---

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

              Wednesday, March 20, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 58

                            Headlines

2200 RESTAURANT: Conditional Status of FLSA Collective Sought
ALL AMERICAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alvarez Alleges
ALL WAYS CARING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrios Alleges
CREDIT ONE BANK: Simring Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
EMPIRE PHYSICAL THERAPY: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Brown Sues Over Eyewear Price Monopoly
FERRUM COLLEGE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FIRST BANK: Alexander Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees
FLORIDA WATER: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Basson Alleges
GATOS SILVER: Settles Securities Suit Over SEC Filing

GATOS SILVER: To Settle Przybylska Suit in Canadian Court
GENERAC HOLDING: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Faces Walling Shareholder Action
GOTHAM COMEDY: Summerville Sues Over Unlawful Service Fees
HAWKSMOOR RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brightly Alleges

INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Wise Suit Removed to N.D. California
JKB FINANCIAL INC: Moser Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
KEENAN & ASSOCIATES: Lopez Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
LABORATORY CORP: McDonald Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
LEARJET INC: Wins Bid to Decertify Class in Wood Suit

MAGIC WINDOW: Class Cert Bids in Springstubbe Due August 30
MDL 3035: Bid to Junk Third Party Complaint in Russ Suit Tossed
MDL 3035: Bid to Junk Third Party Complaint in Wade Tossed
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Daley Files Suit in D. Arizona
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Castona Says

MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Franklin Files Suit in D. Arizona
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Law Files Suit in D. Arizona
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Moudgal Files Suit in D. Arizona
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Ribeiro Files Suit in S.D. New York
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Yaeger Files Suit in D. Arizona

MEDQ INC: Klepper Files Suit in E.D. Texas
MICHAEL C. MORGAN: Hekscher Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
MIDLAND CREDIT: Dotterer Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. Illinois
NEWARK FIRE SPRINKLER: Tenemaza Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Ambrosio Loses Class Certification Bid

R & J AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ballo Alleges
RCI HOSPITALITY: Conditional Status of Collective Action Sought
SAMPSON BLADEN: Court-Hosted Settlement Conference OK'd in Gbete
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Class Cert. Bids in Tsolumba Due August 22
SPORTS BASEMENT: Fong Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

SUPERIOR AIR CHARTER: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Alston Case
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Dinello Case
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Feola Case
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Jacks Case

TANDEM DIABETES CARE: Faces Lowe Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filings
THOMAS VILSACK: Court Modifies Briefing Schedule
TRAVERTINE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Day Alleges
TRAVIS COUNTY, TX: Plaintiffs Seek Time Extension to File Replies
UNITED STATES: Class Cert Briefing Stayed in A.M.P. Lawsuit

UNITED STATES: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of SNAP Beneficiaries
VERISK ANALYTICS: Settlement in ERISA Suit Gets Initial Nod
VOYA FINANCIAL: Bid for Class Certification in Ravarino Due Oct. 30
WALT DISNEY: Kelly Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
WHITTINGTON MOTOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bruskin Alleges


                            *********

2200 RESTAURANT: Conditional Status of FLSA Collective Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIAN LORENZO, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. 2200 RESTAURANT
PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a DUNE BY LAURENT TOURONDEL, Case No.
0:24-cv-60078-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff request the Court to
enter an order to conditionally certifying the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") collective action.

The Plaintiff also seeks leave to send a reminder notice via text
message, e-mail, and physical mailing of the reminder notice and
Notice of Collective Action and Opportunity to Join via first class
U.S. Mail with a self-addressed stamped envelope for members of the
putative Collectives to submit their consent forms at the half-way
point in the notice period.

The Plaintiff filed this collective/class action lawsuit seeking to
recover all minimum and overtime wages that were unlawfully
withheld from himself and other similarly situated Bartenders and
Barbacks.

The Plaintiffs now move to conditionally certify the following
collectives of similarly situated Bartender and Barback Employees:

         Tip Notice Collective: All Bartenders and Barbacks who
worked
         for the Defendant during the three (3) years preceding
this
         lawsuit, who did not receive proper notice from the
Defendant
         that it would be taking a tip credit toward the required
         federal minimum wage.

         80/20 Collective: All Bartenders and Barbacks who worked
for
         the Defendant during the three (3) years preceding this
         lawsuit who were required to spend more than 20% of any
         workweek performing non-tipped duties and side work and
were
         paid a reduced tip credit wage.

         Substantial Side Work Collective: All Bartenders and
Barbacks
         who worked for the Defendant on or after December 28,
2021,
         who were required to spend more than thirty (30)
continuous
         minutes on nontipped duties and side work during any
shift.

         Off-the-Clock Collective: All Bartenders and Barbacks who

         worked for Defendant during the three (3) years preceding

         this lawsuit who, in one or more workweeks, were required
by
         the Defendant to work off-the-clock during their meal
         periods.

         Overtime Collective: All Bartenders and Barbacks who
worked
         for the Defendant during the three (3) years preceding
this
         lawsuit who, in one or more workweeks, worked
off-the-clock
         during their meal periods and whose time spent performing

         work off-the-clock caused him/her to work more than 40
hours
         within that workweek.

The Plaintiffs further request that the Court appoint a third-party
Claims Administrator to handle administration of the approved
Notice via mail, text, and e-mail.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a tipped Bartender from
January 2022 through September 2022.

The Defendant operates the DUNE by Laurent Tourondel restaurant
located at 2200 N. Ocean Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale, Florida
33305.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 4, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SvBITe at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael V. Miller, Esq.
          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS –
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Steven A. Siegel
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          201 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1700
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 847-4724
          E-mail: ssiegel@fisherphillips.com

ALL AMERICAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alvarez Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
YONLY ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALL AMERICAN SECURITY SERVICES, INC.; SERGIO
SALAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-20830-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Mar. 4,
2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Alvarez was employed by the Defendants as a security
guard.

ALL AMERICAN SECURITY SERVICES, INC. a security guard company in
Miami, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Rd., 4th Floor
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
          Email: amurthy@forthepeople.com

ALL WAYS CARING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrios Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
CARMEN BARRIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALL WAYS CARING HEALTH CARE; BRIGHT SPRING
HEALTH SERVICES; RSCR CALIFORNIA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 25,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV05497 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles, March 5,
2024) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and
rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Barrios was employed by the Defendants as a caregiver.

ALL WAYS CARING HEALTH CARE provides home health care services. The
Company offers Medication preparation and adherence monitoring,
Ambulatory assistance, Managing communications, and Providing or
arranging transportation services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sevag Nigoghosian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SEVAG NIGOGHOSIAN
          500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 956-1111
          Facsimile: (818) 956-1983

CREDIT ONE BANK: Simring Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Richard Simring, on behalf of himself and other
Florida citizens similarly situated v. Credit One Bank, N.A.,
Credit One Financial, Inc., LVNV Funding LLC, Sherman Capital LLC,
Sherman Originator III LLC, MHC Receivables, LLC, Benjamin W.
Navarro, Scott E. Silver, Paul Fallavollita, Daniel Picciano, Jon
Mazzoli, Kevin Branigan, Robert Dejong, Michael Wiese, Mark Rufail,
Juan G. Andreu, Jorge Luis Palma, Sherman Financial Group LLC,
Andreu Palma, Lavin & Solis, PLLC, Kristina Bianca Moehle, Vicki
Scott, Sherman Originator, LLC, Case No. 23-027447-CA-01 was
removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade
Count, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on Feb. 29, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-20803-DPG to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Credit One Bank, N.A. -- http://www.creditonebank.com/-- is an
American bank and financial services company specializing in credit
cards, particularly for borrowers with low credit scores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Roy Simring, Esq.
          MATTHEW R. SIMRING
          10620 Griffin Road, Suite 108
          Cooper City, FL 33328
          Phone: (954) 816-2417
          Fax: (954) 867-1618
          Email: matthew@simringlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cory William Eichhorn, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 374-8500
          Fax: (305) 789-7799
          Email: Cory.Eichhorn@hklaw.com

               - and -

          Sydney Brooke Alexander, Esq.
          HOLLAND, KNIGHT
          17254 SW 12th St.
          Pembroke Pines, FL 33029
          Phone: (954) 496-1665
          Email: sydney.alexander@hklaw.com


EMPIRE PHYSICAL THERAPY: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Empire Physical
Therapy & Athletic Rehabilitation, P.C. The case is styled as
Silvia Martinez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Empire Physical Therapy & Athletic Rehabilitation,
P.C., Case No. 1:24-cv-01530 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 29, 2024).

