
          120 Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 888-8010
          Facsimile: (816) 332-6295
          Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
                 lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com

               - and -

          John A. Love
          Love Consumer Law
          2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330
          Alpharetta, GA 30009
          Phone: 404.855.3600
          Fax: 404.301.2300
          Email: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com


DONG BANG: Lee Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YU JUNG LEE, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DONG BANG
CORPORATION, MI JA KIM, JOO HEE KIM and SANG KYU KIM, Case No.
2:22-cv-01336-MEF-ESK (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying class.

Dong Bang was founded in 1977. The company's line of business
includes manufacturing fluid power cylinders and actuators.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CfevzK at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          Ryan Kim, Esq.
          RYAN KIM LAW, P.C.
          222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490
          Fort Lee, NJ 07024
          Telephone: (718) 573-1111
          E-mail: ryan@ryankimlaw.com

DRIVE NEW JERSEY: Bid to Seal Class Cert. OK'd in Petri Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETRI, et al., v. DRIVE
NEW JERSEY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. (D.N.J., Filed Dec.
15, 2021), the Hon. Judge Christine P. O'Hearn entered an order
granting joint motion to seal the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.

Drive New Jersey offers property and casualty insurance
products.[CC]

DUNN-EDWARDS: De La Rosa Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Brian De La Rosa, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. DUNN-EDWARDS CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV01540
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 19, 2024), is brought for
California Labor Code violations, unfair business practices, and
civil penalties stemming from Defendants' failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize
and permit rest periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to
timely pay wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements,
failure to maintain accurate time and payroll records, failure to
reimburse necessary business-related expenses, and failure to pay
accrued but unused vacation time.

The Defendants were subject to the Labor Code of the State of
California and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Orders.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that
Defendants engaged in an ongoing and systematic scheme of wage
abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees. This
scheme involved, inter alia, regularly requiring Plaintiff and the
Class to work off the clock without compensation, thereby failing
to pay them for all hours worked, including minimum and overtime
wages. Defendants also implemented time rounding practices that
resulted in the systematic underpayment of wages to Plaintiff and
the Class, including minimum and overtime wages. Defendants also
implemented policies that prohibited Plaintiff and the Class from
accurately recording the actual time worked, resulting in a failure
to pay Plaintiff and the Class all wages owed. In addition,
Defendants routinely failed to 1 permit Plaintiff and the Class to
take timely 1 and duty-free meal periods and rest periods in
violation of California law. Defendants also failed to reimburse
Plaintiff and the Class for all necessary business-related
expenses, and failed to pay wages owed for accrued vacation time
upon termination of employment, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a Sales
Associate, Senior Color Tech and Customer Service Lead from August
2016 to June 2023.

The Defendants are a manufacturer, distributor and retailer of
paints and painting supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Luke Clapp, Esq.
          Arnel Tan, Esq.
          Rodrigo Luna, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP
          237 California Street
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Phone: (424) 290-3095
          Facsimile: (866) 264-7880
          Email: luke@protectionlawgroup.com
                 arnel@protectionlawgroup.com
                 rodrigo@protectionlawgroup.com


EAGLE DISPOSAL: Bousquet's Conditional Cert Bid Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF BOUSQUET, v. EAGLE
DISPOSAL, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00504-WED (E.D. Wis.), the Hon.
Judge William E. Duffin entered an order granting in part
Bousquet's motion for conditional certification.

  -- It is granted with respect to "all drivers and mechanics who
     received a bonus from Eagle Disposal on or after October 3,
2020,
     three years before the date Plaintiffs are filing this motion
for
     conditional certification" and denied in all other respects.

  -- That within 21 days of the date of this order Bousquet shall
     submit an amended proposed notice that is consistent with this

     decision.

The court having concluded that conditional certification is not
appropriate as to:

"all drivers who worked for Eagle Disposal on or after July 1, 2022
who turned on their trucks at an earlier time than when they began
to be paid for the day," the proposed notice must be amended to
omit any reference to that proposed collective.

Eagle also argues that "the 'Description of the Lawsuit' section
goes beyond what is necessary to inform the class and should be
more narrowly tailored."

Jeff Bousquet drove a garbage truck for Eagle Disposal, Inc. He
alleges that he and his coworkers were not paid for time they spent
inspecting their trucks before punching in.

He asks the court to certify two collectives:

   (1) All drivers who worked for Eagle Disposal on or after July
1,
       2022 who turned on their trucks at an earlier time than when

       they began to be paid for the day; and

   (2) all drivers and mechanics who received a bonus from Eagle
       Disposal on or after October 3, 2020, three years before the

       date Plaintiffs are filing this motion for conditional
       certification.

Eagle Disposal specializes in recycling construction & demolition
waste, cardboard, wood and metal.

A copy of the Court's decision and order dated Jan. 29, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=apax8o
at no extra charge.[CC]

EDDIE BAUER: Parties Must Comply with M.D. Florida's Local Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AISHIA PETERSEN, v. EDDIE
BAUER, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00207-GAP-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Gregory A. Presnell entered an order directing the parties to
read and comply with the Middle District of Florida's Local Rules.


The parties are directed to consult Local Rule 3.02 to determine
whether this action requires a case management conference and case
management report (CMR), or if it falls under one of the exceptions
listed in Local Rule 3.02(d). If a CMR is required, utilization of
the attached CMR form is mandatory. The CMR must be filed (1)
within forty days after any defendant appears in an action
originating in this court, (2) within forty days after the
docketing of an action removed or transferred to this court, or (3)
within 70 days after service on the United States attorney in an
action against the United States, its agencies or employees. Judges
may have a special CMR form for certain types of cases listed in
Local Rule 3.02(d).

Eddie Bauer is an American clothing store chain.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nt6nVe at no extra
charge.[CC]


ELIGO ENERGY: Brous Files Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eligo Energy, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Ira Brous, Michelle Schuster, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Eligo Energy,
LLC, Eligo Energy NY, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01260-ER (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 20, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Eligo Energy -- https://www.eligoenergy.com/ -- is a retailer of
electricity. It provides an online platform that employs
proprietary technology to generate an instant quote.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Esq.
          Erin Kelley, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          One North Broadway, Suite 900
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 298-3290
          Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
                 ekelley@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          J. Burkett McInturff
          WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC
          18 Half Mile Road
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Phone: (910) 476-7253
          Email: jbm@wittelslaw.com


ELITE BUILDER SERVICE: Faces Sanchez Labor Suit in California Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Ventures Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-K report for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 23, 2023, that on July 27,
2022, Irma Sanchez, a former employee of Live Ventures' subsidiary,
Elite Builder Services, Inc., filed a class action complaint
against Elite Builders in the Superior Court of California, County
of Alameda.

The complaint alleges that Elite Builders failed to pay all minimum
and overtime wages, failed to provide lawful meal periods and rest
breaks, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and
failed to pay all wages due upon separation as required by
California law. The complaint was later amended as a matter of
right on October 4, 2022. Further, Ms. Sanchez has put the Labor &
Workforce Development Agency on notice to exhaust administrative
remedies and enable her to bring an additional claim under the
California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, which permits
an employee to assert a claim for violations of certain California
Labor Code provisions on behalf of all aggrieved employees to
recover statutory penalties.

The court has set this for a Case Management Conference on
September 30, 2024 after the parties have had a chance to exchange
discovery regarding the claims.

Live Ventures Incorporated is a diversified holding company with a
strategic focus on value-oriented acquisitions of domestic
middle-market companies. On January 18, 2023, Live Ventures
acquired 100% of the issued and outstanding equity interests of
Elite Builder Services, Inc. a retailer/installer of floors,
carpets, and countertops to consumers, builders and contractors in
California and Nevada.


ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: Kwoka Files Appeal in Mamadou FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kyle Kwoka, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Memorandum and Order January 17, 2024 entered in the
lawsuit styled MAMADOU ALPHA BAH, Plaintiff v. ENTERPRISE
RENT-A-CAR COMPANY OF BOSTON, LLC, and ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-12542-MLW, in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

Plaintiff Bah was an assistant branch manager for ERAC Boston. He
has brought individual and collective claims against the Defendant
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the
Massachusetts Overtime Law. Bah alleges that defendants violated
the FLSA and the Massachusetts Overtime Law by failing to pay
overtime to assistant branch managers before November 27, 2016.

Bah sought to establish two classes:

   -- a class of Massachusetts assistant branch managers seeking
relief from defendants under the Massachusetts Overtime Law (the
"Massachusetts Class"), and

   -- a class of national assistant branch managers seeking relief
from defendants under the FLSA (the "National Class").

The court dismissed plaintiff's original Complaint without
prejudice because it did not contain distinct allegations
concerning ERAC Boston and EHI, instead referring to the companies
jointly as "Enterprise," and because it did not address the First
Circuit's requirements for alleging that Bah had an employment
relationship with EHI.

On Jan. 17, 2024, the Hon. Judge Wolf entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiff's motion for the entry of separate and final
judgment under Rule 54(b) is allowed;

   2. The denial of plaintiff's request for equitable tolling and
decertification of the conditionally certified National Class shall
be entered as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b); and

   3. The Plaintiff's request, in the alternative, for the entry of
an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b) is
denied as moot.

The appellate case is captioned as Kwoka, et al. v. Enterprise
Rent-A-Car Company of Boston, LLC, et al., Case No. 24-1126, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on Feb.
9, 2024.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appearance form, Docketing Statement, and Transcript
Report/Order form were due on February 23, 2024.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants KYLE KWOKA, as representative of the opt-in
plaintiffs for addressing the issues now on appeal, et al., are
represented by:

          Thomas P. Fowler, Esq.
          Shannon Erika Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC
          729 Boylston St. Ste 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800

Defendants-Appellees ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY OF BOSTON, LLC,
et al., are represented by:

          Joshua Seth Lipshutz, Esq.
          Jason C. Schwartz, Esq.
          Ryan C. Stewart, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Ave, NW
          Washington, DC 20036-5306
          Telephone: (202) 955-8217

               - and -

          Hillary J. Massey, Esq.
          Barry J. Miller, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2 Seaport Ln, Ste 1200
          Boston, MA 02210-2028
          Telephone: (617) 946-4800

ENTERTAINMENT 2851: Court OK's Evans' Proposed Notice
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAWN EVANS, et al., v.
ENTERTAINMENT 2851 LLC., et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-00498-WFJ-SPF
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge William F. Jung entered a conditional
certification order.

   1. Plaintiffs' proposed notice and consent forms are approved.

   2. On or before Feb. 6, 2024, the Defendants shall produce to
      Plaintiffs' counsel a list of the exotic dancers who have
worked
      for Defendants' adult entertainment business at any point
during
      the period of Jan. 30, 2019, to the date of this Order.

      The list shall include the dancers' full names, known
aliases,
      last-known mailing addresses, telephone numbers, email
      addresses, work locations, copies of driver's license, and
dates
      of performing at Defendants' establishment.

      The Defendants shall conspicuously post the notice and
consent
      forms on their website, Instagram account, and Facebook Page,

      and at the business establishments in the exotic dancers'
      dressing room(s) and on the door(s) where the dancers
typically
      enter and leave the establishment.

   3. Counsel for Plaintiffs may contact the listed exotic dancers
via
      email, text message, and U.S. Mail using these court-approved

      forms.

   4. The Plaintiffs may mail, email, or text one (1) reminder to
      any exotic dancers who have not yet opted in within 45 days
of
      the first notice mailing. No other recruitment, solicitation,
or
      contact is permitted.

   5. The opt-in deadline is 60 days from the date of this Order,
and
      any consent forms from exotic dancers who desire to opt-in as

      additional plaintiffs in this case shall be filed by that
date.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9tFsgu at no extra
charge.[CC]

ENVIGO RMS HOLDING: To Settle Greenwell Labor Suit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Inotiv, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 7, 2024, that its subsidiary,
Envigo RMS Holding Corp. is a defendant in a purported class action
and a related action under California's Private Attorney General
Act of 2004 (PAGA) brought by Jacob Greenwell, a former non-exempt
employee of Envigo RMS, on June 25, 2021 in the Superior Court of
California, Alameda County.

On June 2, 2023, Envigo RMS and the plaintiff signed a Memorandum
of Understanding that sets forth the parties' intent to settle
these matters for $795 which includes attorneys' fees. The MOU
provides that the parties will negotiate and enter into a
definitive settlement agreement, which will be subject to court
approval.

The complaints allege that Envigo RMS violated certain wage and
hour requirements under the California Labor Code. PAGA authorizes
private attorneys to bring claims on behalf of the State of
California and aggrieved employees for violations of California's
wage and hour laws. The class action complaint seeks certification
of a class of similarly situated employees and the award of actual,
consequential and incidental losses and damages for the alleged
violations. The PAGA complaint seeks civil penalties pursuant to
the California Labor Code and attorney's fees.

Inotiv, Inc. and its subsidiaries comprise a contract research
organization dedicated to providing nonclinical and analytical drug
discovery and development services to the pharmaceutical and
medical device industries and selling a range of research-quality
animals and diets to the same industries as well as academia and
government clients.


FAIRYTALE BROWNIES: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fairytale Brownies,
Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Fairytale Brownies, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-01248 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2024).

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

Fairytale Brownies -- http://www.brownies.com/-- is a bakery that
specializes in gourmet brownies, cookies, and blondies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FEDEX GROUND: Bid to Intervene and Amend Martinez Complaint OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Mexico grants the motion to intervene and amend
complaint in the lawsuit styled FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ and SHAWNEE
BARRETT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01052-SCY-LF (D.N.M.).

After denial of the motion for class certification, 16 putative
class members seek to intervene as plaintiffs in this case
(hereinafter "Intervenors"). The Intervenors explain that they,
like current Plaintiffs Fernandez Martinez and Shawnee Barrett, are
"current or former New Mexico FedEx delivery drivers who were paid
the same amount of money regardless of how many hours they worked
in a day, resulting in no premium payment for overtime hours worked
in violation of the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act" ("MWA").

As such, the Intervenors say they were putative members of the
proposed class who reasonably could have relied on the original
named plaintiffs to advance their individual MWA claims until the
Court's order denying certification. The Defendant opposes the
motion, arguing that the legal standard for intervention is not met
and that the addition of new parties at this stage would be
prejudicial.

The Court finds that the Intervenors meet the legal standard for
permissive intervention. The Intervenors' claims involve questions
of law or fact in common with the existing Plaintiffs' claims.
Further, it is more efficient and not unduly prejudicial to resolve
their claims in the context of the current case. Accordingly, the
Court grants the Motion to Intervene and Amend Complaint.

At the outset, the Court notes that the Intervenors make three
different arguments in support of their motion: (1) the Supreme
Court has ruled that intervention is appropriate as a right for
putative class members after a class action motion is denied; (2)
the Intervenors satisfy the standard for mandatory intervention;
and (3) the Intervenors satisfy the standard for permissive
intervention.

Because intervention is appropriate under the permissive
intervention standard, the Court does not consider Intervenors'
first two arguments.

In this case, the Intervenors have a claim that shares with the
main action a common question of law or fact. According to the
proposed amended complaint, the Intervenors and current Plaintiffs
worked as delivery drivers in New Mexico for "independent service
providers" ("ISPs") to deliver packages on behalf of the Defendant.
The Plaintiffs and Intervenors allege that, despite working in
excess of 40 hours a week, they did not receive premium overtime
pay as the MWA requires.

The Defendant's first line of defense is that, even if this
allegation is true, the Defendant did not employ these drivers and
is therefore not liable under the MWA for unpaid overtime.

The Court agrees that adding plaintiffs to this matter will cause
some delay. But the relevant question is whether these intervenors
should bring their claim against the Defendant in this action or in
multiple actions, Judge Yarbrough explains. Filing separate actions
would cause more delay compared to adding plaintiffs to the current
action, as much of the discovery and procedural history of this
case would have to be duplicated in the other action.

As the Court observed when ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion to add
a second plaintiff to this case, avoiding separately filed but
nearly identical lawsuits promotes efficiency for a variety of
reasons, including include conservation of limited judicial
resources.

Finally, Judge Yarbrough also finds that the Defendant identifies
no ascertainable prejudice as a result of the delay. The Defendant
will have to conduct the discovery it identifies regardless of
whether it happens in this case or in separate cases. It is true
that the addition of parties will likely delay trial, but the
Defendant does not identify any concrete prejudice this will cause,
such as loss of evidence.

The Defendant has an interest in resolving the claims against it in
a timely and efficient manner, but when viewed cumulatively,
multiple lawsuits are more time consuming and less efficient than
adding the Intervenors to this existing case, Judge Yarbrough
opines. The Defendant further argues that the delay will prejudice
not only it but also the "current named Plaintiffs, who now have
been waiting more than three years for their claims to be heard."

The Defendant, however, lacks standing to make this prejudice
argument on behalf of parties whose interests it not only does not
represent but, in fact, to whose interest it is opposed, Judge
Yarbrough points out. The Court finds the standard for permissive
intervention is satisfied.

Accordingly, the Court grants the Motion to Intervene and Amend
Complaint. The Plaintiffs will file their second amended complaint
separately on the docket within 21 days of the date of this Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Feb. 5, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/4tpmtp3tfrom
PacerMonitor.com.


FELICIA PITRE: Mitchel Files Suit in N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Felicia Pitre, et al.
The case is styled as Eric V. Mitchel, Vessel-By: Eric- Von
Russell: Mitchel, 'Beneficiary and Executor' Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly Situated v. Felicia Pitre, In her
official capacity as Dallas County District Clerk and all others
associates; Texas Attorney General Child Support Division; Case No.
4:24-cv-00149-O-BP (N.D. Tex., Feb. 14, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract - Reduction in Grade.

Felicia Pitre was elected Dallas County District Clerk on November
6, 2014 and was sworn in on January 1, 2015.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


FINGER MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Martinez
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS JOSE MARTNEZ,
individually and on behalf of himself all other persons similarly
situated, v. FINGER MANAGEMENT CORP., et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-05901-JPO-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine H.
Parker entered a class certification scheduling order.

The parties shall file a joint letter to provide the Court with an
update on the progress of discovery, outline any disputes to be
addressed at the March 4, 2024, conference, and a proposed briefing
schedule for any motion for conditional class certification.

Finger Management is leading full-service property management
firm.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oCIfgC at no extra
charge.[CC]

FIRST NATIONAL: Waraich Sues Over Universal Bankers' Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
HUSSAN WARAICH, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LONG ISLAND, Case No.
1:24-cv-01269 (E.D.N.Y., February 20, 2024) accuses the Defendant
of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid universal
banker from on or around January 2, 2021 to on or around July 4,
2022. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to properly pay
him and similarly situated employees at least one and one-half
times the regular rate of all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek.
   
First National Bank of Long Island is among the largest community
banks in the U.S., with corporate headquarters at 275 Broad Hollow
Road Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
       Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
       SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC     
       9 Tanner Street, Suite 101
       Haddonfield, NJ 08033
       Telephone: (856) 685-7420
       Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
       E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
               mmiller@swartz-legal.com

FLINT, MI: Harris Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Flint. The
case is styled as Kerensz Harris, individually, and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. City of Flint, by and through the FLINT
CITY COUNCIL, Case No. 4:24-cv-10417-JJCG-APP (E.D. Mich., Feb. 20,
2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Flint -- https://www.cityofflint.com/ -- is the largest city and
seat of Genesee County, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence A. Katz, Esq.
          THE LENTO LAW GROUP
          3000 Atrium Way, Ste. Suite 200
          Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
          Phone: (856) 652-2000
          Fax: (856) 375-1010
          Email: lakatz@lentolawgroup.com


FORTRA LLC: Anderson Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Valerie Anderson, Robert Taylor, Alauntae Butts,
Brett Yonally, Edward Hubler, Muhammed Zahid, Tara Hartzel
Vancosky, Marquese York, Iraida Gonzalez, Linda Caudill,
individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. Fortra
LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-00533 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 16, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-20625 to the
proceeding.

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

Fortra -- https://www.fortra.com/ -- is a cybersecurity
company.[BN]

FOUNT SOCIETY: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fount Society, LLC.
The case is styled as Paradise Morgan, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Fount
Society, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01166 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2024).

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

Fount Society -- https://fountsociety.com/ -- offers luxury
skincare and delivering products free from harmful toxins.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



FOX FACTORY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on April 22
-------------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your Fox Factory Holding Corp.
(NASDAQ:FOXF) investment and want to learn about a potential
recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below
for more information:

https://zlk.com/pslra-1/fox-factory-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=68203&wire=1

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team
of experienced shareholder advocates.

THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against
Fox Factory Holding Corp. that seeks to recover losses of
shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities
fraud between May 6, 2021 and November 2, 2023.

CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint, defendants made
misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's
business, financial condition, and prospects, particularly with
regard to demand for Fox Factory's products and inventory levels.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that on November 2, 2023, after
the markets closed, Fox Factory filed a Form 8-K with the SEC,
reporting that its net sales for the third quarter of fiscal year
2023 decreased 19.1% year-over-year due to "higher levels of
inventory across various channels." In addition, Fox Factory cut
its full-year sales guidance from between $1.67B and $1.70B to
between $1.45B and $1.47B, citing continued inventory destocking in
its Specialty Sports Group segment. On this news, the price of Fox
Factory's common stock declined $22.60, or 37.34%, to close at
$60.53 per share on November 3, 2023.

WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Fox Factory stock during the
relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/fox-factory-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=68203&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing
investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70
employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi &
Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top
50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the
United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://zlk.com/ [GN]

FOX FACTORY: Marselis Seeks Damages for Securities Law Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN MARSELIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FOX FACTORY HOLDING CORP., MICHAEL C. DENNISON, DENNIS
C. SCHEMM, BRENDAN R. ENICK, MAGGIE E. TORRES, and SCOTT R.
HUMPHREY, Case No. 1:24-cv-00747 (N.D. Ga., February 20, 2024)
seeks damages over Defendants' alleged violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff brings this federal securities class action on behalf
of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise
acquired Fox Factory common stock between May 6, 2021 and November
2, 2023, inclusive. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made
misleading statements and omissions concerning Fox Factory's
business, financial condition, and prospects. In particular,
Defendants misled the market regarding demand for Fox Factory's
products and inventory levels, causing significant losses and
damages to him and class members, says the Plaintiff.

Headquartered in Duluth, GA, Fox Factory engineers, manufactures,
and markets high-performance suspension products for numerous
applications throughout the world. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James M. Evangelista, Esq.
     EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC     
     10 Glenlake Parkway South Tower, Suite 130
     Atlanta, GA 30328
     Telephone: (404) 205-8400

          - and –
     
     Thomas L. Laughlin, Esq.
     Jonathan Zimmerman, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
     The Helmsley Building
     230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
     New York, NY 10169
     Telephone: (212) 233-6444
     Facsimile: (212) 233-6334
     E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
             jzimmerman@scott-scott.com

             - and –
     
     Brian J. Schall, Esq.
     THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
     2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 301-3335
     Facsimile: (310) 388-0192
     E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com

FREMANTLE TELEVISION: Facing Jury Trial in Labor Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
yahoo.com reports that showrunners recently received a class action
complaint from their workers, claiming the production has violated
several labor codes. Their grievances included failure to pay wages
and overworking team members without adequate rest and
compensation.

In legal documents obtained by The Blast, Wallaine Sarao filed the
lawsuit for herself and other workers in similar situations at the
Superior Court of California County.

She dropped ten severe complaints against Fremantle Television
production company, Entertainment Partners Enterprise, and The
Price Is Right Productions, Inc.

As stated, the class action lawsuit accused the game show's
production heads of violating several labor codes. The complaints
claimed the parties had failed to pay their wages, including
minimum and overtime wages.

The failure to timely create accurate itemized wage statements,
maintain accurate records, and timely pay wages during employment
violated labor code sections 226(a), 210, and 204 per the document.
Excluding the withheld salaries, showrunners were also accused of
terrible working conditions.

Sarao noted the production companies failed to provide their
workers with meal and rest periods. They allegedly did not
reimburse business expenses or pay sick leave, and they also
violated business and professional codes.

It is unclear what the defendant is asking for in damages; however,
she demanded a jury trial. The class action complaint against "The
Price Is Right" production heads comes at the heels of the game
show's installment in Chicago.

Chicago fans of "The Price is Right" will soon have the opportunity
to experience a live version of the show in March. NBC Chicago
shared the exciting news, revealing the interactive TV program
titled "The Price Is Right - Live Stage Show" will make a splash at
the Chicago Theater.

The new show will give audience members "the chance to play the
world's longest-running game show live on stage!" Like the famous
program's setting, contestants will be selected from the crowd and
given a chance to win fabulous prizes like appliances, vacations,
and even new cars.

The contestants will play classic games from the hit TV show,
including Cliffhanger and the Big Wheel. The Chicago version will
be hosted by "The Price is Right" star Todd Newton and two
performances are scheduled for March 2, with tickets starting at
$45.

Chicago fans were implored to join the upcoming event, with the
show's description promising gifts for lucky audience members. The
statement read: "And don't worry if you're not picked because
everyone in the audience is still in for a shot at some prizes,
with random names being drawn out of the hat throughout the show."

The newest installment, "The Price is Right," continues to be the
longest-running game show on TV. The premise requires contestants
to bid as close to the actual retail price of the merchandise
without going over, giving them a chance to win cash and selected
prizes. [GN]

FS-PRECISION TECH: Ivanez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Ivanez, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FS-PRECISION TECH. CO., LLC, a California limited
liability company and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV01062 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 16, 2024), is
brought as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay overtime
wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal
periods; failure to provide rest periods; waiting time penalties;
wage statement violations; failure to timely pay wages; failure to
indemnify; failure to pay interest on deposits; in violation of the
Labor Code; and unfair competition.

The Defendants have, at times, failed to pay overtime wages to
Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, in violation of
California state wage and hour laws as a result of, without
limitation, Plaintiff and Class Members working over 8 hours per
day, 40 hours per week, and seven consecutive work days in a work
week without being properly compensated for hours worked in excess
of 8 hours per day in a work day, 40 hours per week in a work week
and/or hours worked on the seventh consecutive work day in a work
week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to,
cleaning machine parts and cutting metal.

FS Precision is a limited liability company organized and existing
under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
          Felipe Gomez, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 438-5555
          Fax: (310) 300-1705
          Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
                 jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
                 felipe@tomorrowlaw.com


GALLEHER ACQUISITION: Smith Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
KEVION DESHAWN SMITH, an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GALLEHER ACQUISITION CORPORATION,
a Delaware Stock Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 24STCV03810 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Feb. 14, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor
practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code.

The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to provide rest periods, waiting time penalties,
wage statement violations, failure to timely pay wages, failure to
indemnify, and unfair competition.

Plaintiff Smith worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt Certified
Medical Coder, with duties that included, but were not limited to,
research and analysis of data and medical records, from
approximately May 1, 2023 through the present.

Galleher Acquisition Corporation is a wholesale wood flooring
distributor in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GEN DIGITAL INC: Faces Lau Privacy Violation Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gen Digital Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q/A report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 23, 2024, that on
December 12, 2022, a putative class action, "Lau v. Gen Digital
Inc. and Jumpshot Inc.," was filed in the Northern District of
California alleging violations of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, California Invasion of Privacy Act, statutory larceny,
unfair competition and various common law claims related to the
provision of customer data to Jumpshot.

The complaint was dismissed in part, with leave to amend, and
plaintiffs have now filed a First Amended Complaint which the
company again moved to dismiss.

Gen Digital Inc. is a global company powering Digital Freedom with
a family of trusted consumer brands including Norton, Avast,
LifeLock, Avira, AVG, ReputationDefender and CCleaner. Its Cyber
Safety portfolio provides protection across multiple channels and
geographies, including security and performance, identity
protection, and online privacy.


GENENTECH INC: Wehner Appeals ERISA Suit Deal Approval
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff MATTHEW WEHNER filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order dated January 12, 2024 entered in the lawsuit entitled
MATTHEW WEHNER, Individually and as a representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, on behalf of the U.S. ROCHE 401(K)
SAVINGS PLAN, Plaintiff v. GENENTECH, INC., the U.S. ROCHE DC
FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-06894 RS, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Plaintiff Wehner, a former employee of Defendant Genentech, brought
the class action on October 2, 2020 under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act ("ERISA") against Defendants Genentech, and the
U.S. Roche DC Fiduciary Committee for breach of their fiduciary
duties -- specifically, the duty of prudence with respect to
Recordkeeping and Administrative ("RK&A") fees and a derivative
claim for failure to monitor co-fiduciary breaches. The Defendants
have moved to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff's expert Geist
on the basis that they are unsupported and speculative, as well as
moved for summary judgment. The Plaintiff opposed, arguing that
Geist's testimony is supported by his experience, and there remain
genuine disputes over facts material to the case.

On January 12, 2024, Chief Judge Richard Seeborg signed an Order
granting Plaintiff's Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement, Preliminarily Certifying Class For Settlement Purposes,
Approving Form and Manner of Settlement Notice, Preliminarily
Approving Plan of Allocation, and Scheduling Fairness Hearing.

Also on the same day, Judge Seeborg entered an Order pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) on the claims dismissed in
the June 14, 2021 Order granting in part and denying in part a
motion to dismiss first amended complaint and such claims may be
immediately appealed.

The appellate case is captioned as MATTHEW WEHNER v. GENENTECH,
INC., Case No. 24-697, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 8, 2024.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Mediation Questionnaire for Appellant was due February 13,
2024;

   -- Appeal Transcript Order for Appellant is due on February 21,
2024;

   -- Appeal Transcript for Appellant is due on March 22, 2024;

   -- Appeal Opening Brief for Appellant is due on May 2, 2024;

   -- Appeal Answering Brief for Appellee is due on June 3, 2024;

   -- All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of
the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing
schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN]

Defendants-Appellees GENENTECH, INC. and UNITED STATES ROCHE DC
FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE are represented by:

          Margaret Warner, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, LLP
          500 N Capitol Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001

GLASS HOUSE: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Adam Jackson, writing for Green Market Report, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Glass House Brands Inc.
(OTCQX: GLASF) and several of its subsidiaries, alleging numerous
labor law violations.

The employee-led suit accused the California-based company of not
providing sick leave, failing to pay minimum wage, and denying
legally mandated lunch breaks, according to court documents
obtained by Law360.

Additionally, it alleges that the company enforced unlawful work
quotas on its employees.

The lead plaintiff, Gerardo Melendez, aims to represent a broad
group of individuals who have worked for Glass House or its related
entities in the realms of real estate or cannabis cultivation in
Carpinteria. The suit also targets a staffing company, Labor Force
Management Inc., for its role in supplying workers to Glass House
under these conditions.

