---

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

              Tuesday, March 26, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 62

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Court Tosses Hardwick Suit for Lack of Jurisdiction
ABM INDUSTRIES: Miller Sues Over Company's Advance Notice Bylaw
ACADIA LAPLACE: Plaintiffs File Class Certification Expert Report
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: BRRS Wins Class Certification Bid
AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS: Germano Seeks to File Docs Under Seal

AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS: Parties Must File Discovery Bids by April 1
AIR PRODUCTS: Camcara Must File Class Cert. Bid by August 19
AKIMA GLOBAL: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due May 1
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Seal Portions of Briefings in Snow Nixed
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Seal Portions of Briefings in SSP Tossed

ALL AMERICAN: Gonzales Seeks Overtime Pay for Cleaning Laborers
ALLBIRDS INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Sayles Loses Class Cert. Bid
ALLSTATE: Court Affirms Denial of Sayles Bid to Compel Discovery
AMAZON.COM: Bid to Seal Summary Judgement Attachment Partly Granted

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Settles COVID-19 Tuition Class Suit $5.439M
APPLE INC: $490M Securities Class Suit Settlement Gets Initial Nod
APPLE INC: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Shareholders Fraud for $490MM
APPLE INC: Bid to Dismiss AirTag Stalking Class Suit Denied
APPLE INC: Loses Bid for Protective Order in Class Suit

APPLE INC: Parties Seek to Extend Class Certification Briefing Date
ARBOR REALTY: Class Settlement in CMDI Suit Gets Final Nod
ARROW FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Ashe Class Suit in N.Y.
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Pizzuto Class Suit Pending
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit

ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Edwards Securities Suit
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Luo Securities Class Suit
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Shapiro Securities Suit
ASSOCIATED PROTECTION: Millhouse Sues Over Time Shaving Practices
AT&T INC: Piercy et al. Allege ERISA Violations of Plan Transfer

AUTOMATIC DATA: Seeks More Time to File Kiani Class Cert Response
AVANADE INC: Filing of Bid for Class Certification Due June 17
AVOYELLES PARISH: Simmons Seeks More Time to File Pleadings
BANK OF MONTREAL: May Face Class Suit Over Online Banking Breach
BARCLAYS BANK: Puchtler Seeks Damages Over Securities Fraud

BASCOM'S STEAKHOUSE: Seghrouchni Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd
BELIV LLC: Bid to Redact Portions of Kelly Testimony Granted
BELIV LLC: Wins Summary Judgment v. Kelly
BENELUX CORP: Mertens et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum Wages & Tips
BICARA CORP: Diaz Sues Over Labor Law Breaches

BRIGHTON CORNERSTONE: Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement Sought
BRINKER INT'L: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
BUTH-NA-BODHAIGE: Carrington and Alexander Allege WARN Act Breaches
CARVANA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Gardner Suit Says
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Stock Purchaser Class

CASSAVA SCIENCES: Securities Suit Returned to Judge Ezra
CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT: Perry Suit Removed to C.D. California
CENTRAL VALLEY: Faces Nataren et al. Suit Over Unfair Farm Labor
CES CLEANING CONTRACTORS: Elias Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Herrick Class Suit Over Data Breach

CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Medina Suit Over Private Data Breach
CHARLES AGRUSA: Roberts Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime Pay
CHEX SYSTEMS INC: Willis Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Illinois
CIGNA CORP: Sachs Sues Unlawful Insurance Claims Rejection
CITIZENS BANK: Plaintiffs Seek to Vacate Feb. 28 Class Cert Order

CITIZENS OPTIONS: Gibson et al. Sue Over Unfair Labor Practices
COLTER ENERGY: Zaarour Seeks Conditional Collective Status
COLUMBIA DEBT RECOVERY: Evans Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
COMPASS GROUP: Jilek Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Gutierrez Sues Over Time Shaving Practice

COOPER AEROBICS: Morgan Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Settlement in Charleston Gets Final Nod
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Insurance-Related Suit
COTIVITI INC: Pichler Seeks to Certify Class of FLSA Collective
DANONE WATERS: Greenwashing Bottled Water Class Suit Continues

DEFIANCE COLLEGE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DEL MONTE: Parties Seek to Modify Case Schedule
DENVER SHERIFFS: Court OK's Johnson Class Cert Bid
DIAMOND BRACES: Bid to Dismiss Isayeva Class Action Tossed
DIAZ FAMILY: Bid to Vacate Clause Construction Award Denied

DICK’S SPORTING: Knoblauch et al. Allege Breach of Contract
DOLLY INC: Bid for Class Certification in Baker Due March 6
ELECTROSTIM MEDICAL: Beauchane Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL: Lopez Loses Bid for Class Certification
EMERGENCY COVERAGE: Seek to Seal Class Cert Opposition Exhibits

ENZO BIOCHEM: Filing of Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Suit Due April 8
EPOCH EVERLASTING: Jackson-Jones Suit Seeks Class Certification
EPOCH EVERLASTING: Suit to File Portions of Class Cert Under Seal
ERTC EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Duke Alleges
EXPENSIFY INC: Court Appoints Levi & Korsinsky as Lead Counsel

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Must File Class Cert Opposition by June 7
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Faces Williams Suit Over USERRA Violations
FEDEX GROUND: Alfonso Wins Class Certification Bid
FIBROGEN INC: Xu Class Certification Bid Granted in Part
FORD MOTOR COMPANY: Weigner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

FORD MOTOR: Court Sets Briefing Sched for Bid to Seal
FORT BELVOIR: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. in Fischer Due April 8
FRANKLIN & MARSHALL: Doyle Seeks Prorated Tuition Refunds
GCE SERVICES: Espinoza Seeks OT Pay & Damages for FLSA Breach
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Data Breach

GLADSTONE AUTO: Bid for Atty's Fees and & Expenses Partly Granted
GLOBAL K9: Colindres Sues Over Unlawful Employment Practices
GROVE CITY COLLEGE: Refuses to Refund Tuition and Fees, Smith Says
HEALTH CADDIES: Cooper Seeks OT Pay for Insurance Sales Agents
HERSHEY COMPANY: Faces Loza et al. Suit Over Deceptive Labeling

HOME CLEAN: Settlement Deal in Moshe Suit Gets Court Nod
HOME DEPOT: Class Settlement in Utne Suit Gets Final Nod
HOME DEPOT: Mathews Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal
HONDA MOTORS: CaseyGerry Probes Unintended-Automatic-Braking Suit
HOUSER LLP: Rivera Files Suit in C.D. California

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court Denies Bid for Arbitration in Carroll Suit
IFIT INC: Douglass Seeks Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
INDIAN HILL: Parties Seek to Extend Class Certification Deadlines
INFOSYS MCCAMISH: McNally Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
INNOVIZ TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit

IROBOT CORP: Faces Das Suit Over Securities Laws Violations
J AND B PIZZERIA: Reyes Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
JAM MAINTENANCE: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
JBS SA: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Eisman Consumer Fraud Lawsuit

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Grodnick Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
JUUL LABS: $300M Vaping Suit Settlement Got Final Approval
KE HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in Saskatchewan Securities Suit
LAUNDRY OPS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia and Lozano Allege
LAUREL MEDICAL: Sturtz Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania

LEE'S HOUSE: Lin Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status
LGG OPERATIONS: Scofield Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado
LINCOLN UNIVERSITY: Dixon Seeks Refund for Tuition & Mandatory Fees
LUMIO HX: Faces Class Action Suit Over Consumer Fraud
MCLAREN FLINT: Fails to Provide Meal Breaks, Buford Suit Alleges

MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Williams Files Suit in D. Arizona
NATIONAL ADVISORS: Weber Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Settles Agent Commission Suit for $418-Mil.
NESTLE USA: Faces Class Suit Over Perrier Mineral Water's Purity
NEW YORK, NY: Plaintiffs Must Secure Legal Counsel by April 8

NEWREZ LLC: Pre-Certification Bid to Strike Tossed
NO LIMIT INVESTIGATIVE: Fails to Pay OT Premiums, Johnson Says
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Train Derailment Suit
OAK STREET HEALTH: McCrae Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
OKLAHOMA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY: Collins Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma

OVERLAND TERRACE: White Sues Over Labor Law Violations
P.F. CHANG'S III: Vega Suit Removed to C.D. California
PEOPLES BANK: Brooks Wins Bid to Appoint Interim Class Co-Counsel
PIPING ENGINEERING: Faces Castaneda Wage & Hour Suit in Calif.
QUAKER OATS: Tepper Sues Over Harmful Chemicals in Oat Products

RED ROBIN: Court Approves Class & PAGA Settlement in Miller Suit
REDLAND, CA: Court Dismisses Appeals Maintenance Fee Class Suit
RIBBON WORLDWIDE: Tepepa et al. File Wage Claim Under FLSA
ROLLIE'S SMOKE: Martinez Seeks Damages for Unfair Labor Practices
SA TELECELL: Faces Rangel Wage & Hour Class Action Lawsuit

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over Defective Washing Machines
SOUTHERN CROSS: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Sylvester Alleges
SOVOS COMPLIANCE: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $3.53M
SSR MINING: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
STEIN SAKS: S.D. New York Dismisses Goldberg Disabilities Suit

SUB-ZERO GROUP: Court Grants Bid for Inspection of Karp's Home
SUPERIOR DRILLING: Monteverde Investigates Sale to Drilling Tools
UNDER ARMOUR: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Securities Suit
UNITED AUTO SUPPLY: Ferrara et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Ransomware Attack

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Groom Seeks Damages Over Data Breach
UNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Over Privacy Laws Violations
UPPER WESTSIDE: Coronell Sues Over Labor Law Violations
WALMART INC: Faces Suit Over Fish Oil Supplements' False Claims
WHEATFIELD, NY: Bid to Replace Keefes in Andres Suit Due March 22

WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
YOUNG ADULT: Class Action Settlement in Lagunas Gets Initial Nod
ZYMERGEN INC: Wang Has Leave to File 2nd Amended Class Complaint
[^] Broadridge Sponsors 8th Annual Class Action Conference

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Court Tosses Hardwick Suit for Lack of Jurisdiction
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN D. HARDWICK, v. 3M
COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01185-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Edmund Sargus, Jr. entered an order vacating its prior
Order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff's motion
for class certification and dismissing the case for lack of
jurisdiction.

3M is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the
fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8URagU at no extra
charge.[CC]

ABM INDUSTRIES: Miller Sues Over Company's Advance Notice Bylaw
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC MILLER, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
stockholders of ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, Plaintiff v. QUINCY L.
ALLEN, LEIGHANNE BAKER, DONALD F. COLLERAN, JAMES DEVRIES, ART A.
GARCIA, THOMAS M. GARTLAND, JILL GOLDER, SUDHAKAR KESAVAN, SCOTT
SALMIRS, WINIFRED M. WEBB, and ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED,
Defendants, Case No. 2024-0234 (Del. Ch., March 11, 2024) seeks
declaratory relief invalidating the Company's Advance Notice Bylaw
and asserts claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Director
Defendants.

Plaintiff Miller alleges that the Company's Advance Notice Bylaw
effectively limits the scope of stockholders' voting rights to
voting for or against candidates nominated by the Board, and is
fundamentally inconsistent with the notion that stockholders' right
to vote includes the right to nominate.

Headquartered in New York, ABM is a leading provider of integrated
facility, infrastructure, and mobility solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Kimberly A. Evans, Esq.
           Irene R. Lax, Esq.
           Daniel Baker, Esq.
           Robert Erikson, Esq.
           BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
           3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305
           Wilmington, DE 19807
           Telephone: (302) 499-3600
           E-mail: kim@blockleviton.com
                   irene@blockleviton.com
                   daniel@blockleviton.com
                   robby@blockleviton.com
                       
                   - and -

           Jason Leviton, Esq.
           BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
           260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
           Boston, MA 02110
           Telephone: (617) 398-5600

                   - and -

           Abbott Cooper, Esq.
           ABBOTT COOPER PLLC
           1266 East Main Street Suite 700R
           Stamford, CT 06902

ACADIA LAPLACE: Plaintiffs File Class Certification Expert Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY HAMM and JOYE WILSON,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
ACADIA LAPLACE HOLDINGS, LLC and OCHSNER-ACADIA, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-01515-SM-DPC (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs file a Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(a)(2)(B) report of the Plaintiffs' survey and statistical
expert for class certification.

The Report is submitted in support of the Plaintiffs' pending
motion for class certification (ECF No. 270), and is attached
hereto as Exhibit A.

Acadia operates a network of behavioral healthcare facilities.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 12, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HnwiR9 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
                  rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com

                - and -

          Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq.
          Daniel Centner, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, APLC
          1519 Robert C. Blakes, Sr. Drive
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 523-2434
          E-mail: JPeiffer@peifferwolf.com
                  DCentner@peifferwolf.com

ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: BRRS Wins Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF BIRMINGHAM RELIEF
AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM; and OHIO CARPENTERS' PENSION FUND,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; STEPHEN R. DAVIS; and SRDJAN (SERGE)
R. STANKOVIC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00762-WQH-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge William Hayes entered an order granting the motion for class
certification and appointment of class representatives and class
counsel.

The Court certifies the Class defined as:

        All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired
        shares of Acadia common stock during the period from Sept.
9,
        2019 through April 4, 2021 (inclusive), and were damaged
        thereby.

        Excluded from the Class are (i) Defendants; (ii) the past
and
        current officers and directors of Acadia; (iii) the
immediate
        family members, legal representatives, heirs, parents,
        subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, and assigns of any

        excluded person or entity; and (iv) any entity in which any

        excluded person(s) have or had a majority ownership
interest,
        or that is or was controlled by any excluded person or
entity.

The Court appoints the Plaintiffs to serve as Class representatives
and Scott+Scott to serve as Class counsel in this action.

The Court further orders that, pursuant to the March 17, 2023
Order, counsel for the parties shall place a joint call to Judge
Berg's chambers to schedule a Case Management Conference within
five days of the date of this Order, at which further discovery and
pretrial deadlines will be set.

On April 19, 2021, Denise Marechal initiated this action by filing
a Class Action Complaint. On Sept. 29, 2021, the Court issued an
Order appointing City of Birmingham Relief and Retirement System as

Lead Plaintiff.

On Dec. 10, 2021, Birmingham and additional Plaintiff Ohio
Carpenters' Pension Fund filed an Amended Class Action Complaint
(the "FAC"). The FAC alleges that Defendants violated federal
securities laws by deceiving investors regarding the likelihood of
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval of a drug, which
Acadia developed, to artificially inflate the market price of
Acadia
Securities.

The Plaintiffs allege that between Sept. 9, 2019 (the day Acadia
announced positive results from the Harmony Study) and April 4,
2021 (the day before FDA approval was denied), the Defendants
misled investors by stating that the FDA agreed to base its review
of the sNDA on the Harmony Study's overall results across all DRP
patients, instead of analyzing the efficacy data for each dementia
subgroup.

Acadia is a "biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the
development and commercialization of small molecule drugs that
address unmet medical needs in central nervous system disorders."

A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0hqEXj at no extra
charge.[CC]

AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS: Germano Seeks to File Docs Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Germano v. Aimmune
Therapeutics, Inc. et al. (RE AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION), Case No. 3:20-cv-06733-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the co-Lead
Plaintiffs Bruce Svitak and Cecilia Pemberton move the Court to
file certain documents under seal in connection with the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs seek to seal the unredacted version of the co-Lead
Plaintiffs' notice of motion and motion for Class Certification and
Memorandum of Supporting Points and Authorities, because certain
portions of the Motion describe, identify and/or quote Protected
Materials designated as Confidential by Defendants pursuant to the
Stipulated Protective Order.

Aimmune is a biopharmaceutical company developing and
commercializing treatments for potentially life-threatening food
allergies.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Mar. 8, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3pLILI at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
          Jonathan T. Lerner, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (310) 446-6652
          E-mail: dbower@monteverdelaw.com
                  jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
                  mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com
                  jlerner@monteverdelaw.com

                - and -

          Michael Palestina, Esq.
          Brian Mears, Esq.
          Gina Palermo, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          1100 Poydras Street, Suite 960
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: (504) 455-1400
          E-mail: michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com
                  brian.mears@ksfcounsel.com
                  gina.palermo@ksfcounsel.com

AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS: Parties Must File Discovery Bids by April 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Germano v. Aimmune
Therapeutics, Inc. et al. (RE AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 3:20-cv-06733-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Maxine Chesney entered an order setting briefing
schedule for class certification, summary judgment, and Daubert
motions and other case schedule as follows:

   1. The deadline for the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification
      shall remain March 8, 2024.

   2. The Parties shall serve written responses to all
interrogatories
      and requests for admission on or before March 18, 2024.

   3. The Parties shall file any discovery motions on or before
April
      1, 2024.

   4. The Defendants shall file any opposition to Plaintiffs'
motion
      for class certification on or before April 22, 2024.

   5. The Plaintiffs shall file any reply brief in further support
of
      their motion for class certification on or before May 22,
2024.

   6. The deadline for any dispositive or Daubert motions shall
remain
      June 14, 2024.

   7. The Parties shall respond to any dispositive or Daubert
      motion(s) on or before August 5, 2024.

   8. The Parties shall file any reply brief(s) in further support
of
      their respective dispositive or Daubert motions on or before

      September 17, 2024.

   9. All other deadlines and scheduled events shall remain
unchanged.

Aimmune operates as a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zHblBA at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
          Jonathan T. Lerner, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES, PC
          600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (213) 466-6652
          E-mail: dbower@monteverdelaw.com
                  jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

                - and –

          Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
          KAHN, SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          1100 Poydras Street, Suite 960
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: (504) 455-1400
          E-mail: michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kristin N. Murphy, Esq.
          Matthew Rawlinson, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          650 Town Center Dr., 20th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 540-1235
          E-mail: kristin.murphy@lw.com
                  matt.rawlinson@lw.com

AIR PRODUCTS: Camcara Must File Class Cert. Bid by August 19
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMCARA, INC. d/b/a AST
WATERJET, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC., Case No.
5:21-cv-02264-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl
entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiff's request for invoice information for fiscal
years
      2017 and 2018 in its Request for Production of Documents No.
41,
      to the extent Plaintiff seeks putative class members'
invoices
      which remain unpaid in whole or in part, is denied.

   2. The Plaintiff's request for invoice information for fiscal
years
      2017 and 2018 in its Request for Production of Documents No.
41,
      in all other respects, is denied as moot.

   3. The Plaintiff's request for incentive plans and productivity

      improvement programs pertaining to surcharges for the General

      Manager/Vice President level for each of Defendant's regions

      within the United States in its Request for Production of
      Documents Nos. 22 and 23, is granted.

   4. The Plaintiff's request for all Defendant's Board of
Directors
      meeting minutes, agendas, presentations, and other materials

      (including drafts), concerning surcharges in its Request for

      Production of Documents No. 30, to the extent that Plaintiff

      seeks to have Defendant all Board of Director meeting
materials
      (e.g., presentations or agendas) for information relating to

      Surcharges and produce any responsive documents, is denied.

The Second Amended Scheduling is amended as follows:

   1. The parties shall complete all class action fact discovery by

      May 3, 2024.

   2. The Plaintiff's counsel shall serve upon defense counsel the

      information referred to in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
      26(a)(2)(B) by expert report or answer to expert
interrogatory
      no later than June 3, 2024.

      Defense counsel shall serve any rebuttal reports on
Plaintiff's
      counsel no later than July 3, 2024. The parties shall
conclude
      expert depositions, if any, no later than July 19, 2024.

   3. The Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification and

      supporting brief by Aug. 19, 2024.

Air Products is an American international corporation whose
principal business is selling gases and chemicals for industrial
use.

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

AKIMA GLOBAL: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due May 1
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yeend, et al., v. Akima
Global Services, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01281 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Oct.
16, 2020), the Hon. Judge Thomas J. Mcavoy entered an order
granting in part and denying in part letter motion from Alison
Frick for Lisa Lapointe, Bounnam Phimasone, Shantadewie Rahmee,
Elvin Minaya Rodriguez, Dalila Yeend requesting Extension of class
certification briefing in light of Defendant's dispositive motion:


-- A stay of the deadline in which to file the class
certification
    motion is denied, but an extension of the briefing schedule is
    granted.

-- The class certification motion is to be filed by May 1, 2024.

    a. Response due:        June 15, 2024

    b. Reply due by:        July 1, 2024

The nature states Labor Litigation.

Akima provides the people, equipment, and processes that safeguard
federal buildings, military bases, and detention centers.[CC]

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Seal Portions of Briefings in Snow Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY SNOW, et al., v.
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 21-cv-03269-VC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order regarding outstanding
sealing motions as follows:

Align's requests to seal portions of its briefing and the record at
the class certification and summary judgment stages are denied as
overbroad.

First, Align continues to request sealing of information that is
already in the public record (such as the contents of Align's press
releases or public statements), information that is not sealed
elsewhere in the filings, or information that is easily inferable
from the unsealed portions of the sentences.

Align is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners and
Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=85Kfi2 at no extra
charge.[CC]

 


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Seal Portions of Briefings in SSP Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIMON AND SIMON, PC, et
al., v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 20-cv-03754-VC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order regarding
outstanding sealing motions as follows:

Align's requests to seal portions of its briefing and the record at
the class certification and summary judgment stages are denied as
overbroad.

First, Align continues to request sealing of information that is
already in the public record (such as the contents of Align's press
releases or public statements), information that is not sealed
elsewhere in the filings, or information that is easily inferable
from the unsealed portions of the sentences.

Align is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners and
Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pVhQyn at no extra
charge.[CC]

ALL AMERICAN: Gonzales Seeks Overtime Pay for Cleaning Laborers
---------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE GONZALEZ, on his own behalf and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. ALL AMERICAN WINDOW AND GUTTER CLEANING, LLC,
ALL AMERICAN CLEANING SERVICES, LLC, and RENE PADILLA,
Individually, Case No. 2:24-cv-02575 (D.N.J., March 7, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage
Payment Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt cleaning
laborer from approximately March 2023 through approximately
November 2023, performing air conditioning and duct work duties.
Beginning in at least approximately March 2023, Defendants
allegedly engaged in a policy and practice of not paying him and
similarly situated employees overtime compensation despite
requiring them to regularly work over 40 hours per week, the
Plaintiff asserts.

All American Window and Gutter Cleaning, LLC is a company that
provides power washing, window cleaning, gutter cleaning, and air
conditioning services. It is headquartered in Bergenfield, NJ.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ALLBIRDS INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Allbirds Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 12, 2024 that the Company continues to
defend itself from the consolidated Shnayder and Delgado class suit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On April 13, 2023, and on May 16, 2023, the Company and certain of
its executive officers and directors were named as defendants in
two substantially similar securities class action lawsuits,
captioned Shnayder v. Allbirds, Inc., et al., Case No.
23-cv-01811-AMO and Delgado v. Allbirds, Inc., et al., Case No.
23-cv-02372-AMO, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

These lawsuits allege that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. §
240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act by making materially false and/or misleading
statements about our business, operations and prospects.