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

Empire Physical Therapy & Athletic Rehabilitation, P.C. --
https://www.empirept.com/ -- is a privately owned, upscale,
orthopedic and sports medicine physical therapy practice in prime
midtown Manhattan location.[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


ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Brown Sues Over Eyewear Price Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------
PETER BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ESSILORLUXOTTICA S.A.; LUXOTTICA GROUP,
S.P.A.; ESSILOR INTERNATIONAL SAS; ESSILORLUXOTTICA USA INC.;
LUXOTTICA U.S. HOLDINGS CORP.; ESSILOR OF AMERICA HOLDING COMPANY,
INC.; LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC.; ESSILOR OF AMERICA INC.; and
EYEMED VISION CARE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-00767-KMM-JFD
(D. Minn., March 5, 2024) alleges violation of the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, EssilorLuxottica's overwhelming market
share, and revenue generated from Premium-Branded eyewear, is the
direct result of EssilorLuxottica's greatest achievement.
EssilorLuxottica has abused, and continues to abuse, its monopoly
power by preventing, delaying, excluding, restraining, or
suppressing retail competition in the Premium-Branded Eyewear
Market within the United States to enact its supra-competitive
prices in the Premium-Branded Eyewear Market.

The Plaintiff and the Class have paid, and continue to pay,
supra-competitive prices for Premium-Branded Eyewear purchased
directly from EssilorLuxottica. The Plaintiff and the Class
suffered damages in the form of overcharges on their purchases of
Premium-Branded Eyewear directly caused by EssilorLuxottica's
antitrust violations for which they seek redress, says the suit.

ESSILORLUXOTTICA S.A. manufactures eyewear. The Company offers sun
glasses, lenses, and other eye care products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          Jason Gustafson, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
          222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (763) 515-6110
          Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
                 jason@throndsetlaw.com

FERRUM COLLEGE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ferrum College. The
case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Ferrum College, Case No.
1:24-cv-01562 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 29, 2024).

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

Ferrum College -- https://www.ferrum.edu/ -- is a private college
in Ferrum, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIRST BANK: Alexander Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
MARTY ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE FIRST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY a/k/a FIRST
BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00010-JPJ-PMS
(W.D. Va., Mar. 5, 2024) is a class action arising from the
Defendant's routine policy and practice of charging its customers
Overdraft Fees ("OD Fees") on transactions that did not overdraw an
account.

According to the complaint, the plain language of the Defendant's
adhesion contracts specifically promises that the Defendant will
only charge OD Fees on items when such items cause the account to
have a negative balance, and will only charge a single fee per
item.

Despite putting aside sufficient available funds for debit card
transactions at the time those transactions are authorized, the
Defendant later assesses OD Fees on those same transactions when
they purportedly settle days later into a negative balance.

Defendant is therefore not authorized by the Account Contract to
charge OD Fees on transactions that have not overdrawn an account,
but Defendant has done so and continues to do so in violation of
the Account Contract, says the suit.

THE FIRST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY a/k/a FIRST BANK & TRUST COMPANY
offers banking services. The Bank accepts deposits, makes loans,
and provides other services for the public. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Devon J. Munro, Esq.
          MUNRO BYRD, P.C.
          120 Day Ave. SW, Suite 100
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540) 283-9343
          Email: dmunro@trialsva.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          Email: jkaliel@kalielgold.com
                 sgold@kalielgold.com

FLORIDA WATER: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Basson Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BASSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA WATER PRODUCTS, LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-00926-MSG (E.D. Pa., Mar. 4, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant lost control over its computer network and the highly
sensitive personal information stored on the computer network in a
data breach by cybercriminals.

According to the complaint, on June 29, 2023, the Defendant's
investigations revealed that cybercriminals gained unauthorized
access to current and former employees' personally identifiable
information. Cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's
systems because the Defendant failed to adequately train its
employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its
agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and
securing the PII of the Plaintiff, and failed to maintain
reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's
PII—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals.

As a result of its inadequate cybersecurity, the Defendant exposed
the Plaintiff's PII for theft by cybercriminals and sale on the
dark web, says the suit.

FLORIDA WATER PRODUCTS, LLC is a wholesale distributor of pool and
spa supplies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY P.C.
          1650 Market St., 52 Fl.
          Pennsylvania, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-8282
          Email: phoward@smbb.com

               - and -

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
          STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
          The Freedom Center
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
                 amize@stranchlaw.com

               - and -

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

GATOS SILVER: Settles Securities Suit Over SEC Filing
-----------------------------------------------------
Gatos Silver, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 9, 2023, that on June 13, 2023, the company
entered into an agreement in principle to settle a purported Gatos
stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado against the
company, certain of its former officers, and several directors.

On January 26, 2024, the parties jointly requested a status
conference with the district court to discuss the status of the
pending motion for preliminary approval or, in the alternative, for
the district court to grant the motion.

Subject to certain conditions, including class certification by the
District Court, the execution of a definitive stipulation of
settlement and approval of the settlement by the District Court,
the settling parties have agreed to resolve the U.S. Class Action
for a payment by the company and its insurers of $21,000 to a
settlement fund.

On June 16, 2023, the parties filed a joint status report
requesting that the court grant a temporary stay of all proceedings
in the case pending submission of proposed settlement documentation
on or before July 13, 2023. On July 13, 2023, the plaintiffs filed
an unopposed motion for an order preliminarily approving a
stipulation of settlement agreed by the parties and providing for
class notice which will provide for a preliminary approval of the
settlement, approval of the form and manner of giving notice of the
settlement to the settlement class and a hearing date and time to
consider final and approval of the Settlement and related matters.
That motion is currently pending a decision by the Court.

Said class action was filed on February 22, 2022 with an amended
complaint filed on August 15, 2022. The amended complaint,
allegedly brought on behalf of certain purchasers of Gatos common
stock and certain traders of call and put options on Gatos common
stock from December 9, 2020, through January 25, 2022, seeks, among
other things, damages, costs, and expenses, and asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 as well as Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The amended complaint alleges that certain individual defendants
and Gatos, pursuant to the control and authority of the individual
defendants, made false and misleading statements and/or omitted
certain material information regarding the mineral resources and
reserves at the Cerro Los Gatos mine. Gatos and all defendants
filed a motion to dismiss this action on October 14, 2022. That
motion was fully briefed as of December 23, 2022.

On April 26, 2023, following a joint motion, the court ordered that
it will postpone a ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss until on
or after June 16, 2023. On January 26, 2024, the parties jointly
requested a status conference with the District Court to discuss
the status of the pending motion for preliminary approval or, in
the alternative, for the District Court to grant the motion.

Gatos Silver, Inc. is a silver ore mining company based in
Vancouver, Canada


GATOS SILVER: To Settle Przybylska Suit in Canadian Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Gatos Silver, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 9, 2023, that on January 16, 2024, a term
sheet was executed to settle a putative class action filed by
Izabela Przybylska on February 9, 2022, subject to certain
conditions, including class certification and court approval, for a
payment of $3.0 million.

A subsequent Statement of Claim dated March 11, 2022 was filed
against certain of its former officers and directors, and others in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of a purported
class of all persons or entities who acquired securities of Gatos
in both the primary and secondary markets during the period from
October 28, 2020 until January 25, 2022.

The action asserts claims under Canadian securities legislation and
at common law and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief in respect of allegations the defendants made false and
misleading statements and omitted material information regarding
the mineral resources and reserves of Gatos. The plaintiff filed
motion materials for leave to proceed in respect of her statutory
claims and for class certification on March 3, 2023, which
materials were amended and filed on May 1, 2023. The court has
tentatively set dates in late March of 2024 for the hearing of the
plaintiff's motions.

Gatos Silver, Inc. is a silver ore mining company based in
Vancouver, Canada.


GENERAC HOLDING: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Generac Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, that in August 8, 2022, that on December 1, 2022, the
Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association and
Oakland County Employees' Retirement System filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit against the company and certain of
its officers in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Generac moved to
dismiss the consolidated complaint on October 9, 2023.

Said complaint asserts claims for alleged violation of federal
securities law related to disclosures of quality issues in Generac
Power's clean energy product, reliance on channel partners, and
accounting for warranty reserves. The plaintiffs seek to represent
a class of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired common
stock between April 29, 2021 and November 1, 2022 and seek
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the company's stock. On March 14,
2023, the court consolidated said action into another case.

On May 30, 2023, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On July 31,
2023, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint.

Generac Holdings Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of a
wide range of energy technology solutions for power generation
equipment, energy storage systems, energy management devices &
solutions, and other power products and services serving the
residential, light commercial, and industrial markets.


GENERAC HOLDINGS: Faces Walling Shareholder Action
---------------------------------------------------
Generac Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, that in August 8, 2022, that on November 21, 2023, a
certain Christopher Walling filed a putative securities class
action lawsuit against the company and certain of its officers in
the Western District of Wisconsin and was later appointed lead
plaintiff.