Court documents detail accusations that employees were made to work
longer than the legally permitted hours -- more than eight hours a
day and over 40 hours a week -- without receiving overtime pay.

It also claims that the company had too few staff for the amount of
work they wanted done, leading to unreasonable expectations for
workers, such as the demand for a single worker to process four
pounds of cannabis daily.

These demands, the suit argues, breach California's labor laws.

Among other allegations, the lawsuit accuses the company of not
paying workers for the time required to don and doff work-related
gear at the workplace, not providing a second lunch break during
10-hour shifts, and a series of other labor violations such as not
providing proper seating, accurate wage statements, reimbursement
for business expenses, and final wages upon employment
termination.

The suit seeks compensation for affected workers under California's
Private Attorneys General Act, covering the past four years. It
also mentions that during certain months of the COVID-19 pandemic,
April 6 to October 1, 2020, the usual statute of limitations was
extended.

The subsidiaries implicated include GH Camarillo LLC, Glass House
Camarillo Cultivation LLC, Glass House Brands Inc., and Mission
Health Associates Inc.

Although CEO Kyle Kazan is mentioned, he is not listed as a
defendant. [GN]

GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Moore Class Cert Bid Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA M. MOORE individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE
CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (US) LLC and PFIZER INC., Case No.
4:20-cv-09077-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White
entered an order granting motion to certify class and granting and
denying motions to exclude.

-- The motion to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2) is granted,
and
    the motion to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3) is denied
    without prejudice.

-- The Court also grants the Plaintiff's motion to exclude the
expert
    testimony of Dr. Steven Dentali and Defendants' motion to
exclude
    the expert testimony of Dr. Anton Toutov, and denies the
    Defendants' motions to exclude the expert testimony of Dr.
Michael
    Dennis and Mr. Colin B. Weir.

Accordingly, the Court holds that a single injunction barring
Defendant from making the alleged misrepresentations would benefit
the whole proposed class. The Court grants the motion to certify
under Rule 23(b)(2).

The Plaintiff Moore brings this putative consumer class action on
behalf of herself and all residents of California who purchased
certain ChapStick products within four years of filing this action.


The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants falsely label certain of
their ChapStick products with the claims "100% Natural," "Natural,"
"Naturally Sourced Ingredients," and "100% Naturally Sourced
Ingredients,"

The Plaintiff alleges these representations are false because the
challenged ChapStick products contain non-natural, synthetic,
artificial, and/or highly processed ingredients.

The Plaintiff challenges six ChapStick products: (1) ChapStick 100%
Natural Lip Butter, which comes in four scents; (2) ChapStick Total
Hydration 100% Natural Lip Balm, which comes in four scents; (3)
ChapStick Total Hydration Essential Oils Lip Balm, which comes in
five scentedvariations; (4) ChapStick Total Hydration Moisture +
Tint Lip Balm, which comes in eight shades; (5) Total Hydration
Moisture + Tint SPF 15 Lip Balm, which comes in three scents; and
(6) ChapStick Total Hydration Natural Lip Scrub, which comes in two
scents.

The Plaintiff contends that certification of an injunctive relief
class is appropriate because Defendants engaged in a uniform
practice of misrepresenting on its packaging the existence of
natural ingredients in the Products.

Glaxosmithkline is a British multinational pharmaceutical and
biotechnology company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wE2tyI at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


GLEIBERMAN PROPERTIES: Centariczki Suit Removed to D. Oregon
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Rachel Centariczki, an individual and on
behalf of all other similarly situated v. Gleiberman Properties,
Inc., Keeler Pine Russellville LLC, Castellano Pine Russellville
LLC, J. Mellano Pine Russellville LLC, S&M Mellano Pine
Russellville LLC, MG Russellville Commons Apartments HS LP, MG
Russellville Commons Apartments MS LP, MG Russellville Commons
Apartments 235 LLC, Case No. 23CV30898 was removed from the Circuit
Court of the State of Oregon, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon on Jan. 19, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00127-AR to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Real Property.

Gleiberman Properties, Inc. is a leading real estate investment
firm that owns and operates over 28,000 apartment units.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Troy Pickard, Esq.
          PORTLAND DEFENDER PC
          3759 NE MLK Jr. Blvd.
          Portland, OR 97212
          Phone: (503) 592-0606
          Email: troy@portlanddefender.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Billy Williams, Esq.
          Curtis M. Glaccum, Esq.
          BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
          360 SW Bond Street, Suite 400
          Bend, OR 97702
          Phone: (541) 382-3011
          Email: billy.williams@bbklaw.com
                 curtis.glaccum@bbklaw.com

               - and -

          Adam Braverman, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92101-8807
          Phone: (619) 546-6717
          Fax: (858) 720-5125
          Email: abraverman@mofo.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Hunt, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          250 West 55th Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 468-8000
          Fax: (212) 468-7900
          Email: adamhunt@mofo.com

               - and -

          Matthew Ladew, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER
          707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
          Phone: (213) 892-5743
          Email: mladew@mofo.com


GOLDEN ARCH ENTERPRISES: Harris Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teichert Energy &
Utilities Group, Inc. The case is styled as Bryonna J. Harris and
Lisa Kohler, as individuals, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Golden Arch Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a
McDonald's, Case No. 24CV000977 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.,
Jan. 22, 2024).

Golden Arch Enterprises, Inc. doing business as McDonald's --
https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us.html -- is an American
multinational fast food chain.[BN]

GREENSKY INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Belyea Suit Due May 23
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH BELYEA, et al.,
v. GREENSKY, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01693-JSC (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order on class
certification deadlines as follows:

-- Status conference scheduled for               May 2, 2024
    Feb. 1, 2024 is continued to:

-- Discovery Dispute Joint Letters               April 26, 2024
    Relevant to Class Cert:

-- Class Certification Motion and                May 23, 2024
    Related Expert Reports:                       

-- Class Certification Opposition                July 22, 2024
    and Related Expert Reports:

-- Class Certification Reply:                    Sept. 20, 2024

-- In-person Class Certification                 Oct. 24, 2024
    Hearing:

GreenSky is a financial technology company founded in 2006 based in
Atlanta, Georgia.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pb8wLf at no extra
charge.[CC] 


GREENWOOD INC: Faces Soto Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super.
-----------------------------------------------------------
JASON B. SOTO, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREENWOOD, INC., a Delaware corporation; THE
GATHERING SPOT LA, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; THE
GATHERING SPOT HOLDINGS, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company;
Tessi Edwards, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 24STCV03821 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Feb. 14, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor
practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code.

The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to provide rest periods, waiting time penalties,
wage statement violations, failure to timely pay wages, failure to
indemnify, and unfair competition.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to, food
and bar service from approximately March of 2022 through present.

Greenwood, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under and
by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware and doing business
in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GRIMM ALES: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grimm Ales, LLC. The
case is styled as Damian Martin, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Grimm Ales, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-01233-NRM-TAM (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2024).

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

Grimm Artisanal Ales -- https://grimmales.com/ -- is a
Brooklyn-based brewery founded in 2013 by Joe and Lauren
Grimm.[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


GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Bid to Amend Scheduling Order Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH HICKS, an
individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
and the general public, v. GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC., a
corporation with headquarters in California; and DOES 1–100,
inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-02038-JLS-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Janis L. Sammartino entered an order granting in part joint
motion to amend scheduling order and set class
certification-related briefing schedule.

The Court continues the Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for
class certification until March 26, 2024. If Plaintiff files a
motion for class certification on or before this deadline, the
Defendant shall file its opposition to the motion for class
certification, if any, on or before May 23, 2024.

The Plaintiff may file a reply in support of the motion for class
certification, if any, on or before June 7, 2024. Lastly, the Court
SETS the motion for class certification for hearing on July 25,
2024, at 1:30PM.

Grimmway grows, produces, and supplies agricultural products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vemeLn at no extra
charge.[CC]

GUNDERSEN LUTHERAN: Doe Suit Remanded to La Crosse County Cir. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin remanded the lawsuit styled JOHN DOE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. GUNDERSEN LUTHERAN HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. and DOES 1-20,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00694-wmc (W.D. Wis.), to the Circuit
Court of La Crosse County.

In this putative class action, Plaintiff John Doe claims that
Defendants Gundersen Lutheran Health System, Inc., as well as Does
1-20, allowed the use of tracking technologies in Gundersen's
patient portal website to transmit personally identifiable
information and protected health information to third parties
without patients' consent in violation of their statutory and
common law medical privacy rights.

Mr. Doe originally filed this action in the Circuit Court of La
Crosse County on Sept. 7, 2023, but Gundersen removed it to federal
district court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1), commonly
referred to as the "federal officer removal statute."

Gundersen is a health care provider with its principal place of
business in La Crosse, Wisconsin, that maintains an online patient
portal called "MyChart" accessible through its website,
gundersenhealth.org. Gundersen's patients can access medical
records and test results, make appointments, and engage in many
other tasks online via their personal MyChart account.

Mr. Doe, a Wisconsin resident, has obtained medical services at
Gundersen and uses his MyChart account to access his medical
records, bills, and test results. He alleges that Gundersen has
integrated source code into its websites from third parties,
including Google, referred to as "Google Analytics," and Facebook,
referred to as "Facebook Pixel." These "custom analytics scripts"
allegedly allow for the transmission of patients' personally
identifiable information, including medical and health-related
information, and communications to third parties. He further
alleges that he and other patients did not know about or agree to
the disclosure of this information to Facebook and Google, nor to
any other third party.

Based on these alleged facts, Doe asserts seven state and common
law claims against the Defendants on behalf of himself and the
putative class: (1) violation of Wisconsin's Confidentiality of
Patient Health Care Records law; (2) invasion of privacy; (3)
breach of implied contract; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5)
deceptive trade practice; (6) violation of Wisconsin's statutory
prohibition on the intentional interception of wire, electronic or
oral communications; and (7) trespass to chattels.

In its notice of removal, Gundersen asserts that the federal
officer removal statute applies because this lawsuit challenges the
actions Gundersen took to participate in the "Meaningful Use
Program," a voluntary federal program that gives incentive payments
to eligible healthcare providers for facilitating patient online
access to health records. The Meaningful Use Program is now known
as the Promoting Interoperability Program.

As support, Gundersen describes the establishment of the office of
the National Health Information Technology Coordinator, the
coordinator's decision to make online access to health care records
a national priority, and, to that end, the creation of the
Meaningful Use Program. Gundersen further asserts, among other
things, that the program "aims to increase patient's 'meaningful
use' and engagement with electronic health records" by
incentivizing "providers to create interoperable patient portals
that allow users to communicate directly with their providers and
immediately access (or transfer) their medical records."

Unsurprisingly, following removal, Doe filed a motion to remand,
arguing that Gundersen's voluntary participation in the Meaningful
Use Program does not create a basis for removal under Section
1442(a)(2).

The Plaintiff does not dispute that Gundersen is a "person" under
the statute but argues it has not met the burden of showing that
Gundersen is acting under a federal officer's or agency's authority
by creating and maintaining its patient portal. Nevertheless,
Gundersen claims to be acting under such authority by helping the
federal government pursue its goal of having healthcare providers
make health information more easily available to patients online.

Unfortunately for Gundersen, Judge Conley opines, multiple district
courts, including several in this circuit, have already considered
whether a private health care provider's facilitation and voluntary
maintenance of an online patient portal to access health records is
sufficient to support the removal of a state lawsuit to federal
court under Section 1442(a)(1). So far, but for a few early
outliers, the vast majority have concluded that participating in
the Meaningful Use Program is not enough to form a basis for
federal officer removal.

Because Gundersen has failed to show that it was "acting under" the
government has, thus, failed to show all four requirements for
removal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1); removal is not
appropriate under that statute, Judge Conley opines.

Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand to
the state court. The Clerk of Court is directed to remand this case
to the Circuit Court for La Crosse County.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Feb. 8,
2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/2bf8wzb3from
PacerMonitor.com.


HAIN CELESTIAL: 2nd Cir. Vacates Dismissal of Beech-Nut Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the
period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 7, 2023, that by summary order
dated January 18, 2024, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment
dismissing the Beech-Nut Case and remanded for further proceedings.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in the
Consolidated Proceeding has now ordered the company to serve its
motion to dismiss last February 15, 2024.

On May 9, 2023, upon consent of the parties, the court stayed
consolidated as a single lawsuit captioned "In re Hain Celestial
Heavy Metals Baby Food Litigation," Case No. 2:21-cv-678, pending
the Second Circuit's decision on appeal in another case captioned
"In re Beech-Nut Nutrition Co. Baby Food Litigation," 21 Civ. 133
(N.D. N.Y.). Accordingly, the court denied the company's motion to
dismiss without prejudice to renew.

Since February 2021, the company has been named in numerous
consumer class actions alleging that the company's "Earth's
Best(R)" baby food products contain unsafe and undisclosed levels
of various naturally occurring heavy metals, namely lead, arsenic,
cadmium and mercury. Those actions have now been transferred and
consolidated as a single lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York captioned "In re Hain Celestial Heavy
Metals Baby Food Litigation," Case No. 2:21-cv-678, which generally
alleges that the company violated various state consumer protection
laws and asserts other state and common law warranty and unjust
enrichment claims related to the alleged failure to disclose the
presence of these metals, arguing that consumers would have either
not purchased the Products or would have paid less for them had the
Company made adequate disclosures.

The court appointed interim class counsel for Plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Proceeding, and plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint on March 18, 2022. The company filed
a motion to dismiss it on November 7, 2022. The plaintiffs filed
their opposition on December 22, 2022, and the company filed its
reply brief on January 20, 2023.

One consumer class action is pending in New York Supreme Court,
Nassau County, which the court has stayed in deference to the
Consolidated Proceeding. The company denies the allegations in
these lawsuits and contends that its baby foods are safe and
properly labeled.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(collectively, along with its subsidiaries, is a manufacturer,
marketer and seller of food and beverages through specialty and
natural food distributors, supermarkets, natural food stores,
mass-market and e-commerce retailers, food service channels and
club, drug and convenience stores worldwide.


HAIN CELESTIAL: E.D.N.Y. Dismisses Flora 2nd Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for  the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 7. 2024, that on September 29,
2023, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss a second amended
complaint. Co-Lead plaintiffs filed notice of appeal on October 26,
2023, appealing the district court's decision dismissing the second
amended complaint to the Second Circuit.

A securities class action complaint captioned "Flora v. The Hain
Celestial Group, Inc., et al." was filed in the said court on
August 17, 2016 alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On June 5, 2017, the court issued an order for consolidation,
appointment of co-lead plaintiffs and approval of selection of
co-lead counsel. Pursuant to this order, these complaints were
consolidated under the caption "In re The Hain Celestial Group,
Inc. Securities Litigation" and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon
Gimpel were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs.

The co-lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities action filed
a consolidated amended complaint on August 4, 2017 and a corrected
consolidated amended complaint on September 7, 2017 on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities between November 5,
2013 and February 10, 2017. It named as defendants the company and
certain of its former officers and asserted violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegedly materially false or misleading statements and omissions
in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the
company's business, prospects, financial results and internal
controls.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
October 3, 2017 which the District Court granted on March 29, 2019,
dismissing the case in its entirety, without prejudice to replead.
Co-lead plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action
complaint on May 6, 2019. It again named as defendants the company
and certain of its former officers and asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on allegations similar to those in the amended complaint,
including materially false or misleading statements and omissions
in public statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the
company's business, prospects, financial results, and internal
controls.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
on June 20, 2019. On April 6, 2020, the District Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss it in its entirety, with prejudice.
Co-lead plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision
dismissing it to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit. By decision dated December 17, 2021, the Second Circuit
vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for
further proceedings. On April 6, 2022, the District Court issued an
order directing the parties to submit position papers outlining
their views regarding: (a) the scope of the Court's reconsideration
of defendants' Motion to Dismiss the second amended complaint; and
(b) the appropriate procedure the court should follow in light of
the Second Circuit's opinion.

On April 14, 2022, the District Court entered an order setting the
schedule for, and determining the scope of, supplemental briefing
on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the second amended complaint. The
parties submitted supplemental briefing between May 12, 2022 and
June 23, 2022. In June 2022, the District Court referred
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint to a
United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation.

On November 4, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the District Court grant
defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with
prejudice. Plaintiffs filed objections to Magistrate Judge's
November 4, 2022 Report and Recommendation on December 7, 2022, and
Defendants filed their Opposition to plaintiffs' objections to
Magistrate Judge's November 4, 2022 Report and Recommendation on
January 9, 2023.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(collectively, along with its subsidiaries, is a manufacturer,
marketer and seller of food and beverages through specialty and
natural food distributors, supermarkets, natural food stores,
mass-market and e-commerce retailers, food service channels and
club, drug and convenience stores worldwide.


HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS: Antitrust Suits Ongoing in NY Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
News Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2024, that beginning in
February 2021, a number of purported class action complaints have
been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Amazon.com, Inc. and certain publishers, including
the company's subsidiary, , L.L.C. and together with the other
publishers, alleging violations of antitrust and competition laws.

The complaints seek treble damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees and costs. In September 2022, the N.Y. District
Court granted Amazon and the publishers' motions to dismiss the
complaints but gave the plaintiffs leave to amend. The plaintiffs
filed amended complaints in both cases in November 2022, and in
January 2023, they filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints.


In August 2023, the N.Y. District Court dismissed the complaints in
one of the cases with prejudice.

News Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a global
diversified media and information services company comprised of
businesses across a range of media, including: digital real estate
services, subscription video services in Australia, news and
information services and book publishing.


HAT WORLD: Coleman Suit Remanded to Superior Court of Alameda
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California remands the lawsuit captioned TAKORI JULIANA
COLEMAN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HAT WORLD, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-03437-JD (N.D. Cal.), to the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda.

Plaintiff Takori Juliana Coleman, on behalf of herself and a
putative class of California employees, sued Defendant Hat World,
Inc., and unnamed Doe Defendants for wage and hour violations under
the California Labor Code and the Business and Professions Code
Section 17200. Coleman originally sued in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Alameda, and Hat World
removed the action to this Court on traditional diversity grounds.

To be clear, Judge Donato notes that the removal was not made under
the Class Action Fairness Act. Coleman asks for a remand to the
Superior Court. The case is remanded for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

Judge Donato says the only dispute with respect to diversity
jurisdiction is whether the amount in controversy exceeds the
statutory threshold of $75,000. The parties debated how to allocate
the amount in controversy in a putative class action, but there is
a much more direct answer to the question of removal here.

The complaint is silent on its face about the value of the damages
and penalties Coleman seeks. The only hard numbers that Hat World
offers is to estimate that Coleman might get $5,550 in wage
statement penalties, and $3,720 in waiting time penalties, for a
grand total of $9,270. Coleman quibbles a bit with these figures
and suggests the total for both categories of penalties should be
$5,970.

Either way, Judge Donato finds that Hat World is short of the
statutory threshold amount of $75,000 by $65,730 to 69,450. Hat
World proposes to make up this difference with Coleman's future
attorney's fees.

There is no question under governing law that "future attorneys'
fees recoverable by statute or contract" should be included in the
amount in controversy, Judge Donato explains, citing Fritsch v.
Swift Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC, 899 F.3d 785, 794
(9th Cir. 2018). Coleman has asked for such fees under California
Labor Code Sections 226 and 1194.

There is also no question that the estimate of attorney's fees must
be something more than mere conjecture, Judge Donato adds. The
party invoking federal jurisdiction must prove the amount in
controversy by a preponderance of the evidence.

This is where Hat World stumbles, Judge Donato points out. It
estimates that Coleman's lawyers will need to spend 150 hours on
the litigation through trial, and posits a billing rate of $650 per
hour, for a total of $97,500 in legal fees. Even accepting for
present purposes that the billing rate is based on what Coleman's
lawyers actually charge, this fee estimate is a pure guess. Why
assume 150 hours as opposed to 100 or less? Why assume the case
will necessarily go to trial and a verdict rather than settle?

These and other salient questions were not answered with anything
approaching summary-judgment-type evidence, and in the absence of
such evidence, it is equally plausible that Hat World's assumptions
are wrong and that Coleman's legal fees will come in below an
amount necessary to establish diversity jurisdiction, Judge Donato
opines.

In the Court's long experience with California state wage and hour
cases, Judge Donato says early settlement is common and it is quite
realistic to project that Coleman's attorney's fees will be far
less than Hat World's guess.

Hat World's main response is that other cases have involved similar
assumptions. That is not a substitute for demonstrating by a
preponderance of the evidence that removal of this case was
warranted by the facts, Judge Donato points out, adding any doubt
about removal weighs in favor of remand.

Consequently, the case was removed without subject matter
jurisdiction. It is remanded to the Superior Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 5, 2024, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/mr453srrfrom PacerMonitor.com.


HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE: Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE BEITZEL, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. XAVIER
BECERRA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Case No.
2:23-cv-01932-WBS-DB (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to
enter an order:

-- Certifying a class and a subclass pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
    23(a) and 23(b)(2), and

-- Appointing class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).

Health and Human Services is responsible for administrating
programs that deal with health, welfare and health information
technology.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5nTWMq at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Melissa C. Brown, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES
          McGEORGE SCHOOL OF LAW
          3200 Fifth Ave.
          Sacramento, CA 95817
          Telephone: (916) 739-7378
          E-mail: mbrown1@pacific.edu

                - and -

          Alice Bers, Esq.
          Justin Lalor, Esq.
          CENTER FOR MEDICARE ADVOCACY
          Willimantic, CT 06226
          Telephone: (860) 456-7790
          E-mail: abers@medicareadvocacy.org
                  jlalor@medicareadvocacy.org

HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN: Berry Loses Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patrick Berry, et al., v.
Hennepin County, et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-02189-WMW-JFD (D. Minn.),
the Hon. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

This case arises from the confluence of two significant societal
problems -- homelessness and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Individual
Plaintiffs in this action are nine individuals experiencing
unsheltered homelessness in Hennepin County, Minnesota.

The Plaintiff ZACAH is a private nonprofit organization that
assists residents of Minnesota on the verge of experiencing
homelessness. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants—Hennepin County,
the City of Minneapolis, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
("MPRB") various county and city officials1 and unnamed police
officers -- have conducted "sweeps" during which the Defendants
have seized and destroyed the property of persons experiencing
unsheltered homelessness who live in encampments in Minneapolis
public parks.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' actions violate
Plaintiffs' rights as protected by the Fourth Amendment and
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the
Minnesota Constitution and Minnesota law.

Hennepin is a county in the U.S. state of Minnesota. The county
extends from Minneapolis to the suburbs and outlying cities in the
western part of the county.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k61N8D at no extra
charge.[CC]

HENRI LLC: Mojica Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Henri, LLC. The case
is styled as Jorge Mojica, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situatedv. Henri, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00363 (N.D. Ill.,
Jan. 15, 2024).

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

Henri LLC is categorized under American restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

               - and -

          Shelly Byron Kulwin, Esq.
          Zac Halden, Esq.
          KULWIN, MASCIOPINTO & KULWIN, LLP
          161 North Clark Street, Suite 2500
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 641-0300
          Email: skulwin@kmklawllp.com
                 zhalden@kmklawllp.com


HOME DEPOT: Allows Google to Eavesdrop on Customer Calls, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Styf at topclassactions.com reports that a class action lawsuit
claims retail giant Home Depot allowed a Google artificial
intelligence (AI) program to record Home Depot customer calls
without consent.

The Google Cloud Contact Center AI allegedly began accessing Home
Depot customer calls in 2021 in violation of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).

"The California Invasion of Privacy Act prohibits the surreptitious
third-party monitoring and recording of phone calls carried out by
Home Depot and Google in this case," the class action says.
"Defendants violated CIPA each time someone called Home Depot and
the contents of that call were disclosed to third-party Google
without prior consent from all parties to the call."

Home Depot allegedly never disclosed AI access to customer calls
CIPA prohibits intentionally wiretapping, attempts to learn the
contents of wire communications and attempts to communicate
information obtained through that wiretapping.

CIPA allows for claims of $5,000 per violation.

"Plaintiff was not aware, and had no reason to believe, that his
communications were simultaneously being disclosed to a third
party: Google," the class action says. "Plaintiff was not informed
at the beginning of his calls that Google would be monitoring and
recording the calls."

Plaintiff Christopher Barulich is asking for injunctive relief,
$5,000 per violation and attorneys' fees and costs.

Consumers filed several class action lawsuits in early 2023
claiming that Home Depot, Bass Pro Shops, Noom, Ring and Carnival
failed to get their consent before covertly wiretapping online
communications on their websites.

The plaintiff is represented by Nicholas C. Soltman of Kinsella
Holley Iser Kump Steinsapir LLP and Anthony G. Simon and Jeremiah
W. Nixon of The Simon Law Firm PC.

The Home Depot class action lawsuit is Barulich v. The Home Depot
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01253, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California. [GN]

HOMEADVISOR INC: Class Certification Deadline in Airquip Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Airquip, Inc. v.
HomeAdvisor, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01849 (D. Colo., Filed
July 19, 2016), the Hon. Judge Philip A Brimmer entered an order
vacating class certification deadline.

The parties' deadline for submitting a joint status report to the
Courtis vacated.

The parties may contact the Court at a future date to set a
deadline for submitting proposed plans to provide notice to class
members and the proposed text of such notice.

The parties request an extension of time to comply with the Court's
January 10, 2024 class certification order directing the parties to
"submit to the Court a joint status report outlining the parties'
positions as to how notice should be directed to class members."

The parties request that the Court stay the deadline until the
Court rules on Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Class
Certification Order and defendants' anticipated motion for summary
judgment on the misappropriation claims.

The Court will not set deadlines based on when the Court might rule
on a pending motion or forthcoming motion. However, because the
parties state that their class notice proposals would be more
informed with additional time.

HomeAdvisor is a digital marketplace that connects homeowners with
local service professionals to carry out home improvement,
maintenance, and remodeling projects.[CC]

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Agrees to Settle Vehicle Theft Suit for $145M
------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that Hyundai Motor Co., Kia Corp. and
other defendants agreed to a settlement of up to $145 million to
resolve claims that Hyundai improperly manufactured Kia vehicles
with design flaws that left them vulnerable to theft and damage.

The class is made up of all individuals and entities who purchased
or leased one of the following vehicles in the United States,
including Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam:

2011-2021 Kia Forte
2021-2022 Kia K5
2011-2020 Kia Optima
2012-2021 Kia Rio
2011-2021 Kia Sedona
2021-2022 Kia Seltos
2011-2022 Kia Sorrento
2020-2022 Kia Soul
2011-2022 Kia Sportage

The Kia theft settlement does not release any past, present or
future claims for personal injury, death and subrogation by
licensed insurers.

Several class action lawsuits alleged Hyundai did not equip Kia
vehicles with an engine immobilizer, making them susceptible to
theft and damage.

Hyundai Motor Group, based in South Korea, owns the Genesis,
Hyundai and Kia brands.

The defendants have not admitted wrongdoing but agreed to a
settlement to resolve the claims.

Under the Kia theft settlement terms, class members can claim
various benefits.

Certain class vehicles are eligible for a free software upgrade
that will prevent vehicles locked with a key or key fob from
starting without the key being present using a method that gained
popularity on TikTok and other social media platforms.

Class members who purchased or leased these vehicles are eligible
for reimbursement of up to $50 per vehicle for the purchase of a
steering wheel lock or similar device if they made the purchase at
least 30 days before the software upgrade was available for the
class vehicle.

Within the 50 states and Washington, D.C., the following vehicles
are eligible for the software upgrade:

2014-2021 Kia Forte
2021-2022 Kia K5
2011-2020 Kia Optima
2012-2021 Kia Rio
2011-2021 Kia Sedona
2021-2022 Kia Seltos
2011-2022 Kia Sorento
2020-2022 Kia Soul
2011-2022 Kia Sportage

Class vehicles in Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam are not
eligible to receive the software upgrade.

Consumers can use their VIN to check whether their vehicle is
eligible.

Class members should visit the Kia website to verify whether their
vehicle is eligible for the software upgrade and schedule an
installation appointment.

Class members who purchased or leased class vehicles that are not
eligible for the software upgrade may receive reimbursement of up
to $300 per class vehicle for the purchase and/or installation of a
steering wheel lock, glass-breakage alarm or similar anti-theft
system or aftermarket modification designed to deter or prevent
theft.

Those who already received a steering wheel lock from Kia may
receive reimbursement of up to $250 per class vehicle for the
purchase and installation of a glass-breakage alarm or similar
anti-theft system or aftermarket modification designed to deter or
prevent theft.

All class vehicles in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam
are eligible to receive this benefit.

Within the 50 states and Washington, D.C., the following class
vehicles are not eligible to receive the software upgrade and,
therefore, are eligible to receive this benefit:

2011-2015 Kia Forte
2011-2021 Kia Rio
2011-2021 Kia Soul
2011-2014 Kia Sportage
2014 Kia Sedona

If a class vehicle originally on this list becomes eligible for the
software upgrade, the purchase of the steering wheel lock,
glass-breakage alarm or similar anti-theft system will not be
eligible for reimbursement under this benefit as of 30 days after
the postmarked date of the mailed class member eligibility notice.

A common fund of $80 million to $145 million is being established
to pay class member claims.

Class members with a class vehicle may make claims for certain
out-of-pocket and uncompensated losses resulting from a class
vehicle that received the software upgrade and/or experienced a
qualifying theft or theft attempt. "Qualifying theft" refers to the
theft of a vehicle through forcible entry and an ignition system
breach, while "qualifying theft attempt" refers to forcible entry
of the class vehicle and either attempted dismantling of the
steering column or attempted breach of the ignition system.
Eligible losses include:

-- Reimbursement of up to 60% of the Black Book value for the total
loss of a class vehicle resulting from a qualifying theft or theft
attempt
-- Reimbursement of up to $3,375 or 33%, whichever is greater, for
damage to a class vehicle resulting from each qualifying theft or
theft attempt and/or for the value of personal property stolen or
damaged during a qualifying theft or theft attempt
-- Reimbursement of up to $375 for insurance deductibles paid and
increased insurance premiums for policies that include theft
coverage resulting from a qualifying theft or theft attempt
-- Reimbursement of up to $250 for other expenses — such as
towing costs, transportation expenses, expenses that result from
tickets, etc. — that result from a qualifying theft or theft
attempt
-- Reimbursement of up to $250 total for lost income and child care
expenses (combined) resulting from time spent obtaining the
software upgrade
-- Reimbursement of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) key fobs
purchased at the direction of a Kia dealership because these were
necessary to implement the software upgrade; this reimbursement is
capped at $350 per key fob for up to two key fobs per class
vehicle

The deadline to opt out of or object to the settlement is May 3,
2024.

The final fairness hearing in the Kia theft settlement is July 15,
2024.