The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount.

On July 25, 2023, the court entered an order consolidating the two
cases, appointing lead plaintiffs, and approving lead plaintiffs'
selection of lead counsel.

On September 15, 2023, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint against the same group of defendants and asserting the
same claims.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
November 3, 2023.

It intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

Allbirds, Inc., together with its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a
global lifestyle brand that innovates with naturally-derived
materials to make better footwear and apparel products in a better
way, while treading lighter on our planet. The majority of its
revenue is from sales directly to consumers via its digital and
store channels.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Sayles Loses Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHA SAYLES,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:16-cv-01534-MEM-MCC (M.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Malachy Mannion entered an order that:

   (1) The Plaintiff's objections to the report and recommendation
of
       Judge Carlson are overruled.

   (2) The report and recommendation of Judge Carlson is adopted in

       its entirety as the decision of the court.

   (3) The Plaintiff's motion to certify is denied.

   (4) The instant action is remanded to Judge Carlson for all
further
       pre-trial proceedings.

Allstate offers auto, home life insurances policies.

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

ALLSTATE: Court Affirms Denial of Sayles Bid to Compel Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHA SAYLES,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:16-cv-01534-MEM-MCC (M.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Malachy Mannion entered an order affirming
Judge Carlson's Sept. 15, 2023, ruling in its entirety, and deny
the plaintiff's appeal.

Pending before the court is the plaintiff's appeal of United States
Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson's order denying her motion to
compel discovery.

On Jan. 19, 2022, well before the expiration of the discovery
deadline, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. A
briefing schedule was set, and on October 19, 2022, Judge Carlson
issued a report recommending that the plaintiff’s motion to
certify be denied.

Allstate offers auto, home life insurances policies.

A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Mar. 8, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uw46NJ at no extra
charge.[CC]

AMAZON.COM: Bid to Seal Summary Judgement Attachment Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JADIAN ALTEMUS, an
individual, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; DOES 1–25, Case No. 3:22-cv-01275-DMS-BGS
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dana Sabraw entered an order:

-- granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to

    seal attachments to motion for summary judgment; and

-- denying motion to seal attachment to response in opposition
    to plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.

Specifically, the Court grants the motion to seal Exhibit C to the
Jones Declaration and Exhibit S to the Ing Declaration. The Court
accepts these attachments as filed.

The Court denies the motions to seal all other attachments. If
Defendant wishes to file a renewed motion to seal for the denied
requests, or a more tailored motion to seal portions of the
remaining lodged sealed attachments along with partially redacted
versions on the public docket, Defendant may do so no later than
March 15, 2024.

Amazon.com provides e-commerce services.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QGM05e at no extra
charge.[CC] 


AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Settles COVID-19 Tuition Class Suit $5.439M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that American University agreed to pay
$5.439 million to resolve claims that it failed to refund students
for tuition after the spring 2020 semester was disrupted by
COVID-19.

The settlement benefits individuals enrolled in American University
as undergraduate students during the spring 2020 semester and for
whom any amount of tuition and fees were paid from a
non-scholarship or grant and have not been refunded in their
entirety.

According to the class action lawsuit, American University students
did not get the full value of their spring 2020 tuition and fees
due to closures caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs in the
case argue their tuition should have been partially or fully
refunded after classes were moved to an online format.

American University is a research institution in Washington, D.C.

American University hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a
$5.439 million settlement to resolve the COVID-19 tuition class
action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive an
equal share of the net settlement fund. Class counsel estimates
each class member will receive $400 to $475, though exact payments
may be higher or lower depending on the number of participating
students.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 1, 2024.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for May
7, 2024.

No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class
members can submit an election form by April 1, 2024, if they wish
to receive an electronic payment instead of a check.

Who's Eligible

Individuals enrolled in American University as undergraduate
students during the spring 2020 semester and for whom any amount of
tuition and fees were paid from a non-scholarship or grant and have
not been refunded in their entirety.

Potential Award

$475 (estimated)
Proof of Purchase

N/A
Election Form

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

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

04/01/2024

Case Name

Qureshi, et al. v. American University, Case No. 1:20-cv-01141-CRC,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Final Hearing

05/07/2024
Settlement Website

AURefundSettlement.com
Claims Administrator

Qureshi, et al. v. American University
c/o Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 2587
Portland, OR 97208-2587
888-497-4133
Class Counsel

LEEDS BROWN LAW PC

PULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC

BURSOR & FISHER PA
Defense Counsel

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP [GN]

APPLE INC: $490M Securities Class Suit Settlement Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Liedtke, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that Apple
has agreed to pay $490 million to settle a class-action lawsuit
alleging Chief Executive Tim Cook misled investors about a steep
downturn in iPhone's sales in China that culminated in a jarring
revision to the company's revenue forecast.

The preliminary settlement filed Friday in Oakland federal court
stems from a shareholder lawsuit focused on the way Apple relayed
information about how iPhone models released in September 2018 were
performing in China, one of the company's biggest markets.

Cook signaled that the new iPhones were off to a good start during
an investor conference call in early November 2018, according to
the complaint.

That reassurance dissolved into a huge letdown on Jan. 2, 2019,
when Cook issued a warning that Apple's revenue for the
just-completed quarter would fall $9 billion below management's
forecast for the period. What's more, virtually all of the sales
drop was traced to weak demand in China.

It marked the first time Apple had cut its revenue guidance since
the iPhone's release in 2007 and caused its stock price to plunge
10% in the next day of trading, wiping out more than $70 billion in
shareholder wealth.

Apple vehemently denied Cook deceived investors about the iPhone's
sales in China between early November and early January. The
Cupertino, Calif., company maintained that stance in the settlement
documents, but said it decided to make the payment after more than
four years of legal wrangling to avoid an "overly burdensome,
expensive, and distracting" hassle.

The settlement was reached through a mediator after U.S. District
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers rejected Apple's request to dismiss
the case and set a Sept. 9 trial date.

Gonzalez Rogers is now being asked to approve the settlement in a
hearing scheduled for April 30.

Thousands of shareholders who bought Apple stock in late 2018 could
be eligible for a piece of the settlement, which will be less
than$490 million after lawyers involved in the case are paid. They
plan to seek up to one-fourth, or about $122 million, of the
settlement. [GN]

APPLE INC: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Shareholders Fraud for $490MM
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that Apple agreed to pay $490
million to settle a class-action lawsuit that alleged Chief
Executive Tim Cook defrauded shareholders by concealing falling
demand for iPhones in China.

A preliminary settlement was filed on March 15, 2024 with the U.S.
District Court in Oakland, California, and requires approval by
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

It stemmed from Apple's unexpected announcement on Jan. 2, 2019
that the iPhone maker would slash its quarterly revenue forecast by
up to $9 billion, blaming U.S.-China trade tensions.

Cook had told investors on an Nov. 1, 2018, analyst call that
although Apple faced sales pressure in markets such as Brazil,
India, Russia and Turkey, where currencies had weakened, "I would
not put China in that category."

Apple told suppliers a few days later to curb production.

The lowered revenue forecast was Apple's first since the iPhone's
launch in 2007. Shares of Apple fell 10% the next day, wiping out
$74 billion of market value.

Apple and its lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for
comment on the ruling.
The Cupertino, California-based company denied liability, but
settled to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation, court
papers show.

Shawn Williams, a partner at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
representing the shareholders, called the settlement an
"outstanding result" for the class.

The settlement covers investors who bought Apple shares in the two
months between Cook's comments and the revenue forecast.

Apple posted $97 billion of net income in its latest fiscal year,
and its payout equals a little under two days of profit.

Last June, Rogers refused to dismiss the lawsuit.

She found it plausible to believe Cook had been discussing Apple's
sales outlook and not currency changes, and said Apple knew China's
economy was slowing and demand could fall.
The lead plaintiff is the Norfolk County Council as Administering
Authority of the Norfolk Pension Fund, located in Norwich,
England.

Lawyers for the shareholders may seek fees of up to 25% of the
settlement amount.
Apple's share price has more than quadrupled since January 2019,
giving the company a more than $2.6 trillion market value.

The case is In re Apple Inc Securities Litigation, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California, No. 19-02033. [GN]

APPLE INC: Bid to Dismiss AirTag Stalking Class Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chance Miller, writing for 9TO5MAC, reports that Apple's bid to
dismiss a class action lawsuit over AirTag stalking has failed. As
reported by Bloomberg, a judge in California ruled that the
plaintiffs in the lawsuit have "made sufficient claims for
negligence and product liability."

"With a price point of just $29 it has become the weapon of choice
of stalkers and abusers," the lawsuit alleges.

In the lawsuit, which was first filed in December 2022, the
plaintiffs accuse Apple of "rushing AirTags to market with
insufficient safeguards to prohibit their use for stalking
purposes."

"Apple's design of the AirTag was defective because the product did
not -- and does not -- perform as safely as an ordinary consumer
would have expected it to perform when used or misused in an
intended or reasonably foreseeable way," the plaintiffs wrote in
the initial lawsuit.

This week, US District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that the lawsuit
can move ahead, despite Apple's bid to have it dismissed. Bloomberg
reports:

About three dozen women and men who filed the suit alleged that
Apple was warned of the risks posed by its AirTags and argued the
company could be legally blamed under California law when the
tracking devices are used for misconduct.

In the three claims that survived, the plaintiffs "allege that,
when they were stalked, the problems with the AirTag's safety
features were substantial, and that those safety defects caused
their injuries," Chhabria wrote.

Judge Chhabria points out, however, that "Apple may ultimately be
right that California law did not require it to do more to diminish
the ability of stalkers to use AirTags effectively." At this point,
however, the judge said, "that determination cannot be made at this
early stage."

In its motion to dismiss, filed October 2023, Apple said:

Plaintiffs' lawsuit is a misplaced effort to hold Apple legally
responsible for third parties' intentional misuse of its AirTag
product to track Plaintiffs or their family members without their
consent. Apple condemns in the strongest possible way any misuse of
its products and willingly assists law enforcement in
investigations into complaints of unwanted tracking.

Apple was the first Bluetooth-tracking device manufacturer to
proactively implement features aimed at mitigating unwanted
tracking into its product. By innovating these security features,
Apple expected to spur others in the industry to provide comparable
safety measures and actively encouraged other manufacturers who
used Apple's Find My network to adopt such measures.

Following the initial release of AirTag in April 2021, Apple added
a range of additional anti-stalking features in February 2022.
These changes included improved tracking alerts and notifications,
updates to how AirTag emits a sound when separated from its owner,
and more. Notably, shortly after Apple bolstered its anti-stalking
measures for AirTag, Tile announced similar plans of its own. [GN]

APPLE INC: Loses Bid for Protective Order in Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, by and through
next friend JOHN DOE, RICHARD ROBINSON, YOLANDA BROWN, JONATHAN
LEBLOND, PATRICIA ORRIS, ALEXANDER ROMO, ANGELA STEVENS, and DENIS
WIER, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown, v. APPLE INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-00421-NJR (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Nancy Rosenstengel
entered an order:

-- Denying Apple's motion for protective order, and

-- Granting Plaintiffs' motion to compel because the Court finds
that
    Apple has not met its burden of demonstrating good cause for
    entirely precluding the Federighi deposition.

The Court also grants Plaintiffs leave of court to depose Craig
Federighi within 14 days of this Order, at a time that is mutually
agreeable to the parties, and denies Plaintiff's request for
sanctions.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer with the Special Master
regarding availability.

The case arises under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act (“BIPA”).  The Plaintiffs allege Apple includes facial
recognition technology as a feature of its Photos App and uses
biometric identifiers to automatically group the user’s photos
based on who appears in them.

Apple is an American multinational corporation and technology
company.

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

APPLE INC: Parties Seek to Extend Class Certification Briefing Date
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE et al., v. APPLE
INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00421-NJR (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs and
the Defendant jointly stipulate that the class certification
briefing schedule be extended:

  -- The Parties have agreed by stipulation to extend the fact
     discovery deadline by two weeks (to March 22) in order to
     complete certain Plaintiff and Defendant depositions that
could
     not take place prior to the current close of fact discovery
     (i.e., March 8).

  -- To enable these depositions to be completed before the
Plaintiffs
     file their class certification motion (i.e., March 15), the
     Parties likewise stipulate and agree that the class
certification
     briefing deadlines should each be extended, such that the
     deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their class certification

     motion should be April 5, 2024, the deadline for the Defendant
to
     file its response should be June 3, 2024, and the deadline for

     the Plaintiffs to file their reply should be June 28, 2024.

  -- Extending the deadlines for class certification briefing will

     not impact the deadline for the completion of all discovery,
the
     deadline for filing dispositive motions, or the date of any
     court appearance.

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

A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 7, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QvtGqs at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
          Troy A. Doles, Esq.
          Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq.
          Alexander L. Braitberg, Esq.
          SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLP
          100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-6115
          Facsimile: (314) 621-5934
          E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
                  tdoles@uselaws.com
                  aschlichter@uselaws.com
                  abraitberg@uselaws.com

                - and -

          Christian G. Montroy, Esq.
          MONTROY LAW OFFICES, LLC
          2416 North Center
          Maryville, IL 62062
          Telephone: (618) 223-8200
          Facsimile: (618) 223-8355
          E-mail: cmontroy@montroylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Raj N. Shah, Esq.
          Eric M. Roberts, Esq.
          Isabelle L. Ord, Esq.
          DLA Piper LLP (US)
          444 West Lake Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 368-4000
          E-mail: raj.shah@dlapiper.com
                  eric.roberts@dlapiper.com
                  isabelle.ord@dlapiper.com

ARBOR REALTY: Class Settlement in CMDI Suit Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASA de MARYLAND, INC., et
al., v. ARBOR REALTY TRUST, INC., et al., Case No.
8:21-cv-01778-DKC (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Deborah Chasanow entered
an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees,
plaintiff incentive awards, and reimbursement of expenses, and
motion for final approval of class settlement.

Class counsel also seek approval of payment to the claims
administrator from the Settlement Fund of $27,701, to cover the
cost of processing and mailing settlement payments to the class
members.

The court considers the reasonableness of a $7,500 incentive
payment to each Named Plaintiff: Norma Guadalupe Beltran, Maria
Arely Bonilla, Jesus Gonzalez, Maria Lara, Ramiro Lopez, Anita
Ramirez, and Ervin Obdulio Rodas. Incentive payments are "often
awarded in Rule 23 class actions."

Arbor is a nationwide real estate investment trust and direct
lender.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nBP07L at no extra
charge.[CC]

ARROW FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Ashe Class Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Arrow Financial Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2024 that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Ashe class suit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of New York.

On June 23, 2023, Robert C. Ashe filed a putative class action
complaint (the "Ashe Lawsuit") against the Company in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of New York.

In addition to the Company, the complaint names as defendants
Thomas J. Murphy, the Company's former CEO and from September 30,
2022 to February 20, 2023, its interim CFO, Edward J. Campanella,
the Company's former CFO, and Penko Ivanov, the Company's current
CFO ("Individual Defendants" and, together with the Company, the
"Defendants").

The complaint alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations
and compliance policies in the Company's public filings between
March 12, 2022 and May 12, 2023.

The complaint further alleges that the Individual Defendants are
liable for these materially false and misleading statements as
"controlling persons" of the Company.

Based on these allegations, the complaint brings two claims for
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Mr. Ashe, on behalf of a purported class of shareholders, seeks
compensatory damages as well as recovery of the costs and fees
associated with the litigation.  

On December 5, 2023, plaintiff Ashe filed an amended complaint that
changed the putative class period to the period from August 5, 2022
through May 12, 2023, but challenged substantially the same
statements on the same basis.

On February 9, 2024, the Company moved to dismiss the action in its
entirety.

That motion is scheduled to be fully briefed on May 6, 2024.
All discovery in the action is stayed pending a decision on that
motion.

The Company continues to believe the lawsuit to be without merit
and expressly denies any wrongdoing in connection with the matters
claimed in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend the
lawsuit.

Arrow Financial Corporation is a bank holding company that
provides commercial and consumer banking, as well as financial
products and services.[BN]




ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Pizzuto Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Assertio Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2024 that the
Pizzuto class suit dismissal motion remains pending in the District
of Massachusetts.

On March 4, 2024, the Massachusetts court held oral argument on the
Company’s motion to dismiss, which remains pending.

On March 25, 2022, a stockholder of Homology, Michael C. Pizzuto,
filed a putative class action complaint alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, against Homology and certain of its executives.
Pizzuto v. Homology Medicines, Inc., No. 2:22– CV – 01968 (C.D.
Cal 2022).

The complaint alleges that Homology failed to disclose certain
information regarding efficacy and safety in connection with a
Phase I/II HMI-102 clinical trial, and seeks damages in an
unspecified amount.

The case is in its early stages.

Homology believes the claims alleged lack merit and has filed a
motion to transfer venue (filed September 2, 2022) and a motion to
dismiss (filed October 17, 2022).

On April 18, 2023, the court granted the motion to transfer,
finding that venue was not proper in the Central District of
California and transferring the case to the District of
Massachusetts.

Following the transfer, the case number changed to 1:23-cv-10858-AK
(D. Mass.).

On May 9, 2023, the Massachusetts court issued an order permitting
the parties to submit updated briefs in connection with the motion
to dismiss, which were submitted on June 8, 2023, July 13, 2023,
and August 3, 2023.

The motion to dismiss remains pending.

On March 4, 2024, the Massachusetts court held oral argument on the
Company's motion to dismiss, which remains pending.

As the outcome is not presently determinable, any loss is neither
probable nor reasonably estimable.

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

ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Assertio Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2024 that the
Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated
Christiansen securities class suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

Christiansen v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-10292 (filed December 5, 2022 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York) (the "New York Action").

Three additional related putative securities class action lawsuits
were subsequently filed by Spectrum shareholders against Spectrum
and certain of its former executive officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York: Osorio-Franco v.
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10292
(filed December 5, 2022); Cummings v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10677 (filed December 19, 2022); and
Carneiro v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-00767 (filed January 30, 2023).

These three New York lawsuits allege that Spectrum and certain of
its former executive officers made false or misleading statements
about, inter alia, the safety and efficacy of and clinical trial
data for poziotinib in violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seek
remedies including damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and
such other relief as may be determined by the Court.

On February 15, 2023, the Court consolidated the three New York
lawsuits.

On March 21, 2023, the Court entered an order designating Steven
Christiansen as the lead plaintiff.

Lead plaintiff Christiansen filed an amended consolidated complaint
in the New York Action under the caption Christiansen v. Spectrum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc, et al., on May 30, 2023, alleging a Class
Period between March 17, 2022 and September 2022.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated New York
Action on July 25, 2023, which was fully briefed as of October 19,
2023.

On January 23, 2024, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in
part as to five of the challenged statements but denied the motion
to dismiss as to two specific statements.

The Company filed its answer to the complaint on March 8, 2024.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

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

ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Edwards Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Assertio Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2024 that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Edwards securities
class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Edwards v. Assertio Holdings, Inc., et al., Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware, Case No. 2024-0151. On February 19, 2024,
this putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by a
purported shareholder, alleging that certain former officers and
directors of Spectrum breached their fiduciary duties in connection
the Spectrum Merger, and that Guggenheim Securities LLC and
Assertio aided and abetted such fiduciary duty breaches. The
Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

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

ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Luo Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Assertio Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2024 that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Luo securities class
suit in the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada.

Luo v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court,
District of Nevada, Case No. 2:21-cv-01612. On August 31, 2021,
this putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by a
purported shareholder, alleging that Spectrum and certain of its
former executive officers and directors made false or misleading
statements and failed to disclose material facts about Spectrum's
business and the prospects of approval for its Biologic License
Application ("BLA") to the FDA for eflapegrastim (ROLVEDON) in
violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On November 1, 2021, four individuals and one entity filed
competing motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and for approval
of counsel.

On July 28, 2022, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel
for the putative class.

On September 26, 2022, an amended complaint was filed alleging,
inter alia, false and misleading statements with respect to
ROLVEDON manufacturing operations and controls and adding
allegations that defendants misled investors about the efficacy of,
clinical trial data and market need for poziotinib during a Class
Period of March 7, 2018 to August 5, 2021.

The amended complaint seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as may be determined by the Court.

On November 30, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which was fully briefed as of February 27, 2023.


On February 6, 2024, the Court held a hearing on the motion to
dismiss and issued an order dismissing the lawsuit without
prejudice to the lead plaintiff's ability to replead their claims.


The lead plaintiff's deadline to file a further amended complaint
is March 29, 2024.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

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

ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Shapiro Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Assertio Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2024 that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Shapiro securities
class suit in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Illinois.

Shapiro v. Assertio Holdings, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:24-cv-00169. On January
5, 2024, this putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by
a purported shareholder, alleging that Assertio and certain of its
current and former executive officers made false or misleading
statements and failed to disclose material facts regarding the
likely impact of INDOCIN sales and the Spectrum Merger on
Assertio's profitability in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act").

As of the March 5, 2024 deadline, seven individuals and entities
had filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and for approval
of counsel.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

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

ASSOCIATED PROTECTION: Millhouse Sues Over Time Shaving Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TREVOUS MILLHOUSE, on behalf of himself and current and former
aggrived employees, Plaintiff v. ASSOCIATED PROTECTION SPECIALISTS,
INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
24STCV05964 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 11, 2024) seeks
civil penalties and all other available relief associated with
Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code.

Plaintiff Millhouse was employed by Defendants in an hourly
position at Defendants' location in Los Angeles from approximately
September 2022 to present. Throughout Plaintiff's employment,
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff all wages at the applicable
minimum wage for all hours worked due to Defendants' policies,
practices, and/or procedures including time shaving.

Based in Los Angeles, CA, Associated Protection Specialists, Inc.
provides security guard services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Joseph Lavi, Esq.
           Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
           Cassandra Castro, Esq.
           Jovahn Wiggins, Esq.
           LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
           8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
           Beverly Hills, CA 90211
           Telephone: (310) 432-0000
           Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
           E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                   vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                   ccastro@lelawfirm.com
                   jwiggins@lelawfirm.com

AT&T INC: Piercy et al. Allege ERISA Violations of Plan Transfer
----------------------------------------------------------------
LANELL PIERCY, WILLA G. WARD, THOMAS L. MAZZEO, and SUE RUSH,
individually and as representatives on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. AT&T INC., AT&T SERVICES,
INC. - and - STATE STREET GLOBAL ADVISORS TRUST CO., Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-10608 (D.Mass., March 11, 2024) alleges the
Defendants of violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974.

In or around April 2023, AT&T and AT&T Services engaged State
Street to assist AT&T in offloading its pension liabilities. AT&T
offloaded over eight billion dollars of its Plan pension
liabilities--retirement money it had promised to pay 96,000 Plan
participants and beneficiaries--to Athene Annuity and Life Company
and Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company of New York,
subsidiaries of Athene Holding Ltd. In doing so, AT&T removed those
Plan participants and former employees from the Plan and placed
them beyond ERISA's protections. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to
right this wrong, and to restore AT&T's pensioners to their
rightful places of financial security by recouping AT&T's
ill-gotten gains and otherwise ensuring the safety of Plaintiffs'
retirements.