The complaint asserts claims for alleged violation of federal
securities law related to statements concerning the company's
financial outlook and the impact of macroeconomic trends on the
demand for its products. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class
of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock
between May 3, 2023 and August 3, 2023 and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's stock.

Generac Holdings Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of a
wide range of energy technology solutions for power generation
equipment, energy storage systems, energy management devices &
solutions, and other power products and services serving the
residential, light commercial, and industrial markets.


GOTHAM COMEDY: Summerville Sues Over Unlawful Service Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Noah Summerville, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GOTHAM COMEDY FOUNDATION, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-01484 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2024), is brought against the
Defendant's unlawful “service fees” which violates the New York
State Arts and Cultural Affairs Law.

For over a year, Defendant has been subjecting online ticket
purchasers to hidden “service fees” in violation of the New
York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law. Whenever a consumer selects an
admission ticket through its online ticket servicer’s website
www.showclix.com/, they are quoted a fee-less price, only to be
ambushed by a $4.50 per ticket “convenience fee” at checkout
after clicking through the various screens required to make a
purchase – all while a clocking is ticking down for the consumer
to complete the transaction. Because New York is a busy place, and
because these fees are only flashed after a consumer selects their
ticket, Defendant can plausibly put its customers on a shot clock
and tell them they need to decide quickly because Defendant cannot
hold their seats open forever. This cheap trick has enabled
Defendant to swindle substantial sums of money from its customers.

To stop this hustle, New York passed Arts and Cultural Affairs Law
which provides that "every operator of a place of entertainment
shall disclose the total cost the ticket, inclusive of all
ancillary fees that must be paid in order to purchase the ticket."
"Such disclosure of the total cost and fees shall be displayed in
the ticket listing prior to the ticket being selected for
purchase." And "the price of the ticket shall not increase during
the purchase process."

For these reasons, Plaintiff seeks relief in this action
individually, and on behalf of all other ticket purchasers for
Defendant's film screenings in the state of New York for actual
and/or statutory damages, reasonable attorneys' costs and fees, and
injunctive relief under New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased two tickets to see a movie at a cinema in
Astoria, New York on May 7, 2023 through Defendant's website.

The Defendant sells movie tickets throughout the United States,
including in the state of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


HAWKSMOOR RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brightly Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH BRIGHTLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. HAWKSMOOR RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.; and JACK
HEMINGBROUGH, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01673 (S.D.N.Y., March
5, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Brightly was employed by the Defendants as a server.

HAWKSMOOR RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. operates as a steakhouse in
Manhattan, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amit Kumar, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
          108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 583-7400
          Email: AKumar@CafaroEsq.com

INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Wise Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mark Wise, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v.
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; IHG MANAGEMENT (MARYLAND) LLC, a Maryland
limited liability company; INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS OF SAN
FRANCISCO, INC., a Delaware corporation; SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. CGC-23-611350 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Francisco, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 26,
2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01161.

The Complaint asserts four causes of action for failure to pay
regular and overtime wages under California Labor Code; failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements under California Labor
Code; failure to reimburse necessary business-related expenses
under California Labor Code; and unfair business practices under
California Business and Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eric E. Hill, Esq.
          Ping Wang, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2930
          Phone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          Email: ehill@seyfarth.com
                 pwang@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Leo Q. Li, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Phone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          Email: lli@seyfarth.com


JKB FINANCIAL INC: Moser Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JKB Financial, Inc.
The case is styled as Cameron Moser, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. JKB Financial, Inc., Case No.
4:24-cv-10020-DPG (S.D. Fla., Feb. 29, 2024).

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

JKB Financial Services Limited -- https://www.jkbfsl.com/ --
provides online trading, investment services in various sectors,
and a unique 2-in-1 account opening form.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN PA
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com

               - and -

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


KEENAN & ASSOCIATES: Lopez Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
----------------------------------------------------------
Victor Lopez and John Smithson, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KEENAN & ASSOCIATES, Case No.
2:24-cv-01573-MCS-DTB (C.D. Cal., Feb. 26, 2024), is brought
against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
personally identifiable information that Defendant stored on its
network systems, including, without limitation, dates of birth,
Social Security numbers, passport numbers, driver's license
numbers, health inruance information, and other general health
information (collectively, "personally identifiable information" or
"PII").

The Defendant obtains an extensive amount of individuals' PII.
However, as alleged herein, Defendant has failed to adequately
safeguard such data to prevent unauthorized disclosure to
malfeasors. Indeed, on or before August 27, 2023, Defendant
discovered "certain disruptions" on its network servers.
Defendant's subsequent investigation relealed that an "unauthorized
party gained access" to Defendant's internal systems, "at various
times between approximately August 21, 2023 and August 27, 2023,"
and that unauthorize party "obtained some data" from Defendant's
systems.

The Defendant has not disclosed when it completed the foregoing
investigation. However, despite the data breach occurring in August
of 2023, Defendant did not notify consumers of same until January
of 2024. Plaintiffs were among the individuals whose data was
compromised, and to whom Defendant provided notice. Plaintiffs are
informed and believe and, based thereon, allege that the number of
individuals whose PII was compromised is approximately 1.5 million
("Class Members"). By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a
benefit from Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII, Defendant assumed
legal and equitable duties to those individuals.

The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII was safeguarded,
failing to take available steps to prevent another unauthorized
disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and
appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the
encryption of data, even for internal use.

As the result, the PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members was
compromised through disclosure to and/or acquisition by an unknown
and unauthorized third party(ies). Plaintiffs and Class Members
have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is
and remains safe, and they should be entitled to injunctive and
other equitable relief, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs relied on this sophisticated Defendant to keep their
PII confidential and securely maintained.

The Defendant is an insurance broker, founded in 1972, and has now
grown to be the 11th largest broker in the nation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
          Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
          Cody A. Bolce, Esq.
          Dan Keller, Esq.
          MALLISON & MARTINEZ
          1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
          Oakland, CA 94612-3547
          Phone: (510) 832-9999
          Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
          Email: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
                 HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
                 CBolce@TheMMLawFirm.com
                 DKeller@TheMMLawFirm.com


LABORATORY CORP: McDonald Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMIAN MCDONALD, on behalf
of the Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings
Employees' Retirement Plan, himself, and all others similarly
situated, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, Case No.
1:22-cv-00680-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff moves that the
Court certify all claims in this action as a class action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(A) or (B) on behalf of the
class be defined as follows:

   "All persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
   Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings Employees' Retirement

   Plan at any time between August 18, 2016, and the present."

The Plaintiff also moves that the Court appoint him as the Class
representative and to appoint his attorneys, McKay Law, LLC and
Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A., as class counsel and Norris Law Firm,
PLLC, to serve as liaison counsel under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(g).

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 1, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U9GUDz at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Norris, Esq.
          NORRIS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1776 Heritage Center Drive, Suite 204
          Wake Forest, NC 27687
          Telephone: (919) 981-4475
          Facsimile: (919) 926-1676
          E-mail: matt@lemonlawnc.com

                - and -

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 337-7992
          Facsimile: (8130 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  aheystek@wfclaw.com

                - and -

          Michael C. Mckay, Esq.
          MCKAY LAW, LLC
          5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170
          Scottsdale, AZ 85250
          Telephone: (480) 681-7000
          E-mail: mckay@mckay.law

LEARJET INC: Wins Bid to Decertify Class in Wood Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK WOOD AND DENNIS PARR,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
LEARJET, INC. and BOMBARDIER, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-02621-EFM-GEB
(D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Eric Melgren entered an order granting
the Defendants' motion to decertify.

In this case, there is a lack of common representative evidence.
Instead, each Plaintiff's circumstances are highly individualized,
and one proceeding would not efficiently resolve common issues of
law and fact. Indeed, the differing factual circumstances would
likely
confuse a jury because each set of facts presents as a mini trial.
In sum, there is no evidence of a discriminatory policy to support
a pattern-or-practice claim.

In addition, the disparate factual and employment circumstances,
the presence of individualized defenses, and fairness and
procedural considerations weigh in favor of
decertification.44 Thus, the Court grants Defendants’ motion.

As to Plaintiffs' individual employment circumstances, they differ
widely. The commonality that they share is that they all worked in
the BFTC. But Plaintiffs were employed in different positions and
reported to different supervisors. And Plaintiffs were terminated
for
different reasons, at different times, and by different
decisionmakers.

The Plaintiff Parr was terminated by Paterson, Hart, and Allan for
poor performance while on a PIP on May 11, 2016. Opt-in Plaintiff
Huey was terminated by Denicourt for insubordination (for failing
to pay back a tax balance) on May 26, 2016.