The deadline to submit a claim is Jan. 11, 2025.

Who's Eligible
All individuals and entities who purchased or leased one of the
following vehicles in the United States, including Puerto Rico, the
U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam:

2011-2021 Kia Forte
2021-2022 Kia K5
2011-2020 Kia Optima
2012-2021 Kia Rio
2011-2021 Kia Sedona
2021-2022 Kia Seltos
2011-2022 Kia Sorrento
2020-2022 Kia Soul
2011-2022 Kia Sportage
Potential Award
Varies

Proof of Purchase
Required documentation differs depending on the type of claim the
class member submits. See the claim form for details.

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

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

Claim Form Deadline
01/11/2025

Case Name
In re: Kia Hyundai Vehicle Theft Marketing, Sales Practices, and
Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 8:22-ML-3052 JVS(KESx), in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Final Hearing
07/15/2024

Settlement Website
KiaTheftSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Kia Hyundai Vehicle Theft Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 6609
East Brunswick, NJ08816
844-966-2773

Class Counsel
Steve W Berman
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Elizabeth A Fegan
FEGAN SCOTT LLC

Kenneth B McClain
HUMPHREY FARRINGTON & MCCLAIN PC

Roland Tellis
BARON & BUDD PC

Defense Counsel
Shon Morgan
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP [GN]

ILLINOIS: Brozak Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRODIE BROZAK,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v.
LATOYA HUGHES, in her official capacity as Director of the Illinois
Department of Corrections, DAWN SCROGGINS and JENNICA SEFTON, in
their individual capacities, Case No. 3:23-cv-03299-MMM-JEH (C.D.
Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
motion for class certification and appointing his attorneys as
class counsel.

The Plaintiff Brozak seeks to certify this case as a class
action against the Defendant Hughes on behalf of:

   "all persons currently or in the future in the custody of the
   Illinois Department of Corrections whose sentences include a
term
   of MSR imposed by an Illinois court. Plaintiff further requests

   that this Court enter an order appointing the undersigned
attorneys
   as class counsel."

Because this case seeks class-wide injunctive relief prohibiting
enforcement of the IDOC's policy regarding amendment of MSR terms,
it is appropriate for certification as a class action under Rule
23(b)(2), the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of the IDOC's policy
regarding the calculation of the length of time individuals in
Department custody are required to serve on Mandatory Supervised
Release ("MSR"). Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that IDOC has
an official policy authorizing the Supervisors of its Records
Offices to
unilaterally change the length of time an individual is required to
serve on MSR if they believe the MSR term imposed by the sentencing
court is inconsistent with law.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lg1Vyo 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

IMAGINE360 LLC: Collins Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Anthony Collins, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Imagine360, LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-02603 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 20, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-20650-RAR to the
proceeding.

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

Imagine360 -- https://www.imagine360.com/ -- offers a self-funded
health plan solution with reference-based pricing and provider
partners with 50+ years of industry-leading experience.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mason A. Barney, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Phone: (212) 532-1091
          Email: mbarney@sirillp.com


INOTIV INC: Faces Grobler Securities Suit Over Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Inotiv, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 7, 2024, that on June 23, 2022, a
putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, naming
the company and Robert W. Leasure and Beth A. Taylor as defendants,
captioned "Grobler v. Inotiv, Inc., et al.," Case No. 4:22-cv-00045
(N.D. Ind.).

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on alleged false and
misleading statements and material omissions regarding the
company's acquisition of Envigo RMS Holding Corp. and its
regulatory compliance.

On September 12, 2022, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement
System was appointed by the court as lead plaintiff. Thereafter, on
November 14, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
against the same defendants, in addition to John E. Sagartz and
Carmen Wilbourn, that asserted the same claims along with a claim
under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. On November 23, 2022, the
lead plaintiff filed a further amended complaint against the
aforementioned defendants asserting the same claims as the amended
complaint and further alleging that false and misleading statements
and material omissions were made concerning the company's non-human
primate business. The purported class in the operative complaint
includes all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's common stock between September 21, 2021 and November 16,
2022, and the complaint seeks an unspecified amount of monetary
damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and
other relief. On January 27, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. That motion has been fully briefed
since April 28, 2023, and is currently pending.

Inotiv, Inc. and its subsidiaries comprise a contract research
organization dedicated to providing nonclinical and analytical drug
discovery and development services to the pharmaceutical and
medical device industries and selling a range of research-quality
animals and diets to the same industries as well as academia and
government clients.


INSURANCE COMPANY: Appeals Cert. Ruling in Issokson Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order dated January 25, 2024 entered in the
lawsuit entitled captioned as GERALD ISSOKSON, AS DULY APPOINTED
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF PEARL ISSOKSON, DECEASED,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH
AMERICA, TOWERS ADMINISTRATORS, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-30070-MGM,
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Springfield.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are uniformly and
improperly miscalculating the inflation protection benefits
provided in the long-term care insurance at the expense of the
policyholders after decades of collecting millions of dollars in
long-term care insurance premiums from their policyholders
nationwide. The Defendants' systemic conduct reduces their exposure
to costly long-term care claims, at the expense of their elderly
and infirm policyholders. The Defendants' scheme to save money
contradicts the unambiguous policy language and marketing materials
provided at the time of sale, which indicate the calculation of the
inflation protection benefits are on a compound interest basis
rather than a simple interest basis, says the suit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 27, 2023, the
Plaintiff asked the Court to enter an order

   1. Certifying the proposed class pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule
      23(b)(3);

   2. Appointing the Plaintiff as class representative; and

   3. Appointing Sean K. Collins, Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Ex Kano
      S. Sams II, and Jonathan M. Feigenbaum as class counsel.

On January 25, 2024, Judge Mark G. Mastroianni entered an Order
granting Plaintiff's motion to certify class.

The appellate case is captioned as Insurance Company of North
America, et al v. Issokson, Case No. 24-8003, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on Feb. 9, 2024.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, et al.,
are represented by:

          David B. Crevier, Esq.
          Katherine R. Parsons, Esq.
          Dawn B. Williams, Esq.
          CREVIER & RYAN LLP
          1500 Main St., Ste 2316
          Springfield, MA 01115-5727
          Telephone: (413) 787-2400

               - and -

          Jason P. Gosselin, Esq.
          John M. Moore, Esq.
          Mark Taticchi, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          1 Logan Sq., Ste 2000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996
          Telephone: (215) 988-2700

Plaintiff-Respondent GERALD ISSOKSON, as duly appointed personal
representative of the Estate of Pearl Issokson, Deceased,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Sean K. Collins, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq.
          184 High St
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 320-8485

               - and -

          Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER LPA
          4445 Lake Forest Dr, Ste 490
          Cincinnati, OH 45242
          Telephone: (513) 345-8291

               - and -

          Ex Kano Shirden Sams, II, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park E, Ste 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150

INTELLIHARTX LLC: Kelly Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Thomas Kelly, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. INTELLIHARTX, LLC, Case No.
3:23-cv-01338 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on Feb. 20, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-20638 to the
proceeding.

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

IntelliHartx, LLC -- https://www.itxcompanies.com/ -- is a
healthcare revenue cycle management company based in McLean,
Virginia.[BN]

INTELLIHARTX LLC: Mcdavitt Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kristi Mcdavitt, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. INTELLIHARTX, LLC, Case No.
3:23-cv-01499 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on Feb. 20, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-20641 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

IntelliHartx, LLC -- https://www.itxcompanies.com/ -- is a
healthcare revenue cycle management company based in McLean,
Virginia.[BN]

INTELLIHARTX LLC: Terwilliger Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Joseph Terwilliger, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTELLIHARTX, LLC, Case
No. 3:23-cv-01509 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on Feb. 16, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-20642 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for the
Federal Trade Commission Act.

IntelliHartx, LLC -- https://www.itxcompanies.com/ -- is a
healthcare revenue cycle management company based in McLean,
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Swann Taylor, Esq.
          TAYLOR & KNIGHT, GP
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 600
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Phone: 865-971-1701
          Fax: 865 971-1705
          Email: jstaylor@taylorknightlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrea McKellar, Esq.
          MCKELLAR LAW GROUP, PLLC
          117 28th Avenue N.
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: 615-866-9699
          Fax: 615-866-1278
          Email: andie@mckellarlawgroup.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: (405) 235-1560
          Fax: (405) 239-2112
          Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com


INTELLIHARTX LLC: Timmons Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Nicholas Timmons, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. INTELLIHARTX, LLC, Case No.
3:23-cv-01452 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on Feb. 20, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-20640 to the
proceeding.

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

IntelliHartx, LLC -- https://www.itxcompanies.com/ -- is a
healthcare revenue cycle management company based in McLean,
Virginia.[BN]

IQIYI INC: Investors Can Amend Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Ben Miller, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that IQIYI Inc.'s
request to dismiss allegations the Chinese streaming platform
deceived investors in related to its 2018 IPO will be paused while
the plaintiffs amend their complaint, Judge Diane Gujarati said
during oral arguments on Feb. 26.

The federal judge appeared receptive to certain arguments that the
class action suit should be tossed, but wouldn't grant or deny
dismissal of the suit until after the updated complaint and
additional briefs add more data on a stock drop allegedly linked to
the claims at issue, she said during proceedings held in US
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. [GN]



JG INNOVATIVE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JG Innovative
Enterprises, LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. JG Innovative
Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01252 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20,
2024).

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

J.G. Enterprises, Inc. of Michigan was founded in 2001. The
Company's line of business includes the construction of
single-family homes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JOSH ROSEBROOK SKIN: Fernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Josh Rosebrook Skin
and Hair Care, LLC. The case is styled as Jacqueline Fernandez, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Josh
Rosebrook Skin and Hair Care, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01187
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2024).

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

Josh Rosebrook -- https://joshrosebrook.com/ -- is an
integrity-founded skin, hair and body care company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Maslowski Suit Over Unfair Blanket Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER MASLOWSKI, ASHLEY VOSS, JACQUELINE SCHUMAN, ALEEMA HAWKS,
and CINDY CARRASCO individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Case No. 7:24-CV-01277-CS (S.D.N.Y., February 20, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of unjust enrichment and violating consumer protection
laws.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action over Defendant Chase's
alleged unlawful and predatory practice of charging depositors a
blanket fee for bouncing checks regardless of cause, even though
the depositors in question have no reasonable means of knowing the
check would not clear. Under the "Deposited Item Returned Fees"
policy implemented by Defendant, depositors could be required to
pay between $5 and over $30 as penalty for checks that bounce. Such
amounts often vastly exceed the actual cost of processing the
returned check. In some instances, customers were not properly
informed about the fees and their potential applicability.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's implementation of the
Deposited Item Returned Fees is unfair, deceptive, and in violation
of New York's Consumer Protection and Deceptive Acts and Practices
Act, Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, and California Unfair Competition Law.

A subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Company, Chase is engaged in the
retail banking sector and conducts business in multiple states
across the U.S. It is headquartered in New York City, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
     David J. DiSabato, Esq.
     Oren Faircloth, Esq.
     SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP     
     745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500
     New York, NY 10151
     Telephone: (212) 532-1091
     Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
     E-mail: lconsidine@sirillp.com
             ddisabato@sirillp.com
             ofaircloth@sirillp.com

JUNIPER NETWORKS: $3MM Settlement in Reichert Suit Has Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued final approval to the $3 million
settlement in the lawsuit entitled BRIAN REICHERT, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-06213-JD (N.D. Cal.).

The litigation arose out of alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by
Defendants Juniper Networks, Inc., the Board of Directors of the
Juniper Networks, Inc., and the Investment Committee of Juniper
Networks, Inc. (Defendants), relating to the management of the
Juniper Networks, Inc. 401(k) Plan, in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

On Sept. 15, 2022, the parties advised the Court that they had
reached a settlement. An application for preliminary approval of
the settlement was denied without prejudice, and a revised
application was approved on Sept. 15, 2023. The Court held a
fairness hearing on Jan. 18, 2024, and no objections to the
settlement were filed before the deadline.

The Court also heard argument on the Plaintiffs' motion for
attorney's fees and costs, which sought $900,000 of the $3 million
settlement fund for Class Counsel, as well as over $100,000 in
various expenses and class representatives' incentive awards. The
Court advised the Plaintiffs that the fee requests were outsized
and insufficiently supported, and directed the Plaintiffs to file a
supplemental statement in support of the fee requests.

The revised motion reduced the attorney's fees request to $750,000,
and disclosed an error in calculating the original request for
expenses, resulting in significant savings for the class. The
revised motion reduces the class representative fee request from
$5,000 to $4,000. The fee motion is approved in part. This is order
is based a proposed order lodged by the parties and modified
according to the Court's practices and conclusions.

The following Settlement Class is certified under Rule 23(b)(1) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for purposes of the Settlement
only: All participants and beneficiaries of the Juniper Networks,
Inc. 401(k) Plan beginning Aug. 11, 2015, and running through the
date of preliminary approval of the settlement.

The Court finds that this Settlement Class meets all of the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Rules 23(e)(1)(A) and (C), the Court
approves and confirms the Settlement and the terms therein as fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Plan and the Class Members.

Judge Donato holds that the amount of the Settlement ($3 million)
is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The Settlement was reviewed by an independent fiduciary, Fiduciary
Counselors, LLC, who has approved the Settlement.

The Action and all Released Claims asserted therein, whether
asserted by the Class Representatives on their own behalf or on
behalf of the Class Members, or derivatively to secure relief for
the Plan, are dismissed with prejudice, without costs to any of the
Settling Parties other than as provided for in the Settlement
Agreement.

The Class Representatives and each Class Member will release the
Defendants, the Defendants' Counsel, Class Counsel, the Released
Parties, and the Plan from any claims, liabilities, and attorneys'
fees and expenses arising from the allocation of the Gross
Settlement Amount or Net Settlement Amount and from all tax
liability and associated penalties and interest, as well as related
attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Settlement Administrator will have final authority to determine
the share of the Net Settlement Amount to be allocated to each
eligible Current Participant and Former Participant pursuant to the
Amended Plan of Allocation approved by the Court. With respect to
payments or distributions to Former Participants, all questions not
resolved by the Settlement Agreement will be resolved by the
Settlement Administrator in its sole and exclusive discretion.

Judge Donato opines that the revised request for $750,000, which
represents 25% of the Gross Settlement Amount and a 3.65 multiplier
of counsel's current lodestar, is not reasonable or appropriate in
the circumstances of this case. The Settlement was driven in part
by a change in law outside of this litigation and was reached early
with minimal work required of counsel. Consequently, the Court
concludes that a lodestar multiplier of 2 on the expected lodestar
is warranted given the overall settlement and additional projected
work to be performed, and Class Counsel is awarded $373,715 in
attorney's fees from the common fund.

A 25% portion of the attorney's fees award will be held back
pending further order, to be issued after counsel has filed the
post-distribution accounting required by the District's Procedural
Guidance on Class Action Settlements. This means that $280,286.25
is authorized for disbursement from the common fund upon entry of
this order.

Class Counsel will also be reimbursed $10,560 for litigation
expenses incurred, $39,388 in settlement administration expenses,
and $15,000 for independent fiduciary fees upon entry of this
order.

The Plaintiffs' original requests for $5,000 and revised requests
for $4,000 for named Plaintiffs Brian Reichert and Derek Deviny are
unreasonable, Judge Donato says. The Court awarded, and the circuit
approved, $5,000 awards for class representatives in a long-running
consumer class action in which they were deposed twice and filed
declarations attesting that they had spent 55–60 hours in service
of the litigation.

Nothing of the kind occurred here, Judge Donato points out.
Plaintiffs Reichert and Deviny were not deposed, and only one hour
in the time entries submitted by Class Counsel relates to
"discovery" and "Plaintiffs." The class representatives will be
awarded $2,000 each.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 5, 2024, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y65wbuuefrom PacerMonitor.com.


KHANNA ENTERPRISES: Kurges Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kayla Kurges, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KHANNA ENTERPRISES, LTD. DBA SHERATON AGOURA HILLS, a
California limited partnership; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 24STCV01590 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 19,
2024), is brought against Defendants for California Labor Code
violations and unfair business practices stemming from Defendants'
failure to pay for all hours worked (minimum, straight time, and
overtime wages), failure to provide meal periods, failure to
authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay final
wages, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, failure to
indemnify employees for expenditures, and failure to produce
requested employment records.

The Defendants are subject to the California Labor Code, Wage
Orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC"), and the
California Business & Professions Code. Despite these requirements,
throughout the statutory period, Defendants have, a times: Failed
to pay employees, or some of them, for all hours worked, including
all minimum, straight time, and overtime wages in compliance with
the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; Failed to provide
employees, or some of them, with timely and duty-free meal periods
in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders,
failed to maintain accurate records of all meal periods taken or
missed, and failed to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday
a meal period violation occurred; Failed to authorize and permit
employees, or some of them, to take timely and duty-free rest
periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage
Orders, and failed to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday
a rest period violation occurred; Willfully failed to pay
employees, or some of them, all minimum wage, straight time wages,
overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and rest period premium
wages due within the time period specified by California law when
employment terminates; Failed to provide employees, or some of
them, with accurate, itemized wage statements containing all the
information required by the California Labor Code and IWC Wage
Orders; Failed to indemnify employees, or some of them, for
expenditures incurred in direct discharge of duties of employment;
and Failed to timely produce requested employment records as
required by the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Order, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Los Angeles, California who worked
for Defendants in Los Angeles County, California as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee from July 2021 to July 2022.

The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry,
business, and establishment within the State of California,
including Los Angeles County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John G. Yslas, Esq.
          Jeffrey C. Bils, Esq.
          Aram Boyadjian, Esq.
          Andrew Sandoval, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          Email: jyslas@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 ibils@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 abovadiian@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 andrew.sandoval@wilshirelawfirm.com


KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Class Cert Briefing Sched in Seidner Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA C. SEIDNER and
JARED MACKRORY, Individually, and as representatives of a Class of
Participants and Beneficiaries of the Kimberly-Clark Corporation
401(k) & Profit Sharing Plan, v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION and
BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE OF KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00867-L (N.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order establishing a briefing schedule relating to the
Plaintiffs' anticipated Motion for Class Certification.

            Filing or Event                      Deadline

  Plaintiffs' Motion for Class                  Feb. 14, 2024
  Certification

  Plaintiffs to make themselves and             March 15, 2024
  any declarants on which they rely in
  the Motion for Class Certification
  available for deposition on or before

  Defendants' Opposition to Motion for          March 29, 2024
  Class Certification

  Defendants to make any declarants on          April 12, 204
  which they rely in the Opposition to
  Motion for Class Certification available
  for deposition on or before

  Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion        April 26, 2024
  for Class Certification

   1. There is currently no controlling scheduling order in this
case.

   2. The parties met and conferred on January 26, 2024, in an
effort
      to reach an agreement about the schedule of briefing and
events
      related to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

Kimberly-Clark is an American multinational personal care
corporation that produces mostly paper-based consumer products.

A copy of the Parties dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rw7N5M at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Veronica S. Moye, Esq.
          Karl G. Nelson, Esq.
          Heather L. Richardson, Esq.
          Jennafer M. Tryck, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 698-3100
          Facsimile: (214) 571-2900
          E-mail: VMoye@gibsondunn.com
                  KNelson@gibsondunn.com
                  HRichardson@gibsondunn.com
                  JTryck@gibsondunn.com

KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by March 29
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA C. SEIDNER and
JARED MACKRORY, Individually, and as representatives of a Class of
Participants and Beneficiaries of the Kimberly-Clark Corporation
401(k) & Profit Sharing Plan, v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION and
BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE OF KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00867-L (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Sam A. Lindsay
entered an order on briefing a class certification motion:

                Filing or Event                    Deadline

  Plaintiffs' Motion for Class                   Feb. 14, 2024
  Certification

  Plaintiffs to make themselves and any          Mar. 15, 2024
  declarants on which they rely in the
  Motion for Class Certification available
  for deposition on or before

  Defendants' Opposition to Motion for           Mar. 29, 2024
  Class Certification

  Defendants to make any declarants on           Apr. 12, 2024
  which they rely in the Opposition to
  Motion for Class Certification available
  for deposition on or before

  Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion         Apr. 26, 2024
  for Class Certification

Kimberly-Clark is an American multinational personal care
corporation that produces mostly paper-based consumer product.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dyNyLz at no extra
charge.[CC]

KINDER MORGAN: Continues to Defend Penderson ERISA Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual
period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 20, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Penderson ERISA class suit.

On February 22, 2021, Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A participants
Curtis Pedersen and Beverly Leutloff filed a purported class action
lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA).

The named plaintiffs were hired initially by the ANR Pipeline
Company (ANR) in the late 1970s.

Following a series of corporate acquisitions, plaintiffs became
participants in pension plans sponsored by the Coastal Corporation
(Coastal), El Paso Corporation (El Paso) and the company by virtue
of its acquisition of El Paso in 2012 and its assumption of certain
of El Paso's pension plan obligations.

The complaint, which was filed initially in federal court in
Michigan, then transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas  (Civil Action No. 4:21-3590), and later
amended to include the Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan B, alleges
that the series of foregoing transactions resulted in changes to
plaintiffs' retirement benefits which are now contested on a
purported class-wide basis in the lawsuit.

The complaint asserts six claims that fall within three primary
theories of liability.

Claims I, II, and III all seek the same plan modification as to how
the plans calculate benefits for former participants in the Coastal
plan.

These claims challenge plan provisions which are alleged to
constitute impermissible "backloading" or "cutback" of benefits.

Claims IV and V allege that former participants in the ANR plans
should be eligible for unreduced benefits at younger ages than the
plans currently provide.

Claim VI asserts that actuarial assumptions used to calculate
reduced early retirement benefits for current or former ANR
employees are outdated and therefore unreasonable.

On February 8, 2024, the Court certified a class defined as any and
all persons who participated in the Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A
or B who are current or former employees of ANR or Coastal, and
participated in the El Paso pension plan after El Paso acquired
Coastal in 2001, and are members of at least one of three
subclasses of individuals who are allegedly due benefits under one
or more of the six claims asserted in the complaint.

Plaintiffs seek to recover early retirement benefits as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief, but have not pleaded, disclosed
or otherwise specified a calculation of alleged damages.

Accordingly, the extent of potential plan liabilities for past or
future benefits, if any, remains to be determined in a bench trial
scheduled to begin on August 5, 2024.

The Company believes it has numerous and substantial defenses and
intend to vigorously defend this case.

KINDER MORGAN, INC. of Delaware operates as a pipeline
transportation and energy storage company. The Company owns and
operates pipelines that transport natural gas, gasoline, crude
oil,
carbon dioxide, and other products, as well as terminals that
store
petroleum products and chemicals and handle bulk materials like
coal and petroleum coke. [BN]


KQED INC: Dulaney Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KQED, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Dominic Dulaney, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Park My Fleet LLC, Case No.
CGC24612506 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 20, 2024).

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

KQED Inc. -- https://www.kqed.org/ -- is a non-profit public media
outlet based in the San Francisco Bay Area of California, which
operates the radio station KQED-FM and the television stations
KQED/KQET and KQEH.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John G. Yslas, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wishire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: 213-255-3937
          Email: jyslas@wilshirelawfirm.com


L'OREAL USA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Zimmerman Due August 22
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LYNN ZIMMERMAN, et al., v.
L'OREAL USA, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-07609-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order setting he following
deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil
Local Rule 16-10:

             Event                              Deadline

  Deadline to complete discovery needed        Aug. 8, 2024
  in anticipation of class certification
  briefing

  Deadline to submit discovery disputes        Aug. 15, 2024

  Deadline for Plaintiff to file motion        Aug. 22, 2024
  for class certification and expert reports

  Deadline for Defendant's opposition to       Oct. 31, 2024
  class certification and any expert reports

  Deadline for Plaintiffs' reply in support    Dec. 12, 2024
  of motion for class certification

  Class Certification Hearing Deadline         Jan. 9, 2025

L'Oreal manufactures and markets cosmetic products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3oeGkn at no extra
charge.[CC]

LABCORP: Kiosk Accessibility Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------
Ashley Jenkins, Esq. and Kristina Launey, Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, in an article for JDSupra, disclosed that on February 8, 2024,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit approved a federal
trial court's certification of two classes of plaintiffs to proceed
against LabCorp regarding the alleged inaccessibility of
self-service check-in kiosks at LabCorp's facilities. In the
lawsuit, filed in the Central District of California in January of
2020, the named plaintiff who is blind claimed that he was denied
effective communication and equal access to LabCorp's services
because the kiosks cannot be used without sight. The plaintiff
claimed that unlike sighted customers, he had to wait for a staff
member to notice him and assist him with check-in, forcing him to
wait longer to get into the patient queue, and was not able to
access other kiosk features like the ability to privately alter
account information.

On the appeal of the class certification grant, LabCorp argued that
the named plaintiff and other class members did not have standing
to pursue their claims because they were not injured by the kiosks'
inaccessibility. The Court disagreed, holding that the named
plaintiff could not use the inaccessible kiosk and had to wait for
an employee to notice him and check him in. Based on these facts,
the Court concluded that the named plaintiff "was denied effective
communication and, by extension, the full and equal enjoyment of
LabCorp's services."

The Court also rejected LabCorp's argument that the commonality
requirement for class certification was not met because the
standing of each class member to pursue the Unruh Act damages claim
requires an "individualized inquiry" into whether each class member
has demonstrated "difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment." The
Court disagreed with this argument, finding that this standard only
applies to the standing inquiry for construction-related Unruh Act
claims, not for effective communication claims. The Court
accordingly found the class commonality requirement satisfied
because "all class members maintain that their injury resulted from
the inaccessibility of a LabCorp kiosk." The Court found the other
Unruh Act damages class requirements of predominance, typicality,
manageability, and superiority also satisfied.

As for the ADA injunctive relief class, the Court rejected
LabCorp's argument that no single injunction could provide relief
to all class members because not all blind people prefer the same
accommodations. The Court found that the class members were injured
by the "complete inaccessibility of LabCorp kiosks for blind
individuals", not by LabCorp's failure to meet their preferences.
The Court adopted the district court's reasoning that the entire
class's injuries could be addressed by making the kiosks
accessible, even if some class members may prefer not to use the
kiosks.

The two classes certified are: (1) a California class seeking
damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, and (2) a
nationwide class seeking injunctive relief under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and Affordable Care
Act. The case will now proceed back in the district court on the
merits of the claims.

Given the recent proliferation of self-service equipment in public
accommodations, this case serves as an important reminder that
before entering into contracts for such equipment, businesses must
consider whether the equipment is accessible to users with
disabilities and, if not, whether there will be employees in the
area to provide prompt assistance. And while some courts have held
that prompt employee assistance can be provided at inaccessible
self-service equipment to comply with the ADA, providing accessible
self-service equipment mitigates risk of litigation. [GN]

LABORATORY CORP: Wiggins Sues Over Illegal Use of Patients' Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WIGGINS and TERI STEVENS, individually and for all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA
HOLDINGS, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00648 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 13,
2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs, for themselves
and for thousands of other patients, against the Defendant for
breach of contract, negligence, invasion of privacy, unjust
enrichment, and violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act.

During the period at issue in this lawsuit, Labcorp's Terms and
Conditions, Notice of Privacy Practices, and Web Privacy Statement
did not inform its website users that it was using their
individually-identifiable health information for commercial
purposes, sharing their individually-identifiable health
information with Google, or allowing Google to use this information
for commercial purposes. Instead, Labcorp's public-facing policy
statements repeatedly promised that its website was a safe, secure
place to communicate health information, that it treated patients'
individually-identifiable health information as private and
confidential, and that it would not share this information, or
allow it to be used for commercial purposes, without notice and
consent.

Labcorp's interception, dissemination, and commercial use of its
patients' individually-identifiable health information without
notice or consent violates federal and state law, harms patients by
intruding upon their privacy, erodes the confidential nature of the
provider-patient relationship, violates patients' property rights,
deprives patients of their right to control dissemination of their
individually-identifiable health information, and requires decisive
corrective action by this Court, says the suit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is an American
healthcare company headquartered in Burlington, North
Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          604 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 873-4836
          E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
          Michael J. Casas, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          222 W. Adams Street, Suite 2020
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  tbecvar@stephanzouras.com
                  mcasas@stephanzouras.com

LAS VEGAS SANDS: Nevada Court Tosses Second Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. (LVSC) disclosed in its Form 10-K report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2024, that on December 19,
2023, the U.S. District Court for Nevada granted the defendants'
motion for partial reconsideration and, on January 2, 2024, entered
an amended order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss a
second amended complaint in its entirety. The court also granted
Lead Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint by January 18,
2024.

In addition, in light of its granting the motion for partial
reconsideration, it denied the defendants' motion for a stay of
discovery and case deadlines as moot. On January 18, 2024, Lead
Plaintiffs informed Defendants that they would not be filing an
amended complaint.

This is with regards to a class action complaint filed on October
22, 2020, by The Daniels Family 2001 Revocable Trust, a putative
purchaser of the company's shares, in the U.S. District Court of
Nevada against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and Patrick Dumont. The
complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that LVSC made
materially false or misleading statements, or failed to disclose
material facts, from February 27, 2016 through September 15, 2020,
with respect to its operations at Marina Bay Sands, its compliance
with Singapore laws and regulations, and its disclosure controls
and procedures.

On January 5, 2021, the U.S. District Court entered an order
appointing Carl S. Ciaccio and Donald M. DeSalvo as lead
plaintiffs. On March 8, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed a purported
class action amended complaint against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson,
Patrick Dumont, and Robert G. Goldstein, alleging similar
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act over the
same time period of February 27, 2016 through September 15, 2020.
On March 22, 2021, the U.S. District Court granted lead plaintiffs'
motion to substitute Dr. Miriam Adelson, in her capacity as the
Special Administrator for the estate of Sheldon G. Adelson, for
Sheldon G. Adelson as a defendant in this action.

On May 7, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which on March 28, 2022, the U.S. District Court
granted in its entirety. The U.S. District Court dismissed certain
claims with prejudice, but granted lead plaintiffs leave to amend
the complaint with respect to the other claims by April 18, 2022.
On April 8, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration and to extend time to file an Amended Complaint.
The defendants filed an opposition to the motion on April 22,
2022.

On April 18, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. On May 18, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint, and briefing was completed on
July 8, 2022. On August 8, 2023, the U.S. District Court denied
lead plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, and granted in part
and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. The U.S. District Court dismissed lead
plaintiffs' allegations pertaining to challenged statements that
were made in 2016, 2017 and 2018, but allowed the challenged
statements from 2019 and 2020 to proceed. On August 22, 2023, the
defendants filed a motion for partial reconsideration, requesting
that the U.S. District Court reconsider its denial of the motion to
dismiss with respect to the challenged statements from 2019 and
2020.