AT&T Inc. is a global telecommunications company whose subsidiaries
and affiliates operate worldwide in technology industries. It is
one of the most valuable companies in the world, with a market
capitalization of $118.83 billion. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Douglas S. Brooks, Esq.
            Elizabeth N. Mulvey, Esq.
            LIBBY HOOPES BROOKS & MULVEY, P.C.
            260 Franklin Street
            Boston, MA 02110
            Telephone: (617) 338-9300
            Facsimile: (617) 338-9911
            E-mail: dbrooks@lhbmlegal.com
                    emulvey@lhbmlegal.com

                    - and -

           Cyril V. Smith, Esq.
           ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
           100 E. Pratt Street, Suite 2440
           Baltimore, MD 21202
           Telephone: (410) 949-1145
           Facsimile: (410) 659-0436
           E-mail: csmith@zuckerman.com

                   - and -

           Bryan M. Reines, Esq.
           ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
           1800 M Street N.W., Suite 10000
           Washington, D.C. 20036
           Telephone: (202) 778-1846
           Facsimile: (202) 822-8106
           E-mail: breines@zuckerman.com

AUTOMATIC DATA: Seeks More Time to File Kiani Class Cert Response
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Amir Kiani, et al., v.
Automatic Data Processing Incorporated, Case No. 4:23-cv-00508-BGM
(D. Ariz.), the Defendant/Counterclaimant ADP, Inc. requests that
the Court enter an order extending ADP's deadline to file its
response to the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a
collective action.

This is ADP's first request for an extension with respect to this
motion.

On Feb. 28, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their motion to certify.
Currently, ADP's deadline to respond to the motion to certify is
March 13, 2024. ADP requests a 16-day extension on the deadline, up
to and including Friday, March 29, 2024, to file its Response.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 11, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VuJTIN at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq.
          Margot Veranes, Esq.
          Taylor M. Secemski, Esq.
          LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C.
          349 North Fourth Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85003-1505
          E-mail: nick@lubinandenoch.com
                  margot@lubinandenoch.com
                  taylor@lubinandenoch.com

                - and -

          Ivelisse Bonilla, Esq.
          Shannon Giles, Esq.
          AWERKAMP, BONILLA & GILES, P.C.
          6891 North Oracle Road, Ste. 155
          Tucson, AZ 85701-4287
          E-mail: ib@abdilaw.com
                  sg@abdilaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph A. Kroeger, Esq.
          Joshua R. Woodard, Esq.
          Audrey E. Chastain, Esq.
          SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
          One South Church Avenue, Suite 1500
          Tucson, AZ 85701-1630
          Telephone: (520) 882-1200
          Facsimile: (520) 884-1294
          E-mail: jkroeger@swlaw.com
                  jwoodard@swlaw.com
                  achastain@swlaw.com

AVANADE INC: Filing of Bid for Class Certification Due June 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADISON LAIRD,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AVANADE INC., a Washington corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-04237-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Charles Breyer entered an order approving the joint case management
statement & proposed
Order:

  Class Certification Discovery Cutoff:          May 17, 2024

  Motion for Class Certification Deadline:       June 17, 2024

  Opposition to Motion for Class Certification   July 17, 2024
  Deadline:

  Reply ISO Motion for Class Certification       July 31, 2024
  Deadline:

  Hearing on Motion for Class Certification:     Aug. 23, 2024

The Plaintiff filed this class action, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, against the Defendant in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco on June
28, 2023, for United States Fair Credit Report Act ("FCRA") and
Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act ("ICRAA") violations
stemming from the Defendant's failure to meet the disclosure and
standalone requirements of the FCRA and ICRAA, and failure to
obtain proper authorization under the FCRA and ICRAA. The Plaintiff
believes these violations are certifiable, among both defined
classes, and meritorious.

The Plaintiff is a California resident who worked for Defendant in
San Francisco, California, as a Portfolio Manager, from December
2020 to April 2022.

Avanade is a global professional services company providing IT
consulting and services.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M4YPC6 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Allen Feghali, Esq.
          Jacquelyne P. VanEmmerik, Esq.
          MOON LAW GROUP, PC
          1055 W 7th St 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 320-0519

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joan B. Tucker Fife, Esq.
          Tristan R. Kirk, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          101 California Street, 35th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 591-1400
          E-mail: jfife@winston.com
                  tkirk@winston.com

AVOYELLES PARISH: Simmons Seeks More Time to File Pleadings
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VINCENT SIMMONS, v. POLICE
JURY OF AVOYELLES PARISH ET AL., Case No. 1:22-cv-01971-JE-JPM
(W.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
motion for additional time to file responsive pleading:

-- The plaintiff moves until March 18, 2024 to file a response to

    defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion for

    Summary Judgment, to-wit:

    1. Undersigned counsel shows that on Jan. 24, 2024, defendant,

       Jerold Edward "Eddie" Knoll, Sr., filed a Motion for
Judgment
       on the Pleadings and a Motion for Summary Judgment.

    2. Undersigned counsel shows that an opposition to the motions

       was due on Feb. 21, 2024.

    3. Given the extensive nature of the filings, undersigned
counsel
       needs additional time to file a response.

    4. The Defendant does not object to plaintiff having until
March
       18, 2024 to file responsive pleadings.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 11, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dSD6aJ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Malcolm X. Larvadain, Esq.
          Justin C. Bonus, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MALCOLM X. LARVADAIN, INC.
          626 Eighth Street
          Alexandria, LA 71301
          Telephone: (318) 445-3533
          Facsimile: (318) 445-4030
          E-mail: justin.bonus@gmail.com

                - and -

          Jonathan I. Edelstein, Esq.
          Robert Grossman, Esq.
          EDELSTEIN & GROSSMAN
          501 Fifth Avenue, Suite 514
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 871-0571
          E-mail: jonathan.edelstein.2@gmail.com

BANK OF MONTREAL: May Face Class Suit Over Online Banking Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Evans, writing for OrillaMatters, reports that Orillia's
Debbie Sammit is leading the charge in organizing a class-action
lawsuit against BMO Canada.

In September 2022, Sammit noticed $3,000 had been e-transferred out
of her account without her authorization. After going public with
her story on OrilliaMatters, 30 people contacted her to say they
had the same experience.

An Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada investigation from
2021 found BMO Canada's online banking software had "significant
weaknesses" in its technical safeguards between June 2017 and
January 2018, allowing potential attackers to breach about 113,000
bank accounts.

"A lot of other banks are doing things like a two-step
authentication code to improve their security," Sammit said. "Even
after that breach, the Bank of Montreal has done nothing to improve
their security."

Sammit and the 30 others who have experienced alleged fraud from
their BMO accounts have hired a lawyer with the intent of launching
a class-action lawsuit against the bank.

But the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments, who
investigated Sammit's original claim, says BMO did nothing wrong.

"We considered your complaint very carefully," reads its ruling.
"While we are sympathetic to your circumstances, we are not
recommending BMO compensate you because the transaction was
completed using your banking information (and) the account
agreement says consumers must protect their banking information."

The ombudsman said its investigation determined someone signed on
to Sammit's online banking using her debit card number and online
banking password to complete the e-transfer.

Further, the ombudsman said the bank sent a one-time verification
code to the email address on file and the "code was successfully
entered the first time." In addition, a scan of Sammit's "device
showed no evidence of malware or viruses."

Sammit, however, claims she never received the verification code.
Nor did the others who have had similar issues, she says.

"They say an (online banking password) was sent to our email
addresses. I (and they) never received one," she said, adding she
checked through her emails, including the spam and trash folders.

"I kept asking them for proof that they had sent the (code) to me,
but they ignored my multiple requests," Sammit told
OrilliaMatters.

It's frustrating, she says.

"The OPP is saying because BMO deems it's not their fault, they
(OPP) have completed their investigation," Sammit said.

Meanwhile, she added, "BMO says if I have any further issues, go to
the OPP. So, I'm sent from one organization to another, in circles,
with no results."

That frustration is what led to the idea to file a class-action
lawsuit.

"We are trying to tackle it legally together to get our own money
back," says Sammit, who alleges some members of the group have lost
more than she has.

"Someone in the group had somebody go into their line of credit and
switch it over to their chequing account before taking it. So, now
they are paying interest on money that somebody stole from them."

Others in the group have lost upward of $18,000 to theft, she
claims.

"One person's e-transfer limit was only $3,000," Sammit said. "The
limit was raised and then they took out $5,000 three times over.
The bank told them that they had upped the limit without their
authorization."

Sammit says "there is something really strange going on" that is
costing people their money. While she is holding BMO responsible
for her missing money, she still isn't sure who took it.

"It's just strange that all of these people in the last year or two
have suffered from this," she said.

She is hopeful she will get her money back through the lawsuit.

"I think the biggest thing, though, is spreading awareness," she
said. "I don't want this to happen to anybody else."

BMO Canada media relations director Jeff Roman called Sammit's
predicament "an unfortunate situation" but said, due to "customer
confidentiality," he could not disclose specific information about
it.

"We encourage customers to be diligent in protecting their online
and mobile credentials and keep their secret code and card number
confidential," Roman said in an email response to OrilliaMatters.

"Customers should sign up for BMO Alerts to monitor their account
for suspicious transaction activity, and frequently change their
password or PIN. Customers should not share their banking
information and password with friends or family members.

"Customers should always choose strong and unique passwords that
cannot be easily guessed by someone else, use a different password
for each online account, never use birthdays, anniversaries,
children's names, for example.

"If customers think they are becoming victim of a scam or notice
strange activity on their account, they should report it to their
bank immediately. We always encourage customers to contact the
police so we can support their investigation and their attempt to
recover the funds."

He noted BMO offers online resources that focus on how customers
can protect themselves. [GN]

BARCLAYS BANK: Puchtler Seeks Damages Over Securities Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PUCHTLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BARCLAYS PLC, BARCLAYS BANK PLC, JAMES E.
STALEY, TUSHAR MORZARIA, and C.S. VENKATAKRISHNAN, Case No.
1:24-cv-01872 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2024) seeks damages for
Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of short sellers
of VXX, an exchange traded note (ETN) issued by Defendant Barclays
that is designed to track VIX futures and short-term stock market
volatility.

According to Plaintiff, Barclays committed securities fraud by
failing to inform investors and the market that it had no controls
in place to determine whether it had any registered securities
available to be sold. Barclays also failed to disclose to investors
that it had illegally issued billions of dollars of unregistered
securities, including VXX ETNs, in violation of the federal
securities registration laws. When the issue was exposed, Barclays
was forced to suspend, without warning, any further issuances and
sales of new VXX ETNs just before the market opened on March 14,
2022. This caused VXX's market price to skyrocket and as a result,
investors who were short VXX suffered significant losses, says the
Plaintiff.

Barclays PLC is a universal bank holding company based in London,
UK. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
         Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
         Donald R. Hall, Esq.
         KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP     
         800 Third Ave., 38th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (212) 687-1980
         Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
         E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com
                 rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                 dhall@kaplanfox.com

                 - and –
     
        Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
        Timothy Sperling, Esq.
        Jeff Bergman, Esq.
        Jerry Santangelo, Esq.
        SPERLING & SLATER
        55 West Monroe Street
        Suite 3200
        Chicago, IL 60603
        Telephone: (312) 641-3200
        Facsimile: (312) 641-6492
        E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com
                tsperling@sperling-law.com
                jbergman@sperling-law.com
                jsantangelo@sperling-law.com

BASCOM'S STEAKHOUSE: Seghrouchni Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALI SEGHROUCHNI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BASCOM'S STEAKHOUSE, INC., and FRED B. BULLARD, JR., individually,
Case No. 8:23-cv-02568-WFJ-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge William
Jung entered an order granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiff's proposed Rule 23 class definition:

   "all servers who worked for the Defendants within the five years

   preceding this lawsuit," presumably excluding, like the in FLSA

   collective, any servers who were non-tipped, non-minimum wage
   employees."

The Court certifies a collective Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
action as to Counts II and IV.

The Court declines to certify a Rule 23 class action.

Within 21 days of the entry of this Order, the parties are to
submit a joint motion with a proposed collective notice and means
of
dissemination.

Bascom's is a refined dining restaurant.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GQInu5 at no extra
charge.[CC]

BELIV LLC: Bid to Redact Portions of Kelly Testimony Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN KELLY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BELIV LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-08134-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis Liman
entered an order granting Beliv's requests that the Court permit it
to redact certain portions of the deposition testimony of Plaintiff
Kelly from the publicly filed version of Beliv's opposition to
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Plaintiff did not submit any opposition to the request. There
is a presumption of immediate public access to judicial documents
under both the common law and the First Amendment.

Although the Defendant's opposition to the motion for class
certification is a judicial document, the Court concludes that the
sensitivity of Plaintiff's medical condition outweighs the
presumption of public access, the Court said.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u6Yld9 at no extra
charge.[CC]

BELIV LLC: Wins Summary Judgment v. Kelly
------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN KELLY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BELIV LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-08134-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Court entered an order
granting the Defendants motions for summary judgment and to strike
the Meyers Declaration.

-- The Plaintiffs motion for class certification, and Defendants
    motion to strike the Matthews Declaration, are denied as moot.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I2kTgn at no extra
charge.[CC]

BENELUX CORP: Mertens et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum Wages & Tips
-------------------------------------------------------------
OCTAVIA MERTENS, ANGELICA HERRERA, BELEN CADENA, and KELLY SANCHEZ
on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated,, v. BENELUX
CORPORATION d/b/a PALAZIO MEN'S CLUB, ANTHANASES STAMATOPOULOUS,
and MICHAEL MEALEY, Case No. 1:24-cv-00276 (W.D. Tex., March 12,
2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed as wait staff at Defendants' strip
club, Palazio, in Austin, Texas. Defendants allegedly did not pay
Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees the required minimum
wage and deprived them of their right to receive all tips they
earned under the FLSA. The Plaintiffs further allege Defendants of
fraudulent filing of tax returns.

Headquartered in Austin, TX, Benelux Corporation is engaged in the
cabaret business.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan O. Estes, Esq.
     Caitlin Boehne, Esq.
     Tanner Scheef, Esq.
     Austin Kaplan, Esq.
     KAPLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC     
     2901 Bee Cave Road, Suite G
     Austin, TX 78746
     Telephone: (512) 814-7348
     Facsimile: (512) 692-2788
     E-mail: restes@kaplanlawatx.com
             cboehne@kaplanlawtx.com
             tscheef@kaplanlawtx.com
             akaplan@kaplanlawtx.com

BICARA CORP: Diaz Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
----------------------------------------------
Alexis Cantos Diaz, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BICARA CORP. d/b/a SAVINO’S
PIZZERIA & WINE BAR, VINNY VIANCANELO, JULIAN DOE, and MIKE
VIANCANELO, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01745-NCM-MMH (E.D.N.Y.,
March 8, 2024) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Alexis Cantos Diaz was employed at Savino's Pizzeria
restaurant, from approximately October 2010 until October 20, 2023.
He was working approximately 58 hours per week. However, he
received the same weekly amounts, regardless of the exact number of
hours worked in a given week. In addition, he has been paid in cash
throughout his employment by Defendants and received no paystubs or
wage statements of any sort with his pay, says the Plaintiff.

Bicara Corp. d/b/a Savino's Pizzeria & Wine Bar is a domestic
business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Samuel, Esq.
          THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
          1441 Broadway Suite 6085
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884

BRIGHTON CORNERSTONE: Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULETTE WEDDING,
individually and on behalf of those similarly-situated, v. BRIGHTON
CORNERSTONE GROUP, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00028-DJH-HBB (W.D. Ky.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion
for preliminary approval of settlement, certification of a class
under Rule 23(b)(3):

The Parties specifically ask that the Court:

   (a) Certifies a Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) for the
KWHA
       claims for the purpose of effectuating this Settlement
       Agreement to include the Plaintiff and all Class Members;

   (b) Authorizes notice of the proposed collective action
settlement
       under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act
      (FLSA) for the purpose of effectuating this Settlement
Agreement
       to include the Plaintiff and any other Class Members;

   (c) Preliminarily approves this Settlement Agreement as being
       fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the

       Class and a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide
       dispute under the FLSA and KWHA, subject to any objections
that
       may be raised at the final fairness hearing and final
approval
       of class and collective settlement by this Court;

   (d) Appoints the Plaintiff Paulette Wedding as Class
       representative;

   (e) Appoints Mark Foster as Class Counsel with authority to
enter
       into and effectuate this Settlement Agreement on behalf of
the
       Class and Collective;

   (f) Approves as to form and content the Parties' proposed Notice
as
       reasonable notice practicable under the circumstances and in

       full compliance with applicable law, to be mailed by Class
       Counsel within 14 days of the Court’s entry of the
requested
       Order and which shall explain that the act of cashing or
       otherwise negotiating any portion of a Settlement Payment
shall
       be deemed a 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) consent and release by the
Class
       Member of claims under the FLSA;

   (g) Finds that the Notice of Settlement to be given in
accordance
       with the Preliminary Approval Order constitutes the best
notice
       practicable under the circumstances and constitutes valid,
due
       and sufficient notice to all Class Members, and fully
satisfies
       the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(c)(2),
       the FLSA, and the requirements of due process;

The Plaintiff worked as a nurse for the Defendant.

Brighton offers long term care and skilled rehab and nursing.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 12, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mPvMTF at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark N. Foster, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Telephone: (270) 213-1303
          E-mail: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Rex P. Fennessey, Esq.
          MCMAHON BERGER, P.C.
          2730 North Ballas Road, Suite 200
          St. Louis, MO 63131
          Telephone: (314) 567-7350
          Facsimile: (314) 567-5968
          E-mail: fennessey@mcmahonberger.com

BRINKER INT'L: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA HALE and JESUS
GOMEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
and the general public, v. BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation; BRINKER INTERNATIONAL PAYROLL COMPANY, L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership; BRINKER RESTAURANT CORPORATION, a
Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
3:21-cv-09978-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties request the Court to
grant a further extension of time for the Plaintiffs to file their
motion for class certification from April 1, 2024 to Sept. 16,
2024.

The Parties further request that the opposition be continued until
Oct. 16, 2024, and reply brief until Nov. 6, 2024. The Hearing on
Plaintiffs' motion for Class Certification shall be Nov. 18, 2024,
at 10:00 a.m.

Brinker is an American multinational hospitality industry company.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 12, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dBRkZo at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Jose Maria D. Patino, Jr., Esq.
          Tyson Gibb, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 460
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  jose@setarehlaw.com
                  tyson@setarehlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kevin D. Reese, Esq.
          Geoffrey R. Pittman, Esq.
          Robert Yang, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          50 California Street, 9th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
          Telephone: (415) 394-9400
          Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
          E-mail: Kevin.Reese@jacksonlewis.com
                  Geoffrey.Pittman@jacksonlewis.com
                  Rob.Yang@jacksonlewis.com

BUTH-NA-BODHAIGE: Carrington and Alexander Allege WARN Act Breaches
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KENYA CARRINGTON and BRITTNEY ALEXANDER, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BUTH-NA-BODHAIGE,
INC. doing business as "THE BODY SHOP" and AURELIUS CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, LP, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01768 (E.D.N.Y., March
10, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act and the New York Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act.

The Plaintiffs and the other Class members were employees of
Defendant who were terminated without cause on their part, as part
of or as the reasonably expected consequence of a mass layoff or
plant closing, which was effectuated by Defendant on March 1, 2024.
Allegedly, Defendant failed to give them and the other Class
members 60 days advance written notice of their terminations, the
Plaintiffs assert.

Based in Buth-Na-Bodhaige, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
manufactures and retails cosmetics products. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

CARVANA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Gardner Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
VONDA GARDNER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. CARVANA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00458-DCN (N.D. Ohio, March 11, 2024) challenges
Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees their overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for
the hours they worked over 40 each workweek under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and Ohio
Revise Code's Section 4111.03.

The Plaintiff was first employed by Defendant in August 2021. She
was hired to provide security services at Defendant's inspection
facility in Euclid OH and was paid a rate of $17 per hour.

Headquartered in Tempe, AZ, Carvana, Inc. operates a business which
buys and sells used cars online throughout the United States. It
maintains a facility at 20001 Euclid Ave., Euclid, OH. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert B. Kapitan, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Building, Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: robert@lazzarolawfirm.com
                       anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com

CASSAVA SCIENCES: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Stock Purchaser Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re Cassava Sciences, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00751-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs
move the Court for an order:

    (i) certifying the Class defined as:

        all purchasers or acquirers of Cassava common stock or
call
        options on Cassava common or sellers of put options on
Cassava
        common stock ("Cassava Securities") between Sept. 14, 2020
and
        Oct. 12, 2023, inclusive.

        Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and their
immediate
        families, the officers and directors of the Company and
their
        immediate families, their legal representatives, heirs,
        successors or assigns, and any entity in which any of the
        Defendants have or had a controlling interest.

   (ii) appointing the Plaintiffs as Class representative pursuant
to
        Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3); and

  (iii) appointing Lead Counsel Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP to

        serve as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).

The suit is a securities fraud class action alleging violations of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rule 10b-5 against Cassava and three of its top executives: CEO
Barbier, CFO Schoen, and Senior VP Burns.

The Plaintiffs allege that, between Sept. 14, 2020 and Oct. 12,
2023, inclusive, the Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to
promote their experimental Alzheimer's drug, simufilam, by
concealing facts that undermined the integrity of Cassava's
research.

Specifically, the Defendants used research tainted by extensive
data manipulation to obtain National Institutes of Health ("NIH")
grants and publish "in peer-reviewed journals" as part of a
"strategy" to "validate" Cassava's "unique scientific approach."

Cassava is an American pharmaceutical company.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 13, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sL6Pw8 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel S. Drosman, Esq.
          Rachel Jensen, Esq.
          Kevin A. Lavelle, Esq.
          Megan A. Rossi, Esq.
          Heather Geiger, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: dand@rgrdlaw.com
                  rachelj@rgrdlaw.com
                  klavelle@rgrdlaw.com
                  mrossi@rgrdlaw.com
                  hgeiger@rgrdlaw.com

                - and -

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

                - and -

          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.com

CASSAVA SCIENCES: Securities Suit Returned to Judge Ezra
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re Cassava Sciences, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00751-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge
Susan Hightower entered an order that this case be removed from
Magistrate Judge's docket and returned to the docket of the
Honorable David A. Ezra.

On March 8, 2023,the parties filed a Joint Advisory setting forth
their agreed or proposed deadlines for:

   (1) motions to amend or supplement pleadings or to join
additional
       parties, and

   (2) reply expert reports.

In their Joint Advisory, the parties state that they "now agree
that no deadline for reply expert reports is needed at this time,"
and set forth their respective positions as to the deadline for
motions to amend or supplement pleadings or to join additional
parties.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1Gtqjq at no extra
charge.[CC]

CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT: Perry Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Luke Perry, as an individual and on behalf of
all other similarly situated v. CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES, INC., a New York non-profit corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2400526 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of
Riverside, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on March 5, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00489.