The Plaintiff Wood was terminated by Allan for a safety violation
while he was on a PIP on August 3, 2016. Opt-in Plaintiff Bannon
was laid off on April 29, 2019, by Longtine, Oschner, and Patterson
because his position was eliminated.

Opt-in Plaintiff Freund was laid off on June 21, 2019, by
Loveless,
Segraves, and Patterson because he was not a strong performer and
had a narrower skill set than the others in his group.

On June 9, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion and certified
a class of:

   "All persons who were non-bargaining unit personnel employed in
the
   [BFTC] in Wichita, Kansas on April 2, 2016, and whose employment


   thereafter ended, and were forty years of age or older at the
time
   their employment ended.” Before the opt-in period ended,
additional
   Plaintiffs opted-in to the collective class."

Learjet provides aviation services.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 1, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8xg1uQ
at no extra charge.[CC]

MAGIC WINDOW: Class Cert Bids in Springstubbe Due August 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN SPRINGSTUBBE, v.
MAGIC WINDOW COMPANY, Case No. 2:23-cv-12816-LJM-CI (E.D. Mich.),
the Hon. Judge Laurie J. Michelson entered a scheduling order for
class certification phase I as follows:

          Event                          Deadline

  Settlement Conference            To Be Scheduled by the Parties

  Fact Witness Lists Filed         June 28, 2024

  Fact Discovery Completed         July 31, 2024

  Class Certification Motions      Aug. 30, 2024

Magic Window wholesales and distributes windows and doors
products.

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

MDL 3035: Bid to Junk Third Party Complaint in Russ Suit Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russ et al v. Newport
Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01129-STA-jay ((W.D. Tenn.),
the Hon. Judge Thomas Anderson entered an order denying Symetra's
motion to dismiss or stay African Methodist Episcopal Church's
third-party complaint.

The Court said, "AMEC has carried its modest burden at the
pleadings stage to show that the Court has specific personal
jurisdiction over Symetra Financial. Likewise, the Third-Party
Complaint plausibly alleges an injury to AMEC and the Plan, which
is fairly traceable to the acts and omissions of Symetra
Financial.

Symetra Financial's factual challenge has not overcome those
allegations. Therefore, Symetra Financial's Motion to Dismiss is
DENIED. Because a discretionary stay of the proceedings between
AMEC and Symetra Financial is warranted, Symetra Financial's
request for a stay of the proceedings is granted.

The Court finds that the factors weigh in favor of a discretionary
stay of the proceedings on AMEC's non-arbitrable claims against
Symetra Financial.

The Russ Suit is consolidated in RE: AME Church Employee Retirement
Fund Litigation -- MDL 3035. This multidistrict litigation concerns
losses to a non-ERISA retirement Plan established by the African
Methodist Episcopal Church ("AMEC") for its clergy and employees.
The Plaintiffs are current or retired clergy of the church and
allege a number of claims under Tennessee law against the
denomination, church officials, third-party service providers to
the Plan, and other alleged tortfeasors.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7TXpzf at no extra
charge.[CC]

MDL 3035: Bid to Junk Third Party Complaint in Wade Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wade, et al v. Newport
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01126-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn.),
the Hon. Judge Thomas Anderson entered an order denying Symetra's
motion to dismiss or stay African Methodist Episcopal Church's
third-party complaint.

The Court said, "AMEC has carried its modest burden at the
pleadings stage to show that the Court has specific personal
jurisdiction over Symetra Financial. Likewise, the Third-Party
Complaint plausibly alleges an injury to AMEC and the Plan, which
is fairly traceable to the acts and omissions of Symetra
Financial.

Symetra Financial's factual challenge has not overcome those
allegations. Therefore, Symetra Financial's Motion to Dismiss is
DENIED. Because a discretionary stay of the proceedings between
AMEC and Symetra Financial is warranted, Symetra Financial's
request for a stay of the proceedings is granted.

On the whole, the Court finds that the factors weigh in favor of a
discretionary stay of the proceedings on AMEC's non-arbitrable
claims against Symetra Financial.

The Wade Suit is consolidated in RE: AME Church Employee Retirement
Fund Litigation -- MDL 3035. This multidistrict litigation concerns
losses to a non-ERISA retirement Plan established by the African
Methodist Episcopal Church ("AMEC") for its clergy and employees.
The Plaintiffs are current or retired clergy of the church and
allege a number of claims under Tennessee law against the
denomination, church officials, third-party service providers to
the Plan, and other alleged tortfeasors.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k4luMl at no extra
charge.[CC]

MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Daley Files Suit in D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Management
Resource Group LLC. The case is styled as Steven Daley,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Medical Management Resource Group LLC doing business as: American
Vision Partners, Case No. 2:24-cv-00415-SMB (D. Ariz., Feb. 28,
2024).

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

Medical Management Resource Group LLC doing business as American
Vision Partners ("AVP") is one of the nation's largest and fastest
growing eye care physician services organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-7300
          Fax: (612) 336-2940
          Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
                 pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com

               - and -

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


MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Castona Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM CASTONA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MEDICAL MANAGEMENT RESOURCE GROUP, LLC d/b/a
AMERICAN VISION PARTNERS, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00459-SPL (D.
Ariz., Mar. 4, 2024) is a class action arising out of the recent
targeted cyberattack and data breach on the Defendants network that
resulted in unauthorized access to highly-sensitive patient data
belonging to the Plaintiff and the Class.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, cybercriminals
accessed and stole Private Information belonging to the Plaintiff
and Class Members as a direct and proximate result of the
Defendant's failure to adequately safeguard Plaintiff's and Class
Members' highly sensitive Private Information.

As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members face a
substantial risk of imminent and certainly impending harm,
heightened here by the loss of Social Security numbers, a class of
Private Information which is particularly valuable to identity
thieves. The Plaintiff and Class Members have and will continue to
suffer injuries associated with this risk, including but not
limited to a loss of time, mitigation expenses, and anxiety over
the misuse of their Private Information, says the suit.

MEDICAL MANAGEMENT RESOURCE GROUP, LLC d/b/a AMERICAN VISION
PARTNERS operates as an eye care organization. The Organization
owns and manages ophthalmology practices clinics and ambulatory
surgical centers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          14648 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 130
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348-6400
          Email: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com

               - and -

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

MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Franklin Files Suit in D. Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Management
Resource Group LLC. The case is styled as Candia Franklin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Medical Management Resource Group LLC doing business as: American
Vision Partners, Case No. 2:24-cv-00408-DJH (D. Ariz., Feb. 27,
2024).

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

Medical Management Resource Group LLC is a premier provider of
medical revenue management, application software, & practice
management consulting services to the medical profession.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony L Parkhill, Esq.
          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          BARNOW & ASSOCIATES PC
          205 W Randolph St., Ste. 1630
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 621-2000
          Fax: (312) 641-5504
          Email: aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
                 b.barnow@barnowlaw.com

               - and -

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


MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Law Files Suit in D. Arizona
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Management
Resource Group LLC. The case is styled as Apex Law, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Medical
Management Resource Group LLC doing business as: American Vision
Partners, Case No. 2:24-cv-00394-DWL (D. Ariz., Feb. 27, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury.

Medical Management Resource Group LLC is a premier provider of
medical revenue management, application software, & practice
management consulting services to the medical profession.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
          COLE & VAN NOTE
          555 12th Street, Suite 1725, Suite 1725
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Phone: (510) 891-9800
          Email: lvn@colevannote.com


MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Moudgal Files Suit in D. Arizona
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Management
Resource Group LLC. The case is styled as Lakshminarasimha Moudgal,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Medical
Management Resource Group LLC doing business as: American Vision
Partners, Case No. 2:24-cv-00401-ROS (D. Ariz., Feb. 27, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury.

Medical Management Resource Group LLC is a premier provider of
medical revenue management, application software, & practice
management consulting services to the medical profession.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jonathan Tehan Deters, Esq.
          Terence Coates, Esq.
          MARKOVITS STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
          119 E Court Street Ste., 530
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: (513) 651-3700
          Fax: (513) 665-0219
          Email: jdeters@msdlegal.com
                 tcoates@msdlegal.com


MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Ribeiro Files Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Management
Resource Group LLC. The case is styled as Raiza Ribeiro, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Medical Management
Resource Group LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00410-DMF (D. Ariz., Feb. 27,
2024).

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

Medical Management Resource Group LLC is a premier provider of
medical revenue management, application software, & practice
management consulting services to the medical profession.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Yaeger Files Suit in D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Management
Resource Group LLC. The case is styled as David Yaeger,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Medical Management Resource Group LLC doing business as: American
Vision Partners, Case No. 2:24-cv-00414-JZB (D. Ariz., Feb. 28,
2024).