The defendants simultaneously filed a motion for a stay pending
adjudication of the motion for reconsideration, which requests a
stay of all discovery and case deadlines. lead plaintiffs filed
oppositions to both motions on September 5, 2023, and the
defendants filed their replies on September 12, 2023. These motions
are pending before the district court.

Las Vegas Sands Corporation is a casino and resort company with
corporate headquarters in Paradise, Nevada, that features a
combination of gambling, accommodation, retail, and meeting space.


LINXX GLOBAL SOLUTIONS: Oliquino Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as David Oliquino, an individual, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. LINXX
GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., a Corporation; LINXX SECURITY SOLUTIONS,
INC, a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
23CV038691 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of
California, in and for the County of Alameda, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 20, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01031.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for: Unfair Competition in Violation
of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in
Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in
Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to Provide Required Meal
Periods in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code and the Applicable IWC Wage
Order; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods in Violation of
Cal. Lab. Code and the Applicable IWC Wage Order; Failure to
Provide Accurate Itemized Statements in Violation of Cal. Lab.
Code; Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses in
Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; and Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages in
Violation of Cal. Lab. Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Marlene S. Muraco, Bar No. 154240
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor
          San Jose, CA 95113.2431
          Phone: 408.998.4150
          Fax: 408.288.5686
          Email: mmuraco@littler.com


LORI WEAVER: Seeks Denial of Plaintiff's Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Doe, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, et al., v. Lori Weaver,
Commissioner, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01039-LM (D.N.H.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order denying the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification:

The Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Health and
Human Services and the Administrative Judge of the New Hampshire
Circuit Court submit this surreply memorandum to the plaintiffs'
motion to amend class certification.

The Plaintiffs' arguments in their reply only highlight this
failure. The plaintiffs contend that commonality is satisfied
because all putative class members were "involuntarily detained
under RSA 135-C:27–33 and denied their constitutional right to
procedural due process as a result of Defendants' policies and
practices."

The plaintiffs do not attempt identify any "uniformly applied,
official policy" or "unofficial yet well-defined practice" that
purportedly "drives the[se] alleged violations."

Instead, as before, the plaintiffs frame their common questions at
an impermissible level of abstraction. This only confirms that they
have not and cannot meet their burden.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eZDYDY at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anthony J. Galdieri, Esq.
          Samuel R.V. Garland, Esq.
          Brandon F. Chase, Esq.
          NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          Telephone: (603) 271-3650
          E-mail: Samuel.rv.garland@doj.nh.gov
                  Brandon.f.chase@doj.nh.gov


MACKENZIE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
finance.yahoo.com reports that a national class action has been
commenced against MacKenzie Financial Corporation and InvestorCOM
Inc. on behalf of all Canadians whose personal information and
social insurance numbers were compromised in the data breach. Court
File No. VLC-S-S-238293.

The claim alleges that cybercriminals accessed and stole
information from the servers of InvestorCOM about customers of
MacKenzie including social insurance numbers (SIN) of thousands of
customers, along with their MacKenzie account numbers, names, and
addresses. The data was supplied to InvestorCOM by MacKenzie and
then stored in the databases of its GoAnywhere software. The claim
further alleges that the stolen information is highly sensitive and
in the wrong hands it can be used to commit identity fraud or cause
damage to individuals' credit reputation.

To register with Charney Lawyers please go to
https://www.charneylawyers.com/MacKenzie-class-action or email
kgalts@charneylawyers.com.[GN]


MANHEIM TOWNSHIP, PA: Agrees to Settle Water Charges' Suit for $4M
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lisi at lancasteronline.com reports that Manheim Township and
its municipal authority have agreed to jointly pay $4 million to
plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit in which judges found the
authority had overcharged customers for new hookups to the township
water system.

The terms of the settlement, outlined in a deal filed in Lancaster
County Court, won preliminary approval from Judge David Ashworth on
Feb. 15. The deal is scheduled to be finalized in a hearing
scheduled for June 17.

Final approval of the settlement would mark the end of a civil
class-action suit that dates to August 2014.

If the agreement gets approved by Ashworth in June, "The proposed
settlement will mark the successful end to a near decade-long
effort to force local government officials to do what the law
requires," said Ed Robson, lead attorney for plaintiffs in the
suit, via email. "The proposed settlement would not only compensate
those who paid the illegal tapping fees since 2012 but would help
to ensure that the Authority will not overcharge future payors."

Township solicitor J. Dwight Yoder and township Manager Rick Kane
declined to comment. Benton Webber, chairman of the municipal
authority, also declined to comment, saying he would do so once the
agreement is officially approved by Ashworth.

Members of the Manheim Township board of commissioners did not
return a request for comment.

Plaintiffs in the class-action suit consist mostly of developers,
but any individual or entity that paid a water-tapping fee between
August 2012 and March 2022 is eligible to receive a share of the
payout, under the proposed agreement. The plaintiff group has about
50 members, according to the agreement.

In October, a three-judge panel in the Commonwealth Court largely
affirmed an Ashworth ruling that the Manheim Township General
Municipal Authority had grossly miscalculated the township
water-tapping fee, a cost the township required builders to pay
before receiving building permits.

The Commonwealth Court also agreed with Ashworth's opinion that
Manheim Township and the general municipal authority were both
liable to refund customers.

To generate an accurate, retroactive calculation for the township's
water-tapping fee, a consultant in the case found the authority
should have been charged $110 to $202 per housing unit after 2009,
when it was charging $5,372 that year.

The $4 million settlement represents an 80% refund to developers,
according to the agreement.

Those who qualify to receive a payout from the settlement would
receive notices in the mail. A third-party agent in charge of
managing the payouts will also set up a website with information
and updates on claiming refunds, according to the settlement.

Splitting the payout burden
The settlement effectively avoids an appeal of the Commonwealth
Court's ruling to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, a high-risk bet
for the township and authority.

Had the municipal entities asked the Supreme Court to weigh in, it
could have taken months for the highest state court to decide
whether to take the case. And had the justices declined to do so, a
few hundred thousands of dollars worth of interest likely would
have accumulated on the existing judgment, leading to an even
bigger liability for the township and authority.

The judgments against Manheim Township and its sister authority
could have been much higher if not for legal limitations on how far
back the plaintiffs could claim compensation. The township and
authority had been charging upward of $4,000 per housing unit since
1993.

Under the proposed settlement terms, the authority will be able to
charge a $957 water-tapping fee going forward. If the plaintiffs
detect a future miscalculation from the authority, the group could
sue again.

Township Manager Kane said in a December commissioner meeting that
its share of the payout, $1.25 million according to the settlement,
would be footed by the township's rainy-day fund.

For the municipal authority, the settlement amount will all but
clear out its available cash. As the entity that calculated and
managed the township's tapping fees, the authority is on the hook
for $2.75 million under the agreement.

It is unclear how the expense could affect the general municipal
authority going forward. The authority's board members have so far
not spoken publicly about the lawsuit.

The municipal authority owns and manages the township's drinking
water infrastructure. The system draws water from Lancaster city's
water system. The water-tapping fee is meant to pay for costs to
build and maintain water infrastructure within Manheim Township.

Golf course ownership
The proposed settlement also puts an end to a dispute between the
township and its authority. Amid the litigation, Manheim Township
officials announced they had discovered the authority had never
handed over ownership of Overlook Golf Course.

Under a 1989 agreement, the municipal authority took on a $7.6
million government bond to pay for the golf course over 20 years,
according to newspaper archives. The township made payments to the
authority over the two-decade period, but the authority never
transferred the deed over to the township to make the township the
official owner.

Under the new agreement, the golf course will officially belong to
Manheim Township. [GN]

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Baek Due May 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NINA BAEK and MEGAN
RAMSEY, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
current and former guests, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
COURTYARD MANAGEMENT, LLC.; MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, LLC, and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-05944-DSF-E (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer entered an order granting the
parties' stipulation to continue motion for class certification.

-- Plaintiffs' Motion due:                  May 27, 2024

-- Defendants' Opposition due:              June 24, 2024

-- Plaintiffs' Reply due:                   July 22, 2024

-- Hearing Date:                            Aug. 12, 2024

Marriott is an American multinational company that operates,
franchises, and licenses lodging including hotel, residential and
timeshare properties.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fOqvHV at no extra
charge.[CC]


MARYGOLD COS.: Continues to Defend Consolidated Lucas Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Marygold Companies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated Lucas
shareholder class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

On June 19, 2020, USCF, USO, John P. Love, and Stuart P. Crumbaugh
were named as defendants in a putative class action filed by
purported shareholder Robert Lucas (the "Lucas Class Action").

The Court thereafter consolidated the Lucas Class Action with two
related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August
13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff.

The consolidated class action is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under the caption In re:
United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:20-cv-04740.

On November 30, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
(the "Amended Lucas Class Complaint").

The Amended Lucas Class Complaint asserts claims under the 1933
Act, the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5.

The Amended Lucas Class Complaint challenges statements in
registration statements that became effective on February 25, 2020
and March 23, 2020 as well as subsequent public statements through
April 2020 concerning certain extraordinary market conditions and
the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall
precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi
Arabia-Russia oil price war.

The Amended Lucas Class Complaint purports to have been brought by
an investor in USO on behalf of a class of similarly-situated
shareholders who purchased USO securities between February 25, 2020
and April 28, 2020 and pursuant to the challenged registration
statements.

The Amended Lucas Class Complaint seeks to certify a class and to
award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined
at trial as well as costs and attorney's fees.

The Amended Lucas Class Complaint named as defendants USCF, USO,
John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F
Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and
Malcolm R. Fobes III, as well as the marketing agent, ALPS
Distributors, Inc., and the Authorized Participants: ABN Amro, BNP
Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup
Global Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation,
Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura Securities International
Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, UBS
Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC.

The lead plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its
claims against BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel
Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse
Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley &
Company, Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital
Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, and UBS Securities LLC.

USCF, USO, and the individual defendants in In re: United States
Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation intend to vigorously contest
such claims and have moved for their dismissal.

Marygold Companies Inc. designs, markets, and supports unified
messaging products. The Company's products integrate voice
technology and software as a solution to the remote access needs
of Internet electronic mail (e-mail), fax, and voice mail users.
Marygold's software enables Internet e-mail users to have e-mail
read to them over any telephone as instructed by voice command.
[BN]


MASSIMO ZANETTI: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Massimo Zanetti
Beverage USA, Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Massimo Zanetti
Beverage USA, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01255 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20,
2024).

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

Massimo Zanetti Beverage USA, Inc. -- https://www.mzb-usa.com/ --
operates as a coffee roasting and manufacturing company. The
Company offers cocoa, flavored and non-flavored coffee, and
flavored beverages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2704: Plaintiffs Seeks to File Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re: Interest Rate Swaps
Antitrust Litigation (MDL 2704), Case No. 1:15-cv-09319-JPO
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order:

    (1) permitting Class Plaintiffs to file a motion for
certification
        of a Rule 23(c)(4) issue class and

    (2) granting the pending motion to preliminarily approve the
$25
        million settlement agreement between Class Plaintiffs and
        Defendant Credit Suisse.

The Court Should Permit Plaintiffs To File A Motion For
Certification Of A Rule 23(c)(4) Issue Class Pursuant to Rule
23(c)(4), the Plaintiffs seek leave to file for certification of a
class limited to the core liability issue of whether the Defendants
agreed to boycott all-to-all anonymous ("AA2A") trading platforms
in the market for interest rate swaps ("IRS"), in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Certifying this Rule 23(c)(4) issue
class is the most efficient path forward for this case.

The question of whether Defendants conspired -- as distinct from
issues of antitrust impact and damages -- is unquestionably common
to the approximately 8,000 members of the proposed class. It makes
no sense to hold many individual trials on that common issue.

The Class Plaintiffs allege that Defendants -- eleven of the
largest banks in the world -- conspired to boycott AA2A platform
trading of IRS. Dkt. 723 at 1. In the existing over-the-counter
("OTC") market structure, Defendants act as intermediaries for most
IRS trades, collecting "spreads" between the bid and ask prices.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zqHboh at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
          E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com

                - and -

          Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN
          1100 New York Ave NW Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (212) 838-0177
          E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com

MDL 2904: Bratten Suit Transferred to New Jersey
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bratten v. Quest
Diagnostics Incorporated et al. (AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION
AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION MDL No.
2904), Case No. 2:23-cv-02546-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Court
entered an order transferring the Bratten Suit to the District of
New Jersey and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the
Honorable Madeline Cox Arleo for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

Quest and Optum360 move under 28 U.S.C. section 1407 for transfer
of the Bratten action to MDL No. 2904.

The Plaintiff Bratten, who is represented by the Plaintiffs' lead
counsel in the MDL, opposes the motion. After considering the
argument of counsel, we find that the Bratten action involves
common questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No.
2904, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. section 1407 will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation, the Court says.

In the order establishing this MDL, we held that centralization
was warranted for actions concerning a data security breach on the
systems of American Medical Collection Agency ("AMCA") involving
patient data that various medical diagnostic testing companies and
their agents, such as Quest and Optum360, had provided to AMCA for
billing and collection purposes.

In Bratten, the plaintiff alleges that Quest and Optum360
transmitted the medical information of Quest patients to
third-party debt collection agencies, including AMCA, without
patient authorization in violation of state law and, as a result,
plaintiff suffered damages from the unauthorized release of his
medical information.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3l0TcS at no extra
charge.[CC]

MDL 2918: Defendants Seek to Seal Portions of EUPs' Oppositions
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Hard Disk Drive Suspension
Assemblies Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC (N.D.
Cal.), the Defendant submit to the Court an administrative motion
to consider Whether Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed.

The materials sought to be sealed are portions of the Defendants'
Opposition to End-User Plaintiffs' ("EUPs") Supplemental Memorandum
in Support of Class Certification and accompanying materials.

These materials were designated as "Confidential" or "Highly
Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only" by third parties Apple,
Dell, and Western Digital pursuant to the Stipulated Protective
Order.

The Defendants have redacted the corresponding information derived
from these materials in the Defendants’ Opposition and
accompanying materials, but take no position on whether the
material should be sealed.

Sealing is sought for the material or documents identified in the
chart below.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=amQrIc at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Craig Y. Lee, Esq.
          Carter C. Simpson, Esq.
          Alexandra Glazer, Esq.
          Navi Singh Dhillon, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          2050 M Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 551-1700
          E-mail: craiglee@paulhastings.com
                  cartersimpson@paulhastings.com
                  alexglazer@paulhastings.com
                  navidhillon@paulhastings.com

                - and -

          J. Clayton Everett, Jr., Esq.
          Michelle Park Chiu, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1111 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 739-3000
          Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
          E-mail: clay.everett@morganlewis.com
                  michelle.chiu@morganlewis.com

MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Narrows Claims in Bolling Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE BOLLING,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et
al., v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00671-TWT
(N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. entered an order:

-- Denying as moot the Defendants' motion to dismiss the class
action
    complaint; and

-- Granting the Defendants' motion to Dismiss the First Amended
    Complaint with respect to Count I as to Plaintiffs Dedman and
    Phlegar, Count II as to Plaintiff Dedman, Count III in its
    entirety, and Count V as to the Plaintiffs Bolling and Foster-
    Gittens. It is denied as to all other claims.

The Plaintiff Phlegar alleges that her vehicle's "sunroof suddenly
imploded and shattered." This caused there to be a hole in the roof
of her car that exposed occupants to the elements and led her to
"promptly contact a nearby
authorized dealership" to seek repairs.

The dealership refused to cover the repairs, and the Plaintiff
Phlegar has since replaced the glass.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff Phlegar alleges that if she had known
about the alleged defect, she would not have purchased the
vehicle.

The Court finds that these facts are sufficient to allege a
Song-Beverly Act claim.

The case involves an alleged defect in panoramic sunroofs ("PSRs")

installed in motor vehicles. PSRs are glass sunroofs that, on some
vehicles, stretch across much of the entire roof of the vehicle.

Mercedes-Benz has been offering vehicles with factory-installed
PSRs since the early 2000s. The Defendant Mercedes-Benz Group AG
(MBG) is a foreign corporation "engaged in the business of
designing, engineering, manufacturing, testing, marketing,
supplying, selling, and distributing motor vehicles, including the
Class Vehicles, in the United States."

The Plaintiffs bring this case on behalf of a putative class (and
several putative subclasses) of individuals who purchased or leased
a
Class Vehicle.

The Plaintiffs allege that the PSRs installed in the Class Vehicles
are aefective because they "are prone to spontaneously and often
loudly shattering under normal driving conditions, creating a
safety hazard for the vehicle occupants and surrounding traffic."

The Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC ("MBUSA") is an MBG-owned
distributor for passenger cars in the United States.

The Named Plaintiffs are various individuals who purchased
Mercedes-Benz vehicles whose PSRs suddenly shattered under normal
driving conditions.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 30, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CyBuPO
at no extra charge.[CC]

MERCY INVESTMENT: Underwoods' Bid to Seal in Reynolds Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York grants the Underwoods' motion to seal
in the lawsuit captioned AMANDA REYNOLDS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCY
INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-00362-NJC-JMW (E.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Amanda Reynolds commenced this class action lawsuit
seeking relief against Defendants Mercy Investment Services, Inc.
("MIS"); Mercy Education System of the Americas ("MESA"); Sisters
of Mercy of the Americas Mid-Atlantic Community, Inc.; Our Lady of
Mercy Academy, Corp. ("OLMA"); Sister Lisa Griffith (Executive
Director of MESA); Margaret Myhan (President of OLMA); and Patricia
Dilollo (OLMA Director of Advancement). She alleges several causes
of action including: (1) fraud, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3)
breach of contract, (4) unjust enrichment, and (5) vicarious
liability.

On Jan. 23, 2024, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case. No
appearances were filed by any Defendant. However, non-parties
surfaced, namely, Allen J. Underwood and Karen Underwood, who filed
a motion to seal (1) the Plaintiff's Supplemental Affirmation that
was filed in connection with her order to show cause filed at ECF
No. 7, as well as the (2) motion to seal itself and accompanying
papers.

The Plaintiff is an alumna from OLMA's class of 2001. This action,
styled as a class action, purported to consist of OLMA students,
parents, alumnae, donors, and other stakeholders in Catholic
Sisters of Mercy schools that were forced to shut their doors by
the Defendants. MIS, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Mid-Atlantic
Community, Inc., and OLMA are all not-for-profit corporations and
MESA is a sponsored ministry of the Institute of the Sisters of
Mercy of the Americas.

According to the Plaintiff, on Jan. 8, 2024, the Board of
Administration of OLMA announced that it would be closing in June
2024. The Defendants cited changing demographics and lower
enrollment in the past decade as reasons for its closure.
Stakeholders made significant efforts to prevent the closure by
obtaining signatures for petitions and holding meetings to, inter
alia, identify fundraising activities to put the school back in
good financial standing. However, MESA stated that the decision to
close was final.

The Plaintiff claims that MESA knew of the school's impending
demise as early as 2018 but only recently announced the closure.
She states that the Defendants continued to collect donations
despite knowing about the school's state. Indeed, during a Zoom
meeting with the anticipated class of Plaintiffs, DiLollo, OLMA's
Director of Advancement, admitted that executives did not tell
alumnae about the situation because it would have impacted the
school's enrollment.

The Defendants also emphasized that the property was not going to
be sold or repurposed, but the Plaintiff suspects otherwise, and
believes it is currently postured for sale.

On Jan. 18, 2024, the Plaintiff filed this Complaint alleging that
(1) the Defendants committed fraud in representing that the tuition
monies and donations would be used in accordance with the
Plaintiffs' intentions and used to maintain OLMA but they were not
used for such purposes; (2) the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties owed to the Plaintiff when they acted in their own interests
and not the school's; (3) the Defendants breached the contract with
the Plaintiff when they misappropriated monies provided by the
anticipated class; (4) the Defendants were unjustly enriched as a
result of receiving these monies and the class detrimentally relied
on their promise to use the money to benefit OLMA; and (5) all
Defendants are liable for their employees', agents', or
subsidiaries' actions

The Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. She also
filed an order to show cause seeking a temporary restraining order
("TRO"), injunctive relief and an attachment in which she requested
that the Court order the Defendants to refrain from engaging in the
conduct alleged in the Complaint--that is, closing the school would
cause immediate, irreparable harm.

In connection with that motion, the Plaintiff also filed a
"Supplemental Affirmation" purportedly in support of her motion for
a TRO. In it, the Plaintiff mounts a blunderbuss approach on the
non-parties of what could be perceived as nothing short of a
scurrilous attack. It is that filing that forms the basis of the
instant application.

The Hon. Nusrat J. Choudhury preliminarily reviewed the motion for
a TRO but denied the Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma
pauperis on two occasions. Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiff filed
a stipulation of dismissal stating that since filing the action,
her email, phone, internet and bank account have been hacked into
and a request has been made for her to withdraw the action. She
says she fears for the safety of her family and for herself.

The case was thereafter closed. The Underwoods then filed the
instant motion to seal the "Supplement to Attorney Affirmation,"
filed at ECF No. 7 and their motion itself, arguing that the filing
at ECF No. 7 is essentially patently false and harmful. They argue
that the Supplemental Affirmation is not a "judicial document,"
thus, the presumption of access does not arise. However, even if it
were a "judicial document," they argue that there is a strong
privacy interest warranting sealing of the document.

The Plaintiff opposes, stating that the application "should be
denied on logic alone" and that the test for determining whether
the document is a judicial document is inapplicable. The opposition
cites no legal support or authority.

At the outset, the Court notes that the non-parties have standing
to bring this motion. Notwithstanding their status as non-parties
to the action, courts in this Circuit have routinely allowed
non-parties to file such motions seeking similar relief and apply
the Lugosch test in analyzing the merits of the motion to seal
(citing Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d
Cir. 2006)). Having determined standing, the Court applies the
Lugosch test here.

The threshold question is whether the Supplemental Affirmation is a
"judicial document." Here, the document was submitted in connection
with the Plaintiff's motion for a TRO. Notwithstanding the
non-parties' assertion that the document is not a judicial one in
part because of the case's dismissal, the Court finds to the
contrary. Judge Wicks explains that sworn statements, such as
affidavits, affirmations or declarations submitted in support of an
application for relief, are considered judicial documents if it
would influence the court's ruling on the underlying motion.

The Supplemental Affirmation was filed the very same day as the
application for an Order to Show Cause. The Supplemental
Affirmation was filed in support of the Order to Show Cause. All of
those submissions were filed in order to seek the TRO relief. It
was unquestionably a document used and relied upon by the Court
and, therefore, relevant to the performance of the judicial
function and useful in the judicial process, Judge Wicks opines.
For these reasons, the Supplemental Affirmation is considered a
"judicial document" regardless if the TRO motion is no longer
extant and the case has since been dismissed.

Having found that the document in question is a judicial document,
Judge Wicks says the next consideration is whether there is a
presumption of access associated with the document and whether
there are any countervailing concerns.

Judge Wicks notes that judicial documents are presumptively subject
to public inspection. However, declarations are subject to a
lesser--but still substantial--presumption of public access. Here,
the Supplemental Affirmation discusses the non-parties' alleged
involvement in the fraud in the Complaint.

Like Zappin v. Cohen, No. 15-cv-7271 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2016), ECF
No. 24, Judge Wicks says the case here has since been dismissed
just 5 days after the Complaint was filed. The public will,
therefore, have little interest, if any, in viewing the
Supplemental Affirmation. The dismissal was voluntary by the
Plaintiff. No application was made for dismissal, so the Court
merely directed the case closed upon the filing of the
"stipulation" (really notice) of dismissal under Rule 41(a).

The non-parties cite various legitimate reasons for sealing in
light of their respective occupations. Mindful that social
embarrassment and concerns regarding future employment are "legally
insufficient" reasons to seal a case even after it is voluntarily
dismissed, nevertheless in light of the scandalous accusations
leveled, coupled with the lack of proof or evidence offered in
opposition to the motion to seal to support such accusations, the
Court concludes in the exercise of discretion that the requested
documents warrant sealing.

The movants only seek to seal the Supplemental Affirmation filed at
ECF No. 7 and the motion to seal filings at ECF No. 15, 16 and 17.
The remainder of the record, including the Complaint, remains
unsealed and open for public viewing. This means that the public
right to access these other documents is only minimally infringed,
if at all, Judge Wicks explains.

Finally, the Court notes that the movants took swift action in
filing his motion: exactly one week after the Plaintiff docketed
her Supplemental Affirmation and three days after the case was
dismissed. This circumstance tips the scale in favor of sealing.

For these reasons, the Court finds that the movants' privacy
interests clearly outweigh the public's presumption of access to
these limited documents, thus, warranting the sealing of ECF Nos.
7, 15, 16 and 17.

Based upon the foregoing, Judge Wicks grants the Underwood's motion
to seal ECF Nos. 7, 15, 16 and 17. The Clerk of the Court is
directed to file those entries under seal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 8, 2024, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/57nwmvvhfrom PacerMonitor.com.

Joshua I. Sherman -- jsherman@ck-litigation.com -- Calcagni &
Kanefsky, LLP, in Newark, New Jersey 07102, Attorney for Movant and
Non-Party Allen J. Underwood.


METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Parties Must Resolve Discovery Row
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Paulino-Santos et al., v.
Metropolitan Transportation Authority et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-03471-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jessica G.L. Clarke
entered an order adopting the deadlines for class certification
briefing:

-- The parties are directed to resolve the pending discovery
    disputes, without waiver of the parties' ability raise
discovery  
    disputes in accordance with Individual Rule 4(k).

The parties met and conferred on Jan. 4 (for approximately 1.7
hours), January 10 (0.3 hours) and January 23 (0.9 hours). Gregory
Laufer and Tamar Holoshitz represented defendants; Maia Goodell and
Britney Wilson represented plaintiffs.

Metropolitan Transportation is a public benefit corporation
responsible for public transportation in the New York City
metropolitan area.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZTwXYi at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maia Goodell, Esq.
          Emily Bass, Esq.
          VLADECK, RASKIN & CLARK, P.C.
          111 Broadway, Suite 1505
          New York, NY 10006
          E-mail: mgoodell@vladeck.com

                - and -

          Britney R. Wilson, Esq.
          NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL
          LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
          185 West Broadway
          New York, NY 10013
          E-mail: Britney.Wilson@nyls.edu

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory F. Laufer, Esq.
          Tamar Holoshitz, Esq.
          Kerissa N. Barron, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,
          WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          E-mail: glaufer@paulweiss.com
                  tholoshitz@paulweiss.com
                  kbarron@paulweiss.com

MINISO GROUP: New York Court Tosses Investors' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Miller, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that MINISO Group
Holding Ltd. and its underwriters will not face allegations that
they failed to disclose the company directly owned and operated
stores previously portrayed as franchises to investors.

A proposed class action alleging MINISO artificially inflated its
share price by touting the franchise model and a joint venture to
build a new headquarters, while concealing challenges to revenue,
fails to show any material misrepresentations, according to the
opinion filed Feb. 23 in US District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

MINISO investors didn't establish loss causation. [GN]

MINUS MOONSHINE: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Minus Moonshine, LLC.
The case is styled as Rhondine Melendez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Minus Moonshine, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-01228 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2024).

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

Minus Moonshine, LLC -- https://minusmoonshine.com/ -- offers
selection of nonalcoholic beers, wines, spirits, mixers, cocktails,
and more.[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


MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Schecter Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mitsubishi Motors
North America, Inc. The case is styled as K. Mason Schecter,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00246-KSM
(E.D. Pa., Jan. 18, 2024).

The nature if suit is stated as Other Contract.

Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. --
http://www.mitsubishicars.com/-- is the U.S. operation of
Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, overseeing sales and research and
development functions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SHUB AND JOHNS LLC
          Four Tower Bridge
          200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
          West Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Phone: (610) 477-8380
          Email: jshub@shublawyers.com

               - and -

          Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
          Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
          EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
          411 S. State Street, Ste. N-300
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Phone: (215) 867-2399
          Fax: (267) 685-0676
          Email: medelson@edelson-law.com
                 LVerderame@edelson-law.com


NATIONAL HOCKEY: World Association Alleges Antitrust Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WORLD ASSOCIATION OF ICEHOCKEY PLAYERS UNIONS NORTH AMERICA
DIVISION and WORLD ASSOCIATION OF ICEHOCKEY PLAYERS UNIONS USA
CORPORATION, on behalf of their members, and Tanner Gould and
Isaiah DiLaura, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, CANADIAN HOCKEY
LEAGUE, WESTERN HOCKEY LEAGUE, ONTARIO MAJOR JUNIOR HOCKEY LEAGUE,
QUÉBEC MARITIMES JUNIOR HOCKEY LEAGUE, Dan MacKenzie, Jacobson &
Greiner Group of Companies, Calgary Sports and Entertainment
Corporation, OEG Inc., Edmonton Major Junior Hockey Corporation,
CSH International, Inc., Kamloops Blazers Hockey Club, Inc.,
Kelowna Rockets Hockey Enterprises Ltd., Wenatchee Wild LLC,
Lethbridge Hurricanes Hockey Club Ltd., 1091956 Alta Ltd., Medicine
Hat Tiger Hockey Club Ltd., Moose Jaw Tier 1 Hockey Inc.,
Winterhawks Sports Group LLC, Prince Albert Raiders Hockey Club
Inc., EDGEPRo Sports & Entertainment Ltd., Rebels Sports Ltd.,
Brandt Group of Companies, Priestner Sports Corporation, Saskatoon
Blades Hockey Club Ltd., Thunderbird Hockey Enterprises, LLC, Brett
Sports & Entertainment, Inc., Swift Current Bronco Hockey Club
Inc., Top Shelf Entertainment, Inc., Vancouver Junior Hockey
Limited Partnership, GSL Group, West Coast Hockey LLP, Windsor
Spitfires, Inc., London Knights Hockey Inc., Barrie Colts Junior
Hockey Ltd., Horsepower Sports and Entertainment Group Inc.,
Bulldog Hockey Inc., Jaw Hockey Enterprises LP, Guelph Storm Ltd.,
Kingston Frontenac Hockey Ltd., Mississauga Steelheads Hockey Club
Inc., Niagara IceDogs Hockey Club Inc., North Bay Battalion Hockey
Club Ltd., Generals Hockey, Inc., Ottawa 67's Limited Partnership,
The Owen Sound Attack Inc., Peterborough Petes Limited, IMS Hockey,
Corp, Saginaw Hockey Club, L.L.C., 211 SSHC Canada ULC, Soo
Greyhounds Inc., Kitchener Rangers Jr. A Hockey Club, Sudbury
Wolves Hockey Club Ltd., 8487693 Canada Inc., Hockey Junior
BaieComeau, Club de Hockey Drummond Inc., Cape Breton Major Junior
Hockey Club ULC, Cape Breton Major Junior Hockey Club Limited
Partnership, Les Olympiques de Gatineau Inc., Halifax Mooseheads
Hockey Club Inc., Club Hockey Les Remparts de Québec Inc., Le Club
de Hockey Junior Armada Inc., Moncton Wildcats Hockey Club Limited,
Le Club de Hockey L'Oceanic de Rimouski Inc., Les Huskies de
Rouyn-Noranda Inc., 8515182 Canada Inc., Les Tigres de
Victoriaville (1991) Inc., Saint John Major Junior Hockey Club
Limited, Club de Hockey Shawinigan Inc., Les Foreurs de Val-d'Or
(2012) Inc., Les Saguenéens Junior Majeur de Chicoutimi, and
7759983 Canada Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01066 (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 14, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
the Sherman Antitrust Act.