On January 23, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a civil Class Action
Complaint for Damages against Defendant which sets forth the
following causes of action: Minimum Wage Violations; Failure to Pay
All Overtime Wages; Meal Period Violations; Rest Period Violations;
Failure to Reimburse Employees for Necessary Business Expenditures;
Wage Statement Violations; and Unfair Competition.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Adam Y. Siegel, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
          Phone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          Email: adam.siegel@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Michael Y. Hsueh, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          160 W. Santa Clara St., Suite 400
          San Jose, CA 95113-1708
          Phone: (408) 579-0404
          Facsimile: (408) 454-0290
          Email: michael.hsueh@jacksonlewis.com


CENTRAL VALLEY: Faces Nataren et al. Suit Over Unfair Farm Labor
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO NATAREN, ARTURO VILLA, and MOISES ROCHA, on behalf of
themselves, the State of California, all similarly situated
aggrieved employees, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. CENTRAL VALLEY FARMING, INC., CARLOS BARAJAS, an Individual,
JOSE MARIA BARAJAS, an Individual, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-at-00280 (E.D. Cal.. March 8,
2024) arises out of Defendants' failure to pay non-exempt employees
all wages it owed them by failing to pay for rest and recovery
periods and other nonproductive time separate from any piece-rate
compensation and failing to provide non-exempt employees with
legally compliant meal periods.

The Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of violating the Migrant and
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, the California Labor
Code and the California Business and Professions Code's Unfair
Competition Law.

Central Valley Farming, Inc. was a California Corporation conducts
business in and around the district, including in San Joaquin
County. It has hundreds of employees and provides employees in the
agricultural industry. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
          Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
          Cody A. Bolce, Esq.
          Mallison & Martinez, Esq.
          1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
          Oakland, CA 94612-3547
          Telephone: (510) 832-9999
          Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
          E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
                  HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
                  CBolce@TheMMLawFirm.com

CES CLEANING CONTRACTORS: Elias Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CES Cleaning
Contractors, LLC. The case is styled as Ignacio Elias, an
individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CES
Cleaning Contractors, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0002816 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., March 6, 2024).

The case type is stated "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."

CES -- https://www.cescleaningcontractors.com/ -- offers
decontamination for schools and businesses using
EPA-approved Human Coronavirus Disinfectants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
          STANSBURY BROWN LAW, PC
          2610 1/2 Abbot Kinney Blvd.
          Venice, CA 90291-5590
          Phone: 323-207-5925
          Email: dbrown@stansburybrownlaw.com


CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Herrick Class Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW HERRICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., a Delaware corporation,
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation,
UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and OPTUM, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-00293 (M.D. Tenn., March 12,
2024) accuses the Defendants of failing to adequately protect
sensitive information concerning millions of individuals, resulting
in a massive data breach.  

On or about February 21, 2024, Defendant Change Healthcare
experienced a data breach where Plaintiff's and class members'
private information was compromised. The incident was identified as
a ransomware attack perpetrated by prominent cybercrime group
"Blackcat". The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to take
reasonable, timely, and appropriate measures to protect against
such incidents. As a direct result of Defendants' failures,
Plaintiff and class members have suffered and will indefinitely
suffer serious injury.

The Plaintiff accuses Defendants of multiple unlawful acts arising
from the data breach, including, among others, negligence, breach
of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, breach of confidence, and unjust enrichment.

Headquartered in Nashville, TN, Change Healthcare provides revenue
and payment cycle management that connects payers, providers, and
patients within the healthcare system. It is part of the
UnitedHealth healthcare empire. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         John Spragens, Esq.
         SPRAGENS LAW PLC     
         311 22nd Ave. N.
         Nashville, TN 37203
         Telephone: (615) 983-8900
         Facsimile: (615) 682-8533
         E-mail: john@spragenslaw.com

                 - and –
     
         Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq.
         Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
         Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq.
         Nigel Halliday, Esq.
         SEEGER WEISS LLP
         55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
         Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660
         Telephone: (973) 639-9100
         Facsimile: (973) 639-9393
         E-mail: jscullion@seegerweiss.com
                 cayers@seegerweiss.com
                 jsmigelsky@seegerweiss.com
                 nhalliday@seegerweiss.com

CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Medina Suit Over Private Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., OPTUM, INC. and UNITEDHEALTH
GROUP INCORPORATED, Case No. 2:24-cv-00766-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal., March
12, 2024) accuses the Defendants of failing to protect Plaintiff
and class members' confidential information, resulting in a data
breach.

This action arises from a massive data breach that hit Change
Healthcare, wherein confidential health and personal identifying
information of millions of individuals, including that of Plaintiff
and class members, was illegally accessed by ALPHV/Blackcat, a
prominent group of cybercriminals. The data breach, which occurred
on February 21, 2024, allegedly came about as a result of
Defendants' inadequate security procedures and failure to protect
sensitive information entrusted to them. The Defendants' actions
have placed Plaintiff and class members at a significant and
increased risk of identity theft. Defendants are accused of
negligence, unjust enrichment, and violations of California state
laws.

Change Healthcare Inc. is a healthcare technology company that
offers healthcare providers, pharmacies, and insurance companies
claims and reimbursement management, billing solutions, and
prescription processing. It is a subsidiary of healthcare
conglomerate UnitedHealth Group and is headquartered in Nashville,
TN. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Steven Lopez, Esq.
         David M. Berger, Esq.
         Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
         Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
         GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP     
         1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
         Oakland, CA 94607
         Telephone: (510) 350-9700
         Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
         E-mail: sal@classlawgroup.com
                 rmr@classlawgroup.com
                 dmb@classlawgroup.com
                 rlm@classlawgroup.com

CHARLES AGRUSA: Roberts Seeks Unpaid Wages and Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
LYNETTE ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. CHARLES AGRUSA, INC. and SMART DATA
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-00914 (D. Minn., March 12, 2024)
seeks unpaid wages and overtime premiums, damages, and penalties
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is a current employee of Defendant, working as an
hourly-paid call center representative since November 2022.
Throughout her employment, Plaintiff regularly worked a substantial
amount of time off-the-clock as part of her job duties.
Specifically, Plaintiff and other call center representatives
perform boot-up and call ready work before logging in to
Defendants' phone system. However, Defendants never paid him and
similarly situated employees for time worked off the clock, and
also failed to keep accurate records of the hours worked by their
call center representatives, in violation of the FLSA, the
Plaintiff alleges.

Charles Agrusa, Inc, doing business as JMS and Associates, is a
business process co-sourcing company based in Minnesota. The
company was acquired by Smart Data Solutions, LLC in 2022. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
        Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
        JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC     
        444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
        Saint Paul, MN 55101
        Telephone: (612) 436-1800
        Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
        E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
                zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com

CHEX SYSTEMS INC: Willis Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chex Systems, Inc.
The case is styled as Earl Willis, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Chex Systems, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-01814 (N.D. Ill., March 4, 2024).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

ChexSystems -- https://www.chexsystems.com/ -- is an American check
verification service and consumer reporting agency owned by the
eFunds subsidiary of Fidelity National Information Services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Larry Paul Smith, Esq.
          David M. Marco, Esq.
          SMITHMARCO, P.C.
          5250 Old Orchard Road, Suite 300
          Skokie, IL 60077
          Phone: (312) 324-3532
          Email: lsmith@smithmarco.com
                 dmarco@smithmarco.com


CIGNA CORP: Sachs Sues Unlawful Insurance Claims Rejection
----------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW SACHS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CIGNA CORPORATION and CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00329-SVN (D.
Conn., March 11, 2024) arises from Cigna's illegal scheme to
systematically, wrongfully, and automatically deny its insureds the
thorough, individualized physician review of claims guaranteed to
them by law and, ultimately, the payments for necessary medical
procedures owed to them under Cigna's health insurance policies.

Relying on the PXDX system, Cigna's doctors instantly reject claims
on medical grounds without ever opening patient files, leaving
thousands of patients effectively without coverage and with
unexpected bills. Moreover, Cigna breached its fiduciary duties,
including its duty of good faith and fair dealing, because its
conduct serves Cigna's own economic self-interest and elevates
Cigna's interests above the interests of its insureds, says the
suit.

Headquartered in Bloomfield, CT, Cigna is a major medical insurance
company in the United States, with 18 million members nationwide.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

              James E. Miller, Esq.
              Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
              MILLER SHAH LLP
              65 Main Street
              Chester, CT 06412
              Telephone: (866) 540-5505
              Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
              E-mail: lrubinow@millershah.com
                      jemiller@millershah.com

                      - and -

               Michael R. Reese, Esq.
               REESE LLP
               100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
               New York, NY 10025
               Telephone: (212) 643-0500
               Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
               E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com

                       - and -

              George V. Granade, Esq.
              REESE LLP
              8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
              Los Angeles, CA 90211
              Telephone: (310) 393-0070
              Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
              E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com

                      - and -

             Charles D. Moore, Esq.
             REESE LLP
             100 South 5th Street, Suite 1900
             Minneapolis, MN 55402
             Telephone: (212) 643-0500
             Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
             E-mail: cmoore@reesellp.com

                     - and -

             Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
             LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
             954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518
             San Juan, Puerto Rico 00907
             Telephone: (215) 789-4462
             E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com

CITIZENS BANK: Plaintiffs Seek to Vacate Feb. 28 Class Cert Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX REINIG, et al., v.
CITIZENS BANK, N.A. Case No. 2:15-cv-01541-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order reconsidering and reversing
and/or vacating the Court's Feb. 28, 2024 Order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 Class Certification.

Citizens Bank offers checking accounts, investing and benefits,
managing cash flow, healthcare, savings and money markets, card
products, student loans, and other.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 13, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=25iHFV at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          9 Tanner Street, Suite 101
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417

CITIZENS OPTIONS: Gibson et al. Sue Over Unfair Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH GIBSON, ALYSON INDURSKY, CASSONDRA SHAUGHNESSY, and INEZ
SLOAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CITIZENS OPTIONS UNLIMITED, INC., NYSARC, INC., and
AH, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01739 (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2024),
alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs were employed as house managers but they primarily
performed the duties of direct support professionals (DSPs). Even
though house managers regularly work many weekly overtime hours,
Defendants unlawfully avoided paying an overtime premium for any
weekly hours over 40, through two illegal mechanisms. First,
Defendants require house managers to clock out as house managers
and clock back in as DSPs for their overtime hours, so that they
are paid at a lower DSP rate for hours over 40, rather than 1.5
times their regular rate -- even though house managers perform DSP
job duties all week long, and not just during overtime hours.
Second, even though Defendants require house managers to be on call
after clocking out and leaving the facility and to perform some
work functions from home, Defendants do not compensate house
managers for any off-the-clock work, says the suit.

Citizens Options is non-profit organization that operates various
facilities for people with disabilities throughout the state of New
York. Among these facilities is the Shoreham Intermediate Care
Facility, a residential facility consisting of 11 houses in which
people with intellectual and developmental disabilities live and
receive clinical and supportive care. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Chauniqua D. Young, Esq.
           OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
           685 Third Ave., 25th Floor
           New York, NY 10017
           Telephone: (212) 245-1000
           E-mail: cyoung@outtengolden.com

                   - and -

           Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
           Benjamin A. Goldstein, Esq.
           KESSLER MATURA P.C.
           534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
           Melville, NY 11747
           Telephone: (631) 499-9100
           E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
                   bgoldstein@kesslermatura.com

COLTER ENERGY: Zaarour Seeks Conditional Collective Status
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADHAM ZAAROUR,
Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, v. COLTER
ENERGY SERVICES USA INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00443-GMN-BNW (D. Nev.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional
certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and authorizing
issuance of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) notice to the putative
collective members.

  Drive Time Collective

        All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
Colter
        who incurred unpaid drive time at any time during the past
3
        years anywhere in the United States.
  Truck Pay/Mileage Collective

        All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
Colter
        who either earned truck pay, mileage allowance, or both, at

        any time during the past 3 years anywhere in the United
        States.

  Subsistence Pay Collective

        All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
Colter
        who earned subsistence pay at any time during the past 3
years
        anywhere in the United States.

The Plaintiff requests the Court to approve and adopt Zaarour's
proposed notice and consent packet, approve and adopt Zaarour's
notice distribution plan in full, order Colter to produce within 10
days of the order granting this Motion the identities and contact
information described above, and grant all such other relief to
which Zaarour and Putative Collective Members may be entitled at
law or in equity.

Mr. Zaarour filed this collective action lawsuit to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs that
Colter owes him and others like him. Mr. Zaarour and putative
collective members work long hours, often in excess of 70 or 90
hours per week. But Colter does not pay Mr. Zaarour and putative
collective members for all hours worked at the correct overtime
rates of pay. Colter does this in various uniform, company-wide
ways.

Colter provides services in the oil and gas industry, including
production testing, fracking services, and others, in various
states, including Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 11, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DglgJg at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Esther C. Rodriguez, Esq.
          RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150
          Las Vegas, NV 89145
          Telephone: (702) 320-8400
          Facsimile: (702) 320-8401
          E-mail: esther@rodriguezlaw.com

                - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

                - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          William M. Hogg, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  whogg@mybackwages.com

COLUMBIA DEBT RECOVERY: Evans Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Columbia Debt
Recovery, LLC. The case is styled as Brandon M. Evans, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Columbia Debt
Recovery, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00410 (N.D. Ohio, March 4, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

Columbia Debt Recovery LLC -- https://www.genesiscred.com/ --
specializes in collections for the multi-family industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth Michael Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 524-2820
          Fax: (954) 524-2822
          Email: seth@epllc.com


COMPASS GROUP: Jilek Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES JILEK, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. COMPASS GROUP USA,
INC., D/B/A CANTEEN, Case No. 3:23-cv-00818-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to certify the following class and
subclasses:

   -- Class:

      All persons or entities who, within the applicable statute of

      limitations preceding the filing of this lawsuit to the date
of
      class certification, purchased an item from a vending machine

      owned or operated by Compass Group USA, Inc., in the United
      States with a credit, debit or prepaid card and were charged
an
      amount in excess of the price displayed for that item on the

      vending machine, excluding purchases from (1) machines with a

      cash discount sticker (a label informing the consumer that
the
      displayed price is the cash price, which is ten cents lower
than
      the price they will be charged if they use a
      credit/debit/prepaid card), (2) machines with a digital
shopping
      cart (a screen that displays both the cash and credit price),
or
      (3) machines that only accept credit, debit and/or prepaid
cards

   -- California Subclass:

      All persons who, within the applicable statute of limitations

      preceding the filing of this lawsuit to the date of class
      certification, purchased an item from a vending machine owned
or
      operated by Compass Group USA, Inc, in California using a
      credit, debit or prepaid card and who were charged an amount
in
      excess of the price displayed for that item, excluding
purchases
      from (1) machines with a cash discount sticker (a label
      informing the consumer that the displayed price is the cash
      price, which is ten cents lower than the price they will be
      charged if they use a credit/debit/prepaid card), (2)
machines
      with a digital shopping cart (a screen that displays both the

      cash and credit price), or (3) machines that only accept
      credit, debit and/or prepaid cards.

   -- Florida Subclass:

      All persons who, within the applicable statute of limitations

      preceding the filing of this lawsuit to the date of class
      certification, purchased an item from a vending machine owned
or
      operated by Compass Group USA, Inc, in Florida using a
credit,
      debit or prepaid card and who were charged an amount in
excess
      of the price displayed for that item, excluding purchases
from
      (1) machines with a cash discount sticker (a label informing
the
      consumer that the displayed price is the cash price, which is

      ten cents lower than the price they will be charged if they
use
      a credit/debit/prepaid card), (2) machines with a digital
      shopping cart (a screen that displays both the cash and
credit
      price), or (3) machines that only accept credit, debit and/or

      prepaid cards.

   -- South Carolina Subclass:

      All persons who, within the applicable statute of limitations

      preceding the filing of this lawsuit to the date of class
      certification, purchased an item from a vending machine owned
or
      operated by Compass Group USA, Inc, in South Carolina using a

      credit, debit or prepaid card and who were charged an amount
in
      excess of the price displayed for that item, excluding
purchases
      from (1) machines with a cash discount sticker (a label
      informing the consumer that the displayed price is the cash
      price, which is ten cents lower than the price they will be
      charged if they use a credit/debit/prepaid card), (2)
machines
      with a digital shopping cart (a screen that displays both the

      cash and credit price), or (3) machines that only accept
credit,
      debit and/or prepaid cards.

Excluded from the Class and Subclasses are the Defendant, its
employees, and employees of any subsidiary, affiliate, successors,
or assignees of Defendant, as well as the trial judge presiding
over
this case.

The Plaintiff asks that the Class and California, Florida and South
Carolina Subclasses be certified with respect to the claim for
breach of contract (Count I).

The Plaintiff also asks that they be designated as Class
Representatives for the Class and that James Jilek be designated as
California Subclass Representative, Andres Borrero be designated as

Florida Subclass Representative, and that Brian Baldwin be
designated as South Carolina Subclass Representative, and that the
undersigned attorneys be appointed Class Counsel.

Compass retails prepared foods and drinks for on-premise
consumption.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Mar. 8, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BbPW5f at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C.
          2227 South State Route 157
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 656-5130
          E-mail: rick@ghalaw.com
                  daniel@ghalaw.com

                - and -

          Mike Arias, Esq.
          Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TEAM LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 844-9696
          Facsimile: (310) 861-0168
          E-mail: mike@aswtlawyers.com
                  anthony@aswtlawyers.com

                - and -

          Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
          Martin A. Ramey, Esq.
          RHINE LAW FIRM, PC
          1612 Military Cutoff Rd, Suite 300
          Wilmington, NC 28403
          Telephone: (910) 772−9960
          Facsimile: (910) 772−9062
          E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com
                  mjr@rhinelawfirm.com

CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Gutierrez Sues Over Time Shaving Practice
--------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY GUTIERREZ, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class, Plaintiff v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON, INC. d/b/a Con
Edison, and CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. d/b/a Con
Edison, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01813 (S.D.N.Y., March 8,
2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

In or around March 2023, Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work
as a call representative/customer service representative for
Defendants' office, located at 1615 Bronxdale Ave, Bronx, NY,
10462. Plaintiff's employment with Defendants was terminated on or
around September 23, 2023. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with
Defendants, Plaintiff was scheduled to work five days per week, for
a total of 42.5 hours each week. Allegedly, Plaintiff was
time-shaved approximately 15 minutes each shift by being forced to
perform uncompensated off-the-clock work.

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Defendant Consolidated Edison, Inc. Defendants
provide electric service to approximately 3.6 million customers in
mostly all of New York City and most of Westchester County,
delivers gas to approximately 1.1 million customers in Manhattan,
the Bronx, parts of Queens and most of Westchester County, and
operates the largest steam distribution system in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        C.K. Lee, Esq.
        Anne Seelig, Esq.
        LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
        148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
        New York, NY 10011
        Telephone: (212) 465-1188
        Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

COOPER AEROBICS: Morgan Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cooper Aerobics
Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Ruby Morgan, on behalf of
herself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Cooper Aerobics Enterprises, Inc., Case No. DC-24-03396 (Tex.
Dist. Ct., Dallas Cty., March 4, 2024).

The case type is stated as "Other (Civil)."

Cooper Aerobics -- https://www.cooperaerobics.com/ -- is a health &
wellness company specializing in spa and corporate wellness
services.[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


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Settlement in Charleston Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Commissioners of Public
Works of the City of Charleston (d.b.a. Charleston Water System),
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, CVS Health Corporation,
Kimberly-Clark Corporation, The Proctor & Gamble Company, Target
Corporation, Walgreen Co., and Wal-Mart, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-00042-RMG (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard Mark Gergel
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval
of class action settlement and an award of attorneys' fees.

In this putative class action, the Plaintiff the Commissioners of
Public Works of the City of Charleston, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, alleges that the Defendants design,
market, manufacture, distribute, and/or sell wipes labeled as
"flushable" which are not actually flushable.

These wipes allegedly damage sewer systems across the country. The
Plaintiff brings claims for nuisance, trespass, strict products
liability—defective design, strict products liability—failure
to
warn, and negligence.

The proposed class action settlement thus satisfies the elements of
Rule 23(b)(2).

Accordingly, the Court certifies a settlement class as follows:

-- Settlement Class:

    "All STP Operators in the United States whose systems were in
    operation between January 6, 2018 and November 21, 2023."

    Excluded from the Settlement Class are counsel of record (and
    their respective law firms) for any of the Parties, employees
of
    Defendants, and any judge presiding over this action and their

    staff, and all members of their immediate families.

-- Appointment of Class Counsel and Class Representative

    Having certified the class under Rule 23(b)(2), and having
    considered the work Plaintiff's counsel has done in identifying

    and investigating potential claims in this action, counsel's
    experience in handling complex litigation, counsel’s
knowledge of
    the applicable law, and the resources counsel have committed to

    representing the Settlement Class, the following attorneys are

    designated Class Counsel under Rule 23(g)(1):
       
       Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP; and

       AquaLaw PLC.

The Plaintiff is appointed Class Representative.

Regarding attorneys fees and expenses in connection with this Rule
23(b)(2) settlement, Class Counsel has requested a total award of
$1,900,000.00—consisting of $1,859,691.77 in attorneys' fees and
$ 40,308.23 in actual expenses (including Court costs).

Costco owns and operates a chain of membership warehouses.

A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HvrvM2 at no extra
charge.[CC]



COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Insurance-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2024 that the Company
continues to defend itself from an insurance-related multidistrict
litigation.

Beginning in December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation consolidated numerous cases concerning the
impacts of opioid abuses filed against various defendants by
counties, cities, hospitals, Native American tribes, third-party
payors, and others. In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation
(MDL No. 2804) (N.D. Ohio). Included are cases filed against the
Company by counties and cities in Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon,
Virginia and South Carolina, a third-party payor in Ohio, and a
hospital in Texas, class actions filed on behalf of infants born
with opioid-related medical conditions in 40 states, and class
actions and individual actions filed on behalf of individuals
seeking to recover alleged increased insurance costs associated
with opioid abuse in 43 states and American Samoa.

Claims against the Company filed in federal court outside the MDL
have been asserted by certain counties and cities in Florida and
Georgia; claims filed by certain cities and counties in New York
are pending in state court.

Claims against the Company in state courts in New Jersey, Oklahoma,
Utah, and Arizona have been dismissed.

The Company is defending all of the pending matters.