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

Medical Management Resource Group LLC doing business as American
Vision Partners ("AVP") is one of the nation's largest and fastest
growing eye care physician services organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          65 Overhill Rd.
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: (954) 525-4100
          Email: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com


MEDQ INC: Klepper Files Suit in E.D. Texas
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against medQ, Inc. The case
is styled as Sharon Klepper, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. medQ, Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-00176-ALM
(E.D. Tex., Feb. 28, 2024).

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

medQ -- https://www.medq.com/ -- helps medical imaging teams reduce
patient turnaround time and maximize revenue with
automation-assisted Workflow Software tailored perfectly to meet
their needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Phone: (214) 744-3000
          Fax: (214) 744-3015
          Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com


MICHAEL C. MORGAN: Hekscher Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Hekscher, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MICHAEL C. MORGAN, ERIC SCHEYER, ADAM E. DALEY, DESIREE
ROGERS, ALEC LITOWITZ, C. PARK SHAPER, MICHAEL D. WILDS, DAIN F.
DEGROFF, CRAIG ROHR, STAR PEAK SPONSOR LLC, STAR PEAK 19 LLC, STAR
PEAK L LLC, and STAR PEAK M LLC, Case No. 2024-0175- (Del.
Chancery. Ct., Feb. 27, 2024), is brought asserting claims for:
breach of fiduciary duty arising from the Transaction against the
Defendants and unjust enrichment of Defendants.

Star Peak was incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware
on October 29, 2018 as a special purpose acquisition company
(“SPAC”). While Defendants stated that the value of Star
Peak’s shares in the Transaction was $10.00, the actual net cash
underlying those shares at the time of the Transaction, and
therefore the shares’ value, was less than $8.00. Therefore, the
value that stockholders could reasonably expect in exchange for
their shares was under $8.00, compared to the $10.00 per share plus
interest that they could receive if they redeemed their shares.
Further, with every redemption, the net cash per share available to
contribute to the combined company would decrease. The discrepancy
between the value of Star Peak shares in the Transaction and their
deemed value of $10.00 was not disclosed to the public
stockholders.

That discrepancy was highly material. To get a seemingly fair deal
in the Transaction, Legacy Stem would have to inflate its value for
purposes of the share exchange, just as Star Peak inflated its
value. That is indeed what occurred. To support Legacy Stem’s
overvaluation, the Prospectus contained materially false and
misleading representations about Legacy Stem’s value and
prospects.

The Transaction was the result of Defendants’ breaches of
fiduciary duties, and Stem’s actual post-Transaction results
mattered little to Defendants. They knew that even a bad deal that
resulted in a post Transaction stock price drop well below the
$10.00 per share redemption value was much better for them than no
deal at all because it would still provide them with a financial
windfall. Any deal would be better for Defendants than a failure to
enter into a business combination. Without a deal, Star Peak would
be forced to liquidate the company and return the public
stockholders’ money held in the Trust, with interest, and
Defendants would suffer a total loss of their investment in Star
Peak. Defendants would lose the entirety of their potential
windfall as they waived their right to liquidating distributions
from the Trust as to their Founder Shares, and their warrants were
not exercisable unless and until a business combination was
consummated.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks monetary and/or rescissory
damages against Defendants for their breaches of fiduciary duties
owed to Star Peak’s stockholders arising out of the deprivation
of their right to a fully informed decision whether to redeem their
Star Peak shares or to invest in the Transaction. Alternatively,
this action seeks an equitable reopening of the redemption window
for public stockholders who purchased Star Peak stock, were
entitled to redeem their shares, and continue to hold the stock, to
allow the stockholders to exchange their Star Peak (now Stem)
shares for $10.00 per share, plus interest, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a stockholder of Star Peak at all relevant times
and was entitled to redeem his Star Peak shares.

The Defendant Morgan served as Chairman of the Board of Star Peak
from the IPO through the consummation of the Transaction.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          Herbert Mondros, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 295-5310

               - and -

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 686-1060


MIDLAND CREDIT: Dotterer Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Rhonda Dotterer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-02081-DMS-AHG
(C.D. Ill., Feb. 28, 2024).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a third-party debt collector with headquarters in San
Diego.[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


NEWARK FIRE SPRINKLER: Tenemaza Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Tenemaza, on his own behalf and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. NEWARK FIRE SPRINKLER CORP., aka
JERSEY FIRE PUMP, and LUIS FERREIRA, INDIVIDUALLY,, and all other
affiliated entities and/or joint employers, all whose true names
are unknown, and and , Individually, Case No. 2:24-cv-01155
(D.N.J., Feb. 28, 2024), is brought seeking recovery against
Defendants for Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, as amended (the "FLSA" or the "Act"), and the New Jersey State
Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL") and associated provisions of the New
Jersey Administrative Code ("NJAC"), as well as the New Jersey Wage
Payment Law ("NJWPL") as a result of unpaid overtime wages.

The Defendants did not properly compensate Plaintiff for all hours
worked and at the overtime rate for all hours he worked in a work
week. Plaintiff routinely worked 54 hours per work week, Monday
through Saturday. The Plaintiff was not properly compensated
for at least 14 hours of overtime he routinely worked in a work
week.

The Named Plaintiff and potential plaintiffs who elect to opt-in as
part of the collective action are all victims of the Defendants'
common policy and/or plan to violate the FLSA, NJWHL, and NJWPL, by
failing to provide overtime wages, at the rate of one- and one-half
times the regular rate of pay, for all time worked in excess of 40
hours in any given week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff became employed by Defendant, full-time, as a
laborer.

The Defendants own a fire sprinkler business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Phone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          Email: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
                 jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Ambrosio Loses Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elliot Ambrosio et. al.,
v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, Case No.
2:22-cv-00342-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Susan Brnovich entered
an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs do not satisfy the
Rule 23 (b) predominance requirement, making the class
inappropriate for certification.

On May 5, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit via
their Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") against Progressive alleging
that Progressive "systemically" undervalued the cash value of
Progressive's claimants' loss vehicles.

The Plaintiffs' SAC seeks to represent "claimants in Arizona who
received a payment for the loss of a totaled vehicle from the
Defendants, where the Defendants used valuation reports prepared by
Mitchell International, Inc. determine the actual cash value
("ACV") of the loss vehicles. The SAC brought claims for breach of
contract, breach of covenant of faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory relief.

The Plaintiff Sierra Trenholm filed a claim with Progressive in May
2021 after she totaled her Kia Optima. WorkCenter Total Loss
("WCTL") estimated the ACV to be $10,938.64. (Id. ¶ 2.) The
Plaintiff Elliot Ambrosio filed a claim with Progressive after
totaling his 2011 Chevrolet Malibu in September 2020. WCTL
estimated that the ACV of his vehicle was $4,866.71.

The Plaintiffs seek certification, for the breach of contract and
breach of good faith and fair dealing claims, for the class of:

        "All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of
        insurance issued by Progressive Preferred Insurance Company
or
        Progressive Advanced Insurance Company to an Arizona
resident
        where the claim was submitted from March 4, 2016, through
the
        date an order granting class certification is entered, and

        Progressive determined that the vehicle was a total loss
and
        based its claim payment on an Instant Report from Mitchell

        where a Projected Sold Adjustment was applied to at least
one
        comparable vehicle."

Progressive provides insurances services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 4, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5Lqr9m at no extra
charge.[CC]

R & J AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ballo Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
MARDIE BALLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. R & J AUTOMOTIVE LLC; RAMCHAN JAGNARINE;
PARTS AUTHORITY, LLC; and PARTS AUTHORITY, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 7:24-cv-01627 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 4, 2024) is an action against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage
statements.

Plaintiff Ballo was employed by the Defendants as a distribution
center worker.

R & J AUTOMOTIVE LLC is a distributor of automotive and truck parts
to the aftermarket auto parts industry in the United States,
serving customers in the commercial channel, including service
centers, jobbers, fleets, and national accounts as well as in the
e-commerce channel. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

RCI HOSPITALITY: Conditional Status of Collective Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edhadji Mbaye, Modou Diop,
Tahirou Diakite, and Talla Samb, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, v. RCI
Hospitality Holdings, Inc., Peregrine Enterprises Inc. (d/b/a
Rick's Cabaret New York), RCI 33rd Ventures, Inc. (d/b/a Hoops
Cabaret and Sports Bar), 48 West 33rd Street Corp. (d/b/a Hoops
Cabaret and Sports Bar), RCI Dining Services (37th Street), Inc.
(d/b/a Vivid Cabaret), Eric Langan, and Kes Senevi, Case No.
1:23-cv-02967-DEH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Dale E. Ho entered an
order granting Parties' stipulation for conditional certification
of an Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action consisting
of:

     "All individuals employed as restroom attendants at (i) Rick's

     Cabaret; (ii) Hoops Cabaret; or (iii) Vivid Cabaret (the "FLSA

     Collective") since April 8, 2020."