This case is about Defendants' per se unlawful agreements to
restrain the North American market for the provision of hockey
services by players aged 16-20 to developmental leagues that train
players to play hockey in the NHL and its affiliated developmental
leagues. The Defendants' scheme results in the systematic
exploitation and abuse of Major Junior Players, which effectively
treats those teenaged athletes as the property of the Major Junior
Clubs that control those Players' rights and their futures.

The monopsony power created by these illegal agreements empowers
the Major Junior Clubs to exploit Players, including by Defendants'
further illegal agreement to artificially suppress Player
compensation through the standardized terms and payment schedules
set forth in the Major Junior Leagues' rules and Standard Player
Agreements. These rules and provisions also allow Defendants to
illegally profit from the labor of Major Junior Players. As a
result of Defendants' illegal agreements, Major Junior Players are
paid a mere fraction of what they would earn in a competitive
marketplace and are thus substantially undercompensated despite the
full-time, physically demanding nature of the labor they provide,
says the suit.

Plaintiffs World Association of Icehockey Players Unions North
America Division and World Association of Icehockey Players Unions
USA Corporation are labor organizations that represent the
interests of current and prospective North American major junior
hockey players.

National Hockey League is an unincorporated joint venture
association that operates a professional ice hockey league, which
consists of 32-member Clubs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey I. Shinder, Esq.
          Ethan E. Litwin, Esq.
          CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP
          335 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 350-2700
          E-mail: jshinder@constantinecannon.com
                  elitwin@constantinecannon.com

               - and -

          J. Wyatt Fore, Esq.
          CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP
          1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 1300N
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 204-3500
          E-mail: wfore@constantinecannon.com

               - and -

          Judith A. Zahid, Esq.
          Sarah Van Culin, Esq.
          ZELLE LLP
          555 12th Street, Suite 1230
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (415) 693-0700
          E-mail: jzahid@zellelaw.com
                  svanculin@zellelaw.com

               - and -
     
          James R. Martin, Esq.
          ZELLE LLP
          1774 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 375
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 899-4101
          E-mail: jmartin@zellelaw.com

               - and -

          Stacey Leyton, Esq.
          Michael Rubin, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          E-mail: sleyton@altber.com
                  mrubin@altber.com

               - and -

          Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
          Robin van der Meulen, Esq.
          Noah L. Cozad, Esq.
          LEVITT LLP
          485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 933-1000
          E-mail: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com
                  rvandermeulen@dicellolevitt.com
                  ncozad@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLP
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: bhogan@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
          Richard Brunell, Esq.
          HILLIARD SHADOWEN LLP
          1135 6th Street, Suite 125
          Austin, TX 78703
          Telephone: (717) 903-1177
          E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
                  rbrunell@hilliardshadowenlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul Slater, Esq.
          Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
          Trevor K. Scheetz, Esq.
          Matthew Slater, Esq.
          SPERLING & SLATER, LLC
          55 West Monroe, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (872) 212-3320
          E-mail: pes@sperling-law.com
                  jvanek@sperling-law.com
                  tscheetz@sperling-law.com
                  mslater@sperling-law.com

NATIONAL WIRE: Ramirez Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Augusto Carrera Ramirez, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NATIONAL WIRE AND CABLE CORPORATION; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV01632 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., Jan. 22, 2024), is brought as a result of the
Defendants' failure to pay all wages; failure to provide meal
periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to permit rest
periods or provide compensation in lieu thereof; failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties; failure
to reimburse business expenses; violations of the Unfair
Competition Law; and violations of the Private Attorneys General
Act of 2004.

The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members all sick
pay, vacation pay, minimum, regular, overtime, and double time
wages for all hours worked in violation of the Labor Code and IWC
Wage Orders. During the PAGA Period, Plaintiff and Class Members
regularly worked more than 8 hours and/or 10 hours per workday,
over 40 hours per workweek, and/or over 8 hours per workday on the
seventh consecutive day of work. Defendants’ practices and
policies deprived Plaintiff and Class Members of minimum, regular,
overtime, and/or double time wages for work they performed off the
clock, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly
employee from May 10, 1979 through July 14, 2023.

NATIONAL WIRE AND CABLE CORPORATION was and is a California
corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Alami, Esq.
          Daniel J. Hyun, Esq.
          Shaheen Anthony Etemadi, Esq.
          TORUS LLP
          23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (949) 590-4122
          Facsimile: (949) 528-2596
          Email: david@torusllp.com
                 daniel@torusllp.com
                 shawn@torusllp.com


NATURELO PREMIUM: Wallin Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fred Wallin, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. Naturelo Premium
Supplements LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-05960-DEA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting preliminary approval of
the Class Action Settlement Agreement between Plaintiff and
Naturelo.

The Plaintiff requests that the Court

    (i) conditionally certify the Settlement Class for purposes of
        settlement;

   (ii) appoint the Plaintiff as the Settlement Class
Representative;

  (iii) appoint Lemberg Law, LLC, as Class Counsel;

   (iv) preliminarily approve the terms of the Settlement
Agreement;

    (v) approve the form, content and method of delivering notice
to
        the Settlement Class as set out in the Settlement Agreement
as
        "the best notice that is practicable under the
circumstances;"
        and

   (vi) schedule a final approval hearing in accordance with the
        deadlines set forth in the proposed Preliminary Approval
        Order.

Naturelo formulates and markets a line of nutritional supplements
such as multivitamins, greens, probiotics, and omega-3 fish oil.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sjGrLD at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          Stephen Taylor, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250

NAVY FEDERAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Racial Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Horne at wavy.com reports that a team of attorneys, including
nationally-known civil rights advocate Ben Crump, claims Navy
Federal Credit Union -- the world's larges credit union -- used
racially-motivated lending practices.

The lawsuit alleges that Navy Federal approved White mortgage
applicants at a disproportionately higher rate than Black and
Hispanic applicants in 2022.

Navy Federal said the disparity in approval rates doesn't take into
account all factors, that it's a national leader in lending to the
Black community and points to what it describes as robust and fair
lending programs committed to serving each and every member
fairly.

Crump was flanked by other attorneys and several of the named
plaintiffs at a news conference.

Plaintiff Bob Otondi was an executive with his company in Texas.
Navy Federal initially approved his application, but then reversed
the decision and rejected him two weeks before closing.

"I know that the reason that Navy Federal denied my mortgage
application was because of my race," Otondi said. "That is very
wrong. That flies in the face of everything that makes this country
great."

Navy Federal first came under fire about its lending practices in a
CNN investigation in December.

Crump said while Navy Federal rejected just 23% of White applicants
in 2022, the rejection rate rose to 44% for Hispanics, and jumped
to 52% for Black mortgage applicants. He said this has forced
people of color to go to other lenders at higher interest rates.

"As a result of race-based factors, Black and Hispanic borrowers
have paid $765 million more in interest rates per year than White
borrowers," Crump said.

That's exactly what happened to Marie Pereda. She and her Marine
Corps husband had high income and no debt, but got rejected and had
to keep searching for a lender.

"The delay caused the interest rates to go up and the house that we
purchased was more expensive," Pereda said, "so we are paying more
than we would have if Navy Federal had approved us."

In a statement sent to WAVY, Navy Federal said it is committed to
serving all of its members fairly. The statement reads:

"As a not-for-profit credit union, Navy Federal is committed to
serving each and every one of our members fairly, and we work daily
to help expand economic opportunity and access to credit for our
diverse community of members. Black borrowers make up one in four
of our members, and we are proud of the fact Navy Federal ranks
first among large lenders in the percentage of mortgage loans made
to Black borrowers.

"We have robust fair lending programs that perform testing and
review policies, procedures, and lending data, which help expand
economic opportunity and access to homeownership. While it is Navy
Federal's policy not to comment on pending litigation, we look
forward to responding to these claims in our forthcoming filings
with the court."

Former NFCU member Carl Carr said he was approved, at first, to
purchase a home in North Carolina.

"Just two days before closing, we got denied and we had to go back
to the drawing board," he said.

Christina Hill is a former Navy E-4 and disabled veteran. She had
been a a Navy Federal member for decades, and said her mortgage
denial shattered her pride.

"If my bank for over 30 years would not give me a loan, I could not
believe that another bank would."

An estimated 9,300 people of color applied for Navy Federal
mortgages in 2022 in Virginia alone. That represents about one in
10 of all such applicants nationwide. Navy Federal is headquartered
in Vienna, Va. [GN]

NCH HEALTHCARE: McFalls Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN MCFALLS,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated and
the Proposed Rule 23 Class, v. NCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., and
NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC. Case No. 2:23-cv-00572-SPC-KCD
(M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

-- granting her Motion and conditionally certifying this case as a

    collective action pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

    "All individuals who: (1) were employed by Defendants during
the
    period between July 31, 2020, until trial; (2) participated in

    Defendants' Specialty Fellowship Program; and (3) were subject
to
    the Specialty Fellowship Program Employment Agreement;"

-- directing the Defendants to provide the names and contact
    information of all potential members of the collective to
enable
    Ms. McFalls to make all reasonable efforts to provide them with

    notice of this action; and

-- facilitating notice to all members of the collective using
    the Notice submitted by Ms. McFalls.

For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum,
declarations, and exhibits,
and any argument by counsel, the Court should grant this Motion.

The Plaintiff alleges that the NCH Defendants failed to pay their
nurses the minimum wage free and clear and received a kickback of
wages from nurses.

These alleged violations stem from NCH's requirement that nurses
who are in NCH's fellowship program work for NCH for two years. If
a nurse leaves before two years, NCH collects or attempts to
collect $5,000 from the nurses as purported costs of the program.
NCH claims it can
do so under its training repayment agreement provision ("TRAP") in
its form contracts with nurses.

NCH is a healthcare and hospital system based in Naples, Florida,
which operates two hospitals.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kw713S at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Pamela G. Levinson, Esq.
          Jeffrey Newsome, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
          400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1900
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          E-mail: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
                  bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
                  plevinson@vandwlaw.com
                  jnewsome@vandwlaw.com

                - and -

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

NEOGENOMICS INC: Continues to Defend Goldenberg Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
NeoGenomics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual
period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 20, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from Goldenberg shareholder class suit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

On December 16, 2022, a purported shareholder class action
captioned Daniel Goldenberg v. NeoGenomics, Inc., Douglas VanOort,
Mark Mallon, Kathryn McKenzie, and William Bonello was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
naming the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
officers as defendants.

This lawsuit was filed by a stockholder who claims to be suing on
behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between February 27, 2020 and April 26, 2022.

The lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact were made in the Company's public
disclosures in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding the
Company's menu of tests, business operations and compliance with
health care laws and regulations.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney’s fees and expert fees.

The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the claims
alleged in the lawsuit, but there is no guarantee that the Company
will prevail. At the time of filing the outcome of these matters
are not estimable or probable.

NeoGenomics Inc. is a cancer reference laboratory that provides
cancer testing and partnership programs to pathologists and
oncologists.[BN]


NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Seeks to Adjourn Class Cert Briefing
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Doe v. New York
University (NYU), Case No. 1:23-cv-10515-VSB-SN (S.D.N.Y.), NYU
requests that the Court adjourn briefing on the Plaintiff's class
certification motion in order to prevent NYU and this Court from
having to needlessly expend time and resources while the Court
decides NYU's motion to dismiss.

As a result, briefing on class certification would also necessitate
briefing and decision on Plaintiff's pseudonymity.

In contrast, because NYU does not intend to challenge Plaintiff's
use of a pseudonym in connection with NYU’s motion to dismiss,
adjourning briefing on class certification would also put off any
need to brief pseudonymity.

Moreover, any putative class members will enjoy the benefit of any
preliminary relief Plaintiff can secure, with or without class
certification; as a practical matter, the Law Review cannot use one
editor selection policy for Plaintiff while using a different
policy for his competitors.

NYU is a private, global, non-sectarian and not-for-profit
institution of higher education.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PylqmM at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Roberta A. Kaplan, Esq.
          KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP
          350 Fifth Avenue 63rd Floor
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 763-0883
          Facsimile: (212) 564-0883
          E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com

NONNI'S FOODS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Bardsley Due March 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bardsley v. Nonni's Foods
LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-02979 (S.D.N.Y., Filed April 11, 2020), the
Hon. Judge Nelson Stephen Roman entered an order on granting letter
motion for extension of time.

The schedule is adjusted as follows:

   (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification       March 4,
2024
       shall be filed no later than:

   (2) Plaintiff's expert reports shall be served       March 5,
2024
       no later than:

   (3) The Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition         April 3,
2024
       to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
       Certification shall be filed no later than:

   (4) The Defendant's expert reports shall be          April 4,
2024
       served no later than:

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property --
Diversity-Fraud.

Nonni's is the producer, marketer, and distributor of branded
premium specialty cookies and baked goods in North America.[CC]
 


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Suit Over Train Derailment Mishap
---------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2024, that
there is a consolidated putative class action pending in the
Northern District of Ohio (Eastern Division) in which plaintiffs
allege various claims, including negligence, gross negligence,
strict liability, and nuisance, and seeking as relief compensatory
and punitive damages, medical monitoring and business losses
resulting from the February 3, 2023 train derailment in East
Palestine, Ohio that included 11 non-Company-owned tank cars
containing hazardous materials, fires associated with the
derailment that threatened certain of the tank cars, and a
controlled vent and burn procedure conducted on February 6, 2023 on
five of the derailed tank cars, all of which contained vinyl
chloride.

Norfolk Southern Corporation is an Atlanta, Georgia-based company
that owns a major freight railroad, Norfolk Southern Railway
Company (NSR). It is primarily engaged in the rail transportation
of raw materials, intermediate products, and finished goods
primarily in the Southeast, East, and Midwest and, via interchange
with rail carriers, to and from the rest of the United States.  It
also transport overseas freight through several Atlantic and Gulf
Coast ports.


NORTHWELL HEALTH: Secko Files Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northwell Health,
Inc. The case is styled as Kathleen Secko, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northwell Health, Inc.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00443-GRB-LGD (D.N.J., Jan. 22, 2024).

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

Northwell Health -- https://www.northwell.edu/ -- is a nonprofit
integrated healthcare network that is New York State's largest
healthcare provider and private employer, with more than 81,000
employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert M. Rothman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (631) 367-7100
          Fax: (631) 367-1173
          Email: rrothman@rgrdlaw.com


NORTHWOOD HOSPITALITY: C.D. California Refuses to Remand Avila Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California denies the Plaintiff's motion to
remand the lawsuit captioned HECTOR A. AVILA, Plaintiff v.
NORTHWOOD HOSPITALITY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-09598-SB-AS
(C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Hector Avila filed this putative class action against his
employer, Defendant Northwood Hospitality, LLC, for various wage
and hour violations. The alleged violations are based in
substantial part on Defendant's policy requiring all employees to
keep their employer-issued walkie talkies on at all times during
their shifts, including during meal and rest breaks.

The Defendant removed the case under the Class Action Fairness Act
(CAFA), contending that the amount in controversy exceeded $5
million. The Plaintiff now moves to remand, arguing that the
Defendant's calculations are based on unreasonable assumptions.
Because the allegations in the complaint allege universal
violations for which the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional threshold, the Court denies the motion to remand.

The Plaintiff is a current employee of the Defendant, where he has
worked for almost 14 years. He brought this class action based on
two of the Defendant's policies that he claims caused it to violate
California labor laws. The first policy, allegedly in place from
March 2020 through the summer of 2021, required employees to wait
in line to undergo unpaid security checks of their bags and hats
before starting their shifts. The second policy, allegedly still in
place, requires all putative class members to keep
employer-provided walkie talkies on (and be available for work) at
all times, including during statutorily mandated rest periods and
off-the-clock meal breaks.

The Plaintiff brought claims for violations of California labor
laws governing minimum wage, overtime, meal and rest break periods,
wage statements, and timely payment upon termination ("waiting
time"), along with a claim for unfair business practices. He filed
his complaint in state court on Sept. 18, 2023.

The Defendant accepted service on October 11 and removed on
November 13. The Plaintiff now moves to remand, alleging that the
Defendant failed to meet the amount-in-controversy requirement
under CAFA by basing its calculations on unreasonable and
unsupported assumptions. The Court heard argument on the motion on
Feb. 2, 2024.

As a threshold matter, Judge Blumenfeld finds that the Plaintiff's
briefing fails to acknowledge controlling Ninth Circuit and Supreme
Court authority repudiating any presumption against removal in the
CAFA context.

In this case, the Plaintiff titled an entire section of his motion,
"The Ninth Circuit has a strong presumption against removal," in
which he states head-on: "This strong presumption against removal
jurisdiction equally applies to removal under CAFA," citing a
district court case predating Dart Cherokee by more than nine years
(Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89
(2014)).

After the Defendant pointed out the correct standard in its
opposition by quoting a recent order from this Court that cites
controlling case law (quoting McGrath v. All Med. Pers., Inc., No.
2:23-CV-05181-SB, 2023 WL 5507175 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2023)
(Blumenfeld, J.)), the Plaintiff doubled down, stating:
"Defendant's Opposition, while long on rhetoric, is short on
substance. As asserted in Plaintiff's Motion for Remand, it is
well-settled that the Ninth Circuit has a strong presumption
against removal."

The Plaintiff's repeated misstatement of the law is concerning,
Judge Blumenfeld says. The Court raised this concern in its
tentative order and directed the Plaintiff's counsel to be prepared
to address it at the motion hearing. The Court is satisfied that
the misstatement was the product of neglect rather than intent, and
counsel represented that she understood the mistake and would work
diligently to avoid such errors in the future. Counsel is cautioned
to exercise greater care to conduct proper legal research and read
relevant authority in the future.

Having clarified that there is no antiremoval presumption in the
CAFA context, the Court turns to the challenged calculation of the
amount in controversy.

Aside from his incorrect reliance on the presumption against
removal jurisdiction, the Plaintiff's primary argument is that the
Defendant's amount-in-controversy calculation is not supported by
reasonable assumptions. In its notice of removal, the Defendant
calculated the amount in controversy to be $8,934,816. This
calculation comprises the following: (1) $1,468,800 for minimum
wage violations; (2) $2,436,984 for meal period violations; (3)
$2,436,984 for rest period violations; (4) $403,700 for wage
statement violations; (5) $401,385 in waiting time penalties; and
(6) $1,786,963 in attorney's fees (equivalent to 25% of the common
fund).

In support of this calculation, the Defendant submitted two
declarations from Tricia Price, its Senior Vice President in charge
of the Defendant's Human Resources. In the first, Price states
that, based on her review of the company's records, the Defendant
employed 244 nonexempt employees in California during the class
period and that those employees worked in excess of 24,480
workweeks in that period for an average hourly wage of $19.91 per
hour.

In the second, Price states that the Defendant typically hires
employees to work a full-time schedule of 30–40 hours per week,
generally consisting of up to five weekly shifts, each lasting
6–8 hours. Price's review of the Plaintiff's own records reflects
that he falls within this range, as he worked an average of 4.3
shifts per week with an average of 7.3 hours per shift.

Relying on these figures and the walkie-talkie requirement alleged
in the complaint, the Defendant calculates the amount in
controversy for the meal and rest break violations to be the
largest of all the claims. Allegations in the complaint are the
first source of reference in determining the amount in
controversy.

Based on the Defendant's declarations and the allegations in the
complaint, the Court finds it reasonable to assume that each
putative class member suffered four weekly violations of the law
requiring meal and rest breaks. Multiplying the number of shifts
per week (4) by the total number of workweeks (24,480) by the
average hourly wage ($19.19) equates to $1,949,587.20 for the meal
period claim and $1,949,587.20 for the rest period claim—for a
total of $3,899,174.40 (for these two claims).

Judge Blumenfeld opines that the Defendant's calculation of waiting
time penalties is likewise supported by the allegations in the
complaint. Here, the Plaintiff alleges claims for unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime, and unpaid meal and rest breaks.

The complaint defines the waiting time class as all current and
former employees "who did not receive payment of all unpaid wages
upon separation of employment" within the three-year statutory time
period. The Defendant identifies 84 employees who have separated
from their employment with the Defendant since Sept. 18, 2020.

As in Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Servs., Inc., 28 F.4th
989, 993 (9th Cir. 2022), Judge Blumenfeld says it is reasonable to
assume that all 84 of these employees are entitled to the full
30-day penalty. Multiplying the number of terminated employees (84)
by the average hourly wage ($19.91) by the hours in a full workday
(8) and by the maximum days contemplated as a penalty (30) yields a
total of $401,385.60 in controversy on this claim.

At this point, the Court can stop. Adding the amounts in
controversy for the claims calculated thus far--meal period
violations ($1,949,587.20), rest period violations ($1,949,587.20),
and waiting time penalties ($401,385.60)--yields a subtotal of
$4,300,560. Adding 25% of this subtotal ($1,075,140) for attorney's
fees, as the Defendant did in its calculation and which the
Plaintiff does not challenge, yields an amount in controversy of
$5,375,700. This exceeds the threshold required under CAFA.

Judge Blumenfeld holds that CAFA's amount-in-controversy
requirement is met, and its citizenship requirement is not at
issue. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 5, 2024, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/57zdr6yefrom PacerMonitor.com.


OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Appeals Ruling in Eisenberg Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE W KUHN DRAINAGE DISTRICT, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JEFFREY EISENBERG,
individually and as representative of a Class of similarly-situated
persons and entities, Plaintiff v. GEORGE W. KUHN DRAINAGE
DISTRICT, a component unit of Oakland County with a separate legal
existence, and CITY OF ROYAL OAK, MICHIGAN, a municipal
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2023-200422-CZ, in the Michigan
Circuit Court for the County of Oakland.

The appellate case is captioned as JEFFREY EISENBERG vs. GEORGE W
KUHN DRAINAGE DISTRICT, Case No. 369632, in the Michigan Court of
Appeals, filed on Feb. 7, 2024.

This is an action challenging the amount charged by Defendant
Drainage District to Plaintiff and the Class -- through the City --
for stormwater disposal service which exceeds the costs the
Drainage District actually incurs for stormwater disposal.

According to the complaint, the Drainage District has
systematically overcharged Plaintiff and the Class for stormwater
disposal services by imposing the Stormwater Disposal Overcharge
for at least the last six years.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of the Class, seeks, among other things, a
refund of all Stormwater Disposal Overcharges they paid to the
Drainage District through the City from May 18, 2017 through the
filing of this action and all such Overcharges collected during the
pendency of this action.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants GEORGE W. KUHN DRAINAGE DISTRICT, a component
unit of Oakland County with a separate legal existence, and CITY OF
ROYAL OAK, MICHIGAN, a municipal corporation, are represented by:

          Sonal H. Mithani, Esq.
          101 N. Main Street, 7th Floor
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104           

Plaintiff-Appellee JEFFREY EISENBERG, individually and as
representative of a Class of similarly-situated persons and
entities, is represented by:

          Gregory D. Hanley, Esq.
          Jamie Warrow, Esq.
          Edward F. Kickham Jr., Esq.
          KICKHAM HANLEY PLLC
          32121 Woodward Avenue, Suite 300
          Royal Oak, MI 48073

ODIN PARKER: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Odin Parker, LLC. The
case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Odin Parker, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01259
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2024).

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

Odin Parker, LLC -- https://odinparker.com/ -- offers heirloom
quality wooden toys from around the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OTAY LAKES: Court Narrows Claims in Renn Suit
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT RENN, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v.
OTAY LAKES BREWERY, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01139-GPC-BLM (S.D.Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel entered an order granting in part
and denying in part defendant's motion to dismiss first amended
complaint with leave to amend.

On June 20, 2023, Mr. Renn filed a purported class action complaint
against Otay Lakes alleging deceptive and fraudulent marketing of
its alcoholic "Nova Kombucha" as "good for you" and promoting
"health, balance and goodness."

The Defendant advertises the Products on billboards around San
Diego with the phrase "Your Happy Healthy Hour".

The Plaintiff complains that these health and wellness messages
convey that Nova Kombucha, despite containing alcohol, are
nevertheless "good for you." "healthy" and "balanced" as well as
healthier than similar alcoholic beverages.

The Plaintiff alleges causes of action under California's Unfair
Competition Law.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8kb7rP at no extra
charge.[CC]

PACIFIC MARKET: Facing Class Action Over Lead Seal in Stanley Cups
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Harris at k1047.com reports that just as I was thinking my
Yeti Tumbler would be the last reusable cup I would ever need to
buy, along came the Stanley Quencher tumbler. I still haven't
hopped on the bandwagon. The only Stanley Cup for me currently
belongs to the Vegas Golden Knights. I'm hoping it comes back to
the Carolina Hurricanes this year. But back to the tumblers.
Apparently, they might have a lead problem.

The future of the trendy drinking vessels is looking a bit murky
due to some legal troubles. According to USA Today, Stanley is
being sued over a seal in the cups. More specifically, a new class
action lawsuit claims the company did not disclose the use or
presence of lead in its products. The suit was filed earlier this
month by a Seattle-based law firm on behalf of two women in
California and Nevada. The women, like many Americans, own multiple
Stanley Quenchers.

Misled About Lead?
On Stanley's website, the company writes that it has been
transparent about its use of lead and describes how its products
are still deemed safe. A few weeks ago the company confirmed the
presence of lead by saying, "Rest assured that no lead is present
on the surface of any Stanley product that comes into contact with
the consumer nor the contents of the product." In other words, the
lead isn't touching your beverage so, therefore, it isn't touching
you. The only lead in the cup is the vacuum seal dot at the
bottom.

While there's no evidence of the Stanley Quenchers causing any
health issues, the customers who initiated the class action suit
feel they should have been warned. And what if the cup is dropped
and damaged in such a way that the lead does suddenly come into
contact with the contents? That point has also been raised in the
suit, which the company says it will fight "vigorously."

What Doesn't Kill You Makes You Stronger
As a member of Generation X, I might not worry enough about the
presence of lead in my life. First of all, I didn't grow up with
these fancy hydration chalices. I drank from a dirty garden hose
with a rusty nozzle every summer of my youth. My water tasted
metallic and I liked it! And I was surrounded by lead paint. It was
on the walls and on my toys. Did you ever put a Matchbox car in
your mouth when you were little? Guess what. Lead!

My father loves to tell the story of a family vacation we took when
I was a baby. We stayed at an old bed & breakfast somewhere in
Quebec. He says the room was equipped with a crib from the 19th
Century that he's certain was made entirely of lead. As a teething
infant, I was probably gumming that thing like crazy. But I turned
out alright. Mostly. [GN]

PANERA BREAD: Settles Class Action Over Delivery Fees for $2M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leada Gorek, writing for aol.com, reports that a popular restaurant
chain is the latest company to settle claims of higher prices
related to delivery orders.

Panera Bread has agreed to a $2 million settlement to resolve the
suit, though it hasn't admitted was wrongdoing, Allrecipes
reported. The settlement is similar to that of a $4.4 million one
reached by Chick-fil-A after a class action lawsuit filed in
Georgia alleged the restaurant chain advertised free or low-cost
delivery but then recouped the money by raising its food prices for
delivery orders. Some of the increases were as much as 30%, the
Chick-fil-A suit alleged.

For Panera, the suits claim the company misled consumers about how
much they would pay for delivery orders, specifically when it came
to delivery fees and menu prices. Panera hasn't admitted any
wrongdoing.

To be eligible for the Panera settlement, you must have placed an
order for delivery -- not in-store pickup -- in the Panera app or
on its website from Oct. 1, 2020 to Aug. 31, 2021. You will be
required to enter the phone number used to make the order for
verification purposes, Allrecipes reported.

Settlements will come in two forms, based on a person's choosing:
two free vouchers of $9.50 each for free items from the "Soup &
Mac" menu or $12 via PayPal, Venmo or other form of electronic
payment. The amounts could go down, however, based on how many
people participate in the settlement, the claims website warns.

All of the awards will go out within 60 days after the court
certifies the settlement. A hearing is set for May 31st.

The deadline to file the claim is June 10. [GN]

PASTELES CAPY LLC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pasteles Capy, LLC.
The case is styled as Silvia Martinez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Pasteles Capy, LLC., Case No.
1:24-cv-01223 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2024).

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

Pasteles Capy, LLC -- https://ilovecapy.com/ -- offers the original
Tres Leches Cake.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PAUL SCHNELL: Court Denies Avila's Bid to Appoint Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Adolfo Gutierrez Avila,
Jr., v. Paul Schnell, Vicki Janssen, Jeanette Wilson, Jessica
Olson, and Tina Sneen, being sued in their individual capacities
Case No. 0:22-cv-03180-NEB-DLM (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Douglas
L. Micko entered an order denying the Plaintiff Avila's Motion to
Appoint Counsel.

The Court has concluded that amendment of Mr. Avila's Second
Amended Complaint would be futile based on qualified immunity. Not
surprisingly, his First Amended Complaint fares no better, since it
contains sparser allegations. The Court thus recommends granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss Mr. Avila's First Amended Complaint.

Mr. Avila, an inmate in Minnesota state prison, asserts each of the
named defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights in
establishing and instituting a COVID-19 mitigation strategy that
caused him to become infected with the virus in Nov. of 2020, and
again about 18 months later.

According to his First Amended Complaint, Mr. Avila seeks relief on
behalf 44 similarly-situated inmates as well.

Mr. Avila filed this prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 on Dec. 27, 2022, alleging that five Minnesota Department
of Corrections prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment right
to be free from cruel and unusual punishment while imprisoned.

He moved to amend his complaint on July 5, 2023, contemporaneously
filing his First Amended Complaint and several affidavits and
exhibits.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qSHeTV at no extra
charge.[CC]

PENNSYLVANIA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Pagan Suit Due Oct. 29
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as XAVIAR PAGAN, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, et al., v.
SUPERINTENDENT ERIC ARMEL, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01516-CRE (W.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy entered a case management
order as follows:

   1. The parties shall move to amend the pleadings   April 30,
2024
      or add new parties by:

   2. The parties shall complete the ADR process      May 1, 2024
      they selected by (Discovery is NOT stayed
      pending ADR).