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




COTIVITI INC: Pichler Seeks to Certify Class of FLSA Collective
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YVETTE PICHLER,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
COTIVITI, INC, a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:23-cv-00884-JNP-DAO (D. Utah), the Plaintiff requests the Court
to enter an order:

   (1) Conditionally certifying the proposed Fair Labor Standards
Act
       ("FLSA") Collective;

   (2) Requiring the Defendant to identify all putative collective

       members by providing a list of their names, last known
       addresses, dates and location of employment, phone numbers,
and
       email addresses in electronic and importable format within
ten
      (10) days of the entry of the order;

   (3) Authorizing the Plaintiff's proposed form of notice
(Exhibits A
       & B) and implementing a procedure whereby the notice of the

       Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, email, and
       text message) to:

            All current and former Agents who worked for the
Defendant
            at any time in the past three years (the "FLSA
            Collective")"

   (4) Appointing the undersigned counsel as counsel for the FLSA
       Collective; and

   (5) Giving members of the FLSA Collective 60 days to join this
       case, measured from the date the Court-authorized notice is

       sent, with one reminder email and text message sent 30 days

       thereafter to anyone who did not respond.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant willfully violated the
FLSA by knowingly suffering or permitting her and the Defendant's
other Records Retrieval Agents to perform unpaid work before and
after their scheduled shifts and failing to pay them the federally
mandated overtime compensation.

Ms. Pichler worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt Agent at its
McKinney, Texas office location, with the job title of Records
Retrieval Agent, from March 2019 to March 2020. From March 2020, to
present, she has worked as Records Retrieval Agent, from her home
residence in Allen, TX.

Cotiviti operates as a health-care technology firm.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 12, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aoZY1e at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

          April L. Hollingsworth, Esq.
          HOLLINGSWORTH LAW OFFICE, LLC
          1881 South 1100 East
          Salt Lake City, UT 84105
          Telephone: (801) 415-9909
          E-mail: april@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com

DANONE WATERS: Greenwashing Bottled Water Class Suit Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jones Day of JD Supra reports that on January 10, 2024, a class
action lawsuit survived a motion to dismiss a complaint alleging
injury due to misleading "carbon neutrality" branding on bottled
water. Dorris v. Danone Waters of America, Case No. 22 Civ. 8717
(NSR) (S.D.N.Y). The case, filed in the midst of a global rise in
greenwashing litigation against a variety of industries,
exemplifies the risks associated with green campaigns.

The putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 13,
2022. The subject of the suit is the defendant's bottled water,
which displays the term "carbon neutral" alongside a third-party
carbon neutral certification from Carbon Trust. Plaintiffs alleged
"violations of the consumer protection statutes of New York,
Massachusetts, and California, breach of express and implied
warranties, unjust enrichment, and fraud."

Plaintiffs claim economic injury from buying the defendant's
bottled water. Plaintiffs argue they would not have purchased the
water had they known that "carbon neutral" was not synonymous with
carbon-free. In support, plaintiffs argue that reasonable consumers
do not know the technical definition of "carbon neutrality" and
that use of the Carbon Trust certification is "false and
misleading" because the defendant did not disclose the standard's
meaning and its compliance mechanisms in an accessible way.

In turn, the defendant sought to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint on
the grounds that no "reasonable consumer" could believe bottled
water can be produced and sold internationally without emitting any
carbon dioxide. The defendant also asserted that its Carbon Trust
certification is accurate and that plaintiffs could not support
their claims by alleging violations of the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission ("FTC") Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing
Claims ("Green Guides").

While Judge Nelson S. Román granted the defendant's motion to
dismiss some of plaintiffs' claims due to their inability to meet
requisite pleading standards, he denied it for two state statute
violation claims, a breach of express warranty claim, an unjust
enrichment claim, and a fraud claim. In his order, Judge Román
found it "plausible . . . that the ambiguous term 'carbon neutral'
. . . could mislead a reasonable consumer." Further, the court
allowed plaintiffs use of the Green Guides, which "illustrate"
deceptive greenwashing, to support their claims. The court also
noted that consumers should not have to take multiple steps, such
as visiting two separate websites, to understand the defendant's
label. In sum, the court found the question of whether the
defendant's label is misleading best suited for a jury. The court
has granted a joint motion by the parties, allowing them to
exchange briefing on defendant's motion for partial reconsideration
prior to filing all such briefing with the court by the extended
deadline of March 27, 2024.

One relevant action on the horizon is the FTC's review of the Green
Guides. The FTC's goal of the review is to determine whether to
retain, modify, or rescind the Green Guides. The outcome may
provide companies with concrete steps they can take towards
protecting themselves from litigation when pursuing environmental
marketing campaigns. In the meantime, companies can infer the
following tips from Dorris for reducing their carbon neutral
branding litigation risks:

    -- Define environmental terms of art, such as "carbon neutral,"
on products;
    -- Substantiate emissions reduction claims and certifications
with documentation; and
    -- Compile all off-label explanations of environmental claims
on one accessible web page. [GN]

DEFIANCE COLLEGE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Defiance College.
The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. The Defiance College, Case No.
1:24-cv-01743 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2024).

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

Defiance College -- https://www.defiance.edu/ -- is a private
institution that was founded in 185.[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


DEL MONTE: Parties Seek to Modify Case Schedule
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jennifer Vlacich, Brenda
Robert, Elena Nacarino, Ana Krstic, Christina Vink, Lora Grodnick,
Lisa Malara, and Teena Stambaugh, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Del Monte Foods, Inc., Case No.
4:22-cv-00892-JST (N.D. Cal.), the parties stipulate and request
that the case schedule be modified as follows:

                   Event                          Deadline

  Class certification motion and                Aug. 30, 2024
  Plaintiffs' class certification expert
  disclosures due

  Class certification opposition and            Oct. 30, 2024
  Defendants' class certification expert
  disclosures due

  Class certification expert discovery          Nov. 21, 2024
  cut-off

  Class certification reply due                 Dec. 5, 2024

Del Monte is an American food production and distribution company.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 11, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XieXl4 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

                - and -

          Zack Broslavsky, Esq.
          BROSLAVSKY & WEINMAN, LLP
          1500 Rosecrans Ave, Suite 500
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 575-2550
          Facsimile: (310) 464-3550
          E-mail: zbroslavsky@bwcounsel.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Erik K. Swanholt, Esq.
          Kelsey C. Boehm, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          555 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2418
          Telephone: (213) 972-4500
          Facsimile: (213) 486-0065
          E-mail: eswanholt@foley.com
                  kboehm@foley.com

DENVER SHERIFFS: Court OK's Johnson Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson v. Denver Sheriffs
Department (DENVER JAIL COVID-19 LITIGATION), Case No.
1:20-cv-01795-JLK-KAS (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge John Kane entered
an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The class and subclasses are certified for the determination of
liability only.

     -- Primary Class

        All detainees who were placed in the custody of the Denver

        County Jails (combined facilities) and tested positive for
the
        coronavirus while detained, excluding those detainees who
        tested positive at intake and did not contract the virus
again
        while detained. The class period commenced on January 1,
2020,
        and ended February 1, 2022.

     -- Denver County Jail Class

        All detainees who were placed in the custody of the Denver

        County Jail and tested positive for the coronavirus while
        detained, excluding those detainees who tested positive at

        intake and did not contract the virus again while detained.

        The class period commenced on January 1, 2020, and ended
        February 1, 2022.

     -- Denver Downtown Jail Class

        All detainees who were placed in the custody of the Van
Cise-
        Simonet Downtown Detention Center and tested positive for
the
        coronavirus while detained, excluding those detainees who
        tested positive at intake and did not contract the virus
again
        while detained. The class period commenced on January 1,
2020,
        and ended February 1, 2022.

The Plaintiffs Paul Jarman and Thomas Melendez are named as
representatives of the classes.

The Plaintiffs are directed to submit, on or before April 4, 2024,
a plan for providing notice to the class members.

The Plaintiffs in this case -- Paul Jarman and Thomas
Melendez—both contracted SARSCoV-2 (the "coronavirus") and became
ill with COVID-19 while confined in a Denver jail facility.

They bring claims against the Defendant the City and County of
Denver on behalf of themselves and three classes of individuals who
similarly tested positive for the coronavirus between Jan. 1, 2020,
and Feb. 1, 2022, while incarcerated at one of the Denver jail
facilities.

The Amended Complaint asserts two municipal-liability claims for
damages under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for violations of the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The claims
allege the City violated the rights of Plaintiffs and the other
similarly situated individuals by failing to implement proper
protocols to reduce the spread of the coronavirus. Because I find
Plaintiffs have shown a class action is the proper mechanism for
pursuing these claims, I grant their Motion for Class
Certification.

A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4xKPF1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


DIAMOND BRACES: Bid to Dismiss Isayeva Class Action Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE ISAYEVA and
KAHOLY FERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective
Plaintiff and
the Class, v. DIAMOND BRACES, an unincorporated entity,
association, or affiliation, ORTHOCLUB, P.C. d/b/a DIAMOND BRACES,
JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-100 d/b/a DIAMOND BRACES, and OLEG DRUT,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04575-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine
Polk Failla entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, except as to Plaintiff Isayeva's claims under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Plaintiff Isayeva's wage notice
claim under New York Labor Law (NYLL).

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at
docket entry 50. The parties are hereby ORDERED to submit a joint
letter addressing next steps in this case on or before April 1,
2024.

The Plaintiffs Michelle Isayeva and Kaholy Fernandez, on behalf of
themselves and other hourly employees of the orthodontic practice
Diamond Braces, bring this class and collective action against the
Defendants.

Diamond Braces is an orthodontic practice that operates more than
40 offices throughout the New York metropolitan area.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 11, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JkNcMk
at no extra charge.[CC]



DIAZ FAMILY: Bid to Vacate Clause Construction Award Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pilgrim's Pride
Corporation, v. Michael Diaz, Jean-Nichole Diaz, Diaz Family Farms
LLC, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Case No. 5:22-cv-04413-JDA (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge
Jacquelyn Austin entered an order denying the petition to vacate
the clause construction award.

In sum, the Court cannot conclude that the arbitrator "knowingly
ignored applicable law when rendering his decision." Thus,
regardless of whether the arbitration's application of the law was
incorrect here, his decision did not evince manifest disregard of
the law.

This matter is before the Court on a petition to Vacate the Clause
Construction Award issued pursuant to the American Arbitration
Association's ("AAA") Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitrations.

A copy of the Court's order and opinion dated March 11, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kFiJPi
at no extra charge.[CC]

DICK’S SPORTING: Knoblauch et al. Allege Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE KNOBLAUCH, JEFF KUCHARSKI, and GEORGE SCHLEY on behalf of
themselves individually and all other similarly situated employees
v. DICK’S SPORTING GOODS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00315-JPS (E.D.
Wis., March 12, 2024) seeks damages and relief over Defendant's
refusal to pay commissions earned by Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated commissioned salespersons employed by Defendant
within the golf department of its Pro+ stores who have been
deprived of commissions earned under the company's commission
program. The Defendant began implementing the commission program in
the first quarter of 2021, giving all golf salespersons at its Pro+
stores the opportunity to earn 3% of each qualifying sale.

In late 2023, Plaintiffs learned that Defendant had not paid
commissions on sales that qualified for a commission payment under
the terms of the commission program. Plaintiffs requested Defendant
to pay them the commissions they had rightfully earned, but to
date, Defendant has declined to pay all commissions earned. The
Plaintiffs accuse Defendant of breach of contract, breach of
implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and
violation of Wisconsin labor laws.

Based in Coraopolis, PA, Dick's Sporting Goods is the largest
sporting goods retailer in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

        Shannon D. McDonald, Esq.
        MCDONALD & KLOTH, LLC     
        N96W18221 County Line Road Suite 200
        Menomonee Falls, WI 53051
        Telephone: (262) 252-9122
        Facsimile: (414) 395-8773
        E-mail: sdm@themklaw.com

DOLLY INC: Bid for Class Certification in Baker Due March 6
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN BAKER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. DOLLY, INC., Case No.
2:23-cv-02004-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik
entered an order setting trial date and related dates as follows:

  Trial Date:                                  Dec. 1, 2025

  Deadline for joining additional parties:     June 7, 2024

  Fact discovery completed by:                 Jan. 31, 2025

  Motion for class certification due           Mar. 6, 2025
  and noted on the Court's calendar for
  the fifth Friday thereafter:

  Deadline for amending pleadings:             Apr. 5, 2025

  Settlement conference held no later than:    July 18, 2025

  Discovery completed by:                      Aug. 3, 2025

  All motions in limine must be filed by       Oct. 12, 2025
  and noted on the motion calendar no
  earlier than the second Friday thereafter.
  Replies will be accepted.

  Agreed pretrial order due:                   Oct. 30, 2025

Dolly operates as a customer service company offering delivery and
services through mobile application.

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

ELECTROSTIM MEDICAL: Beauchane Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Michael W. Beauchane, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Electrostim Medical Services,
Inc. doing business as: EMSI, Case No. 3:24-cv-00131 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on March 5, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-00583-SDM-NHA to
the proceeding.

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

Electrostim Medical Services, Inc. (EMSI) --
https://www.wecontrolpain.com/ -- is the leading designer,
manufacturer, and provider of non-invasive medical devices used to
control pain, and muscle rehabilitation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
          Tricia Herzfeld, Esq.
          HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI AND WALL, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., 3rd Floor, Suite 300
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 800-6225
          Fax: (615) 994-8625
          Email: joey@hsglawgroup.com
                 tricia@hsglawgroup.com

               - and -

          Peter J. Jannace, Esq.
          HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI AND WALL, PLLC
          515 Park Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40208
          Phone: (646) 783-9810
          Email: peter@hsglawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Traci H. Rollins, Esq.
          Ryan C. Childress, Esq.
          Stephen Carli Richman, Esq.
          GUNSTER YOAKLEY & STEWART, P.A.
          777 S. Flagler Dr., Ste. 500 East
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6194
          Phone: (561) 650-0510
          Email: trollins@gunster.com
                 rchildress@gunster.com
                 srichman@gunster.com

               - and -

          James Isaac Sanders, Esq.
          NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
          1201 Demonbreun Street, Suite 1000
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 244-1713
          Fax: (615) 726-0573
          Email: isanders@nealharwell.com

               - and -

          William J. Schifino, Jr., Esq.
          GUNSTER YOAKLEY & STEWART PA
          401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 1500
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 739-6968
          Email: wschifino@gunster.com


EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL: Lopez Loses Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul G. Byron of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Orlando Division, denies the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit captioned GUILLERMINA
LOPEZ, Plaintiff v. EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-01580-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla.).

Defendant Embry offers a retirement plan (the "Plan") to its
employees, where eligible faculty and staff may elect to
participate in the Plan. Plaintiff Lopez sued in her capacity as a
member of the Plan and as a class representative. She alleges that
Embry breached its fiduciary duty by paying excessive recordkeeping
fees and expenses charged against participants' investments and
affecting all Plan participants in the same way. She further claims
the Plan participants were harmed, because the investment options
underperformed many prudent alternatives available to the Plan,
resulting in a loss of retirement savings.

Ms. Lopez argues Defendant Embry should have negotiated with the
Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America ("TIAA") for
an annual recordkeeping cost assessed per participant at a rate of
$25 to $30. She claims that from 2015 through 2020, Embry allowed
TIAA to charge each Plan participant between $62.46 and $81.48 per
year in direct recordkeeping costs. She also contends that TIAA's
direct and indirect compensation was at least $160 per participant
annually.

Defendant Embry objects to certification of the class for four
reasons: Lopez lacks standing, her claims are antagonistic to and
in conflict with the interests of most other putative class
members, her claims are not typical, and Lopez lacks adequate
knowledge to represent the class. Defendant Embry also contends
that mandatory class certification under Rule 23(b)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is inappropriate and, if
certified, class members should be permitted to opt out of the
class action.

In response to Lopez's claim that excessive recordkeeping fees were
charged by TIAA, Defendant Embry offers the declaration of Mr.
Brandon Young ("Mr. Young"), the Vice-President and Chief Human
Resources Officer of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. He
attests that the Plaintiff's summary of direct annual recordkeeping
fees charged per participant between 2015 and 2020 as stated in her
Complaint is false.

First, Mr. Young notes that, contrary to Lopez's assertion, the
Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company ("VALIC") was never a
recordkeeper for the Plan and never received compensation, and,
secondly, the Plan does not pay recordkeeping fees on a
per-participant basis and instead prefers an asset-based
recordkeeping fee. Defendant Embry also offers the expert report of
Dr. Steven Grenadier, who calculates that Ms. Lopez paid no more
than $18 in recordkeeping fees each year during the Proposed Class
Period.

As a result, Judge Byron opines, Ms. Lopez was not economically
harmed by the Plan's asset-based fee arrangement. Moreover, Lopez
only invested in the Plan's Vanguard Target Retirement Date Fund
and never invested in any of the challenged actively managed funds.
Since she invested in the challenged funds, she was not harmed by
the alleged imprudent investment decisions relating to the actively
managed funds.

Here, Judge Byron finds Plaintiff Lopez lacks individual standing,
so she may not pursue claims on her behalf much less on behalf of a
Plan to which she never belonged. To rule otherwise would allow any
disinterested party to serve as a class representative under cover
of pursuing equitable relief for the Plan. Accordingly, Judge Byron
holds that Lopez lacks standing to bring claims on behalf of the
putative class, and she may not serve as a class representative.

Judge Byron also finds, among other things, that common questions
of fact do not predominate when considering the selection of
investment funds and their performance here. The Court sees no need
to address the balance of the reasons why class certification is
improper.

For these reasons, the Court denies the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 26, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3yt5zkms from PacerMonitor.com.


EMERGENCY COVERAGE: Seek to Seal Class Cert Opposition Exhibits
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANURADHA NAIDU-MCCOWN, et
al., v. EMERGENCY COVERAGE CORP. d/b/a TEAM HEALTH, Case No.
3:23-cv-00390-HEH (E.D. Va.), the Defendant moves to seal Exhibits
6–13 and 20–23 to the Defendant's memorandum in opposition to
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Emergency Coverage is headquartered in the United States. The
company's line of business includes the practice of general or
specialized medicine and surgery for various licensed
practitioners.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 12, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6sADaF at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          M. F. Connell Mullins, Jr., Esq.
          Kasey L. Hoare, Esq.
          SPOTTS FAIN PC
          411 East Franklin Street, Suite 600
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 697-2000
          Facsimile: (804) 697-2100
          E-mail: cmullins@spottsfain.com
                  khoare@spottsfain.com

                - and -

          M. Jefferson Starling III, Esq.
          Ryan Hodinka, Esq.
          BALCH & BINGHAM LLP
          1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 1500
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 226-3406
          Facsimile: (205) 488-5889
          E-mail: jstarling@balch.com
                  rhodinka@blach.com

ENZO BIOCHEM: Filing of Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Suit Due April 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Enzo Biochem Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 13, 2024 that the Company's motion to
dismiss the Enzo Biochem Data Breach class suit is due on April 8,
2024.

In the Eastern District of New York twenty putative class actions
have been consolidated alleging various harms stemming from the
April 2023 data incident. Interim lead counsel has been appointed
and filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on November 13, 2023.

The complaint seeks to certify a federal class as well as several
state subclasses.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint brings various statutory and
common law claims including negligence, negligence per se, breach
of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the
New York's General Business Law § 349, Invasion of Privacy,
violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act,
violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

The Company's motion to dismiss is due on April 8, 2024.

Enzo Biochem, Inc., a pioneer in molecular diagnostics, offers a
comprehensive portfolio of technical platforms and reagent sets
supporting a diverse range of biomedical research and
translational
science needs. It manufactures a comprehensive portfolio of
antibodies, genomic probes, assays, biochemicals and proteins.






EPOCH EVERLASTING: Jackson-Jones Suit Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIENE JACKSON-JONES,
individually and on behalf of all others situated, KAREN SANTOS,
individually and on behalf of all situated, v. EPOCH EVERLASTING
PLAY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, TARGET
CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation, and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-02567-ODW-SK (C.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs move the Court granting class certification pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3):

   "All persons in the State of California who purchased at least
one
   of the Products, for personal use and not for re-sale, since
   Jan. 30, 2019."

   The term "Product" means all Calico Critters flocked toys that
were
   sold with a small part.

   Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their officers,
directors,
   agents, trustees, parents, children, corporations, trusts,
   representatives, employees, successors, assigns, or other
persons
   or entities related to or affiliated with the Defendants and/or

   their officers and directors and/or any of them.

   Also excluded from the proposed Class are the Court, the Court's

   immediate family and Court staff.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter an oder:

-- appointing Williene Jackson-Jones and Karen Santos
    as Class Representatives;

-- appointing class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule
23(g):
    Gillian L. Wade, Marc A. Castaneda, and Sara D. Avila of the
law
    firm Milstein, Jackson, Fairchild & Wade, LLP; David Slade of
the
    law firm WH Law; and, Jack Walker, Justin R. Kaufman, and
Philip
    M. Kovnat of the law firm Martin Walker.

Epoch is a manufacturer and distributor of entertaining products,
including games, infant toys, preschool toys, dolls, and
educational toys.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 11, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xjKJEP at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          Sara D. Avila, Esq.
          Marc A. Castaneda, Esq.
          MILSTEIN JACKSON
          FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
          2450 Colorado Ave., Ste. 100E
          Santa Monica, CA 90404
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
            E-mail: gwade@mjfwlaw.com
                  savila@mjfwlaw.com
                  mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com

                - and -

          David F. Slade, Esq.
          WH LAW
          1 Riverfront Pl., Ste. 745
          North Little Rock, AR 72114
          Telephone: (501)404-2052
          E-mail: dslade@wh.law

                - and -

          Justin R. Kaufman, Esq.
          Philip Kovnat, Esq.
          DURHAM, PITTARD & SPALDING, LLP
          505 Cerillos Rd., Ste. A209
          Santa Fe, NM 87501
          Telephone: (505)986-0600
          E-mail: jkaufman@dpslawgroup.com
                  pkovnat@dpslawgroup.com

                - and -

          Jack Walker, Esq.
          MARTIN WALKER
          121 N. Spring Ave.
          Tyler, TX 75702
          Telephone: (903)526-1600
          E-mail: jwalker@martinwalker.com

EPOCH EVERLASTING: Suit to File Portions of Class Cert Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIENE JACKSON-JONES,
individually and on behalf of all others situated, KAREN SANTOS,
individually and on behalf of all situated, v. EPOCH EVERLASTING
PLAY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, TARGET
CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation, and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-02567-ODW-SK (C.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs apply to the Court to file portions of their motion
for Class certification under seal.

On Feb. 12, 2024, the Court entered the Parties' Stipulated
Protective Order.

The Plaintiffs' motion and supporting exhibits draw from
information that the Defendants have designated as Highly
Confidential -- Attorneys' Eyes Only.

The Plaintiffs submit this application in accordance with the
requirements of Local Rule 79- 5.2.2(b). The Plaintiffs seek to
file an unredacted copy of their Motion under seal.

The Plaintiffs have made a good faith effort to work with the
Defendants to reduce the amount of information excluded from the
public record by publicly filing a narrowly redacted copy of the
Motion for sealing.

The content at issue in the Motion represents confidential,
non-public, proprietary business information about the sale of
Calico Critters flocked toys -- including units sold and profits
realized—in the State of California during the Class Period.