The parties have negotiated an FLSA section 216(b) notice, a
consent to sue form, and a reminder letter to be sent to the FLSA
Collective in English.

Within 20 days of Plaintiffs' counsel's receipt of the List from
Defendants, Plaintiffs' counsel shall cause copies, in English,
Wolof, and / or French, of the agreed upon Notice and Consent to be
sent to the individuals set forth on the List by first class mail
(if residential address known), together with a stamped return
envelope addressed to Plaintiffs' counsel, by e-mail, if an e-mail
address was provided, and by text message and WhatsApp, if a
telephone number was provided.

Within 45 days of Plaintiffs' counsel's mailing of the Notice,
Plaintiffs' counsel shall cause copies of the Reminder Letter and
Consent to be sent to the individuals set forth in the List by
First Class Mail, together with a stamped return envelope addressed
to Plaintiffs' counsel, and by e-mail, if an e-mail address was
provided, and by text message and WhatsApp, if a telephone number
was provided.

RCI operates strip clubs, nightclubs, sports bars/restaurants, and
a media and convention company that serves the adult club
industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lNGAzw at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 792-0048

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Kimmel, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas, 37th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 880-3800

SAMPSON BLADEN: Court-Hosted Settlement Conference OK'd in Gbete
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEANNE L YLIANE GBETE, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SAMPSON
BLADEN OIL COMPANY, INC. D/B/A HAN-DEE HUGO'S, Case No.
5:23-cv-00355-BO-KS (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Terrence Boyle
entered an order granting joint motion requesting to participate in
a Court-hosted settlement conference.

The court-hosted settlement conference case shall be subjected to
the following arrangements:

  -- The conference will be held at a date to be determined
following
     the completion of Phase I discovery and the Court's ruling on
any
     motion for Rule 23 class certification or conditional
     certification as a 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) collective action, in
the
     Terry Sanford Federal Building and Courthouse, 310 New Bern A

     venue, Raleigh, North Carolina.

  -- Within 30 days following the Court's ruling on any motion for

     Rule 23 class certification or conditional certification as a
29
     U.S.C. section 2l6(b) collective action, the parties shall
file
     another motion requesting a court-hosted settlement conference
to
     schedule a date and time to hold their court-hosted settlement

     conference.

  -- The conference shall be governed by the provisions of Local
Civil
     Rule 101.2 E.D.N.C., except as otherwise provided herein.

Sampson-Bladen offers motor oil, lubricants, greases, petrol,
diesel, and chemical products.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rvK7E4 at no extra
charge.[CC]

SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Class Cert. Bids in Tsolumba Due August 22
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tsolumba v. SelectQuote
Insurance Services, Case No. 5:22-cv-00712 (N.D. Ohio, Filed May 3,
2022), the Hon. Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan entered an order on
motion to extend deadlines as follows:

-- Non-expert discovery deadline:                 April 4, 2024

-- Expert report(s) for the party                 May 6, 2024
    bearing the burden of proof:

-- Responsive expert report(s):                   June 6, 2024

-- Expert discovery:                              July 8, 2024

-- Dispositive motions:                            Aug. 8, 2024

-- Class certification motions:                    Aug. 22, 2024

The nature of suit states Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Selectquote provides insurance agent and broker services.[CC]

SPORTS BASEMENT: Fong Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Sports Basement,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Cheyenne Fong, individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated
v. The Sports Basement, Inc., Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. CGC24612753 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 29,
2024).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

Sports Basement -- https://shop.sportsbasement.com/ -- is a
sporting goods company that offers outdoor gear and sports
apparel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Phone: (818) 230-7502
          Fax: (818) 230-7259
          Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com


SUPERIOR AIR CHARTER: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer America Lopez, on behalf of the general public as private
attorney general v. SUPERIOR AIR CHARTER, LLC., a Delaware Limited
Liability Company and JETSUITEX, INC. dba JSX, a Delaware
Corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV04806 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 27, 2024), under the Private
Attorneys General Act and California Labor Code as a result of the
Defendants failure to pay unpaid minimum and overtime wages.

In this case, Defendants violated various provisions of the
California Labor Code. The Defendants implemented policies and
practices which led to unpaid wage resulting from Defendants':
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay all wages
earned and owed upon separation from Defendants' employ, failure to
pay wages timely during employment, and failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements. As a result Plaintiff seeks penalties
under Labor Code 2698, et. seq. on behalf of the general public as
private attorney general and all other aggrieved employees, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in February 19, 2023 as a
Non-Exempt Employee with the title of inventory specialist and
worked.

The Defendants operate as semi-private airlines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          Michael Calvo, Esq.
          Lauren Falk, Esq.
          Ava Issary, Esq.
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (949) 387-7200
          Fax: (949) 387-6676
          Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com


SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Alston Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alston v. Mueller et al,
Case No. 23-cv-3290 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Loretta A. Preska
entered discovery orders as follows:

-- The Court finds that the substance of the Stipulation of
    Confidentiality and Protective Order, so-ordered in Allen suit

    (Case No. 19-cv-8173) on August 12, 2021, as clarified by the
    order dated Dec. 13, 2021, remains largely applicable to the
    Tranche I Cases.

-- The Court also finds that the substance of the HIPAA Qualified

    Protective Order for Materials Produced by Defendants or NYS
    DOCCS, so-ordered by the Court in Allen suit on Nov. 2, 2021,
is
    also largely applicable to the Tranche I Cases.

    However, as Defendants have noted, the Court entered the Allen

    Discovery Orders when the parties were engaging in discovery in

    anticipation of the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' motions
for
    class certification in Allen.

-- The Court takes Defendants' point that the Tranche I Cases are

    individual damages cases whose procedural postures are distinct

    from when the Court entered the Allen Discovery Orders, in that

    there is presently no anticipation of a ruling on class
    certification.

Accordingly, the parties shall confer and propose in the
above-captioned case and the other Tranche I Cases a protective
order that includes the relevant terms from and effects of the
Allen Discovery Orders.

However, such proposed protective order shall include language
updated both to reflect the current procedural posture of the
above-captioned case and the other Tranche I Cases and accommodate
appropriately all factual and legal developments that have occurred
in the Tranche I Cases since the Court entered the Allen Discovery
Orders.

The Court separately holds that the Protective Order Regarding
Derrick Williams, filed under seal in Allen (the "Williams
Protective Order"), remains applicable to the Tranche I Case
Williams v. Dinello, Case No. 23-cv-3608. Accordingly, the Court
will so-order the Williams Protective Order under seal in Williams
Suit.

As requested by the Plaintiffs' counsel, the Court will hold in
abeyance Plaintiffs' request to conduct de bene esse depositions.

The Plaintiffs shall inform the Court when they wish to renew their
request.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UUl3uh at no extra
charge.[CC]

SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Dinello Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Allah, v. Dinello, et al.,
Case No. 23-cv-3286(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Loretta A. Preska
entered discovery orders as follows:

-- The Court finds that the substance of the Stipulation of
    Confidentiality and Protective Order, so-ordered in Allen suit

    (Case No. 19-cv-8173) on August 12, 2021, as clarified by the
    order dated Dec. 13, 2021, remains largely applicable to the
    Tranche I Cases.

-- The Court also finds that the substance of the HIPAA Qualified

    Protective Order for Materials Produced by Defendants or NYS
    DOCCS, so-ordered by the Court in Allen suit on Nov. 2, 2021,
is
    also largely applicable to the Tranche I Cases.

    However, as Defendants have noted, the Court entered the Allen

    Discovery Orders when the parties were engaging in discovery in

    anticipation of the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' motions
for
    class certification in Allen.

-- The Court takes Defendants' point that the Tranche I Cases are

    individual damages cases whose procedural postures are distinct

    from when the Court entered the Allen Discovery Orders, in that

    there is presently no anticipation of a ruling on class
    certification.

Accordingly, the parties shall confer and propose in the
above-captioned case and the other Tranche I Cases a protective
order that includes the relevant terms from and effects of the
Allen Discovery Orders.

However, such proposed protective order shall include language
updated both to reflect the current procedural posture of the
above-captioned case and the other Tranche I Cases and accommodate
appropriately all factual and legal developments that have occurred
in the Tranche I Cases since the Court entered the Allen Discovery
Orders.

The Court separately holds that the Protective Order Regarding
Derrick Williams, filed under seal in Allen (the "Williams
Protective Order"), remains applicable to the Tranche I Case
Williams v. Dinello, Case No. 23-cv-3608. Accordingly, the Court
will so-order the Williams Protective Order under seal in Williams
Suit.