   3. The parties shall complete class                July 1, 2024
      certification discovery by:

   4. The Plaintiff's Expert Reports related to       July 31,
2024.
      class certification are due on or before:

   5. The Defendant's Expert Reports related to       Aug.30, 2024
      class certification are due on or before:

   6. Depositions of all experts related to class     Sept. 30,
2024
      certification shall be on or before:

   7. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification      Oct. 29,
2024
      is due on or before:

The Plaintiffs include RONNIE E. JOHNSON, KAREEM MAZYCK,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; ANGEL
MALDONADO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED; AND T. MONTANA BELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED.

The Defendant include FORMER SUPERINTENDENT, SCI FAYETTE; LAUREL
HARRY, SECRETARY, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CHRISTOPHER OPPMAN,
REGIONAL DEPUTY SECRETARY, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
TREVOR WINGARD, FORMER REGIONAL DEPUTY SECRETARY, PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JAMES BARNACLE, DIRECTOR OF BII,
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; LUCAS MALISHCHAK, DIRECTOR
OF PSYCHOLOGY, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; TINA WALKER,
SUPERINTENDENT, SCI FAYETTE; SCOTT RIDDLE, UNIT MANAGER, SCI
FAYETTE; AND PETER SAAVEDRA, PSYCHIATRIST, SCI FAYETTE.

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is responsible for operating
the state prison system and provides parole supervision of
reentrants.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QDIu1F at no extra
charge.[CC]

PETER THOMAS ROTH: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peter Thomas Roth
Labs, LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Peter Thomas Roth Labs, LLC,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01264 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2024).

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

Peter Thomas Roth Clinical Skin Care --
http://www.peterthomasroth.com/-- is a leading skin care brand
that is known for its breakthrough formulas and astonishing
results.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PLAID INC: Wilhelm Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Candice Wilhelm, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Plaid, Inc. Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-01242 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 13, 2024) seeks to redress and
curtail Defendant's unlawful collections, obtainments, use,
storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary
biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in violation of
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

As part of its identity verification services, Plaid collects
Plaintiff and other users' government issued identification. Plaid
then has the user submit a real time photograph or video of their
face, i.e. a "selfie." Plaid then performs a facial geometry scan
to confirm whether the selfie and photo on the government issued
identification are the same person.

According to the complaint, Plaid did not inform Plaintiff and the
Class Members in writing that Plaid was collecting or storing their
biometric information. Instead, Plaintiff and the Class Members
were simply instructed to upload their state issued identification
forms and "selfies" as part of the overall account opening process
and this information was then processed by Plaid by creating
biometric facial templates. Moreover, Plaid did not inform
Plaintiff and the Class Members in writing of the specific purpose
and length of term for which their biometric information was being
collected, stored, and used, says the suit.

Plaid, Inc. is a financial services company based in San Francisco,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          8 N. Court St. Suite 403  
          Athens, OH 45701
          Telephone: (847) 986-5889
          Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

               - and -

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

PLANET BICYCLE: Gettinger Files ADA Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Planet Bicycle, LLC.
The case is styled as Shawn Gettinger, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Planet Bicycle, LLC, Case No.
8:24-cv-00136-SDM-SPF (M.D. Fla., Jan. 15, 2024).

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

Planet Bicycle, LLC -- https://www.planetbike.com/ -- offers
high-quality cycling accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Phone: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


PORT AUTHORITY: Class Cert Filing in Meinert Extended to March 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB MEINERT and NICHOLAS
SCHALLUS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
PORT AUTHORITY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, d/b/a PITTSBURGH REGIONAL
TRANSIT, Case No. 2:22-cv-01736-RJC (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Robert J. Colville entered an order granting the joint motion of
the Parties to modify the Case Management Order:

   1. The date by which discovery on the issue        March 17,
2024
      of class certification shall be completed
      is extended until:

   2. The date by which any Motion for Class          April 15,
2024
      Certification must be filed is extended
      until:

      The Defendant's response to the motion          May 6, 2024
      shall be filed by:

      The Plaintiffs' reply to that response,         May 20, 2024
      if any, shall be filed by:

Port Authority provides public transportation options in Allegheny
County.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ndUVs6 at no extra
charge.[CC]

PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Alexander Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lee Alexander, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Progressive Advanced Insurance
Company, Jacob Secore, Case No. 240101974 was removed from the
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 16, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00704 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.

Progressive -- https://www.progressive.com/ -- operates as an
insurance firm. The Company offers property, casualty, life, and
health insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          1114 Ave. of The Americas 38th Fl.
          New York, NY 10036-7703
          Phone: (212) 389-5000
          Email: kymberlykochis@eversheds-sutherland.com


QEII HEALTH: Two Radiologists Sued Over Secret MRI Research
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marty Stempniak, writing for Radiology Business, reports that two
radiologists have been hit with a class action lawsuit claiming
they subjected patients to "secret" MRI research.

Andrea Paul and her attorneys allege that the physicians imaged her
and "dozens" of other members of the Pictou Landing First Nation
without their consent.  

Paul -- who served as chief of the Mi'kmaq people in Nova Scotia
for 12 years -- said she underwent the MRI in 2017 at the Queen
Elizabeth II Health Sciences Center. She signed up to participate
in the research project, but radiologists allegedly kept Paul in
the machine for additional scans as part of a second study,
evaluating the livers of indigenous peoples.

Those involved believe at least 60 others were subjected to the
same exams, without giving their permission, the Canadian Press
reported on Feb. 26.

"Unfortunately, there is a long history of oppression of indigenous
people in Canada including many instances where indigenous people
were subjected to medical treatment and research against their will
and without their consent," the lawsuit states.

Attorneys first filed the claim with the Supreme Court of Nova
Scotia in 2020, and a judge certified the class action complaint on
Feb. 7. Paul and her attorneys are seeking monetary damages and
accusing the two physicians of invasion of privacy, unlawful
imprisonment, assault and battery, negligence and breach of
contract.

An attorney representing both Robert Miller and Sharon Clarke said
the two declined to comment on the lawsuit. Dr. Miller is a
prominent radiologist with Dalhousie University in Halifax, who
received the Canadian Medical Association honorary membership award
in 2018. Dr. Clarke works at the QEII Health Sciences Center and
also is an assistant professor of diagnostic radiology at
Dalhousie. [GN]

QUAKER OATS: Products Contain Pesticide, Class Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that plaintiff
Lilian Fitzgerald filed a class action lawsuit against The Quaker
Oats Co.

Why: Quaker Oats allegedly sells oat-based products that contain
dangerously high levels of the pesticide chlormequat.

Where: The Quaker Oats lawsuit was filed in New York federal
court.

The Quaker Oats Co. sells oat-based products that contain
dangerously high levels of the pesticide chlormequat, a Quaker Oats
class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Lilian Fitzgerald says she has purchased several Quaker
Oats products and believed that they would be free of dangerous
chemicals. If she had known the products may have contained
chlormequat, she says she would not have purchased the products or
would have paid significantly less for them.

Chlormequat is a pesticide used to control plant size by blocking
hormones that stimulate growth, the Quaker Oats lawsuit explains.

Animal studies have shown chlormequat to disrupt fetal growth and
cause reproductive system damage, public health nonprofit
organization the Environmental Working Group said.

Quaker Oats pesticide content may pose health risks, plaintiff
claims

The Environmental Working Group says 30 parts per billion is the
most chlormequat a person can ingest per day without facing
potential health risks, the lawsuit says.

However, the lawsuit says, lab testing has shown some Quaker Oats
products contain up to 300 parts per billion of chlormequat.

The lawsuit says the following products tested positive for
chlormequat:

   -- Quaker Simply Granola Oats Honey & Almonds
   -- Quaker Old Fashioned Oats
   -- Quaker Oatmeal Squares Honey Nut
   -- Quaker Oatmeal Squares Brown Sugar
   -- Quaker Instant Oatmeal Maple & Brown Sugar
   -- Quaker Chewy Dark Chocolate Chunk

"No reasonable consumer would expect that a product would contain
dangerous pesticides," the lawsuit says. "Reasonable consumers
believe products they purchase are safe for oral ingestion and
expect the ingredients listed accurately reflect what is within the
product."


Fitzgerald filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and a proposed
class of consumers who purchased certain Quaker Oats oat-based
products in the United States during the applicable statute of
limitations period.

The Quaker Oats class action lawsuit asserts claims for violations
of sections of New York General Business Law, breach of implied
warranty and unjust enrichment.

Quaker Oats was recently hit with a separate class action alleging
the company sold products that may have been contaminated with
salmonella.

Are you concerned about the alleged Quaker Oats pesticide content
in some of its products? Tell us your thoughts in the comments.

Fitzgerald is represented by Joshua D. Arisohn and Caroline C.
Donovan of Bursor & Fisher PA.

The Quaker Oats pesticide class action lawsuit is Lilian Fitzgerald
v. The Quaker Oats Co., Case No. 7:24-cv-01235, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN]

RECKITT BENCKISER: Scharon Fraud Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Marisol Scharon, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Reckitt Benckiser
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00285, was
transferred from the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on February 14, 2024.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-01101-BMC to the proceeding.

The case seeks to remedy Reckitt' deceptive marketing and labeling
of certain Mucinex branded cold medications as being effective
decongestants and asserts claims for breach of express warranties,
fraud by affirmative misrepresentation, fraud by negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, negligence, and for
violations of state consumer protection laws.

Headquartered in Parsippany, NJ, Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals
Inc. is a Delaware limited liability corporation that manufactures
and advertises numerous medications under its Mucinex brand. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          Alex Lee, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
                  dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
                  alee@caffertyclobes.com

REDWIRE CORP: Case Management Deadlines Extended in Lemen Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEMEN v. REDWIRE
CORPORATION et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01254 (M.D. Fla., Filed Dec.
17, 2021), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Corrigan entered an order
granting joint time-sensitive motion for extension of case
management deadlines and for reply.

By separate order, the Court will enter an Amended Case Management
and Scheduling Order incorporating the parties' proposed deadlines
and permitting the filing of a reply on the class certification
motion.

The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.

Redwire is an American aerospace manufacturer and space
infrastructure technology company.[CC]

REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces RICO Suits in Massachusetts Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5,
2024, that the company is party to several lawsuits relating to the
conduct alleged in the civil complaint filed by the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the District of Massachusetts. These lawsuits were filed
by Medical Mutual of Ohio (MMO), Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc.
d/b/a Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey and Local 464A
United Food and Commercial Workers Union Welfare Service Benefit
Fund in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
on April 4, 2022, and June 17, 2022, respectively.

These lawsuits allege causes of action under state law and the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
and seek monetary damages and equitable relief. On September 27,
2022, the lawsuits filed by MMO and Horizon were stayed by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a fully integrated biotechnology
company that invents, develops, manufactures, and commercializes
medicines for people with eye diseases, allergic and inflammatory
diseases, cancer, cardiovascular and metabolic diseases,
hematologic conditions, infectious diseases and other rare
diseases.


REHABCARE GROUP: Plaintiffs Seek Substitution of Lead Class Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAKOTA MEDICAL, INC.,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
REHABCARE GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02081-NODJ-BAM
(E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
approving additional class distribution and substitution of lead
class counsel.

The motion seeks an order directing settlement administrator KCC,
LLC, to do the following:

   1. Restore the attorneys' expense reserve ($1,200) to the class
      settlement fund;

   2. No later than April 30, 2024, distribute $192,891.32 to 7,585

      eligible class members who cashed checks in the last
      distribution (8A);

   3. Apply an amount not to exceed $19,414 from the settlement
fund
      balance to cover costs of the distribution; and

   4. Increase the administrative cost reserve by $4,000 (to a
total
      of $11,385.15), and to recapture the remaining cost of the
      distribution, not to exceed $19,414, by amounts remaining due
to
      uncashed checks in the proposed distribution.

Lead class counsel Darryl Cordero also moves to withdraw as Lead
Class Counsel and as counsel for Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class,
on the ground that he will assume inactive status with the
California State Bar on February 1, 2024.

The Plaintiff proposes that Scott O. Luskin of Payne & Fears LLP be
appointed Lead Class Counsel in his stead.

RehabCare is a provider of physical, occupational and
speech-language rehabilitation services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yMTA7A at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald R. Fischbach, Esq.
          Mark D. Kruthers, Esq.
          FENNEMORE
          8080 N. Palm Avenue, Third Floor
          Fresno, CA 93711
          Telephone: (559) 432-4500
          E-mail: dfischbach@fennemorelaw.com
                  mkruthers@fennemorelaw.com

                - and -

          C. Darryl Cordero, Esq.
          Scott O. Luskin, Esq.
          PAYNE & FEARS LLP
          200 N. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 825
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 689-1750
          E-mail: cdc@paynefears.com
                  sol@paynefears.com

                - and -

          JOEL S. Magolnick, Esq.
          MARKO & MAGOLNICK, P.A
          3001 S.W. 3rd Avenue
          Miami, FL 33129
          Telephone: (305) 740-1967
          E-mail: magolnick@mm-pa.com

REYNA HOSPITALITY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reyna Hospitality
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Reyna Hospitality
Group, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01201 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2024).

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

Reyna Hospitality Group operates Bar Reyna, Reyna On King, Reyna
New York, Le Louis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: (718) 740-5060
          Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com


RITHM CAPITAL: Final Hearing on Settlement Set for May 20
---------------------------------------------------------
Rithm Capital Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2024, that the final
settlement hearing for the Sculptor stockholder class suit in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is set for May 20.

on September 11, 2023, stockholder Gilles Beauchemin filed a
purported class action against Sculptor and each of Sculptor's
directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned Gilles Beauchemin v. Engel, et al., C.A. No. 2023-0921-SG
(the "Beauchemin Action"). The Beauchemin Action alleged, among
other things, that Sculptor's board of directors (the "Sculptor
Board") and the special committee of the Sculptor Board (the
"Special Committee") violated their fiduciary duties and sought,
among other things, to enjoin the transaction with Rithm Capital.

Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Rithm
Capital was not party to the filed complaint.

On October 17, 2023, Sculptor stockholders Daniel S. Och, Harold A.
Kelly, Jr., Richard Lyon, James O'Connor and Zoltan Varga
(collectively, the "Specified Stockholders") filed a putative class
action complaint on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated stockholders of Sculptor against each of Sculptor’s
directors, Sculptor and certain of its subsidiaries, and Rithm
Capital and certain of its subsidiaries, in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware, captioned Och, et al. v. Engel, et al.,
C.A. No. 2023-1043-SG (the "Former EMD Group Action").

The complaint in the Former EMD Group Action alleged, among other
things, that the Sculptor Board and the Special Committee violated
their fiduciary duties and sought, among other things, to enjoin
the transaction with Rithm Capital.

On October 23, 2023, the court entered an order consolidating the
Former EMD Group Action and the Beauchemin Action as in re Sculptor
Capital Management, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No.
2023-0921-SG (the "Sculptor Stockholder Action").

On October 26, 2023, Rithm Capital and Sculptor entered into
Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement"), amending, among other things, the price per share of
Class A common stock of Sculptor, which was increased to $12.70.

In connection, Rithm Capital entered into a Transaction Support
Agreement (the "Transaction Support Agreement") with each of the
Specified Stockholders and the other signatories party thereto.

Under the terms of the Transaction Support Agreement, each
Specified Stockholder agreed, among other things, to vote all
shares held by such Specified Stockholder in favor of the adoption
of the Merger Agreement and the approval of the Sculptor
Acquisition, and to dismiss with prejudice the claims raised in the
Former EMD Group Action complaint, solely with respect to the
Specified Stockholders.

A stipulated order dismissing these claims was submitted to the
Court of Chancery for approval.

The Specified Stockholders also agreed to withdraw any demands
under Section 220.

On October 29, 2023, plaintiff Beauchemin filed a consolidated
amended complaint adding additional claims and defendants to the
matter.

On November 14, 2023, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle all claims in the Sculptor Stockholder Action for, among
other things, a total payment of $6.5 million to eligible Sculptor
common stockholders.

On January 22, 2024, the parties executed and filed the Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise and Release in connection
with the settlement.

A final hearing for the settlement is scheduled for May 20, 2024.

Rithm Capital is a global asset manager focused on real estate,
credit, and financial services. It makes direct investments and
operates several wholly owned operating businesses, including
Sculptor Capital Management, an alternative asset manager, as well
as Newrez LLC and Genesis Capital LLC, leading mortgage origination
and servicing platforms. Rithm is based in New York. [BN]



ROBERT M. FARRELL: Talasazan Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robert M. Farrell, et
al. The case is styled as Harel Talasazan, an individual, and all
others similarly situated v. Robert M. Farrell, Clerk of the
District court of Massachusetts, Boston Division; Maria R.
Hamilton, Clerk of the Court of Appeals of the First Circuit
located in Boston; Honorable Denise Jefferson Casper, in her
personal capacities, administrative, and/or official capacities;
Lisa Hourihan courtroom clerk, in her personal capacities,
administrative, and/or official capacities; Haley Currie, in her
personal capacities administrative, and/or official capacities; Doe
Judges 1-10 of the District Courts of the First Circuit, in his or
her personal capacities, administrative, and/or official
capacities; Robin Carnahan, in her personal capacities,
administrative, and/or official capacity as Administrator of the
General Services Administration; Maura Healey, the governor of the
commonwealth of the state of Massachusetts, in her personal
capacities, administrative, and/or official capacities; Curtis M.
Wood, in his personal capacities and administrative, and/or
official capacities; Does 1-50; et al., Case No.
2:24-cv-01356-CJC-AGR (C.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.

Robert M. Farrell is an Assistant Professor, ECE Department,
University of Wisconsin–Madison.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: March 8 Extension of Class Cert Filing Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re Robinhood Order Flow
Litigation, Master File No. 4:20-cv-09328-YGR, Case No.
4:20-cv-09328-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff Ji Kwon and the
Defendants Robinhood Markets, Inc., Robinhood Financial LLC, and
Robinhood Securities, LLC stipulate to the following continuance of
the class certification schedule, subject to the Court's approval:

-- Plaintiff's motion for class certification:        March 8,
2024

-- Plaintiff's disclosure of experts with             March 8,
2024
    complete documentation:

-- The Defendants' depositions of Plaintiff's         May 3, 2024
    experts to be completed by:

-- The Defendants' opposition to motion for           May 17,
2024
    class certification:

-- The Defendants' disclosure of experts with         May 17,
2024
    complete documentation:

-- The Plaintiff's depositions of Defendants'         June 14,
2024
    experts to be completed by:

-- The Plaintiff's reply in support of motion         July 12,
2024
    for class certification:

-- Hearing on motion for class certification:         Sept. 10,
2024

Robinhood is a financial services platform that pioneered
commission-free stock trading with no account minimums and
fractional share trading.

A copy of the Parties' motion adated Jan. 31, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V9Hn19 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
          Matthew Z. Robb, Esq.
          LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C.
          975 E. Jefferson Ave.
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Telephone: (313) 392-0015
          Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
          E-mail: ncoulson@lsccounsel.com
                  mrobb@lsccounsel.com

                - and -

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com

                - and -

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1420
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 679-9006
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                  swestcot@bursor.com
                  sbeck@bursor.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Karen P. Kimmey, Esq.
          FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 954-4400
          E-mail: kkimmey@fbm.com

                - and -

          Maeve L. O'Connor, Esq.
          Elliot Greenfield, Esq.
          Brandon Fetzer, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
          66 Hudson Boulevard
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 909-6000
          E-mail: mloconnor@debevoise.com
                  egreenfield@debevoise.com
                  bfetzer@debevoise.com

ROCKET MORTGAGE: Tolbert Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COURTNEY TOLBERT, et al.,
v. ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-01450-MCS-PVC
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
granting class certification of the following class and subclasses
to decide common questions based on common proof:

   “All former and current hourly individuals employed by the
   Defendant within the State of California, from June 21, 2019,
   until the date of class certification;”

The Plaintiff seeks certification of five claims identified as:

   1. "Regular Rate Subclass" defined as follows: "All Class
Members
      who worked as mortgage bankers and received incentive/bonus
pay
      (e.g., 'Commission', 'Rocket Booster', 'RKT RSU', 'Banking
      Floor', 'Bonus', 'Recognition', 'TM Referral', 'Monthly Sales

      Incentive', 'Loan Referral Points', 'Boomer Bucks', 'Award',

      'Award Gift,' 'Award Gift Production,' 'Holiday Pay', 'Sales

      Floor', 'Recognition,' Professional Development,' 'Pulse
      Programs', 'Personal Significance Days', 'Contest')."

   2. "Hours Worked Subclass" defined as follows: "All Class
Members
      who worked as mortgage bankers where Defendant's records show

      hours worked for which no wages were paid."

   3. "Expenses Subclass" defined as: "All Class Members who worked

      from home and were not reimbursed for necessary expenditures
or
      losses incurred in furtherance of their mortgage banker
duties."

   4. "Wage Statement Subclass" defined as follows: "All Class
      Members."

   5. "Waiting Time Subclass" defined as follows: "All formerly
      employed Class Members who were not timely paid final
wages."

The Plaintiffs further request an order appointing

   a) Plaintiff, Courtney Tolbert, as class representative, and

   b) Righetti Glugoski, P.C. and Nathan & Associates, APC, as
class
      counsel to represent the certified class and subclass
pursuant
      to Rule 23(g).

Rocket is an American mortgage lender.

A copy of Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HcphHn at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew Righetti, Esq.
          John Glugoski, Esq.
          RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
          2001 Union Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Telephone: (415) 983-0900
          E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com
                  jglugoski@righettilaw.com

                - and -

          Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
          NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
          2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200
          Newport Beach, CA 92663
          Telephone: (949) 270-2798
          Facsimile: (949) 209-0303
          E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com

RPA ENERGY INC: Smith Files Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RPA Energy, Inc. The
case is styled as James Smith, Tylar Spencer, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. RPA Energy, Inc.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01254-JSR (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

RPA Energy, Inc. -- https://www.rpaenergysite.com/ -- is a licensed
green electricity and natural gas supplier offers products and
services at both a fixed price and variable month to month
prices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Esq.
          Erin Kelley, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          One North Broadway, Suite 900
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 298-3290
          Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
                 ekelley@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          J. Burkett McInturff
          WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC
          18 Half Mile Road
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Phone: (910) 476-7253
          Email: jbm@wittelslaw.com


SAINT GOBAIN: Lampton Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELVIN LAMPTON JR., v.
SAINT GOBAIN ABRASIVES, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00398-GAF (W.D.
Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of proposed class action
settlement.

The Plaintiff Lampton also asks the Court to:

   -- appoint him as class representative and Plaintiff's attorney
as
      Settlement Class Counsel;

   -- approve the parties' proposed forms and methods of giving
      Settlement Class members notice of the proposed settlement;

   -- direct that notice be given to Settlement Class members in
      the proposed forms and manners;

   -- set deadlines and procedures for people who fall within the
      Settlement Class definition to exclude themselves and for
      Settlement Class members to object to the proposed
settlement;
      and

   -- schedule a Final Approval Hearing to determine whether the
      settlement should be granted final approval and whether
      Settlement Class Counsel should be awarded attorney's fees
and
      Expenses and the Plaintiff a requested service award.

Saint-Gobain designs, manufactures and distributes materials and
solutions for the construction, mobility, healthcare and other
industrial application markets.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RIwia1 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul D. Anderson, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Soper, Esq.
          Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
          HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & McCLAIN, P.C.
          221 W. Lexington, Suite 400
          Independence, MO 64050
          Telephone: (816) 836-5050
          Facsimile: (816) 836-8966
          E-mail: kbm@hfmlegal.com
                  pda@hfmlegal.com
                  jms@hfmlegal.com

SAM'S WEST: Sanchez Seeks to Exclude Updated Policies from Evidence
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS SANCHEZ,
individually and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated,
v. SAM'S WEST, INC. (SWI) dba SAM'S CLUB, an Arkansas corporation,
Case No. 2:21-cv-05122-SVW-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order excluding (or strike) the Updated Policies
from evidence or, alternatively, permit Plaintiff to depose SWI.

SWI's failure to produce the Updated Policies upon Plaintiff's
explicit request for any such updated policies on September 1,
2023, is utterly inexcusable, and remarkably, SWI has provided no
justification for its conduct, the Plaintiff contends.

SWI's production of the Updated Policies just days before Plaintiff
was required to file his renewed class certification motion was
late without good reason.

The Plaintiff said that he has been harmed by SWI's failure to
produce the Updated Policies for seven and six months after they
were issued. SWI's dilatory production and its opposition to
Plaintiff's request for additional time to conduct limited
discovery as to the Updated Policies to support his renewed motion
are ploys that contravene fairness, the discovery rules, and the
overarching purpose of pre-trial discovery.

Sam's West is an American chain of membership-only warehouse club
retail stores owned and operated by Walmart Inc.

A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 30, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XvMilm
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com

                - and -

          Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
          MAJARIAN LAW GROUP APC
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


SCOTT ZIMMERMAN: Parties Must File Joint Scheduling Report
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY BRECKA, v. SCOTT
ZIMMERMAN WUNDR HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-60135-WPD (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas entered an order
requiring counsel to meet, file joint scheduling report and joint
discovery report.

   1. Pretrial discovery in this case shall be conducted in accord

      with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and Southern District
of
      Florida Local Rule 16.1.

   2. Within 35 calendar days of the filing of the first responsive

      pleading by the last responding defendant, unless this action
is
      excluded under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), the parties shall file a
Joint
      Scheduling Report and Joint Proposed Order pursuant to Local

      Rule 16.1.B.2.1

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dRl4oh at no extra
charge.[CC]

SCOUT ENERGY: Bid for Leave to File Conventionally Sustained
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Cooper-Clark
Foundation v. Scout Energy Management, LLC et al., Case No.
5:22-cv-04048 (D. Kan., Filed Sept. 21, 2022), the Hon. Judge
Kathryn H. Vratil entered an order sustaining the Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Conventionally.

-- The Plaintiff may submit Exhibit 8 to its Motion for Class
    Certification conventionally on a flash drive.

-- The Plaintiff is directed to deliver the original and one copy
of
    Exhibit 8 in a clearly identified envelope to the Clerk and
serve
    a copy on all counsel of record.

Scout is a private energy investment manager and an upstream oil
and gas operator.[CC]

SIEMENS MOBILITY: Carrillo Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Rogelio Carrillo, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. SIEMENS MOBILITY, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24CV000901
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on Feb. 21, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 2:24-at-00202.

The Complaint is a purported class action alleging the following
causes of action: failure to pay all regular wages; failure to pay
overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide
rest periods; failure to adopt a compliant sick pay policy; failure
to provide itemized wage statements; failure to pay all wages due
at termination; failure to reimburse reasonable expenses; and
violation of unfair competition law.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Samantha C. Grant, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6078
          Phone: +1 310 734 5200
          Facsimile: +1 310 734 5299
          Email: sgrant@reedsmith.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Elkrief, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
          Phone: +1 213 457 8000
          Facsimile: +1 213 457 8080
          Email: jelkrief@reedsmith.com


SL ALABAMA: Must Respond to Bastidas Class Complaint, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CESAR EDUARDO BASTIDAS
PEREGRINA, JOSE LUIS MARTINEZ VASQUEZ, ALBERTO VAZQUEZ GARCIA,
JESUS ABNERT HERNANDEZ NUNEZ, AND SEBASTIAN GUTIERREZ HERNANDEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SL
ALABAMA, LLC; GB2G, INC. d/b/a ALLSWELL; SPJ CONNECT INC.; and
YOUNGJIN LEE, individually, Case No. 3:23-cv-00206-TCB-RGV (N.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge Russell G. Vineyard entered an order granting
motion for extension of deadlines of the Defendants and Plaintiffs.


   1. The Defendants shall have through and         March 1, 2024,
      including in which to respond to
      the plaintiffs' complaint:

   2. The Plaintiffs are granted an extension       April 1, 2024.
      of time to submit the plaintiffs'  
      opposition to the Defendants' motions
      to dismiss up to and including:

   3. The Defendants are granted an extension of    April 15, 2024
      time to submit their respective reply
      briefs in support of their motions to
      dismiss up to and including:

SL Alabama is a large manufacturer of headlights, rear combination
lights, and side mirrors.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VSWBB4 at no extra
charge.[CC]

SONY ELECTRONICS: Riddick Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Bert Riddick, Harry Crouch, Bill Greenblatt,
Carlos Cespedes, Mark Teng, Mogli Maureal, Seth Golden, Thomas
Fang, Tremaine Lewis, David Christopher Lee, Kyle Ferguson, Luis
Rodriguez, Hunter Scott, Jens Eser, Ezekiel Yan, Pratik Shah,
Graham Holoch, David Repola, Barry Seybert, Reg Whatley, Neil
Bennette, Doug Aguillard, Bill Sparke, Casey Manuel, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Sony Electronics Inc.,
Michaela Ion Doe 1, Matthew Parnell Doe 2, NSO, Inc. doing business
as: Harte Hanks Direct Marketing, Does 3-50, Inclusive, Does 1
through 50, Inclusive, Case No. 37-02021-00020700-CU-CR-CTL was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
on Feb. 20, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00319-BAS-JLB to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Sony Electronics (SEL) -- https://electronics.sony.com/ -- is the
U.S. sales and marketing arm of Sony's global electronics business.
It is a leading provider of audio/video.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Williams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL J. WILLIAMS
          402 West Broadway, Suite 1100
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 259-0285
          Fax: (619) 923-3253
          Email: djw2sd@gmail.com

               - and -

          Gregory Lee Adler, Esq.
          GREG ADLER, P.C.
          35111-F Newark Boulevard, Suite 500
          Newark, CA 94560
          Phone: (469) 404-5243
          Fax: (469) 807-8878
          Email: greg@adler.law


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces Suit Over Illegal Billing Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
PARRIS Law Firm filed a class action lawsuit against Southern
California Edison alleging that the utility giant violated state
law by overcharging its customers due to a "delayed-billing"
error.

According to the lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, SoCal
Edison failed to timely bill roughly 1% of its customer base
because they "fell out of processing." This 1% could amount to more
than 50,000 customers getting delayed bills. Many of those who
"fell out of processing" were not billed for upwards of 15 months
like the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. SoCal Edison spokesperson,
Ron Gales, confirmed that there is a regulation in California which
states that if a bill is delayed by more than three months, a
customer is only responsible for the most recent three months of
charges. He even quoted the regulations on live television.