The sales data was marked Highly Confidential when produced, in
accordance with the Protective Order. The Defendants maintain that
the disclosure of such non-public information risks causing
competitive harm to Defendants and their business.

Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5.2.2(b)(i), within 4 days of this
filing, the Defendants must file with the Court a declaration
establishing that the designated information is sealable.

If Defendants do not file a responsive declaration as required by
this subsection, the documents and information Plaintiffs are
herein requesting be filed under seal may be made part of the
public record in their entirety.

Epoch is a manufacturer and distributor of entertaining products,
including games, infant toys, preschool toys, dolls, and
educational toys.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 11, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uqzgF2 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          Sara D. Avila, Esq.
          Marc A. Castaneda, Esq.
          MILSTEIN JACKSON
          FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
          2450 Colorado Ave., Ste. 100E
          Santa Monica, CA 90404
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
          E-mail: gwade@mjfwlaw.com
                  savila@mjfwlaw.com
                  mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com

                - and -

          David F. Slade, Esq.
          WH LAW
          1 Riverfront Pl., Ste. 745
          North Little Rock, AR 72114
          Telephone: (501)404-2052
          E-mail: dslade@wh.law

                - and -

          Justin R. Kaufman, Esq.
          Philip Kovnat, Esq.
          DURHAM, PITTARD & SPALDING, LLP
          505 Cerillos Rd., Ste. A209
          Santa Fe, NM 87501
          Telephone: (505)986-0600
          E-mail: jkaufman@dpslawgroup.com
                  pkovnat@dpslawgroup.com

                - and -

          Jack Walker, Esq.
          MARTIN WALKER
          121 N. Spring Ave.
          Tyler, TX 75702
          Telephone: (903)526-1600
          E-mail: jwalker@martinwalker.com

ERTC EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Duke Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLOTTE DUKES, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ERTC EXPRESS, LLC and JOHN SOUZA,
Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-00618 (M.D. Fla., March 8, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a senior account executive
or inside sales representative from June 2022 to September 2022,
then from October 2022 to August 2023, and lastly from October 2023
until December 18, 2023. However, Defendants created and maintained
a scheme to avoid paying overtime wages to all its ISR. They
misrepresented ISRs as exempt employees under the FLSA, says the
Plaintiff.

Headquartered in Tampa, FL, ERTC Express, LLC provides employee
retention tax credit services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq
         FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
         12610 Race Track Road, Suite 225
         Tampa, FL 33625
         Telephone: (813) 639-9366
         Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
         E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com

EXPENSIFY INC: Court Appoints Levi & Korsinsky as Lead Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CODY WILHITE, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. EXPENSIFY, INC.,
DAVID BARRETT, RYAN SCHAFFER, BLAKE BARTLETT, and ROBERT LENT, Case
No. 3:23-cv-01784-JR (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Jolie Russo entered
an order granting Movant Kanji's motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff and denying the remaining motions for appointment of lead
plaintiff.

The Court also entered an order appointing Levi & Korsinsky to
serve as Lead Counsel and Black Helterline to serve as Liaison
Counsel for the putative class as requested by the lead plaintiff.


Lead plaintiff and the defendants shall meet and confer and file a
joint status report that proposes a schedule for the filing of an
amended complaint, any answer to the amended complaint or motion to
dismiss the same, any motion for class certification, and any
associated discovery deadlines by no later than March 26, 2024.

All discovery related deadlines are stayed pending a Rule 16
conference.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated alleging defendants and two of its
Directors violated the Securities Act

The proposed class consists of:

   "All persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise
   acquired Expensify securities in its IPO or purchased Expensify

   securities thereafter in the stock market pursuant and/or
traceable
   to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the IPO and

   were damaged thereby."

   Three proposed class members: Angel Cifuentes Morales, Aleem
Kanji,
   and Rob Rosenfeld move to be appointed as lead plaintiff.

Expensify is a software company that develops an expense management
system for personal and business use.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vZEFii at no extra
charge.[CC]

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Must File Class Cert Opposition by June 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA PENA, Successor in
Interest to JOSE PENA, individually, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated consumers, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-01115-SSS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Sunshine Sykes entered an order as follows:

-- 1. The Defendant shall file its opposition to the motion for
Class
       Certification by June 7, 2024;

-- 2. The Plaintiff shall file a reply brief in further support of

       the motion for Class Certification by June 14, 2024;

-- 3. The hearing on the motion for Class Certification shall be
held
       on July 12, 2024, at 2:00 p.m.

Experian operates as an information services company.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=343nGH at no extra
charge.[CC] 


FEDERAL EXPRESS: Faces Williams Suit Over USERRA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHARLINDA WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-01056-JPB (N.D. Ga., March 11, 2024) arises under
Defendant's alleged violations of the Uniformed Services Employment
and Reemployment Rights Act.

According to the complaint, FedEx has violated USERRA by paying
compensation to FedEx non-pilot permanent employees who take leave
for non-military reasons, such as jury duty, Medical Absence Pay,
or bereavement leave, but not providing any compensation to FedEx's
permanent servicemember employees who take short-term military
leave. Due to FedEx's violations, Plaintiff and other
servicemembers employed by FedEx have received or will receive less
compensation than they would have received had FedEx provided them
with pay during their short-term military leave on an equal basis
as employees who took other comparable forms of non-military leave,
says the suit.

Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks (a) a declaration that FedEx violated
USERRA by failing to provide Class Members with pay during their
short-term military leave on an equivalent basis to other
comparable forms of leave; (b) an order requiring FedEx to pay
servicemembers on short-term military leave on an equivalent basis
to other comparable forms of leave; and (c) an order requiring
FedEx to recalculate and pay compensation to Plaintiff and other
members of the Class consistent with the requirements of USERRA.

Federal Express Corporation, d/b/a FedEx Express, is the world's
largest express transportation company, providing delivery to more
than 220 countries and territories and employing approximately
289,000 employees. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Stephen J. Anderson, Esq.
         KENNETH S. NUGENT, P.C.
         4227 Pleasant Hill Road Building 11
         Duluth, GA 30096
         Telephone: (770) 820-0823
         Facsimile: (770) 820-0723
         E-mail: sanderson@attorneykennugent.com

                 - and -

         R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
         Colin M. Downes, Esq.
         BARTON & DOWNES LLP
         1633 Connecticut Ave., NW, Ste. 200
         Washington D.C. 20009
         Telephone: (202) 734-7046
         E-mail: jbarton@bartondownes.com
                 colin@bartondownes.com

                 - and -

         Matthew Z. Crotty, Esq.
         RIVERSIDE NW LAW GROUP, PLLC
         905 W. Riverside Ave. Suite 208
         Spokane, WA 99201
         Telephone: (509) 850-7011
         E-mail: mzc@rnwlg.com

                 - and -

         Thomas G. Jarrard, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS G. JARRARD LLC
         1020 N. Washington St.
         Spokane, WA 99201
         Telephone: (425) 239-7290
         E-mail: Tjarrard@att.net

FEDEX GROUND: Alfonso Wins Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUZANNE ALFONSO, STEVEN
SLATER, JOSHUA ADKINS, and ROBERT DUQUETTE, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM,
INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-01644-SVN (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Sarala
V. Nagala entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to preclude Mr. Crandall's testimony, and
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, with a
minor modification to the class definition.

Accordingly, the Court defines the class as follows:

   "All current and former employees of Defendant who were employed
as
   hourly, nonexempt workers at FedEx's Windsor, South Windsor,
   Middletown, Wallingford, Stratford, and Willington, Connecticut

   facilities at any time from August 1, 2018 through the date of
   final judgment in this matter."

   Excluded from this class are the following categories of hourly

   workers: Operation Managers in any Stratford location and
   Operations Administrators at FedEx's West Stratford warehouse
   located at 550 Long Beach Blvd, during the time they held such
   roles.

Having certified a class as defined above, the Court appoints as
class counsel the law firm of Hayber, McKenna & Dinsmore, LLC

In this putative class action, four former employees of FedEx claim
it violated the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA") by failing to
compensate them and others similarly situated for time spent going

through required security screening and time spent walking from
security screening areas to time clocks where they clocked in and
out.

Before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiffs, both opposed
by Defendant. First, Plaintiffs move pursuant to Federal Rules of
Evidence 702, 401, and 403 to preclude certain portions of the
expert reports of Defendant’s expert, Robert Crandall, as well as
any associated testimony. Second, the Plaintiffs move for
certification of a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.

FedEx is an American ground package delivery company.

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

FIBROGEN INC: Xu Class Certification Bid Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Xu v. Fibrogen, Inc. et
al. (FIBROGEN SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 3:21-cv-02623-EMC
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Chen entered an order granting
in part Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.

The class is certified as to shareholders for the Class Period from
December 20, 2018, through April 6, 2021.

The Plaintiffs' motion to appoint class representatives and class
counsel is granted.

The Court reserves a decision as to class certification for options
holders for the Class Period from December 20, 2018, through April
6, 2021. The parties' motions to seal are granted.

At this juncture, the Court instructs the Clerk of the Court to
file this order, in its entirety, under seal. The Court orders the
parties to meet and confer to determine which portions of this
order may be publicly filed. The parties shall jointly file their
request to file under seal within a week of the date of this
order.

The Plaintiffs define their proposed class as: "themselves and
those persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly traded securities of FibroGen, including options, during
the period from December 20, 2018 through July 15, 2021, inclusive,
and were damaged thereby."

The Court lacks sufficient factual background regarding the options
available for sale during the class period to determine whether
damages can be calculated on a class-wide basis. Accordingly, the
parties are ordered to submit supplemental briefing relating to
calculation of damages on a class-wide basis for options holders.
The Defendants are to submit a supplemental brief of no more than
ten (10) pages within two weeks of this order, and Plaintiffs are
to submit a 23 responsive brief of no more than ten (10) pages one
week after that

The case is a securities fraud class action brought on behalf of
investors who purchased stock in FibroGen, Inc., from December 20,
2018 to July 15, 2021.

The Plaintiffs bring this case against FibroGen and Individual
Defendants for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
against the Individual Defendants, for allegedly false and
misleading statements about safety and efficacy data for its
flagship drug, Roxadustat, between December 20, 2018 and July 15,
2021.

FibroGen is a biopharmaceutical company whose flagship drug,
Roxadustat, is an experimental pill designed to treat anemia in
patients with chronic kidney disease.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 11, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6xOL37 at no extra
charge.[CC]

FORD MOTOR COMPANY: Weigner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford Motor Company.
The case is styled as Antonio Ivan Weigner, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ford Motor Company, Case
No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0002870 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty.,
March 6, 2024).

The case type is stated "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Ginzburg, Esq.
          13428 Maxella Ave, # 984
          Marina del Rey, CA 90292-5620
          Phone: 424-251-8405


FORD MOTOR: Court Sets Briefing Sched for Bid to Seal
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lessin v. Ford Motor
Company et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-01082 (S.D. Cal., Filed June 10,
2019), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order setting
briefing schedule regarding motion to seal a previously filed
document / defendant Ford Motor Company's supplemental motion to
seal documents.

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

Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.[CC]

FORT BELVOIR: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. in Fischer Due April 8
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chief Petty Officer JOHN
FISCHER and ASHLEY FISCHER, et al., V. FORT BELVOIR RESIDENTIAL
COMMUNITIES LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00286-RDA-LRV (E.D. Va.),
the Hon. Judge Rossie Alston, Jr. entered an order granting the
parties' corrected joint motion for extension of current deadlines
pending finalization of settlement agreement.

In their Corrected Joint Motion, the parties request an extension
of three weeks to allow them to finalize the terms of settlement.
Considering the Motion, the Court finds that it is appropriate to
allow the parties to focus their efforts on finalizing the
settlement in the instant litigation.

The new deadlines shall be as follows:

-- Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment:                April 5,
2024

-- Renewed Motion for Class Certification:           April 8,
2024

-- Defendants' Opposition Briefs:                    April
22,2024

-- Plaintiffs' Reply Briefs:                         April 29,
2024

A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LK9AWb at no extra
charge.[CC]

FRANKLIN & MARSHALL: Doyle Seeks Prorated Tuition Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM DOYLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRANKLIN & MARSHALL COLLEGE, Defendant, Case
No. 5:24-cv-01024 (E.D. Pa., March 8, 2024) seeks disgorgement of
the prorated, unused amounts of the fees that Plaintiff and other
putative Class members paid, but for which they were not provided
the benefit, as well as a partial prorated tuition reimbursement
representing the difference in fair market value between the
on-campus product for which they had paid, and the online product
that they received.

The Plaintiff, an undergraduate student during the Spring 2020
semester, paid tuition and fees to enroll in Franklin & Marshall
College's on-campus, in-person education program, including all the
benefits and services associated therewith for the entirety of the
semester. By not giving prorated refunds for tuition or fees
charged for on-campus education and services not provided, Franklin
& Marshall College breached its contracts with students or was
otherwise unjustly enriched, says the Plaintiff.

Located in Lancaster, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania,  Franklin &
Marshall College is a private liberal arts college founded in 1853.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
        Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
        Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
        LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
        1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
        Pittsburgh, PA 15222
        Telephone: (412) 322-9243
        Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
        E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
                jamisen@lcllp.com
                nickc@lcllp.com

                - and -

        Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
        Anthony Alesandro, Esq.
        LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
        One Old Country Road, Suite 347
        Carle Place, NY 11514
        Telephone: (516) 873-9550
        E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
                aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com

GCE SERVICES: Espinoza Seeks OT Pay & Damages for FLSA Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ESPINOZA v. GCE SERVICES, LLC, GONZALES COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC,
INC. ROBERT GONZALES, JR., Case No. 4:24-cv-00901 (S.D. Tex., March
12, 2024) is a class action accusing the Defendants of violating
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Internal Revenue Code.


The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly-paid licensed
plumbing apprentice from August 2020 until October 2022. Throughout
his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff regularly worked more
than 40 hours per week but he was not paid overtime wages as
required by the FLSA. Instead, Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees were paid the same hourly rate or straight time in cash
for all hours that they worked, including those exceeding 40 per
workweek. Furthermore, Defendants allegedly falsely report wages to
the Internal Revenue Service, says the Plaintiff.

GCE Services, LLC is a construction company headquartered in
Houston, TX. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Kevin M. Chavez, Esq.
       KEVIN M. CHAVEZ, PLLC      
       6260 Westpark Dr., Suite 303
       Houston, TX 77057
       Telephone: (832) 209-2209
       Facsimile: (866) 929-1647

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------
Dani Cole of Just Auto reports that a US law firm said it was
investigating automaker General Motors and its OnStar subsidiary.

A class action filed at the US District Court of Southern Florida
named General Motors, OnStar and LexisNexis Risk Solutions as
defendants.

The filing states the class action has been brought to challenge
the actions "regarding erroneous reports of derogatory and negative
driving information made without plaintiff's knowing consent."

A New York Times investigation revealed drivers' data was being
collected for insurers to use as one factor of many to create more
personalised insurance coverage.

GM and OnStar reportedly sold drivers' data to LexisNexis Risk
Solutions, a New York based global data broker which tracks
consumers' driving records.

LexisNexis, in turn, analysed this data to create a 'risk score'
which it allegedly provided to insurers.

As a result, drivers saw substantial increases to their auto
insurance premiums. In some instances, this led insurers denying
drivers auto insurance altogether.

Law firm Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe said: "If their practices are
found unlawful, [drivers] may be entitled to money damages and an
injunction requiring changes to the companies' privacy practices."
[GN]

GLADSTONE AUTO: Bid for Atty's Fees and & Expenses Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROL FERGUSON and LYNDA
FREEMAN, on behalf of themselves and, in addition, on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. MARIA SMITH, an individual; GLADSTONE
AUTO, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company; and CARROS, INC.,
an Oregon corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-00372-SB (D. Or.), the Hon.
Judge Stacie Beckerman entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion for leave, and granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and nontaxable expenses and
cost bill.

   -- The Court awards the Plaintiffs $556,853.00 in attorney's and

      paralegal fees, $13,208.52 in taxable costs, and $33,376.39
in
      nontaxable expenses.

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for leave and
considers Plaintiffs' reply brief in ruling on their pending motion

for fees and costs.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Lauzier’s forty-nine
entries and 149.8 hours reviewing, proofreading, and finalizing
case documents are not compensable because they are clerical tasks.

Gladstone carries a great selection of quality used cars for sale
from top auto brands.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ocy0X2 at no extra
charge.[CC]

GLOBAL K9: Colindres Sues Over Unlawful Employment Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
ANA NOH COLINDRES, an individual,on behalf of herself, all
aggrieved employees, and the State of California as a Private
Attorneys General, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL K9 PROTECTION GROUP LLC, an
Alabama limited liability company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 24STCV06045 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 11, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the California
Labor Code.

Plaintiff Colindres worked for Defendant as a canine handler
working on a full time, hourly non-exempt basis from April 2023
through November 2023. Allegedly, the Defendant has been engaged in
many unlawful employment practices which resulted in underpayment
for hours worked each pay period. These practices include requiring
her to work off the clock and failing to pay her all wages earned
twice during each calendar month, says the Plaintiff.

Global K9 Protection Group LLC is an Alabama limited liability
company provides security and canine training services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
          Hilary Silvia, Esq.
          KOUL LAW FIRM, APC
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 761-5484
          Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
          E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com
                  hilary@koullaw.com

GROVE CITY COLLEGE: Refuses to Refund Tuition and Fees, Smith Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
HOLLY SMITH, on behalf of herself  and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff V. GROVE CITY COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-00313-CB (W.D. Pa., March 8, 2024) asserts claims for
breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment in connection with
the Defendant's refusal to provide prorated refund or fees tied to
its on-campus education, services, and amenities that were not
available to students for a significant part of the Spring 2020
semester.

Plaintiff Smith and other Grove City College's students lost the
benefits of the bargain for services, access, and the experience
they paid for but could no longer access or use following the
school's transition to remote learning in March 2020. Accordingly,
Plaintiff seeks disgorgement of the prorated, unused amounts of the
fees that she and other putative Class members paid, but for which
they were not provided the benefit, as well as a partial prorated
tuition reimbursement representing the difference in fair market
value between the on-campus product for which they had paid, and
the online product that they received.

Founded in 1876,  Grove City College is a private liberal arts
college offering over 70 undergraduate programs. Its principal
campus is located in Grove City, Mercer County, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: 412-322-9243
          Facsimile: 412-231-0246
          E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
                  jamisen@lcllp.com
                  nickc@lcllp.com

                  - and -

          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Anthony Alesandro, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com

HEALTH CADDIES: Cooper Seeks OT Pay for Insurance Sales Agents
--------------------------------------------------------------
JANISA COOPER, and all others similarly situated pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b), v. HEALTH CADDIES INC., Case No.
9:24-cv-80279 (S.D. Fla., March 12, 2024) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an Insurance Sales Agent
(ISA) from August 2023 through on or around January 24, 2024.
Within the past three years, the Defendant has allegedly
intentionally and willfully misclassified ISAs as independent
contractors to avoid federal overtime wage obligations under the
FLSA. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated ISAs overtime wages when they worked more than 40 hours
during various workweeks within the previous three years. Plaintiff
seeks to recover all federal overtime wages owed to these ISAs
pursuant to the FLSA.

Headquartered in Delray Beach, FL, Health Caddies Inc. operates and
insurance sales company that provides customers with several
insurance plan options. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
       EGGNATZ PASCUCCI, P.A.     
       7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
       Davie, FL 33314
       Telephone: (954) 889-3359
       E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com

               - and –
     
       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
               Sarah@USAEmploymentLawyers.com
               Intake@USAEmploymentLawyers.com
               LawClerk@USAEmploymentLawyers.com
               Charles@USAEmploymentLawyers.com

HERSHEY COMPANY: Faces Loza et al. Suit Over Deceptive Labeling
---------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE LOZA, KIMBERLY HALL, AND NICOLE RIVERA, on behalf of
themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-01455 (N.D. Cal., March 8, 2024) seeks redress for
Defendant's unlawful and deceptive practices in the labeling and
marketing of Lily's chocolate products.

The Defendants prominently make front label claims that these
products are "Stevia Sweetened," which means that the products'
sweeteners are plant-based. However, Defendant's representations
are misleading because despite the prominent front label claim
representations, these products are predominately and primarily
sweetened with erythritol, a sugar alcohol that is generally
crafted from GMO cornstarch, says the suit.

The Hershey Company manufactures, distributes, markets, advertises,
and sells food products
under the brand name "Lily's." [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Seth A. Safier, Esq.
         Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
         Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq.
         GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 639-9090
         Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
         E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
                 marie@gutridesafier.com
                 hayley@gutridesafier.com

HOME CLEAN: Settlement Deal in Moshe Suit Gets Court Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Moshe v. Home Clean Home,
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00078 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 5, 2023), the
Hon. Judge James R. Cho entered an order on motion to Certify Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action.

-- In light of the parties' settlement, and the Court's approval
of
    the settlement agreement, the motion for conditional class
    certification and notice is denied as moot without prejudice.

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

 


HOME DEPOT: Class Settlement in Utne Suit Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN UTNE, et al., v. HOME
DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-01854-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order granting the motions for
final approval of the class action settlement and for attorney
fees.

In recognition of the Class Counsel's active litigation of this
case over the past seven years, Class Counsel are entitled to
significantly more than the benchmark of 25% attorney fees.

About 30% of the Settlement Amount -- which amounts to
$21,750,000.00 and represents a substantial multiplier of the
lodestar—is appropriate here.

The Plaintiffs' request for $3,202,009.35 in costs is reasonable.
Therefore, this amount shall be paid to Settlement Class Counsel
from the Class Settlement Amount.

The Settlement Administrator is awarded $693,400.00 to be paid from
the Class Settlement Amount.

The requested service awards to the Estate of John Utne through his
Successor in Interest Karen Utne in the amount of $25,000, and to
Alfred Pinto in the amount of $7,500, are reasonable and shall be
paid from the Class Settlement Amount.

On March 7, 2024, a hearing was held on Plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of the class action and Private Attorneys General
Act ("PAGA") settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendant Home Depot
U.S.A., Inc., a Delaware Corporation.

The Settlement Classes, as conditionally certified by the
Preliminary Approval Order, meet all the legal requirements for
class certification for settlement purposes under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). Accordingly, the class is
finally certified for settlement purposes.

The preliminary appointment of Shaun Setareh, Thomas Segal, Farrah
Grant, and Tyson Gibbs of Setareh Law Group; and Alan Lazar, and
Cody Kennedy of Marlin & Saltzman LLP as Class Counsel is
confirmed, as is the appointment of the Named Plaintiffs as Class
Representatives for the Settlement Class.

Home Depot is an American multinational home improvement retail
corporation.

A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jkjWL6 at no extra
charge.[CC]

HOME DEPOT: Mathews Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARIN MATHEWS and RONALD
REEVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. HOME DEPOT USA, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-02605-ELR (N.D.
Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their
motion for leave to file under seal the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.