As requested by the Plaintiffs' counsel, the Court will hold in
abeyance Plaintiffs' request to conduct de bene esse depositions.

The Plaintiffs shall inform the Court when they wish to renew their
request.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fpNEJV at no extra
charge.[CC]

SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Feola Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Feola, v. Mueller et al.,
Case No. 23-03393 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Loretta A. Preska
entered discovery orders as follows:

-- The Court finds that the substance of the Stipulation of
    Confidentiality and Protective Order, so-ordered in Allen suit

    (Case No. 19-cv-8173) on August 12, 2021, as clarified by the
    order dated Dec. 13, 2021, remains largely applicable to the
    Tranche I Cases.

-- The Court also finds that the substance of the HIPAA Qualified

    Protective Order for Materials Produced by Defendants or NYS
    DOCCS, so-ordered by the Court in Allen suit on Nov. 2, 2021,
is
    also largely applicable to the Tranche I Cases.

    However, as Defendants have noted, the Court entered the Allen

    Discovery Orders when the parties were engaging in discovery in

    anticipation of the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' motions
for
    class certification in Allen.

-- The Court takes Defendants' point that the Tranche I Cases are

    individual damages cases whose procedural postures are distinct

    from when the Court entered the Allen Discovery Orders, in that

    there is presently no anticipation of a ruling on class
    certification.

Accordingly, the parties shall confer and propose in the
above-captioned case and the other Tranche I Cases a protective
order that includes the relevant terms from and effects of the
Allen Discovery Orders.

However, such proposed protective order shall include language
updated both to reflect the current procedural posture of the
above-captioned case and the other Tranche I Cases and accommodate
appropriately all factual and legal developments that have occurred
in the Tranche I Cases since the Court entered the Allen Discovery
Orders.

The Court separately holds that the Protective Order Regarding
Derrick Williams, filed under seal in Allen (the "Williams
Protective Order"), remains applicable to the Tranche I Case
Williams v. Dinello, Case No. 23-cv-3608. Accordingly, the Court
will so-order the Williams Protective Order under seal in Williams
Suit.

As requested by the Plaintiffs' counsel, the Court will hold in
abeyance Plaintiffs' request to conduct de bene esse depositions.

The Plaintiffs shall inform the Court when they wish to renew their
request.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eZxI6j at no extra
charge.[CC]

SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Jacks Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jacks v. Susan Mueller, et
al., Case No. 23-cv-3288 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Loretta A.
Preska entered discovery orders as follows:

-- The Court finds that the substance of the Stipulation of
    Confidentiality and Protective Order, so-ordered in Allen suit

    (Case No. 19-cv-8173) on August 12, 2021, as clarified by the
    order dated Dec. 13, 2021, remains largely applicable to the
    Tranche I Cases.

-- The Court also finds that the substance of the HIPAA Qualified

    Protective Order for Materials Produced by Defendants or NYS
    DOCCS, so-ordered by the Court in Allen suit on Nov. 2, 2021,
is
    also largely applicable to the Tranche I Cases.

    However, as Defendants have noted, the Court entered the Allen

    Discovery Orders when the parties were engaging in discovery in

    anticipation of the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' motions
for
    class certification in Allen.

-- The Court takes Defendants' point that the Tranche I Cases are

    individual damages cases whose procedural postures are distinct

    from when the Court entered the Allen Discovery Orders, in that

    there is presently no anticipation of a ruling on class
    certification.

Accordingly, the parties shall confer and propose in the
above-captioned case and the other Tranche I Cases a protective
order that includes the relevant terms from and effects of the
Allen Discovery Orders.

However, such proposed protective order shall include language
updated both to reflect the current procedural posture of the
above-captioned case and the other Tranche I Cases and accommodate
appropriately all factual and legal developments that have occurred
in the Tranche I Cases since the Court entered the Allen Discovery
Orders.

The Court separately holds that the Protective Order Regarding
Derrick Williams, filed under seal in Allen (the "Williams
Protective Order"), remains applicable to the Tranche I Case
Williams v. Dinello, Case No. 23-cv-3608. Accordingly, the Court
will so-order the Williams Protective Order under seal in Williams
Suit.

As requested by the Plaintiffs' counsel, the Court will hold in
abeyance Plaintiffs' request to conduct de bene esse depositions.

The Plaintiffs shall inform the Court when they wish to renew their
request.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aGs3ia at no extra
charge.[CC]

TANDEM DIABETES CARE: Faces Lowe Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filings
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission February 21, 2024, that on September 8, 2023, a
purported stockholder of the company filed a putative securities
class action complaint captioned "Lowe v. Tandem Diabetes Care,
Inc., et al," Case No. 23-cv-1657, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California against the company
and certain of its current executive officers.

The complaint generally alleges that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
by failing to properly account for and disclose the full impact
that COVID-19, inflation, and the sales of competitors' products
were having on the company's sales and revenue. The complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

Tandem Diabetes Care, a global insulin delivery and diabetes
technology company, manufactures and sells advanced automated
insulin delivery systems that reduce the burden of diabetes
management and is based in San Diego, California.


THOMAS VILSACK: Court Modifies Briefing Schedule
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANIKA OKJE
ERDMANN-BROWNING, et al., v. THOMAS J. VILSACK, et al., Case No.
4:23-cv-04678-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an
order approving stipulated briefing schedule as modified.

-- The Defendants shall file their oppositions       March 14,
2024
    to those motions by:

-- The Plaintiffs shall file any replies in          March 21,
2024
    support of their motions by:

-- The hearing currently scheduled for               April 18,
2024
    March 14, 2024, is continued to:

A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MkzKVr at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


TRAVERTINE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Day Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
GARRY G. DAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRAVERTINE, INC. dba TRAVERTINE ELEVATOR
INTERIORS; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV05443
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Mar. 4, 2024) is an action against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide
accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

Plaintiff Day was employed by the Defendant as a field supervisor.

TRAVERTINE, INC. provides interior designing services. The Company
offers interior designing services for elevators. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle C. Worrell, Esq.
          WORRELL LAW FIRM, APC
          1717 Old Tustin Avenue, Unit E
          Santa Ana, CA 92705
          Telephone: (657) 232-1450
          Facsimile: (657) 232-1430
          Email: kcw@worrell-law.com

TRAVIS COUNTY, TX: Plaintiffs Seek Time Extension to File Replies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FUND TEXAS CHOICE, et al.,
v. JOSE GARZA, in his official capacity as District Attorney of
Travis County, Texas, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00859-RP (W.D.
Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending
their current deadlines of March 7, 2024, and March 11, 2024, to
file their reply or replies to the Prosecutor Defendants' responses
in opposition to the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class
Certification to March 28, 2024.

On Jan. 25, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their amended motion for
certification of a Defendant class and appointment of class
representatives and class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(1)(A).

The Amended Motion for Class Certification requests certification
of a defendant class of:

   "all elected District Attorneys and County Attorneys in the
State
   of Texas who have the authority within their jurisdictions to
   enforce through criminal prosecutions the Pre-Roe Statutes and
the
   Trigger Ban," and

   asks that the Prosecutor Defendants be appointed as class
   representatives.

Travis county is part of the Austin-Round Rock Metropolitan
Statistical Area with Austin as the county seat.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3KUxvd at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer R. Ecklund, Esq.
          Elizabeth G. Myers, Esq.
          Nicole L. Williams, Esq.
          John P. Atkins, Esq.
          Allyn J. Lowell, Esq.
          Elizabeth B. Rocha, Esq.
          Sarah E. Hillier, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (972) 629-7100
          Facsimile: (972) 629-7171
          E-mail: jecklund@thompsoncoburn.com
                  emyers@thompsoncoburn.com
                  nwilliams@thompsoncoburn.com
                  jatkins@thompsoncoburn.com
                  alowell@thompsoncoburn.com
                  erocha@thompsoncoburn.com
                  shillier@thompsoncoburn.com

                - and -

          Alexandra Wilson Albright, Esq.
          Marcy Hogan Greer, Esq.
          Kevin Dubose, Esq.
          Kirsten M. Castañeda, Esq.
          ALEXANDER DUBOSE & JEFFERSON, LLP
          515 Congress Ave., Suite 2350
          Austin, TX 78701-3562
          Telephone: (512) 482-9300
          Facsimile: (512) 482-9303
          E-mail: aalbright@adjtlaw.com
                  mgreer@adjtlaw.com
                  kdubose@adjtlaw.com
                  kcastaneda@adjtlaw.com

UNITED STATES: Class Cert Briefing Stayed in A.M.P. Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as A.M.P., et al., v. U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Case No.
4:23-cv-13230-SDK-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the parties request that the
Court stay briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification until after the Court decides the Defendants' motion
to dismiss.

The parties also request that the Court permit them to proffer a
proposed briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification after the Court's ruling on the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.