"The law is clear . . . Edison isn't allowed to charge customers
for more than three months because of the delayed-billing issue,"
said PARRIS Law Firm Founder R. Rex Parris. "Edison knows this; in
fact, they cited the rule on their website," Parris added.

However, after not being billed for a 15-month period, the lead
plaintiff received a delayed bill for the entire time his account
"fell out of processing." Adding further stress and anxiety, the
utility threatened to shut the plaintiff's power off if he did not
pay the outstanding balance. The complaint goes on to say the bill
was in excess of $1,340 and that a 24-month installment plan was
issued to pay off the full amount instead of just the most recent
three months.

"Tens of thousands of people were likely overbilled as a result of
SoCal Edison's attempt to salvage their losses," said Kitty K.
Szeto of PARRIS Law Firm. "I have no doubt that Edison's use of
scare tactics allowed them to recoup above and beyond what is
allowed," Szeto added.

The case is Lindsay Wellman v. Southern California Edison Company,
Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 24STCV04185.

                   About PARRIS Law Firm

PARRIS Law Firm is recognized as one of America's top personal
injury, employment, and environmental law firms. With a proven
track record of fighting for justice on behalf of families and
individuals, the firm boasts numerous seven and eight-figure
verdicts and settlements. To learn more about the firm, please go
to: www.parris.com. [GN]

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Wellman Seeks Damages Over Delayed Bill
------------------------------------------------------------
LINDSAY WELLMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV04185 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., February 20, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of violating the California Public Utilities
Code and the Business and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff is a customer of Defendant Southern California Edison
Company (Edison). The Plaintiff was supposed to receive a
month-to-month bill from Edison for electricity. However, from May
16, 2022 to August 23, 2023, for a period of 15 months, Defendant
did not issue any form of bill or invoice to Plaintiff.  The delay
in the issuance of the bill was due to a "technical issue" as per
Defendant's Frequently Asked Questions page. Under California laws,
if a utility bill is delayed by more than three months, a customer
shall only be liable for the most recent three months of charges.
However, on August 23, 2023, Plaintiff received a bill from Edison
requiring him to pay for the entire 15-month period in which he did
not receive any bills. Plaintiff alleges that several other
customers had a similar experience, says the suit.

Headquartered in Los Angeles, CA, Edison provides public utility
services, and services related to the generation of energy,
generation of electricity, transmission of electricity and natural
gas, and distribution of energy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        R. Rex Parris, Esq.
        Kitty K. Szeto, Esq.
        Ryan A. Crist, Esq.
        PARRIS LAW FIRM     
        43364 10th Street West
        Lancaster, CA 93534
        Telephone: (661) 949-2595
        Facsimile: (661) 949-7524

STABILITY AI: DeviantArt Loses Bid to Strike in Andersen Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies DeviantArt Inc.'s special motion to
strike in the lawsuit titled SARAH ANDERSEN, et al., Plaintiffs v.
STABILITY AI LTD., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO
(N.D. Cal.).

DeviantArt has renewed its special motion to strike under
California's anti-SLAPP statute. As explained in this Order, the
Court denies DeviantArt's motion to strike because the Complaint
and Amended Complaint fall within the anti-SLAPP statute's public
interest exception.

In a prior Order, Judge Orrick granted in large part and denied in
limited part the three set of the Defendants' motions to dismiss
(October 2023 Order).  One Defendant, DeviantArt, Inc., also filed
a special motion to strike under California's Anti-SLAPP statute,
California Code of Civ. Proc. Section 425.16. That motion was
joined by the other Defendants.

The motion to strike was directed solely to the Plaintiff's right
of publicity claims and made the same arguments as DeviantArt and
the other Defendants made in their motions to dismiss.

In the October 2023 Order, Judge Orrick dismissed the rights of
publicity claims with leave to amend, requiring the Plaintiffs to
clarify their right of publicity theories, as well as allege
plausible facts in support regarding each Defendants' use of each
Plaintiffs' name in connection with advertising specifically and
any other commercial interests of the Defendants.

Judge Orrick also considered DeviantArt's first amendment defense
to the rights of publicity claims but did not find it applied as a
matter of law, concluding that the applicability of transformative
use defense is better determined after the Plaintiffs clarify and
otherwise amend their right of publicity claims and at a subsequent
juncture on an evidentiary basis.

The Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on Nov. 29, 2023. They
omitted the rights of publicity claims from the Amended Complaint.
DeviantArt renewed its special motion to strike, arguing that it
should be granted in light of the Plaintiffs' dropping the
challenged claims and that it is entitled to its attorney fees in
bringing the initial and second motions.

The Plaintiffs argue that this case -- seeking relief on behalf of
a class of artists whose work was used to train and/or promote the
Defendants' AI art-creation products -- falls within the public
interest exemption. In their opposition, the Plaintiffs relied
heavily on a recent Ninth Circuit decision that is squarely on
point, Martinez v. ZoomInfo Techs., Inc., 82 F.4th 785, 790 (9th
Cir. 2023).

Turning to the exemption and considering the three prongs required
by Section 425.17(b): the Plaintiffs did not seek any relief with
respect to the attacked right of publicity claims greater than or
different from the relief sought for the class, satisfying the
first prong, Judge Orrick holds. The third prong is also met.
Private enforcement is necessary.

As shown by the parties' passionate language about who is
attempting to bludgeon whom with the anti-SLAPP motion and its
attendant fee provisions, and given that the alleged use of
billions of pieces of art were used to train the products, Judge
Orrick notes that a plaintiff's actual financial interest is
seemingly insignificant when compared to the costs to litigate this
type of action against well-funded Defendants.

The main debate between the parties is on the second prong, whether
the action, if successful, would enforce an important right
affecting the public interest, and would confer a significant
benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, on the general public
or a large class of persons.

How the Defendants' commercially offered art-generation products
could or could not use artists' names -- either associated with an
artist's style or using their names in connection with promoting
the products -- is a significant, cutting-edge issue, Judge Orrick
points out. Providing clarity about the scope of artists' rights to
contest use of their names in conjunction with those products would
provide a significant benefit to artists in California.

DeviantArt disputes this.  DeviantArt argues that Martinez
considered plaintiffs' allegations that the online directory used
class members' likenesses to sell subscriptions to the full
database, because the way the product worked was to display basic
"teaser information" (names and job titles) along with offers to
purchase a full subscription to access the full database. That use
of plaintiffs' names in connection with teaser and advertisements
was, according to DeviantArt, why the Martinez panel determined
that plaintiffs' right of publicity claims satisfied the second
prong given California's extensive common law and statutory
protection against commercial misuse of identities.

DeviantArt characterizes the Plaintiffs' initial complaint as one
seeking redress for misuse of their artistic styles, not commercial
misuse of their identities, and argues that the second prong is not
met.

But the Plaintiffs' original complaint alleged use of their names
in support of their right of publicity claims, Judge Orrick
opines.

Separate and apart from Martinez, Judge Orrick finds that the
second prong of the public interest exemption is met here. The
Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants used their names to
advertise art and their commercial products.  The rights of
publicity claims were nevertheless dismissed because the problem
for the Plaintiffs is that nowhere in the Complaint have they
provided any facts specific to the three named Plaintiffs to
plausibly allege that any Defendant has used a named Plaintiff's
name to advertise, sell, or solicit purchase of DreamStudio,
DreamUp or the Midjourney product.

Had the Plaintiffs been able to allege those facts, they would have
stated their claims, Judge Orrick points out. That does not
undermine that their original right of publicity claims were based
on the use of their names in connection with the sale or promotion
of DreamUp, a type of claim that would undoubtedly enforce
California's public policy to protect against misappropriation of
names and likenesses.

Judge Orrick holds that the public interest exception applies here.
DeviantArt's special motion to strike, as considered on the merits
of the first complaint and as considered now, is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 8, 2024, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/2rt692zafrom PacerMonitor.com.


STAKE CENTER: Holtsclaw Wage and Hour Lawsuit Removed to D. Colo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRIAN HOLTSCLAW, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. STAKE CENTER LOCATING, LLC, a Utah
limited liability company, Case No. 2023CV031012, was removed from
the District Court, Larimer County, Colorado, to the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado on February 20, 2024.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-00490 to the proceeding.

The case arises from Stake Center Locating, LLC's (SCL) alleged
violations of the Colorado Wage Claim Act and the Colorado Overtime
and Minimum Pay Standards Orders.

SCL is a limited liability company that operates within the State
of Colorado, providing utility locating services to utility owners,
operators, and other entities. Its principal place of business is
located in Greensboro, NC. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

       Zane A. Gilmer, Esq.
       STINSON LLP     
       1144 Fifteenth Street, Suite 2400
       Denver, CO 80202
       Telephone: (303) 376-8416
       E-mail: zane.gilmer@stinson.com

STRANGECAT LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Strangecat, LLC. The
case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Strangecat, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01270-KPF
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2024).

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

Strangecat, LLC -- https://www.strangecattoys.com/ -- is a Designer
Toy Store specializing in selling Soft Vinyl and Blindbox
toys.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUB-ZERO GROUP: Time Extension for Class Cert Bid Filing Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN BANKHURST, PAMELA
ANDERSON, JONATHAN ZANG, and JESSE KARP, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. SUB-ZERO GROUP INC., and WOLF
APPLIANCE, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00253-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the following
deadlines related to class certification by three months, as
follows:

-- Proponents' disclosure of class                June 4, 2024
    certification experts:

-- Respondents' disclosure of class               July 15, 2024
    certification experts:

-- Plaintiffs' motion to certify                  Aug. 13, 2024
    classes:

-- Defendants' response:                          Sept. 25, 2024

-- Plaintiffs' reply:                             Oct. 15, 2024

On April 21, 2023, the Plaintiff Bankhurst filed his class action
complaint against Defendants Sub-Zero Group Inc. and Wolf Appliance
Inc.

On Sept. 20, 2023, the Court issued a Preliminary Pretrial
Conference
Order, setting the briefing schedules for the motion for class
certification and the parties' expert disclosures.

Sub-Zero is a privately-held American company that manufactures and
sells luxury kitchen appliances.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fMQguU at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gabriel Doble, Esq.
          Richard Lyon, Esq.
          Simon Franzini, Esq.
          Christin Cho, Esq.
          DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
          201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 656-7066
          Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
          E-mail: gabe@dovel.com
                  rick@dovel.com
                  simon@dovel.com
                  christin@dovel.com

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Amato Must Submit Class Cert Bid as One Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMATO et al v. SUBARU OF
AMERICA, INC. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-16118-JHR-AMD (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez entered an order that on or before
60 days from the entry of this order, the Plaintiff shall submit as
one filing a motion for class certification of the Amato and Aquino
class actions

Subaru is the United States-based distributor of Subaru brand
vehicles.

Subaru is the United States-based distributor of Subaru brand
vehicles.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T3UIRC at no extra
charge.[CC]

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Aquino Must Submit Class Cert Bid as One Filing
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD AQUINO, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00990-JHR-AMD
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez entered an order that
on or before 60 days from the entry of this order, the Plaintiff
shall submit as one filing a motion for class certification.

Subaru is the United States-based distributor of Subaru brand
vehicles.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Slk67l at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


SUBURBAN PROPANE: 2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Consumer Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report
for the quarterly period ended December 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2024, that on
December 12, 2023, the Court of Appeals issued an Order and
Decision affirming the decision of the lower court dismissing the
plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff has 90 days from the date of the
Second Circuit's decision to file a petition with the United States
Supreme Court.

On April 12, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York dismissed consumer statute and breach of
contract suits the company was facing. The plaintiff has filed an
appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The complaint alleged a number of claims under various consumer
statutes and common law in New York and Pennsylvania regarding
pricing offered to electricity customers in those states. After the
court granted summary judgment in favor of the partnership on the
remaining counts and the complaint was dismissed in full.

Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. is a publicly traded Delaware
limited partnership principally engaged, through its operating
partnership and subsidiaries, in the retail marketing and
distribution of propane, renewable propane, renewable natural gas,
fuel oil and refined fuels, as well as the marketing of natural gas
and electricity in deregulated markets and producer of and investor
in low-carbon fuel alternatives.


TECH MAHINDRA: Wins Renewed Bid to Dismiss Williams Employee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LEE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. TECH MAHINDRA
(AMERICAS) INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-04684-MAS-DEA
(D.N.J.), Judge Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey grants the Defendant's renewed motion to
dismiss.

Defendant Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc.'s ("TMA") Renewed Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff Lee Williams's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Plaintiff opposed the Motion and
TMA replied.

In this putative class action, the Plaintiff brings claims under 42
U.S.C. Section 1981 ("Section 1981") against his former employer,
TMA, an information technology ("IT") company located in India.
According to the Complaint, TMA employs approximately 5,100
employees across 25 offices in the United States. Approximately 90%
of TMA's employees in the United States are of South Asian and
Indian descent, notwithstanding that these groups comprise 1–2%
of the United States population and roughly 12% of the relevant
labor market.

The Plaintiff alleges that this is not a mere coincidence and that
TMA purposefully hires a "grossly disproportionate" number of South
Asian and Indian employees due to TMA's intentional pattern or
practice of employment discrimination against individuals, who are
not South Asian.

In May 2014, the Plaintiff was hired by TMA as a Regional
Manager/Senior Director of Business Development. The following
month, the Plaintiff began working in TMA's Columbus, Ohio office
where he was responsible for generating business and sales from new
banking clients. Among the eight employees in his sales group, the
Plaintiff was one of two non-South Asians. His supervisor, Manish
Shwarma, like the vast majority of TMA's managerial and supervisory
staff, was of South Asian race.

The Plaintiff alleges that, despite being told initially that TMA
had a good working relationship with its various banking clients,
he soon realized that these clients in fact had a poor relationship
with TMA, and as a result, it took the Plaintiff many months to set
up meetings with these accounts and deals were lost to competitors
due to TMA's poor history with the accounts. The Plaintiff also
attended several company regional meetings where most attendees
were South Asian and where Hindi was often spoken to the exclusion
of the Plaintiff, a native English speaker.

The Plaintiff's employment with TMA was short-lived. In June 2015,
the Plaintiff's manager informed him that he was not meeting his
sales goals, and that he would be placed on a Performance
Improvement Plan ("PIP"). The Plaintiff alleges, however, that the
PIP set "unreasonable revenue goals" that were unattainable given
the company's poor working relationship with the accounts in his
territory. Not long thereafter, TMA terminated his employment on
Aug. 19, 2015.

As a non-South Asian, who was terminated by TMA, the Plaintiff was
a member of a putative class action filed in the United States
District Court for the District of North Dakota (the "Grant
Action") against TMA claiming racial discrimination (Grant v. Tech
Mahindra (Americas), Inc., No. 18-171, 2019 WL 7865165, at *1
(D.N.D. Dec. 5, 2019).

The plaintiff in that matter, Roderick Grant ("Grant"), sought
relief under Section 1981 to represent a class of non-South Asians,
who worked for TMA and allegedly experienced discrimination in
hiring, staffing, promotion, and termination. TMA responded to
Grant's complaint and moved to dismiss Grant's claims, but later
withdrew its motion to dismiss and instead filed a motion to compel
arbitration.

On June 5, 2019, Grant sought leave to amend his complaint to add
the Plaintiff as a named plaintiff. On Feb. 6, 2020, the North
Dakota District Court: (1) granted TMA's motion to compel
individual arbitration; (2) denied Grant's motion for leave to
amend; (3) dismissed Grant's claims pending the individual
arbitration proceedings.

As such, despite Grant's efforts to add the Plaintiff as a named
plaintiff to the Grant Action, those attempts were unsuccessful.
Two months later, on April 21, 2020, the Plaintiff filed his
instant putative class action complaint in this Court alleging that
TMA engaged in a pattern or practice of race discrimination against
non-South Asians in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981.

The parties do not dispute that the longest applicable statute of
limitations is four years, and that the Plaintiff's putative class
action complaint was filed approximately four years and eight
months after his employment with TMA ended. Accordingly, as in the
Grant Action, TMA filed a Motion to Dismiss ("First Motion to
Dismiss") the Complaint on several grounds, asserting that: (1) the
Plaintiff lacked Article III standing; (2) the Plaintiff failed to
state a claim of race discrimination; and (3) the claims were
barred by the applicable statute of limitations for Section 1981
claims.

The Court granted TMA's First Motion to Dismiss on Jan. 19, 2021,
dismissing the action without prejudice. The dismissal was made on
several grounds. First, the Court rejected TMA's standing-based
argument and found that the Plaintiff suffered an injury-in-fact
that was fairly traceable to TMA's conduct. Second, in connection
to TMA's statute of limitations defense, the Court found that
American Pipe tolling only applied to the Plaintiff's individual
claims based on the Supreme Court's decision in China Agritech, 138
S. Ct. 1800, 1806 (2018), which held that American Pipe tolling
could not revive a successive class action.

The Court, therefore, deemed that the Plaintiff's claims on behalf
of the putative class were time-barred. Third, for the Plaintiff's
remaining individual claims, the Court concluded that he failed to
state a claim for relief under Section 1981 because he did not
allege that, but for his race, TMA would not have terminated his
employment.

While the Court granted him an opportunity to amend his Complaint,
the Plaintiff filed subsequent correspondence stating his intent to
"stand on his Complaint" and that he would not seek to amend it.
Instead, the Plaintiff filed an appeal to the Third Circuit,
primarily asserting that the Court did not consider prior to
dismissing the class action whether "wrong-forum tolling," as
opposed to American Pipe tolling, would allow him to proceed with a
successive class action. The Plaintiff also argued that he
adequately pled a class claim that TMA engaged in a "pattern or
practice" of intentional discrimination.

Before addressing the merits of the Plaintiff's arguments, the
Third Circuit vacated and remanded the case to this Court to
consider whether wrong-forum tolling applies and/or whether the
Plaintiff has plausibly pleaded a prima facie pattern-or-practice
claim.

On remand, TMA filed its renewed Motion to Dismiss asserting that
the Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed because: (1) the
Plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of wrong-forum tolling;
and (2) the Plaintiff does not plead a plausible pattern or
practice claim of discrimination under Section 1981.

To begin, the Court notes that the Plaintiff does not dispute that
the Complaint was filed outside the relevant statute of limitations
period. TMA terminated the Plaintiff's employment on Aug. 19, 2015,
and therefore, he was required to bring his claims on or before
Aug. 19, 2019; yet the Complaint in this matter was not filed until
April 21, 2020. Moreover, throughout these proceedings, the
Plaintiff has never denied that the longest term of the applicable
statute of limitations--which is four years--expired when he filed
his instant Complaint in this Court.

Despite the untimeliness of this action, the Plaintiff asserts that
the filing of a motion for leave to amend the complaint in the
Grant Action tolled the statute of limitations in this case. The
motion for leave to amend the complaint in the Grant Action was
filed on June 5, 2019, 75 days before the four-year statute of
limitations expired. The North Dakota District Court denied the
motion to amend on Feb. 6, 2020.

The Court has found that when a motion for leave to amend is
granted, the amended complaint is deemed timely even if the court's
permission is granted after the statute of limitations period ends.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' amended complaint was not
filed in a timely fashion because it was never accepted by the
North Dakota District Court.

Because the Plaintiff fails to otherwise demonstrate that he timely
brought his claims in a wrong forum, the Court finds that the
wrong-forum tolling doctrine is plainly inapplicable. Neither
American Pipe nor the doctrine of equitable tolling apply to the
Plaintiff's class claims, and thus, it follows that the putative
class claims are time barred, Judge Shipp opines.

TMA's Motion to Dismiss on this basis is granted, Judge Shipp
holds. The Plaintiff's class claims are dismissed with prejudice.

Having determined that the statute of limitations bars the class
claims, all that remains is the Plaintiff's individual claim under
Section 1981.

Judge Shipp notes that the Plaintiff has not indicated whether he
intends to proceed on his individual claim. In fact, the
Plaintiff's opposition brief suggests to the contrary and states
that he "never intended" to pursue his individual claim in this
matter.

Accordingly, the Court dismisses the action without prejudice. The
Plaintiff must e-file correspondence within 30 days as to whether
he intends to proceed with his individual claim. If the Plaintiff
responds in the affirmative, the Court will grant him an
opportunity to amend his Complaint accordingly.

In the event the Plaintiff seeks to forego his individual claim,
the matter will be dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Feb. 5,
2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/bp5bd2rafrom
PacerMonitor.com.


THEO CHOCOLATE: Court Consolidates Two Actions
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROCKIME DAVIS and MYHANG
LE, v. THEO CHOCOLATE, INC., a Washington company, Case No.
4:24-cv-00061-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam,
Jr. entered an order that:

  1. The Chesavage and Davis actions currently pending in the
Northern
     District of California and any other action arising out of the

     same or similar operative facts now pending or hereafter filed

     in, removed to, or transferred to this District shall be
     consolidated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) before the
     Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.

  2. All papers filed in the Consolidated Action shall be filed
under
      Case No. 4:23-cv02739-HSG and shall bear the following
caption:

Theo Chocolate distributes confectionery products. The Company
offers chocolates and coca products.

A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 31,
2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DIY6Ex at no extra charge.[CC]

TRACY LOGISTICS: Picou Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Donte Picou, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. TRACY LOGISTICS LLC, an entity of unknown
form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2023-12043 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California in and for the County of San Joaquin, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb.
20, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-at-00182.

The Plaintiff's Complaint alleged 12 purported causes of action
for: failure to pay all minimum wages; failure to pay all overtime
wages; recovery of reporting time pay; failure to provide meal
periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to pay vacation
wages; failure to provide paid sick time and/or pay sick time at
the proper rate of pay; failure to furnish accurate itemized wage
statements; failure to keep required payroll records; failure to
pay all wages earned and unpaid at separation; failure to reimburse
all necessary business expenditures; and violations of California's
Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL"), based on alleged violations of
the California Labor Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
          Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
          Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
          Phone: 310.820.8800
          Facsimile: 310.820.8859
          Email: mkane@bakerlaw.com
                 abeverlin@bakerlaw.com
                 ksakaue@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          Transamerica Pyramid
          600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94111-2806
          Phone: 415.659.2600
          Facsimile: 415.659.2601
          Email: sjkim@bakerlaw.com


TRANSFORMATIVE HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Viola, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRANSFORMATIVE HEALTHCARE, LLC and COASTAL MEDICAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-10150-JEK (D. Mass.,
Jan. 19, 2024), is brought against Defendants for their failure to
properly secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally
identifiable information ("PII") and personal health information
("PHI").

The PII and PHI may have included victims' names, addresses, Social
Security numbers, medical information (including COVID-19 testing
or vaccination information) and information provided to Defendants
in connection with employment or an application for employment.

The Defendants failed to comply with industry standards to protect
information systems that contain PII and PHI. The Plaintiff seeks,
among other things, orders requiring Defendants to fully and
accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been
compromised and to adopt sufficient security practices and
safeguards to prevent incidents like the disclosure (the "Data
Breach") in the future.

The Defendants have disclosed having "detected suspicious activity
within our data storage archive" over eight months earlier, on or
around April 21, 2023. Defendants subsequently determined that the
activity started as early as February 17, 2023. The Defendants did
not complete their investigation of the Data Breach until December
27, 2023, when they reported having sent out notification letters
to people whose PII and PHI were exposed by the Data Breach.
Plaintiff received such a letter around that time. But that letter
does not disclose what type of information was accessed in the Data
Breach.

The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals whose PII and/or
PHI were exposed in the Data Breach. Plaintiff seeks remedies
including compensation for time spent responding to the Data Breach
and other types of harm, free credit monitoring and identity theft
insurance, and injunctive relief including substantial improvements
to Defendants' data security policies and practices, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, who
received services from Defendants and/or their affiliates.

Coastal Medical describes itself as "a 24/7 emergency and
non-emergency transportation systems serving healthcare
institutions and patients across New England."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth Ryan, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          176 Federal Street, 5th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 439-6730
          Email: eryan@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq.
          BAILEY GLASSER LLP
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 274-9420
          Email: bcohen@baileyglasser.com
                 llederer@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Michael Criden, Esq.
          Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Phone: (305) 357-9000
          Email: mcriden@cridenlove.com
                 lgrossman@cridenlove.com


TRIANGLE CONSTRUCTION: Williamson Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
REGINA WILLIAMSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRIANGLE CONSTRUCTION, INC., a
California registered corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-01233 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2024) seeks to stop the
Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
making telemarketing calls to consumers without consent including
calls to phone numbers that are registered on the National Do Not
Call registry and to consumers who have expressly requested that
the calls stop.

According to the complaint, the Defendant placed calls to Plaintiff
and members of the Internal Do Not Call Class without implementing
internal procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request
not to be called by the entity and/or by implementing procedures
that do not meet the minimum requirements to allow Defendant to
initiate telemarketing calls.

Triangle Construction is a southern California construction company
that does remodeling and repair projects for consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: Rachel@kaufmanpa.com

TUNNEL BARREL: Settlement in Licona Class Suit Wins Court OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELEUTERIO LICONA, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. TUNNEL BARREL &
DRUM COMPANY and ANTHONY PAUL URCIOLI, individually, Case No.
2:22-cv-00946-SDW-LDW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Leda Dunn Wettre
entered an order granting motion for approval of Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) Settlement.

The plaintiffs claim that the total amount owed to them in overtime
pay, excluding liquidated damages, is approximately $124,855.25.

The Court determines that the plaintiffs' agreement to settle for
the lesser amount of $105,000 constitutes a compromise of a bona
fide dispute for two key reasons.

The parties' proposed settlement resolves plaintiffs' wage claims
under the FLSA, the New Jersey Wage Payment Law and the New Jersey
Wage and Hour Law.

The plaintiff Licona commenced this action on Feb. 23, 2022, on
behalf of a putative class and collective of barrel and drum
cleaners formerly employed by TBDC, against their former employer
and its owner, defendant Urcioli.

The Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to pay them overtime
wages for time worked as barrel and drum cleaners in excess of
forty hours per week, in violation of the FLSA, the NJWPL, and the

NJWHL.

On Dec. 1, 2023, the defendants wrote to inform the Court that a
settlement had been reached in principle.

The parties agreed to settle this case for a total amount of
$105,000.00 in full satisfaction of Licona's and Hernandez's claims
against the Defendants and their attorneys' fees and costs.

Tunnel Barrel is a supplier of steel, plastic, and fiber drums.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vDiAP1 at no extra
charge.[CC]

U.S. HEALTHWORKS: Raines Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINA RAINES and
DARRICK FIGG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. U.S. HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP, a corporation; et al.,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01539-DMS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying the following Class:

   "Every applicant who underwent a post-offer, preplacement
   examination ("PPE") at a USHW facility in California between
   Oct. 23, 2017 and Dec. 31, 2018 (the "Class Period")."

Additionally, the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order
appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and appointing
Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP and
Light & Miller LLP, as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1).

US HealthWorks is an urgent care & occupational health service
provider.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JAuM3l at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Given, Esq.
          Brian S. Conlon, Esq.
          Kyle P. O'Malley, Esq.
          PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP
          39 Mesa Street, Suite 201 - The Presidio
          San Francisco, CA 94129
          Telephone: (415) 398-0900
          Facsimile: (415) 398-0911
          E-mail: rse@phillaw.com
                  dmg@phillaw.com
                  bsc@phillaw.com
                  kpo@phillaw.com

                - and -

          Michael Miller, Esq.
          Christopher Light, Esq.
          LIGHT & MILLER, LLP
          8880 Rio San Diego Dr., Suite 800
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 554-8460
          Facsimile: (619) 996-7070
          E-mail: Michael@LightMiller.com
                  Chris@LightMiller.com

UINTAH COUNTY, UT: Lakhumna Ordered to Cure Deficient Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David Barlow of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah issued a Memorandum Decision & Order to cure the Plaintiff's
deficient complaint filed in the lawsuit entitled VIVEK LAKHUMNA,
Plaintiff v. UINTAH COUNTY, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-00387-DBB (D. Utah).

The Plaintiff, self-represented inmate Vivek Lakumna, brings this
civil-rights action (42 U.S.C.S. Section 1983 (2023)), proceeding
without prepaying the filing fee. Having now screened the
Complaint, under its statutory review function, the Court orders
the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to cure deficiencies
before further pursuing claims.

Judge Barlow points out that the Complaint improperly names Uintah
County Jail (UCJ) as a Section 1983 Defendant, when it is not an
independent legal entity that can sue or be sued. Judge Barlow
adds, among other things, that the Complaint purports to bring a
class action, when the Plaintiff may not represent a class as a pro
se litigant.

The Court provides guidance for the Plaintiff. Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to contain
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's
jurisdiction; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the
relief sought.

Pro se litigants are not excused from meeting these minimal
pleading demands, Judge Barlow says. Moreover, it is improper for
the Court to assume the role of advocate for a pro se litigant.
Thus, the Court cannot supply additional facts, or construct a
legal theory for the Plaintiff that assumes facts that have not
been pleaded.

Judge Barlow provides the Plaintiff several general points before
filing an amended complaint. These include: (i) the revised
complaint must stand entirely on its own and will not refer to, or
incorporate by reference, any part of the original complaint, (ii)
the complaint must clearly state what each individual
defendant--typically, a named government employee--did to violate
Plaintiff's civil rights, and (iii) the Plaintiff may not name an
individual as a defendant based solely on supervisory position.

The Plaintiff should keep in mind too that it makes no sense to sue
a governmental entity in its individual capacity, Judge Barlow
says. And, finally, there is no longer a need to bring
official-capacity actions against local government officials, for
under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 689
(1978), local government units can be sued directly for damages and
injunctive or declaratory relief.

Judge Barlow also directs the Plaintiff to study and incorporate
general principles in reframing the Complaint's municipal liability
claim and stating a First Amendment claim.

Accordingly, Judge Barlow rules that the Plaintiff must within
thirty days cure the Complaint's deficiencies noted here by filing
a document entitled, "Amended Complaint," that does not refer to or
include any other document. The Clerk's Office will mail the
Plaintiff the Pro Se Litigant Guide with a blank-form civil-rights
complaint which the Plaintiff must use if the Plaintiff wishes to
pursue an amended complaint. If the Plaintiff fails to timely cure
the deficiencies according to this Order's instructions, Judge
Barlow says this action will be dismissed without further notice.

The amended complaint will not include any claims outside the dates
and allegations of transactions and events contained in the
Complaint, filed June 14, 2023. The Court will not address any such
new claims or outside allegations, which will be dismissed. If the
Plaintiff wishes to raise other claims and allegations, the
Plaintiff may do so only in a new complaint in a new case. If an
amended complaint is filed, the Court will screen each claim and
defendant for dismissal or an order effecting service upon valid
defendants, who are affirmatively linked to valid claims.