On June 20, 2023, the Court entered an amended stipulated
confidentiality and protective order governing discovery in this
case that permitted the parties to designate discovery material, or
information compiled from discovery material, as either
"Confidential" or "Confidential—Attorney's Eyes Only."

Because Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, memorandum of
law in Support and deposition transcripts submitted in support of
the motion contain information designated either "Confidential" or
"Confidential—Attorney's Eyes Only," the Plaintiffs hereby move
the Court for permission to file Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, Memorandum of Law in Support and deposition
transcripts
submitted in support of the motion under seal in accordance with
this Court's Local Rules, Instructions for Cases Assigned to The
Honorable Eleanor L. Ross, and the Amended Stipulated Protective
Order.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 11, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SnppjO at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bradley W. Pratt, Esq.
          BAYUK PRATT, LLC
          4401 Northside Pkwy, Suite 390
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: (404) 500-2669
          E-mail: bradley@bayukpratt.com

                - and -

          John A. Lockett III, Esq.
          Alexander M. Heideman, Esq.
          THE LOCKETT LAW FIRM LLC
          1397 Carroll Drive
          Atlanta, GA 30318
          Telephone: (404) 806-7448
          E-mail: john@lockettlawfirm.com

                - and -

          Meredith C. Kincaid, Esq.
          CROSS KINCAID LLC
          315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave, Suite 715
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 948-3022
          E-mail: meredith@crosskincaid.com

HONDA MOTORS: CaseyGerry Probes Unintended-Automatic-Braking Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The CaseyGerry law firm is investigating reports of sudden braking
in Honda Passports and Insight model years 2019 to 2022. At least
46 complaints have been filed, including three resulting in crashes
and fires and two resulting in injuries. The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTS) estimates that over 250,000
vehicles may be affected by this defect.

Drivers reported that the emergency braking system in certain
models of Honda Passport and Passport Insight activated with no
visible obstructions or potential dangers. The inadvertent braking
defect increases the risk of crashes and harm to driver, passengers
and others on the road.

Several of the reports described the incident, stating that the
brake warning and alarms would activate randomly and the steering
wheel would start shaking. The problem persisted, even after the
braking system was recalibrated.

On March 7, 2024, the NHTS launched a formal preliminary
investigation into the defect. This comes two years after a similar
investigation into unintended emergency braking in Honda CR-V and
Accord models, which affected over 1.7 million vehicles.

More information on the reports can be found on the NHTS Office of
Defects Investigation website.

Several car manufacturers have been under scrutiny for similar
reports following a new regulation that will require all new
passenger vehicles and light trucks to be equipped with automatic
braking systems within three years.

If you or a loved one has purchased or leased a Honda Passport or
Honda Insight manufactured between 2019 and 2022 and have
experienced the inadvertent braking system defect, please contact
our attorneys to explore your legal options at (619) 815-5226.

CaseyGerry has a strong history of auto defects and continues to
represent those who have been affected by unaddressed issues with
vehicles that endanger drivers and their loved ones, including a
lawsuit filed against Honda for the “Sticky Steering” defect in
which drivers experienced a sudden locking of their steering wheels
while driving, especially at high speeds, and a lawsuit against
Tesla for misleading marketing practices about their Advanced
Driver Assistance Systems. [GN]

HOUSER LLP: Rivera Files Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Houser LLP. The case
is styled as Jennifer Rivera, individually and all others similarly
situated v. Houser LLP, Case No. 8:24-cv-00480-GW-DFM (C.D. Cal.,
March 5, 2024).

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

Houser -- https://houser-law.com/ -- provides legal services to
commercial businesses and financial institutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          Brandon Pierce Jack, Esq.
          Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
          CLAYEO ARNOLD APLC
          6200 Canoga Avenue Suite 735
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (747) 777-7748
          Fax: (916) 924-1829
          Email: aberry@justice4you.com
                 bjack@justice4you.com
                 gharoutunian@justice4you.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court Denies Bid for Arbitration in Carroll Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Claire C. Cecchi of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey denies the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration
and stay the case titled DONALD CARROLL, on behalf of Plaintiff and
the class members described below, Plaintiffs v. HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA (CORPORATION), and GENESIS MOTOR AMERICA LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-01164-CCC-JBC (D.N.J.).

The motion is filed by Defendants Hyundai Motor America, Inc. and
Genesis Motor America LLC. The Defendants note that the complaint
incorrectly identifies Hyundai as "Hyundai Motor America
(Corporation)."

Plaintiff Donald Carroll, on behalf of himself and similarly
situated persons, filed an opposition to the motion. The Defendants
filed a reply. They also filed notices of supplemental authority.
For the reasons set forth, the Defendants' motion is denied without
prejudice and with leave to file a renewed motion, and the parties
are ordered to conduct limited discovery on the issue of
arbitrability.

The case arises out of the BlueLink and "connected services"
technology features included in certain Hyundai and Genesis
vehicles. The Plaintiff is a New Jersey resident, who purchased a
2017 Genesis G 80 at Sansone AutoMall in Avenelle, New Jersey.

Defendant Hyundai is a California corporation with a principal
place of business in California and is engaged in the importation
and distribution of Genesis, Hyundai, and Kia vehicles. Defendant
Genesis is a California limited liability company engaged in the
importation and distribution of Genesis vehicles. Hyundai makes
Genesis vehicles.

The crux of the Plaintiff's allegations is that the Defendants
failed to disclose to purchasers that these technology features,
touted by Hyundai and Genesis, would become unusable in 2022 upon
the "sunset" of the 3G network, on which the service could
exclusively operate and which Hyundai knew or should have known
about.

The Plaintiff filed his putative class action complaint on Feb. 28,
2023. He, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, brings
claims for: (1) violation of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act; (2)
breach of express and implied warranties; and (3) violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

On July 10, 2023, the Defendants filed the instant motion to compel
arbitration and stay the case pursuant to 9 U.S.C. Sections 3, 4.
The Plaintiff filed an opposition on Aug. 30, 2023, and the
Defendants replied on Sept. 25, 2023.

The Defendants assert that compelling arbitration is proper because
the Plaintiff entered into a binding agreement with them containing
a valid, enforceable arbitration clause, which covers the claims
asserted in his complaint. Specifically, the Defendants invoke a
Connected Services Agreement ("CSA"), which they contend the
Plaintiff agreed to upon registering to use the technology services
at issue.

In opposition, the Plaintiff contends that the instant dispute does
not fall within the ambit of the arbitration provision invoked by
the Defendants.

Judge Cecchi notes that the Plaintiff's complaint makes no
reference to the CSA, any contractual agreement, including an
arbitration clause, or a particular arbitration provision itself.
Moreover, the CSA is not attached to the Plaintiff's complaint as
an exhibit. Instead, it is cited and entered into the record for
the first time in the Defendant's motion.

However, on a motion to compel arbitration the Court may only
consider the face of a complaint and documents relied upon in the
complaint. Thus, the Court cannot rely on the Defendants'
submission as the proper vehicle through which to analyze the
validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement.

Put differently, Judge Cecchi explains that the question of
arbitrability cannot be resolved without considering the CSA, which
is evidence extraneous to the pleadings, and thus, it would be
inappropriate to apply the Rule 12(b)(6) in deciding this motion.

Despite the Third Circuit's clear mandate regarding the applicable
standard and what the Court may consider at this juncture, which
the Defendants do not address at any point, the Defendants argue in
their reply that the Court should compel arbitration based on the
Plaintiff's concession that an arbitration provision exists in the
CSA.

However, Judge Cecchi notes, the Defendants do not cite any binding
authority that indicates a district court may compel arbitration
upon an initial motion to compel where the operative agreement is
not included in or appended to the complaint.

Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendants' motion without
prejudice and orders the parties to conduct limited discovery on
the issue of arbitrability. Thereafter, the Defendants may file a
renewed motion to compel arbitration, which the Court will review
under the Rule 56 standard.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Order dated Feb. 26,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4sttkfss from
PacerMonitor.com.


IFIT INC: Douglass Seeks Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. iFIT INC., Case
No. 2:23-cv-00917-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for
entry of an Order granting final approval of the parties' amended
class action settlement agreement.

IFIT develops, manufactures, and markets fitness equipment.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Mar. 8, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dQxP6l at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Tucker, Esq.
          Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq.
          Chandler Steiger, Esq.
          Stephanie Moore, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
          6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
          Pittsburgh, PA 15208
          Telephone: (412) 877-5220
          E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com

INDIAN HILL: Parties Seek to Extend Class Certification Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as R.L.K., by her next
friends, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. INDIAN HILL EXEMPTED VILLAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Case No.
1:23-cv-00171-JPH (S.D. Ohio), the Parties jointly move the Court
to enter and order under Civil Rule 16 extending the existing class
discovery and class certification deadlines.

    1. That the parties' deadline to supplement their discovery
       responses be extended to April 1, 2024;

    2. That the Plaintiff's deadline to submit a motion for class
       certification be extended to May 6, 2024;

    3. That the Defendant's deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's

       motion for class certification be extended to June 5, 2024;
and

    4. That the Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply be extended to

       June 20, 2024.

The Defendant is a public school district in Indian Hill, Ohio, a
suburb of Cincinnati, Ohio.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Mar. 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O26p6H at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Whittaker, Esq.
          WHITTAKER LAW, LLC
          2055 Reading Road, Suite 260
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 259-3758
          Facsimile: (513) 436-0689
          E-mail: Justin@WhittakerLawFirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ryan M. LaFlamme, Esq.
          Jeremey J. Neff, Esq
          ENNIS BRITTON CO. LPA
          1714 West Galbraith Road
          Cincinnati, OH 45239
          Telephone: (513) 421-2540
          E-mail: RLaFlamme@EnnisBritton.com
                  JNeff@EnnisBritton.com

INFOSYS MCCAMISH: McNally Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against InfoSys McCamish
Systems, LLC. The case is styled as John McNally, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. InfoSys McCamish
Systems, LLCC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00995-JPB (N.D. Ga., March 6,
2024).

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

Infosys McCamish Systems --
https://www.infosysbpm.com/mccamish.html -- offers platform based
life insurance service and consulting.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Cameron Tribble, Esq.
          THE BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
          31 Atlanta Street
          Marietta, GA 30060
          Phone: (770) 227-6375
          Email: ctribble@barneslawgroup.com

               - and -

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


INNOVIZ TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Innoviz Technologies Ltd. ("Innoviz" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:INVZ) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
and docketed under 24-cv-01971 is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Innoviz securities between April 21, 2021 and
February 28, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Innoviz securities during the Class Period, you have until May 14,
2024 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle
Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Innoviz designs and manufactures solid-state light detection and
ranging, or "LiDAR", sensors and develops perception software that
purportedly enables the mass production of autonomous vehicles. The
Company operates in Europe, Asia Pacific, the Middle East, Africa,
and North America.

Shortly after Innoviz began publicly trading on the Nasdaq Stock
Market in April 2021, the Company represented that it had entered
into multiple contracts, partnerships, and/or collaborations with
several noteworthy automotive original equipment manufacturers
("OEMs") throughout the world. These relationships, the Company
claimed, would purportedly "uniquely position" Innoviz to make
autonomous driving a commercial reality, and could be "leveraged to
penetrate and partner with other OEMs customers and Tier-1
suppliers." For example, Innoviz touted that the Company's "intense
sustained cooperation with BMW [. . .] provides [its] engineers and
other R&D personnel with a valuable competitive edge" and that
"[t]he compelling nature of [the Company's] approach and solution
is demonstrated by [its] agreements with four Tier-1 suppliers,
including Aptiv and Magna, both of which invested in [Innoviz], and
Harman and Hirain, as well [Innoviz's] 2018 selection by BMW to
supply [the Company's] automotive grade InnovizOne sensor for
integration into new vehicle builds."

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:

     (i) Innoviz had overstated the benefits that the Company was
likely to derive from its purported contracts, partnerships, and/or
collaborations with automotive companies;

    (ii) as a result, the Company was unlikely to achieve the level
of profitability that Defendants had represented to investors;

   (iii) accordingly, Innoviz had overstated its business and/or
financial prospects; and

    (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 1, 2023, during pre-market hours, Innoviz issued a press
release announcing the Company's financial and operational results
for its fiscal full year ("FY") 2022. Among other items, Innoviz
reported GAAP FY 2022 earnings per share of -$0.94, missing
consensus estimates by $0.06, and revenue of $6.03 million, missing
consensus estimates by $0.96 million. In addition, Innoviz guided
for FY 2023 revenue to fall in the range of $12 million to $15
million, significantly below consensus estimates of $30 million.
The Company's disappointing FY 2022 results came as a surprise to
investors given that Innoviz had previously extolled the benefits
it would derive from its various partnerships with purported
"Tier-1 companies." Indeed, after a multi-year period of announcing
partnerships with various automotive companies throughout the
world, the press release reporting the Company' FY 2022 results
said conspicuously little about these supposed collaborations,
referencing only its partnerships with BMW and Volkswagen.

On this news, Innoviz's ordinary share price fell $0.71 per share,
or 14.95%, to close at $4.04 per share on March 1, 2023.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.[GN]

IROBOT CORP: Faces Das Suit Over Securities Laws Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
DYLAN DAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IROBOT CORPORATION, COLIN M. ANGLE, and
JULIE ZEILER, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02138 (D.N.J., March 8,
2024) seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5.

Throughout the Class period, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
merger would place Amazon in a sufficiently dominant position in
the market for RVCs that U.S. and European antitrust regulators
were unlikely to approve the merger; (ii) iRobot had conducted
inadequate due diligence into the merger and/or ignored significant
risks weighing against the likelihood of regulatory approval;
iRobot designs, builds, and sells robots and home innovation
products in the U.S., Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Japan, and
internationally. Moreover, iRobot overstated the likelihood for
successfully completing the merger.

Based in Bedford, MA, iRobot is a Delaware corporation that
designs, builds, and sells robots and home innovation products in
the U.S., Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Japan, and
internationally. Its common stock trades in an efficient market on
the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "IRBT". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

                  - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484

J AND B PIZZERIA: Reyes Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
----------------------------------------------------
RICARDO REYES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. J AND B PIZZERIA RESTAURANT, INC. (D/B/A J
AND B PIZZERIA), JOANNE IMBURGIA, and ANDREW IMBURGIA, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01785 (E.D.N.Y., March 11, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Reyes was employed by Defendants at J and B Pizzeria from
approximately 2005 until on or about July 29, 2023. He performed
the duties of a dishwasher, cook, food preparer, and cashier at the
pizzeria. Despite working for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, he did not receive appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and
spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked, says the
Plaintiff.

J and B Pizzeria Restaurant is located at 2220 Forest Ave, Staten
Island, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Catalina Sojo, Esq.
           CSM LEGAL, P.C
           60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
           New York, NY 10165
           Telephone: (212) 317-1200
           Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

JAM MAINTENANCE: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MODESTO ALMONTE, et al.,
v. JAM MAINTENANCE LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01820-JPO-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding
general pretrial management as follows:

-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
    scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
    judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
    judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)

    must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's

    Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
    website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.

-- The Court notes that on February 9, 2024, the District Judge
    directed the parties to "submit a joint status letter by March
6,
    2024." However, on March 5 and 6, 2024, the parties filed
three
    separate status letters. All are stricken. No later than March
12,
    2024, the parties shall submit a joint status letter, as
    previously ordered, updating the Court as to the progress of
    discovery and the prospects for settlement.

A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xbR5W5 at no extra
charge.[CC]

JBS SA: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of JBS S.A. (OTC: JBSAY) resulting from allegations
that JBS may have issued materially misleading business information
to the investing public.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=22976 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On February 28, 2024, Reuters published an
article entitled "New York sues meatpacking giant JBS over climate
claims." The article stated, in pertinent part, that "JBS, the
world's largest beef producer, was sued on Wednesday by New York
state's attorney general, which accused it of misleading the public
about its impact on the environment in order to boost sales.
Attorney General Letitia James said JBS USA Food Co, the Brazilian
company's American-based unit, has "no viable plan" to reach net
zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, making its stated commitment
to achieving that goal false and misleading."

On this news, JBS' American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") fell $0.22
per ADR, or 2.4%, to close at $9.02 per ADR on February 28, 2024.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Eisman Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN EISMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., KENVUE, INC., Case
No. 2:24-cv-01982 (C.D. Cal., March 12, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of consumer fraud, negligence, breach of express
warranty, unjust enrichment and other violations of law over the
misbranding of its Coal Tar Shampoo Products.

The Plaintiff brings this action over Defendants' alleged false
labeling and selling of Coal Tar Shampoo Products under the
Neutrogena T/Gel brand which contain dangerously high, undisclosed
levels of benzene, a hazardous genotoxic substance. Defendants
designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, packaged, and/or
sold the products in the United States without disclosing to
consumers that the products contained certain levels of benzene
impurities. The Plaintiff is among those who directly and
unknowingly purchased Defendants' Coal Tar Shampoo Products. He
seeks economic damages and injunctive relief for Defendants'
unlawful conduct.

Based in New Brunswick, NJ, Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. is a
manufacturer of personal care and health products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Allan Kanner, Esq.
       Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq.
       KANNER & WHITELEY, L.L.C.     
       701 Camp Street
       New Orleans, LA 70130
       Telephone: (504) 524-5777
       E-mail: c.whiteley@kanner-law.com

               - and –
     
       Ruben Honik, Esq.
       David J. Stanoch, Esq.
       HONIK LLC
       1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
       Philadelphia, PA 19102
       Telephone: (267) 435-1300
       Facsimile: (314) 241-2029
       E-mail: ruben@honiklaw.com
               david@honiklaw.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Grodnick Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
DAVID GRODNICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., KENVUE INC., Case No.
3:24-cv-02616 (D.N.J., March 12, 2024), accuses the Defendants of
breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraud,
negligent misrepresentation and omission, violations of the
consumer protection law, negligence, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons who
purchased Defendants' Coal Tar Shampoo Products which contained
dangerously high, undisclosed levels of benzene, a hazardous
genotoxic substance. The Defendants allegedly engaged in deceptive,
fraudulent, and unlawful conduct through false and misleading
labeling, marketing, and advertising of their Coal Tar Shampoo
Products. The Plaintiff alleges that he suffered cellular and
genetic injury and is now at an increased risk of further personal
harm in the future due to benzene exposure.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. is a manufacturer of personal care
and health products, with headquarters in New Brunswick, NJ. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Ruben Honik Esq.
         David J. Stanoch, Esq.
         HONIK LLC     
         1515 Market Street, Suite 1100  
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Telephone: (267) 435-1300
         E-mail: ruben@honiklaw.com
                 david@honiklaw.com

                 - and –
     
         Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq.
         KANNER & WHITELEY, L.L.C.
         701 Camp Street
         New Orleans, LA 70130
         Telephone: (504) 524-5777
         E-mail: c.whiteley@kanner-law.com

JUUL LABS: $300M Vaping Suit Settlement Got Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Hillel Aron of Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge
approved the final part of a class action settlement with the
e-cigarette company Juul Labs and its parent company Altria,
bringing the settlement total to just over $300 million.

Filed in 2018, the plaintiffs charged Juul with misleading the
public about the addictiveness and the risk of their e-cigarettes
and nicotine cartridges -- claiming, for example, that its
pre-filled pods contained the same amount nicotine as a pack of
cigarettes, when the pods actually contained significantly higher
levels.

The plaintiffs also said Juul had targeted teenagers with
candy-flavored Juul pods and "multimillion-dollar ad campaigns and
social media blitzes using alluring imagery."

The case survived a number of hurdles: The judge denied multiple
motions to dismiss the suit and agreed to certify four different
classes of plaintiffs (a nationwide class, a nationwide youth
class, a California class and a California youth class).

Juul and Altria, which owns 35% of e-cigarette maker, appealed the
class certification; the appeal was still pending when both sides
reached settlements.

In January, the judge gave preliminary approval to a $255 million
settlement between Juul Labs and the plaintiffs. March 15, 2024's
ruling grants approval to Altria's payment of $45,531,250. The
sides have yet to reach an agreement on attorneys fees.

"Court finds that this monetary recovery is fair, reasonable, and
adequate given the risks of proceeding to trial and the maximum
recovery potentially available to Settlement Class Members if the
Class Representatives had prevailed at trial," wrote U.S. District
Judge William Orrick in his order.

Last year, Juul agreed to pay six states $462 million to settle
claims that it had marketed its vaping products to teenagers. The
year before that, it agreed to pay $438.5 million to 33 different
states and Puerto Rico.

Founded in 2015, Juul in just three short years became the dominant
e-cigarette in the United States, with a market share of 72% by the
fall of 2018. But by then, the backlash against vaping, and against
flavored nicotine cartridges in particular, had already begun.
During the next four years Juul agreed to pull many flavors from
shelves and to limit its youth marketing campaigns. By the fall of
2022 its market share was down to 28%.

Also in 2022, the Food and Drug Administration denied authorization
for Juul to continue selling its products -- effectively a ban,
although the order was put on hold by the D.C. Court of Appeals.

According to Orrick's order, 197 people have submitted requests to
be excluded from the settlement class. As of last month, more than
14 million claims had been submitted, although many of those are
believed to be duplicates as well as fraudulent.

"A substantial number of claims have one or more indicia of fraud,"
the judge wrote, "so the total number of valid claims will likely
be significantly further reduced, with current estimates putting
the number of valid claims around 2 million."

The settlement money will be divided not equally, but according to
how much money the claimants spent on Juul products in the United
States before December 6, 2022. Undocumented claims will be capped
at $300; those seeking more than $300 will have to show receipts.
[GN]

KE HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in Saskatchewan Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gregory H. Woods of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed in the
lawsuit titled SASKATCHEWAN HEALTHCARE EMPLOYEE'S PENSION PLAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. KE HOLDINGS INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-11196-GHW (S.D.N.Y.).

KE Holdings Inc. (the "Company") is the largest real estate
brokerage company in China. It operates a network of physical
brokerages as well as an online platform. In late 2021, Muddy
Waters Capital LLC, a short seller, reported its conclusion that
the Company had substantially overstated the number of agents and
stores that used its platform, as well as the Company's revenues.
The market reacted to the issuance of the report. The Company's
stock slumped briefly after the report was issued.

Saskatchewan Healthcare Employees' Pension Plan (the "Lead
Plaintiff") also reacted to the issuance of the Muddy Waters Report
and the resulting dip in the Company's stock price. The Lead
Plaintiff filed this case alleging that the Company, its officers
and directors, as well as the underwriters of its secondary
offering, are responsible for misleading statements in the
Company's public disclosures.

The Lead Plaintiff claims that the Defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections
11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges that the Company made misleading public
statements regarding its financial metrics, particularly, its
revenue, gross transaction value ("GTV"), and its agent and store
counts. The complaint also alleges that the Company and the
Executive Defendants (collectively, the "Exchange Act Defendants")
acted with scienter. The Lead Plaintiff alleges that the Exchange
Act Defendants knew of the allegedly misleading nature of the
information because of their "control over" the allegedly
materially misleading misstatements and/or their associations with
the Company, which made them privy to confidential proprietary
information.