The parties state:
  -- 1. The Plaintiffs filed their complaint on December 19, 2023,

        styled as a putative class action, bringing one claim under

        the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) alleging that USCIS
has
        unreasonably delayed making bona fide determinations, the
        initial step in the adjudication of their U-nonimmigrant
visa
        petitions.

  -- 2. The Plaintiffs served the Defendants on January 29, 2024.
        Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(2), the Defendants'
deadline
        to respond to the Plaintiffs' complaint is March 29, 2024.


  -- 3. On February 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for
class
        certification and to appoint class representatives and
class
        counsel.

  -- 4. In response to the complaint, the Defendants intend to file
a
        motion to dismiss, raising several jurisdictional
arguments,
        that, if granted, would obviate the need for the parties to

        brief and the Court to decide the issues related to class
        certification.

Department of Homeland Security works to improve the security of
the United States.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4Ucoey at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kurt Mathas, Esq.
          Elizabeth Deshaies, Esq.
          Savannah Murin, Esq.
          Greer Harrison, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 558-5600
          E-mail: KMathas@winston.com
                  LDeshaies@winston.com
                  SMurin@winston.com
                  GHarrison@winston.com

                - and -

          Mark Fleming, Esq.
          Richard Caldarone, Esq.
          Jess Hunter-Bowman, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER
          111 W. Jackson, Suite 800
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 660-1628
          E-mail: mfleming@immigrantjustice.org
                  rcaldarone@immigrantjustice.org
                  jbowman@immigrantjustice.org

                - and -

          Meredith Luneack, Esq.
          MICHIGAN IMMIGRANT RIGHTS CENTER
          15 South Washington Street, Suite 201
          Ypsilanti, MI 48197
          Telephone: (734) 239-6863
          E-mail: mluneack@michiganimmigrant.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          Malcolm McDermond, Esq.
          OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 616-4883
          Facsimile: (202) 305-7000
          Email: Malcolm.I.McDermond@usdoj.gov

UNITED STATES: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of SNAP Beneficiaries
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANIKA OKJE
ERDMANN-BROWNING and JACQUELINE BENITEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. THOMAS J. VILSACK, Secretary
of the United States Department of Agriculture, in his official
capacity; SHALANDA YOUNG, Director of the United States Office of
Management and Budget, in her official capacity, Case No.
4:23-cv-04678-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an
order certifying or provisionally certifying the Plaintiffs' claims
as a class action, appointing the Plaintiffs as class
representatives, and appointing class counsel, under Rule 23(a),
Rule 23(b)(2), and Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and Rule 7-2 of the Civil Local Rules of the Court.

The Plaintiffs propose the following class definition:

        All households who are or will be certified to receive
        Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits
for
        April 2024 and subsequent months in the 50 states, the
        District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

The Defendants' failure to ensure prompt issuance of SNAP benefits
for April 2024 and subsequent months applies uniformly to the
proposed class and—as briefed in the concurrently filed Motion
for Preliminary Injunction—injunctive and declaratory relief are
appropriate for the
class as a whole.

The parties request a hearing date of March 14, 2024.

The Plaintiffs and the proposed class desperately need monthly SNAP

benefits to feed themselves and their families. Any delay in
receiving these benefits will jeopardize their ability to do so,
leaving them to choose between eating and meeting other basic
needs, such as paying for shelter, buying gas to get to work, or
purchasing medication.

In addition, the uncertainty of their continued receipt of benefits
when there is no specific SNAP budget is causing the Plaintiffs
stress, anxiety and food insecurity. The Plaintiffs and all other
SNAP
recipients nationwide are in danger of not receiving their SNAP
benefits in a timely manner beginning as early as April 1, 2024.
This delay will violate the Food and Nutrition Act, which mandates
the timely payment of SNAP benefits to all eligible households that
apply.

This putative class action lawsuit challenges the United States
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) failure to inform states that
SNAP benefits may issue even if there is no appropriation bill or
continuing resolution funding, and to authorize the 53 SNAP
agencies to continue issuing benefits.

U.S. Department of Agriculture provides leadership on food,
agriculture, natural resources, and related issues.

A copy the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mjYRK6 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jodie Berger, Esq.
          Richard Rothschild, Esq.
          Robert Newman, Esq.
          Antionette Dozier, Esq.
          WESTERN CENTER ON LAW & POVERTY
          3701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 208
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 235-2617
          Facsimile: (213) 487-0242
          E-mail: jberger@wclp.org
                  rrothschild@wclp.org
                  rnewman@wclp.org
                  adozier@wclp.org

                - and -

          Lindsay Nako, Esq.
          Lori Rifkin, Esq.
          Fawn Rajbhandari-Korr, Esq.
          Meredith Dixon, Esq.
          IMPACT FUND
          2080 Addison St., Suite 5
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 845-3473
          Facsimile: (510) 845-3654
          E-mail: lnako@impactfund.org
                  lrifkin@impactfund.org
                  fkorr@impactfund.org
                  mdixon@impactfund.org

VERISK ANALYTICS: Settlement in ERISA Suit Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 1, 2023, that a settlement
agreement was signed by both parties in an ERISA litigation filed
in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey where
on January 12, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of
class action settlement.

Last October 4, 2023, the parties in said litigation engaged in
expert discovery and was settled before a mediator. It was on
September 24, 2020, former employees Jillyn Peterson, Gabe Hare,
Robert Heynen and Adam Krajewski, filed said suit in said court
under Case No. 2:20-cv-13223-CCC-MF against defendants Insurance
Services Office Inc., the Plan Administration Committee of
Insurance Services Office Inc. and its members and the Trust
Investment Committee of Insurance Services Office Inc. and its
members. The class action complaint alleges violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The class is defined as all persons who were participants in or
beneficiaries of the ISO 401(k) Savings and Employee Stock
Ownership Plan, at any time between September 24, 2014 through the
date of judgment. The complaint alleges that all defendants are
fiduciaries with respect to the plan. Plaintiffs challenge the
amount of fees paid by plan participants to maintain the investment
funds in the plan portfolio and the amount of recordkeeper fees
paid by participants. Plaintiffs allege that by permitting the
payment of excessive fees, the Committee Defendants breached their
ERISA duties of prudence and loyalty. Plaintiffs further allege
that ISO breached its ERISA duty by failing to monitor the
Committee Defendants who they allege committed known breaches of
their fiduciary duties. The complaint does not specify damages but
alleges the fiduciary breaches cost Plan participants millions of
dollars. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint on
January 12, 2021, which the court partially denied on April 13,
2021. Fact discovery was completed. The court stayed the litigation
pending the outcome of the parties' mediation, but the stay was
lifted on May 5, 2023

Verisk Analytics, Inc. is a strategic data analytics and technology
partner to the global insurance industry by empowering clients to
strengthen operating efficiency, improve underwriting and claims
outcomes, combat fraud and make informed decisions about global
risks, including climate change, extreme events, ESG
(environmental, social, and governance), and political issues
through advanced data analytics, software, scientific research, and
deep industry knowledge.


VOYA FINANCIAL: Bid for Class Certification in Ravarino Due Oct. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ravarino, et al., v. Voya
Financial, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01658 (D. Conn., Filed
Dec. 14, 2021), the Hon. Judge Omar A. Williams entered a
clarification order as follows:

-- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification        Oct 30, 2024
    shall be filed on or before:

-- The Defendants' response thereto shall be         Nov. 29, 2024

    filed on or before:

-- Plaintiffs' reply in support thereof shall        Dec. 16, 2024

    be filed on or before:

The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

Voya is an American financial, retirement, investment and insurance
company.[CC]

WALT DISNEY: Kelly Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelly, et al., v. Walt
Disney Parks And Resorts U.S., Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-01919 (M.D.
Fla., Filed Oct. 18, 2022), the Hon. Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr.
entered an endorsed order denying as moot motion to certify class
in light of the unredacted version.

The nature of suit states Contract -- Contract Product Liability.

Walt Disney operates amusement parks and kids parks.[CC]

WHITTINGTON MOTOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bruskin Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN AARON BRUSKIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHITTINGTON MOTOR SPORTS, INC.; RD
WILLIAM WHITTINGTON; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
24SMCV01014 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 5, 2024) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide
accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff Bruskin was employed by the Defendants as a staff.

WHITTINGTON MOTOR SPORTS, INC. is an automobile dealership offering
the exotic, sports cars, vintage/modern & specialty automobiles.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rita Skuratovsky, Esq.
          Konstantin D. Gurovich, Esq.
          GUROVICH LAW GROUP, APC
          15250 Ventura Blvd. Ste. 700
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 401-4717
          Facsimile: (818) 401-0717


                            *********

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 ***