The Plaintiff will not try to serve an amended complaint on any
defendants; instead, the Court will perform its screening function
and determine itself whether the amended complaint warrants service
or dismissal (in part or in full). No motion for service of process
is needed.

The Plaintiff must tell the Court of any address change and timely
comply with Court orders. Extensions of time are disfavored, though
reasonable extensions may be granted. Any motion for time extension
must be filed no later than fourteen days before the deadline to be
extended.

No direct communication is to take place with any judge. All
relevant information, letters, documents, and papers, labeled with
case number, are to be directed to the Clerk of Court.

The Plaintiff must observe the following District of Utah local
rule: "A party proceeding without an attorney (unrepresented party
or pro se party) is obligated to comply with: (1) the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure; (2) these Local Rules of Practice; (3) the Utah
Standards of Professionalism and Civility; and (4) other laws and
rules relevant to the action."

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision & Order dated
Feb. 8, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/mrydmvyjfrom
PacerMonitor.com.


UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: Continues to Defend Baker Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the annual period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Baker class suit in the
Eastern District of Washington federal court.

In July 2023, Baker v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (DE) and United
Parcel Service, Inc. (OH) was certified as a class action in
federal court in the Eastern District of Washington.

The plaintiff in this matter alleges that UPS violated the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.

The Company is vigorously defending itself in this matter and
believes that it has number of meritorious defenses, and there are
unresolved questions of law and fact that could be important to the
ultimate resolution of this matter.

United Parcel is an American multinational shipping & receiving and
supply chain management company.

UPSTART HOLDINGS: Crain Seeks to Modify Class Cert Briefing Sched.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crain v. Upstart Holdings,
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02935-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the
Lead-Plaintiff files an unopposed motion to modify class
certification briefing schedule.

On Nov. 14, 2023, the Parties submitted a Rule 26(f) Report, and,
on
Nov. 15, 2023, the Court entered a Preliminary Pretrial Order
setting a schedule for the forthcoming motion for class
certification, among other deadlines.

Lead Plaintiff requests a two-week extension of time to file its
opening papers in support of the class certification motion, but
wishes to keep intact the deadline by which the class certification

motion will be fully briefed and submitted to the Court:

   Original           Proposed
   Date               Date

  Jan. 29, 2024    Feb, 12, 2024     Deadline for Lead Plaintiff to

                                     file motion for class
                                     certification, including
expert
                                     report(s), if any.

  Feb. 28, 2024    Mar. 13, 2024     Deadline for Defendants to
depose
                                     proposed class
representative(s),
                                     Lead Plaintiffs' class
                                     certification expert(s),
and/or
                                     other witnesses in connection

                                     with the motion for class
                                     certification.

  Mar. 29, 2024    Apr. 12, 2024     Deadline for Defendants to
file
                                     opposition to class
                                     certification, including
expert
                                     report(s), if any.

  04/26/24     05/8/24      Deadline for Lead Plaintiff to depose
                            Defendants’ class certification
expert(s),
                            and/or other witnesses in connection
with
                            the motion for class certification.

  05/17/24      05/17/24    Deadline for Lead Plaintiff to file
reply
                            in support of class certification,
                            including expert rebuttal report(s), if

                            any.

Upstart is a cloud-based artificial intelligence (AI) lending
marketplace.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 29, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VkIefE at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Grant, Esq.
          PLEVIN & GALLUCCI COMPANY, L.P.A.
          55 Public Square, Suite 2222
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 861-0804
          Facsimile: (216) 861-5322
          E-mail: dgrant@pglawyer.com

                - and -

          Gregg S. Levin, Esq.
          Max N. Gruetzmacher, Esq.
          Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Blvd.
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9000
          Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
          E-mail: glevin@motleyrice.com
                  mgruetzmacher@motleyrice.com
                  cmoriarty@motleyrice.com

UPSTART HOLDINGS: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid in Crain by April 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crain v. Upstart Holdings,
Inc. et al. (UPSTART HOLDINGS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case
No. 2:22-cv-02935-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A.
Preston Deavers entered an order amending the class certification
briefing schedule as follows:

-- Deadline for Lead Plaintiff to file               Feb. 12,
2024
    motion for class certification,
    including expert report(s), if any:

-- Deadline for Defendants to depose                  March 13,
2024
    proposed class representative(s), Lead
    Plaintiffs' class certification expert(s),
    and/or other witnesses in connection
    with the motion for class certification:

-- Deadline for Defendants to file opposition         April 12,
2024
    to class certification, including
    expert report(s), if any:

-- Deadline for Lead Plaintiff to depose              May 9, 2024

    Defendants' class certification
    expert(s), and/or other witnesses in
    connection with the motion for class
    certification:

-- Deadline for Lead Plaintiff to file reply          May 14, 2024

    in support of class certification,
    including expert rebuttal:

Upstart is a cloud-based artificial intelligence lending
marketplace.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y8PyfT at no extra
charge.[CC]


US FACILITY: Glass Seeks to Certify Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS GLASS and RAY ST.
CLAIR, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v.
U.S. FACILITY SOLUTIONS, LLC (USFS) and CHRIS DABEK, Case No.
0:23-cv-61426-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff requests that the
Court:

   (1) Conditionally certifying this action as a collective action

       under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   (2) Directing that notice be issued to all individuals who
worked
       as technicians for USFS at any time within the three years
       prior to joining this lawsuit, who were misclassified as
       "exempt" from the overtime protections of the FLSA and were
not
       paid any overtime premium when they worked more than forty
       hours per week;

   (3) Directing the Defendants to produce the names, last known
       mailing and email addresses, and telephone numbers for all
       collective action members; and

   (4) Authorizing the Plaintiffs to send a reminder notice to
       collective action members halfway through the opt-in period
(45
       days).

The Plaintiffs Douglas Glass and Ray St. Clair have brought this
suit on behalf of themselves and similarly situated technicians who
worked for the Defendants, seeking to recover unpaid overtime
wages.

The technicians who comprise this proposed collective all performed
similar duties and were subject to the same unlawful pay policies
and practices maintained by USFS in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").

Specifically, these technicians

    (1) performed manual maintenance work at third-party commercial

        sites under employment agreements with USFS;

    (2) worked full-time, at least five days a week, and regularly

        more than 40 hours per week;

    (3) were improperly classified as exempt from the FLSA's
overtime
        wage provisions; and

    (4) did not receive overtime compensation for hours worked in
        excess of 40 hours per week.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of a
collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA to provide
timely notice to the following group of individuals:

   "All individuals who worked as technicians for USFS at any
   time within the three years prior to joining this lawsuit, who
   were misclassified as "exempt" from the overtime protections
   of the FLSA and were not paid any overtime premium when
   they worked more than forty hours per week.

U.S. Facility is a commercial maintenance management company that
contracts with various commercial properties such as large
retailers or office buildings to provide maintenance services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 31, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vjb9v7 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason L. Gunter, Esq.
          Conor P. Foley, Esq.
          GUNTERFIRM
          1514 Broadway 101
          Fort Myers, FL 33901
          Telephone: (239) 334-7017
          E-mail: jason@gunterfirm.com
                  conor@gunterfirm.com

                - and -

          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) 887-1878
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
                  pamela@herrmannlaw.com

                - and -

          Harold Lichten, Esq.
          Matthew Thomson, Esq.
          Samuel Davis, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, PC
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  mthomson@llrlaw.com
                  sdavis@llrlaw.com

VERIZON WIRELESS: Nonprofit Criticize Plaintiffs' Lawyers Over Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters reports that a nonprofit that
specializes in policing class action settlements has accused
plaintiffs' lawyers who struck a controversial $100 million
settlement with Verizon of colluding with the company to garner at
least $8 million in undeserved legal fees.

In a motion, opens new tab filed on Feb. 23 in federal court in San
Francisco, the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute told U.S. District
Judge Edward Chen that when plaintiffs' lawyers reached a
nationwide deal with Verizon (VZ.N), opens new tab to resolve
claims of deceptive charges on monthly wireless bills, they turned
to a New Jersey state court for approval of the settlement -- even
though the plaintiffs' firms originally filed their claims in
Chen's courtroom and obtained crucial rulings and discovery in the
San Francisco federal case.

The motive for this alleged forum shopping, according to Hamilton
Lincoln, is fees for class counsel from law firms Hattis & Lukacs
and DeNittis, Osefchen, Prince.

If plaintiffs' lawyers had asked Chen to approve the Verizon
settlement, the nonprofit argued, they would be entitled to no more
than 25% of the $100 million fund, because that's the benchmark for
fee awards in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

But class action fee requests receive far less scrutiny from New
Jersey state court judges, according to Hamilton Lincoln. So it's
no surprise, the nonprofit said, that class counsel have asked,
opens new tab Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Ana Viscomi to
approve an award of $33.3 million. That's at least $8.3 million
more, Hamilton Lincoln argued, than the firms could have expected
from Chen if they'd settled in federal court.

Hamilton Lincoln is seeking to intervene in the San Francisco case,
arguing that Chen should either use his equitable powers, opens new
tab to distribute the allegedly undeserved $8.3 million to class
members or allow the nonprofit to file a class action, opens new
tab against the DeNittis and Hattis firms.

Verizon and class counsel, the group told Chen, had "conspired" to
seek settlement approval without confronting federal and 9th
Circuit rules for class actions.

"Public policy and the law demand that there be material
consequences for attempting to evade Rule 23 review," Hamilton
Lincoln said.

Both Verizon and class counsel rejected the basic premise of
Hamilton Lincoln's new filings, pointing out that the DeNittis and
Hattis firms filed parallel class actions in state and federal
court in New Jersey, where Verizon is headquartered, soon after
they initiated the case before Chen.

The New Jersey cases were just as hard-fought as the California
branch of the litigation, they said. In fact, said both Verizon
counsel Shon Morgan of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and class
counsel Stephen DeNittis, the $100 million settlement came as the
New Jersey Supreme Court was poised to hear Verizon's appeal of an
intermediate state appellate ruling that its so-called "batch
arbitration" process for resolving consumer arbitration demands was
unconscionable. (Chen also held that Verizon's batch arbitration
process was fundamentally flawed. The $100 million settlement
aborted Verizon's closely watched appeal of that ruling to the 9th
Circuit.)

"We did not forum shop," DeNittis told me flatly. "We've been
litigating in state court in New Jersey since January 2022."

Verizon counsel Morgan said in an email statement that the company
chose to settle in New Jersey because that's where it was defending
three of the four class actions filed by the DeNittis and Hattis
firms. The company, which maintains that its "administrative"
charges on wireless bills were not deceptive, said it's now up to
Viscomi, the New Jersey judge, to decide how much of the $100
million should go to class counsel rather than to class members.

Verizon also said it is significant that Hamilton Lincoln is not
challenging the settlement itself. The group did raise concerns in
its filings to Chen about the scope of class members' releases, the
"illusory" impact of an injunction requiring Verizon to change some
wording in its consumer contracts, and the parties' purported
failure to alert state attorneys general about the resolution of
the federal-court cases, as required in the Class Action Fairness
Act. But Hamilton Lincoln said it was taking no position on the
ultimate fairness of the $100 million deal.

I've previously described the settlement as a big setback for
critics of mass arbitration, since Verizon, in the face of nearly
25,000 customer demands for arbitration, chose to pay out $100
million instead of attempting to defend its batch arbitration
process, which was designed to reduce the leverage of arbitration
fees for plaintiffs' lawyers, on appeal.

But you may recall that deal was roundly criticized by a
plaintiffs' firm that represents thousands of Verizon customers who
have demanded arbitration against the company. I told you last
month that Murphy Advocates and its lawyers at Goldstein, Russell &
Woofter sought to intervene in the New Jersey state court case,
arguing (among other things) that Murphy should be permitted to opt
about 10,000 clients out of the class without obtaining their
individual signatures.

Murphy's argument, in a nutshell: After Verizon forced customers to
give up the right to litigate as a class when it required them to
agree to individual arbitration, the company should not be
permitted to use a class action to wriggle out of arbitration
demands by thousands of those customers.

Class counsel countered Murphy's attempt to disrupt the proposed
settlement with a motion to block him from continuing to solicit
Verizon wireless customers to bring arbitration claims.

Verizon, meanwhile, told the New Jersey judge overseeing the $100
million settlement that hundreds of Murphy's purported clients
filed claims in the class action, undermining his argument that his
clients wanted to pursue individual arbitration.

Viscomi said at a Feb. 16 hearing, according to Verizon counsel
Morgan, that she would deny Murphy's motion to intervene. She has
not yet issued a written order.

Neither Evan Murphy nor his counsel Kevin Russell of Goldstein,
Russell & Woofter responded to my query on the competing New Jersey
motions or the Hamilton Lincoln filings in California.

The New Jersey settlement, which received preliminary approval last
December, is slated for a final approval hearing in March. [GN]

WALGREENS BOOTS: Boswell Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as John Boswell, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.,
and Walgreen Co., Case No. 2023 LA 000506 was removed from the
Circuit Court for Kane County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 20, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01412.

The Complaint asserts claims for violations of the Illinois's
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practice Act, ("IUDTPA"), Illinois's
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505,
et seq. ("ICFA"), Fraud, Fraudulent Inducement, Fraudulent
Misrepresentation, Quasi Contract/Unjust Enrichment, and Breach of
an Express and Implied Warranty on behalf of Plaintiff and a
putative class defined as "All persons in Illinois who purchased
Drugs containing Phenylephrine sold by Defendants from 2020 to the
Present."[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory E. Ostfeld, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          77 W. Wacker, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60657
          Phone: (312) 456-8400
          Fax: (312) 456-8435


WALMART INC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Labeling Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Walmart alleging that certain
fruit products are mislabeled.

The consumer shift towards healthier food options and a preference
for "real" ingredients has led to increased scrutiny of food labels
and in this case, Walmart's "Yellow Cling Peaches in 100% Juice"
product demonstrates how misleading labeling practices can deceive
consumers and drive sales based on false representations, according
to a complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

Patricia Matthews claims this class action highlights the
importance of transparent and accurate food labeling to ensure
consumers can make informed choices about the products they
purchase.

In recent years, there has been a significant shift in consumer
behavior towards seeking healthier food options, with a particular
emphasis on understanding and avoiding additives in their food
products, according to the suit.

Consumers are paying closer attention to product labels, leading to
a preference for foods labeled as "100%" and made with "real"
ingredients, the complaint states.

Matthews claims the trend is supported by a growing aversion to
additives, which are non-food substances added to food products for
various purposes such as processing aids, color enhancement,
flavoring and preservation.

A survey by the International Food Information Council found that
nearly 30% of consumers consider additives a top concern, driven by
a belief that chemicals in food may pose health risks, according to
the suit.

This has led to a demand for foods made with recognizable,
naturally occurring ingredients, such as 100% fruit juice, the
complaint states.

Matthews claims consumers feel more comfortable when they can
identify the ingredients in their food, preferring items with
ingredients similar to what they might have in their kitchens.

This consumer shift towards "real" ingredients is partly fueled by
media attention highlighting the lack of transparency in the food
industry. Studies have also linked negative health effects to foods
with chemical additives, further reinforcing consumer preferences
for natural ingredients.

Historically, regulations such as the Pure Food and Drug Act of
1906 and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 were
established to protect consumers from misleading food labels,
according to the suit. These laws require that food labels
accurately represent the product's contents, including any
additives or non-food substances.

Matthews claims Walmart's "Yellow Cling Peaches in 100% Juice"
product highlights a discrepancy between its front-label claims and
actual ingredients.

While the product is marketed as containing only peaches and 100%
fruit juice, closer inspection of the fine print reveals additional
ingredients such as added water, juice concentrates, natural
flavor, lemon juice for seasoning, ascorbic acid and citric acid,
according to the suit.

The undisclosed ingredients are cheaper and lack the nutritional
benefits and taste of peaches and 100% fruit juice, according to
the suit. The addition of water, juice concentrates and synthetic
preservatives allows the product to last longer on shelves and
alters its taste to mimic that of natural fruit, but at the expense
of consumer expectations for a "real" product.

Matthews claims the use of terms like "natural flavor" is
particularly misleading, as these additives are created in
laboratories using complex processes to imitate the taste of real
fruit. However, they do not provide the same health benefits or
flavor depth as real fruit.

The product's labeling violates federal and state regulations by
not accurately representing its contents.

Matthews claims according to these regulations, the label should
include descriptions of added water, juice concentrates, natural
flavor and synthetic preservatives like ascorbic acid and citric
acid.

Failure to disclose these additives misleads consumers into
believing they are purchasing a product made solely from peaches
and 100% fruit juice, the complaint states.

The misrepresentation of the product allows it to be sold at a
premium price, around $2.48 for four 4 oz cups, which is higher
than similar products that are accurately labeled, according to the
suit.

Consumers pay this premium under the false assumption that they are
purchasing a product made with real, healthy ingredients when in
reality, they are receiving a product with cheaper, synthetic
additives.

Matthews is seeking monetary damages. She is represented by Daniel
F. Harvath of Harvath Law Group in Webster Grove, Mo.

The plaintiff's attorney declined to comment.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri case
number: 4:24-cv-00202 [GN]

WALMART INC: Zorich Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Isaiah Zorich, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WALMART INC., and DOES 1 through
10, Case No. 24SL-CC00167 was removed from the Circuit Court for
St. Louis County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri on Feb. 20, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 4:24-cv-00265-SEP.

The Plaintiff has brought claims against Walmart for breach of
warranty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and
violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          M. Kevin Underhill, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          555 Mission Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 544-1900


WAXING THE CITY: Pitts Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Waxing The City
Franchisor LLC. The case is styled as Shantell Pitts, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Waxing The City
Franchisor LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00361 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 20, 2024).

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

Waxing The City -- https://franchise.waxingthecity.com/ -- is
devoted solely to the art of body waxing, catering to both women
and men.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Bowles's Bid for Preliminary Injunction Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Linda V. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and
Order denying the Plaintiffs' emergency motion for preliminary
injunction in the lawsuit titled TONYA BOWLES, for herself and all
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ERIC R. SABREE and COUNTY
OF WAYNE BY ITS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, also sometimes known as
CHARTER COUNTY OF WAYNE BY ITS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-10973-LVP-KGA (E.D. Mich.).

The matter is presently before the Court on the Plaintiffs'
emergency motion for an order enjoining two cases pending in the
Circuit Court for Wayne County, Michigan: Purnell, et al. v Wayne
County, et al., Case No. 20-009074-CZ (filed July 20, 2020), and
Sangster v. County of Wayne, et al., Case No. 20-005048 (filed
April 8, 2020). The Plaintiffs ask the Court to issue an
injunction. Hearings were scheduled in the state court on Feb. 9,
2024.

Because the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 2283, precludes
federal courts from staying state-court proceedings and this matter
does not fall within the act's exceptions, the Court is denying the
Plaintiffs' motion.

The Plaintiffs maintain that 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 expressly
authorizes an injunction as it makes the federal government a
guarantor of basic federal rights against state power (quoting
Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 239 (1972)).

However, Judge Parker opines that Section 1983 does not authorize
federal courts to enjoin a state-court action simply because the
federal action is brought under the statute. Instead, as Mitchum
illustrates, an injunction is permissible if the state court
proceedings themselves threaten civil rights violations.

Judge Parker finds that the state court proceedings the Plaintiffs
seek to enjoin do not threaten anyone's civil rights. To the
contrary, both federal and state actions were brought to enforce or
protect individual's property rights. Notably, Section 1983
entrusts federal and state courts with providing a forum for the
vindication of federal rights violated by state or local officials
acting under the color of state law. Thus, the first exception to
the Anti-Injunction Act is not applicable here. The second
exception is not applicable either.

Judge Parker notes that there is no judgment in the present action
to protect or effectuate. Moreover, as the Defendants point out,
the state court actions are being pursued by individuals who are
expressly excluded from the Class certified here.

For these reasons, the Court concludes that the Anti-Injunction Act
precludes the relief the Plaintiffs seek in their motion.

Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' emergency motion for
an injunction enjoining state court proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Feb. 5,
2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/2e9hwy4vfrom
PacerMonitor.com.


WEEE! INC: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Customers' Data-Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tre'Vaughn Howard of Bloomberg Law reports that a federal judge
dismissed a proposed class action against online grocery-delivery
company Weee! Inc. over a data breach, finding that two former
customers failed to allege an injury.

Tyson Liau and Richard Teng lacked standing to sue because the leak
only disclosed low-risk data such as their name, addresses, and
phone numbers, the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York said. The plaintiffs also said they were injured by spam
calls and texts, but they didn't show such annoyances were beyond
those typically faced by consumers or were even traceable to the
breach. [GN]




WEST VIRGINIA HEALTH: Headlee Suit Transferred to D. West Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alice Headlee, Individually and on behalf of
similarly situated employees v. West Virginia United Health System,
Inc., Uniontown Hospital, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00017 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia on Feb. 20, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00021-TSK to the
proceeding.

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

The West Virginia University Health System --
http://www.wvumedicine.org/-- commonly branded as WVUMedicine is a
nonprofit health enterprise affiliated with West Virginia
University.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sammy Sugiura, Esq.
          MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, P.C.
          1920 L Street, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 783-0010
          Email: ssugiura@mooneygreen.com

               - and -

          Arthur R. Traynor, Esq.
          Lauren McDermott, Esq.
          MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, P.C.
          1920 L Street, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 783-0010
          Email: atraynor@mooneygreen.com
                 lmcdermott@mooneygreen.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark H. Dellinger
          JACKSON KELLY PLLC
          PO Box 553
          Charleston, WV 25322
          Phone: (304) 340-1356
          Fax: (304) 340-1080
          Email: mark.dellinger@jacksonkelly.com


WOOD GROUP: Averts Flexpath 401(k) Fund Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Wood Group
US Holdings Inc. retirement plan investors challenging target date
funds from Flexpath Strategies LLC saw their claims fail after a
nine-day, judge-only trial.

Flexpath chose its own target date funds as the default investment
option for Wood's retirement plan after spending months analyzing
the plan's participant demographics, investment preferences, and
alternative options, Judge James V. Selna of the US District Court
for the Central District of California said in a Feb. 23 opinion.
The decision was neither imprudent nor disloyal, Selna said, noting
that Flexpath received no additional financial benefit for
selecting these funds. [GN]


XAVIER BECERRA: Hearing on Bid to Appoint Counsel Set for April 15
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Beitzel, et al., v. Xavier
Becerra, Case No. 2:23-cv-01932 (E.D. Cal., Filed Sept. 8, 2023),
the Hon. Judge William B Shubb entered an order setting deadlines
and hearings:

-- The parties are notified that the Scheduling Conference is
    continued from April 22, 2024, to July 1, 2024.

-- Motion to Appoint Counsel, now set for hearing on April 15,
2024.

-- A Joint Status Report shall be filed no later than June 17,
2024,
    pursuant to the Court's Order Re: Status (Pretrial Scheduling)

    Conference filed Oct. 17, 2023.

The suit alleges violation of the Medicare Act.[CC]


ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Brantley Suit Transferred to D. Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Melody T. Brantley, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Zeroed-In Technologies, LLC,
Dollar Tree Stores Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01161 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on Feb. 20,
2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00515-BAH to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

Zeroed-In Technologies -- https://www.zeroedin.com/ -- is an
innovative technology company that helps clients make better use of
their own HR, talent, and business data.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francesca Kester, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 Franklin Street, 6th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 424-5618
          Email: fburne@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Jennifer S. Czeisler, Esq.
          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          STERLINGTON, PLLC
          One World Trade Center, 85th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 433-2993
          Email: jen.czeisler@sterlingtonlaw.com
                 edward.ciolko@sterlingtonlaw.com

               - and -

          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          EVANGELISTA WORLEY LLC
          500 Sugar Mill Road, Suit 245A
          Atlanta, GA 30350
          Phone: (404) 205-8400
          Fax: (404) 205-8395
          Email: jim@ewlawllc.com


ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Jacobson Suit Transferred to D. Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ashley L. Jacobson, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Zeroed-In Technologies, LLC,
Dollar Tree Stores Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01164 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on Feb. 20,
2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00516-BAH to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Zeroed-In Technologies -- https://www.zeroedin.com/ -- is an
innovative technology company that helps clients make better use of
their own HR, talent, and business data.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: (405) 235-1560
          Fax: (405) 239-2112
          Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com


ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Mintz Suit Transferred to D. Maryland
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brittany Mintz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Zeroed-In Technologies, LLC,
Dollar Tree Stores Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01137 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on Feb. 20,
2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00509-BAH to the
proceeding.

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

Zeroed-In Technologies -- https://www.zeroedin.com/ -- is an
innovative technology company that helps clients make better use of
their own HR, talent, and business data.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary E Mason, Esq.
          MASON LLP
          5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640
          Washington, DC 20015
          Phone: (202) 429-2290
          Fax: (202) 429-2294
          Email: gmason@masonllp.com


ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Neeley Suit Transferred to D. Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Thomas Neeley, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Zeroed-In Technologies, LLC, Dollar
Tree Stores Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01219 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland on Feb. 20, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00507-BAH to the
proceeding.

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

Zeroed-In Technologies -- https://www.zeroedin.com/ -- is an
innovative technology company that helps clients make better use of
their own HR, talent, and business data.[BN]

[*] Class Action Targets Aggressive Cosmetic Vendors in Hawaii
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paula Dobbyn at civilbeat.org reports that the Hawaii Office of
Consumer Protection is notifying victims of aggressive cosmetic
salespeople that they may be entitled to join a class-action
lawsuit aimed at recouping money spent on unwanted purchases.

Bickerton Law Group, based in Honolulu, is suing a group of
businesses and individuals that plaintiffs say have engaged in
alleged unfair and deceptive trade practices through pushy sales
practices at stores in Honolulu and on the neighbor islands.

"OCP is closing its investigation as a means to encourage
participation in the pending class action," said William Nhieu, a
spokesman for the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs.

Cosmetic businesses often target elderly women by offering free
sidewalk samples of skin care products that are supposedly
age-defying. Once the unsuspecting customers enter the business,
they're often brought into back rooms where they're given skin
treatments and pressured into buying products.

That's what Rosemarie Incrovato, 66, the lead plaintiff in the
case, says happened to her. The Oregon woman was visiting Waikiki
by herself in 2018 when she passed by a cosmetic store and got
lured in by a salesperson. Four hours later, she left the store
with a laser device, skin care products and a $13,000 charge to her
credit card.

"They pressure you into doing stuff you don't want to do,"
Incrovato said. "I told them no numerous times."

Several women interviewed by Civil Beat in recent months told
similar stories. They say they were strong-armed into handing their
credit cards over in exchange for getting out of the store with a
pile of expensive creams, lotions and devices purporting to reverse
wrinkles, remove age spots and rejuvenate skin tone.

"It did tighten my skin but for all I knew it could have been egg
whites," said Incrovato.

Honolulu First Circuit Judge Dean Ochiai certified the class action
last month. His order allows people who believe they were harmed by
the cosmetic vendors between April 2, 2018 through Jan. 16, 2024 to
be eligible to join the suit.

The plaintiffs must have made a written complaint to the Hawaii
Office of Consumer Protection regarding one or more transactions
with the cosmetic businesses. Or they need to contact the Bickerton
Law Group and explain what happened to them.

Honokaa resident Diane Scheurell plans to sign on.

"I'm out over $18,000," she said in a phone interview.

The Big Island resident bought an array of skin products and
infra-red devices during a dizzying experience involving
high-pressure sales tactics at Sericin Plus, a Waikiki cosmetic
shop, in March 2022.

Once she got home, she tried to return the products and get her
money back. She said she begged for a refund from Victor Mazliah,
the person Sericin Plus referred her to and who is a named
defendant in the lawsuit.

"I'm elderly. My mother died of Alzheimer's. I said to him, ‘If
this was your mom, what would you want?'" Scheurell said.

Her pleading fell on deaf ears. No refund was forthcoming.

Reached by phone, Mazliah declined to comment and hung up.

Mazal Group is also a defendant. A person who answered the phone at
the Chatsworth, California, company declined to give their name but
took a message requesting comment.

Lawyers for the defendants have filed court papers denying the
allegations.

Alleged victims are just starting to learn about the lawsuit. Some,
like Scheurell, expressed relief that someone is finally doing
something about what has been a longstanding and frustrating
problem in Hawaii.

"It's about time. This should have been investigated more throughly
a long time ago," she added.

Scheurell said she believes state investigators did what they could
but were outgunned. She's grateful a law firm is now involved.

"We're ecstatic," said Scott Wise, a Colorado resident.

Wise's wife Sherry ended up spending more than $4,500 at La Belle
Ame, a cosmetic store that operated on Front Street in Lahaina
before the Aug. 8 wildfire that destroyed much of the historic
town.

Sherry had no intention of spending thousands of dollars on
cosmetics but felt trapped and browbeaten by the salespeople who
wouldn't let her leave the shop until she gave them her credit
card, he said.

The Wises were unable to persuade the store owners to refund their
money.

Attorney Bridget Morgan-Bickerton said her lawsuit is intended not
only to help people recover treble damages, meaning three times the
amount of their lost money. It's also to send a powerful message
that the unscrupulous practices like those used by predatory
cosmetic businesses have no place in Hawaii.

"We have sought an injunction as part of our relief and our
complaint and we'll see where that goes. That is certainly a remedy
that probably every plaintiff, everyone in the class, would
certainly want to pursue and hopefully win," she said.

Under Hawaii law, businesses must post an explicit "no refund" sign
if that's their policy, something Morgan-Bickerton said is absent
from the cosmetic businesses named in the lawsuit.

"Our suit undermines their entire business model. You can't operate
the way they do and not screw people over," Morgan-Bickerton said.
"It's a scam."

Predatory cosmetic businesses are known to operate in resort
communities in many parts of the world. It's a shadowy,
multibillion-dollar industry that has been the target of the FBI
and U.S. prosecutors.

Thought to be based in Israel, the industry recruits newly released
military draftees to sell expensive skin products to middle-aged
and elderly women, according to published reports and leaked cables
from U.S. diplomats.

State Sen. Angus McKelvey, whose district includes Lahaina, said
he's grateful that the situation will go before a judge. He tried
to tackle the problem through legislation but the bills didn't
pass. He hopes that people who've been defrauded get their money
back and that the businesses are permanently shut down.

A jury trial in the Hawaii class-action lawsuit is set for July
2025. [GN]

[] 8th Annual Class Action Conference in May, Register Today!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Registration is now open for the 8th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference.

Join top professionals and thought leaders in the class action
industry for this one-day event.

CAME 2024 will be held in-person at The Harmonie Club on Monday,
May 6, 2024.  To register, visit
https://www.classactionconference.com/

For sponsorship or speakership opportunities, please contact:

     Will Etchison
     Tel: 305-707-7493
     E-mail: will@beardgroup.com



                            *********

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 ***