The putative class action was initially filed on Dec. 30, 2021. A
number of plaintiffs filed motions asking to be appointed as the
lead plaintiff. All of the potential lead plaintiffs dropped out of
contention, other than the Saskatchewan Healthcare Employees'
Pension Plan (the "Pension Plan"). On March 29, 2022, the Court
appointed the Pension Plan as the Lead Plaintiff in this case.

On June 17, 2022, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which is the operative complaint in this case. The complaint
asserts five claims for relief. Count I claims that the Exchange
Act Defendants violated Section 10(b) Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Count II claims that the Executive Defendants are liable under the
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of their position as
"controlling persons." Count III claims that all of the defendants
violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act").

The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The Defendants argue
that the Company's disclosures were not misleading because they
chose not to disclose the number of "active" agents and stores.
They assert that the Company did not have a duty to disclose what
portion of its agents or stores were "active," and that the
Company's choice to disclose that more detailed information should
not be read to suggest that the information should have been
disclosed before. They also contend, among other things, that
certain of the statements targeted by the Lead Plaintiff were
non-actionable puffery.

Judge Woods finds that the Lead Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged
that the Exchange Act Defendants violated the Exchange Act. While
the complaint adequately pleads the existence of a number of
misleading statements, the Lead Plaintiff has not adequately
pleaded scienter. Judge Woods opines, among other things, that the
Lead Plaintiff's allegations fail to plausibly show that KE
Holdings' actionable statements were made with a wrongful state of
mind.

The Lead Plaintiff's Exchange Act claims are dismissed because the
Lead Plaintiff's allegations fail to raise the requisite strong
inference of scienter, Judge Woods explains. The Court has
considered all of the Lead Plaintiff's allegations regarding
scienter in their totality and concludes that individually and in
the aggregate they do not adequately plead scienter.

Judge Woods also finds that the Lead Plaintiff has not plausibly
pleaded a claim for a primary violation under Section 10(b).
Consequently, the Lead Plaintiff has not stated a plausible claim
for control person liability under Section 20(a).

The Lead Plaintiff also brings Securities Act claims based on the
statements in the Secondary Offering Documents. Because the Lead
Plaintiff has plausibly alleged based on the Report that KE
Holdings' statements in the Secondary Offering Documents regarding
its reported number of agents and stores were false and misleading,
Judge Woods says the Lead Plaintiff's Securities Act claims
survive.

The Lead Plaintiff has adequately pleaded loss causation because
the market reacted adversely to the disclosures in the Report,
Judge Woods holds. The complaint alleges that the market price of
the Company's ADSs dipped materially following the release of the
Report.

Accordingly, Judge Woods rules that the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended class action complaint is granted in part and
denied in part. The Defendants' motion is granted with respect to
the Lead Plaintiff's claims arising under the Exchange Act. The
Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part with
respect to the Lead Plaintiff's Securities Act claims. The motion
is granted with respect to the statements in the Secondary Offering
Documents that the Court identified as non-actionable. All of the
Lead Plaintiff's other claims under the Securities Act survive this
motion to dismiss.

The Lead Plaintiff has requested that it be granted leave to
replead the complaint if the Court granted any part of the
Defendants' motion. Accordingly, the Court holds that the amended
complaint is dismissed, without prejudice. Within twenty-one days,
the Lead Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint to cure the
deficiencies articulated in this opinion. The Clerk of Court is
directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 83.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion & Order dated
Feb. 26, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3jvdbsd6 from
PacerMonitor.com.


LAUNDRY OPS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia and Lozano Allege
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amalia Garcia and Victor Lozano, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Laundry OPS, LLC; Laundry Growth
Holdings, LLC; Paul Hansen; Olivia Duran and Does 1-3, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-02030 (N.D. Ill., March 11, 2024) arises under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek, and failure to pay all earned wages for all
time worked when due.

During the course of their employment with the Defendants,
Plaintiff Garcia worked laundering linens and assisting with
communicating with employees and Plaintiff Lozano worked as a
driver for the business picking up and dropping off supplies and
laundry.

Based in Illinois,  Laundry OPS, LLC is a limited liability
corporation that owns and operates a number of laundry and
cleaners. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Jorge Sanchez, Esq.
         Baldemar Lopez, Esq.
         LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP
         77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 420-6784

LAUREL MEDICAL: Sturtz Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Laurel Medical
Supplies, Inc. The case is styled as Joshua Sturtz, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Laurel Medical
Supplies, Inc. doing business as: Laurel Medical Solutions, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00050 (W.D. Pa., March 6, 2024).

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

Laurel Medical Solutions -- https://www.laurelmedsolutions.com/ --
is a local medical supply company in Ebensburg, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derrek William Cummings, Esq.
          WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
          2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B
          Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380
          Phone: (717) 238-5707
          Fax: (717) 233-8133
          Email: dcummings@weisbergcummings.com


LEE'S HOUSE: Lin Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MING HUI LIN a/k/a Min Hui
Lin on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated,
v. LEE'S HOUSE RESTAURANT INC d/b/a Lee's House SEN LIN a/k/a Shen
Lin, and BAIQUN LIN, Case No. 2:23-cv-03111-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court to enter an order:

   (1) granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor
       Standards Act ("FLSA");

   (2) directing the Defendants within 14 days of the entry of this

       Order to produce an Excel spreadsheet containing first and
last
       name, last known address with apartment number (if
applicable),
       the last known telephone numbers, last known e-mail
addresses,
       WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or FaceBook usernames (if
applicable),
       and work location, dates of employment and position of:

       "All current and former non-exempt and non-managerial
employees
       employed at any time from Agusut 12, 2020 (three years prior
to
       the filing of the Complaint) to the date when the Court so-
       orders the Notice of Pendency and Consent to Join Form or
the
       date when the Defendants provide the name list, whichever is

       later;

   (3) authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in
any
       relevant language via mail, email, text message, website or

       social media messages, chats, or posts, to all members of
the
       putative class within 21 days after receipt of a complete
and
       accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from the
Defendants
       certifying that the list is complete and from existing
       employment records;

   (4) authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of
       dissemination of the notice and its translation;

   (5) authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in notice
on
       the Plaintiffs' counsel's website; and

   (6) authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice
may
       also be published to social media groups specifically
targeting
       the Chinese-speaking American immigrant worker community;

Lee's House offers traditional, delicious Asian cuisine.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 13, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=srqxTD at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 110
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324

LGG OPERATIONS: Scofield Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LGG Operations, LLC.
The case is styled as Shane Scofield, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LGG Operations, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-00603-MEH (M.D. Tenn., March 5, 2024).

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

LGG Industrial is the go-to partner for industrial companies
looking for fluid handling, sealing, and material conveyance
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (615) 485-0018
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com


LINCOLN UNIVERSITY: Dixon Seeks Refund for Tuition & Mandatory Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BENITA DIXON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LINCOLN UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-01057-KSM (E.D. Pa., March 11, 2024) asserts claims for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment in connection with the
Defendant's refusal to provide a prorated refund of tuition or fees
tied to an on-campus educational experience that was not available
to students for a significant part of the Spring 2020 semester.

The Plaintiff and members of the Class paid their tuition and
Mandatory Fees in the Spring 2020 semester to enjoy everything
Lincoln offered them, including on-campus services and facilities
and an in-person education throughout the entire Spring 2020
semester. However, Lincoln failed to provide the promised in-person
education and facility access for the duration of the entire Spring
2020 semester, instead providing only online instruction for more
than half of the Spring 2020 semester, says teh Plaintiff.

Lincoln University is an institution of higher education the
enrolls approximately 2,000 undergraduate from numerous states
across the country. Its principal campus is located in Chester
County, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
         Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
         LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
         1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
         Pittsburgh, PA 15222
         Telephone: (412) 322-9243
         Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
         E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
                 nickc@lcllp.com

LUMIO HX: Faces Class Action Suit Over Consumer Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------
Newsome Melton reports that in March 16, 2024's world, the push for
renewable energy solutions has never been stronger. As individuals
and communities seek to reduce their carbon footprint, solar energy
has emerged as a promising alternative. However, what happens when
the promise of renewable energy turns into a nightmare of deception
and fraud? Enter the case against Lumio HX, a class action lawsuit
that alleges a web of deceit surrounding the installation of solar
panels.

According to the class action complaint, Lumio HX routinely
installed non-functioning solar energy systems, leaving homeowners
with expensive equipment that failed to deliver on its promises.
But the story doesn't end there. According to the complaint filed
by Newsome Melton, the plaintiffs are now seeking to expand the
case, bringing additional claims for fraud and racketeering.

The lawsuit alleges a systematic nature of the fraud. Lumio, it is
claimed, was created out of a merger of five other solar companies,
including AKE, DECA Living, LLC, Smart Energy Today, Inc., Lift
Energy, and Our World Energy. The suit alleges each of these solar
companies had a history of consumer complaints and legal actions
related to misrepresentations about the benefits and costs of solar
energy systems. The lawsuit alleges Lumio was formed as a way for
these companies to continue their fraudulent practices under a new
name.

So how did this alleged scheme work? According to the proposed
amended complaint, the Lumio companies lured homeowners in with
promises of "free solar panels" and claims that solar energy would
"pay for itself." The lawsuit alleges sales presentations were
carefully scripted to convince consumers that utility companies
would pay them for the solar energy their panels produced.
Additionally, the lawsuit claims homeowners were told they would
receive substantial tax rebates from the federal government, as
much $15,000 or more. The lawsuit claims homeowners were misled
into believing that this rebate could be put toward the cost of the
system, allowing them to lock into a low monthly payment plan.

However,  there is no government rebate program from solar panels.
What is in place is the Tax Relief and Health Care of Act 2006,
which instituted a 30% Investment Tax Credit ("ITC") for commercial
and residential solar energy systems. Rather than a cash rebate,
the ITC offers a tax credit for 30% of the cost of the panels. In
other words, the cost of panels could be used by high-income
earners to lower their taxable income. The lawsuit alleges Lumio
targeted lower-income neighborhoods, where most homeowners receive
no tax benefits at all.  

The lawsuit alleges the reality for most consumers is that all
Lumio's promises of "free solar" fall flat. Instead of functioning
solar systems and significant savings, the lawsuit alleges
homeowners were left with malfunctioning equipment, hefty bills,
leaky roofs and property damage. In essence, the suit claims
consumers were sold a bill of goods under false pretenses.

The unfolding case against Lumio HX highlights the importance of
consumer protection and the need for vigilant oversight in
industries like renewable energy. While solar power holds great
potential for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, it must be
implemented responsibly and ethically. Companies that engage in
fraudulent practices not only harm consumers but also undermine
trust in the entire industry.

In addition to representing consumers in the class action against
Lumio, the Attorneys at Newsome Melton are investigating claims of
fraud by consumers against other solar companies who install panels
on the roofs of homes. If you or a loved one think you might have a
fraud claim against a solar company, give us a call at (888)
808-5977 or send an email to Inquiry@newsomelaw.com. We'd love to
hear from you. [GN]

MCLAREN FLINT: Fails to Provide Meal Breaks, Buford Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chevon Buford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. McLaren Flint, Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-10621-FKB-APP (E.D. Mich., March 11, 2024) alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal
Act.

The Plaintiff seeks damages for Defendant's failure to pay
Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours
worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek. The Plaintiff also
brings this case under Michigan state law pursuant to the court's
supplemental jurisdiction for Defendant's breach of contract.

Plaintiff Buford is a nurse who worked for Defendant from
approximately May 2018 through on or about October 2021, then again
in January 2022 through December 2023. Allegedly, the Defendant
failed to relieve Plaintiff and other nurses/technicians employees
during their meal periods, while it used timekeeping software to
deduct meal periods from the total time paid per shift, says the
Plaintiff.

Located in Flint, MI, McLaren Flint is a 378 bed tertiary teaching
hospital. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                  - and -


          David M. Blanchard, Esq.
          BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
          221 North Main Street, Suite 300
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 929-4313
          E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com

MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Williams Files Suit in D. Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Management
Resource Group LLC. The case is styled as Karen Foti Williams,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Medical Management Resource Group LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00472-CDB
(D. Ariz., March 6, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury.

Medical Resources Group, LLC -- https://www.mrgllc.net/ -- provides
medical billing and collections services and solutions to the
healthcare industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian C Gudmundson, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP - MINNEAPOLIS, MN
          1100 IDS Ctr., 80 S 8th St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 341-0400
          Fax: (612) 641-0844
          Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Cecily C. Jordan, Esq.
          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1200 5th Ave., Ste. 1700
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 682-5600
          Fax: (206) 682-2992

               - and -

          Hart Lawrence Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP - SCOTTSDALE, AZ
          14648 N Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 130
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254-2762
          Phone: (480) 285-2165
          Email: hlr@zimmreed.com


NATIONAL ADVISORS: Weber Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Advisors
Trust Company, et al. The case is styled as Kevin Weber, on behalf
of himself individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Advisors Trust Company doing business as:
National Advisors Trust; National Advisors Trust of South Dakota
Inc. doing business as: National Advisors Trust; NAH Sidecar I, LLC
doing business as: National Advisors Concierge Services doing
business as: National Advisors Trust; Case No. 4:24-cv-00162-FJG
(W.D. Mo., March 6, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

National Advisors Trust Company --
https://www.nationaladvisors.com/ -- is a consultancy that
specializes in wealth management, investment, trust, and estate
planning services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John F Garvey, Jr., Esq.
          STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC
          701 Market Street, Suite 1510
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Phone: (314) 374-6306
          Email: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com


NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Settles Agent Commission Suit for $418-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that The
National Association of Realtors has agreed to pay $418 million to
settle nationwide class actions, including a lawsuit pending for
years in Chicago federal court, that accused the NAR and a host of
large real estate brokerages of conspiring to force home sellers to
overpay commissions to agents.

The NAR announced the deal March 15 and provided a copy of the
settlement agreement to The Record.

That agreement, which is still subject to approval by a judge, has
yet to be filed in court.

If the settlement follows a traditional path through court, the
attorneys who filed the lawsuits may seek to claim one-third of the
settlement as fees. This would amount to nearly $140 million to be
paid to the plaintiffs' lawyers.

Neither the settlement agreement nor the NAR press release clearly
states how much plaintiffs' lawyers will be able to claim from the
settlement.

Any fee award would come on top of $69 million in attorney fees
requested from other related settlements with real estate brokerage
giants Anywhere, Re/Max and Keller Williams. Under those
settlements, which have been granted preliminary approval by a
federal judge in Kansas City, Missouri, the brokerages will pay
more than $208 million to settle related claims against them.

The judge in that case has yet to rule on the attorney fee requests
from lawyers with the firms of Williams Dirks Cameron, of Kansas
City; Boulware Law, of Kansas City; and Ketchmark and McCreight, of
Leawood, Kansas.

Lawyers who would stand to get paid through the NAR settlement and
potentially others in a class action lawsuit still pending in
Chicago federal court include those from the large class action
firms of Susman Godfrey, of Los Angeles, New York and Seattle;
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, of Seattle and Chicago; and Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll, of Chicago and Washington, D.C.

According to the settlement agreement, the deal includes a host of
smaller real estate brokerages across the country who could be
swept up in such court actions. The deal specifically includes all
brokerages which had residential transactions of less than $2
billion in 2022. According to the NAR release, the association
estimates the deal will include more than 1 million NAR members.

The release specifically noted the deal will not include agents
affiliated with HomeServices of America and its related companies,
who are the final corporate defendant still in court in the lawsuit
pending in Kansas City.

According to the settlement agreement, a portion of the settlement
fund will come from payments from parties released under the deal,
as a small percentage of their transaction volume.

The NAR notes the deal does provide a "mechanism" to help larger
brokerages to also obtain similar lawsuit releases.

While the payout is large, the deal's most significant effects will
likely be felt in changes the settlement is expected to bring to
the way Americans buy and sell homes.

Under the settlement agreement, real estate agents for home sellers
will be forbidden from making non-negotiable offers of compensation
to agents for home buyers. In practice, this means the deal would
all but forbid the traditional 6% commission for real estate
agents, which historically has been split between the agents for
home sellers and home buyers.

Typically, real estate sellers have had no ability to negotiate
those fees. However, under the settlement terms, buyers will now
enter into agreements with their agents concerning fees.

Real estate agents will also be forbidden from advertising to home
buyers that they can purchase homes without paying commissions to
their agents, unless the agent is actually providing services at no
cost to anyone.

"Ultimately, continuing to litigate would have hurt members and
their small businesses," said Nykia Wright, NAR's interim CEO.
"While there could be no perfect outcome, this agreement is the
best outcome we could achieve in the circumstances. It provides a
path forward for our industry, which makes up nearly one fifth of
the American economy, and NAR. "

The settlement appears poised to draw to a close a court battle
that has continued for five years, since the first lawsuit was
filed in 2019 in Chicago federal court. The similar actions in
Kansas City followed about a month later.

The lawsuits all alleged the NAR and its large broker members and
partners violated federal antitrust law by allegedly conspiring to
improperly use its control of the Multiple Listing Services (MLS)
-- the central hub for homes listed on local real estate markets
--- to force home sellers to pay inflated commissions to real
estate agents.

The lawsuits claimed such activity allegedly inflated the price of
homes in the process.

The lawsuits asserted home sellers and buyers could save money if
they were able to negotiate those rates with their respective
agents and among themselves as part of the home sale process.

Judges in Chicago and Kansas City have repeatedly rejected attempts
by the NAR and the large brokerages to dismiss the cases.

In the first trial in the related cases, a jury in the Western
District of Missouri ordered the defendants to pay $1.2 billion.

The settlement would undo that verdict.

The settlement could include potential cash payments to anyone who
sold a home using an agent on the MLS in certain areas of the
country since 2014. However, individual eligibility dates would be
determined based on the MLS market in which a particular home was
sold.

Nationally, the eligibility dates will include anyone who sold a
home since Oct. 31, 2019, when the lawsuits were first filed.

The settlement agreement indicates potential class members could be
notified of their eligibility to participate in the settlement
after a judge grants preliminary approval to the settlement.

It is not known at this point when that might occur. Nor is it
clear how much individual claimants could expect to receive from
this settlement, or the settlements pending with the large
brokerages which have already settled separately. [GN]

NESTLE USA: Faces Class Suit Over Perrier Mineral Water's Purity
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that a consumer filed a
class action lawsuit against Nestle USA earlier March, claiming the
company misled consumers about the purity of its Perrier brand
mineral water.

The class action lawsuit argues Nestle markets Perrier mineral
water as pure water captured at the source in France, when, in
reality, it has been modified with a filter.

The lawsuit also claims Nestle uses treatment methods on Perrier
mineral water that would not be necessary if it originated from a
protected underground source, as would be required to meet FDA
quality standards.

The class action cites an investigation a French agency conducted
in the wake of a whistleblower from a mineral water bottling
company reporting unauthorized practices. The investigation
allegedly found practices inconsistent with regulations, including
by Perrier.

A consumer filed a class action lawsuit against The Wonderful
Company in January over claims it falsely advertised Fiji branded
bottled water as natural artesian water despite it containing
microplastics.

The class action lawsuit claims Fiji bottled water contains
microplastics that can cause adverse health effects, including
gastrointestinal issues, hormonal disruption and impaired
reproductive function.

"Toxic effects of microplastics on the physiology and behavior of
marine invertebrates have been extensively documented," the Fiji
water class action states.

The class action lawsuit argues The Wonderful Company is guilty of
fraud and unjust enrichment and violations of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
Class action claims Poland Spring bottled water not 100% natural as
advertised

A consumer filed a class action lawsuit against the maker of Poland
Springs bottled water over claims it advertised the product as 100%
natural spring water, when, in reality, it contains microplastics
and phthalates.

The class action lawsuit argues consumers pay a premium for Poland
Springs bottled water due to the allegedly false advertising and
the 100% natural spring water label is deceptive and confusing.

"A reasonable consumer purchases Poland Spring believing they are
getting a bottle of nothing but spring water from nature," the
class action states.

The class action lawsuit cites testing in which microplastics were
allegedly found in more than 90% of bottled water.
Jury orders Real Water maker to pay $129M over claims product
caused liver failure

In another case involving a water brand, a jury in Las Vegas
awarded a group of five consumers more than $129 million in
February over claims they developed liver failure after consuming
Real Water, a now-discontinued alkalinized water product.

The consumers argued Real Water used a process when alkalinizing
the product that caused it to produce the toxin hydrazine. They
also claim the company failed to properly test the water or take
customer complaints seriously enough.

The jury award included $29 million in compensatory damages and
$100 million in punitive damages, with the highest compensation
amount going to a member who underwent a liver transplant. [GN]

NEW YORK, NY: Plaintiffs Must Secure Legal Counsel by April 8
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CENTRAL HARLEM COMMUNITY
(DISTRICT 10); SILENT VOICES UNITED INC.; ST. NICHOLAS HOUSES
RESIDENT ASSOCIATION; TULINDE LLC; BREAKING THE CHAINS OF YOUR
MIND, v. CITY OF NEW YORK; JAMES EQUITIES LLC; DOUGLAS C. JAMES;
JOHN AND JANE DOES, Case No. 1:24-cv-01606-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Jessica Clarke entered an order granting the Plaintiffs
until April 8, 2024 to obtain legal counsel.

Such counsel must file a notice of appearance on the docket no
later than April 8, 2024, the Court said.

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a)(3) that any
appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and
therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an
appeal.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs cannot proceed pro se in this
action and grants them until April 8, 2024 to obtain counsel to
represent them in this action. If they do not obtain counsel within
the time allowed, the Court will dismiss this action without
prejudice.

The Plaintiffs assert claims under the Fair Housing Act and seek
injunctive relief under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. They also seek class certification under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs are four artificial entities -- Silent Voices United
Inc., St. Nicholas Houses Resident Association, Tulinde LLC, and
Breaking the Chains of Your Mind -- all of which reside within
Central Harlem Community District 10; District 10 also is included
as one of the plaintiffs.

New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.

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

NEWREZ LLC: Pre-Certification Bid to Strike Tossed
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY HERNANDEZ, f/k/a
MISTY WHITE, v. NEWREZ, LLC, d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03569-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wendy
Beetlestone entered an order denying Shellpoint's pre-certification
motion to strike.

The Court said, "Shellpoint does not meet the high standard for a
pre-certification motion to strike. Other remedies to any
deficiencies in the class definitions, including amendment and
dividing putative classes into sub-classes, remain available
Accordingly, Shellpoint's motion will be denied.

As the Seventh Circuit explained in Messner, "defining a class so
as to avoid, on one hand, being over-inclusive and, on the other
hand, the fail-safe problem is more of an art than ascience," and
"either problem can and often should be solved by refining the
class definition rather than by flatly denying class certification
on that basis."

Here, Hernandez' class definitions are not so clearly deficient
that no class could ever be certified, and therefore Shellpoint
does not meet the high standard for a pre-certification motion to
strike.

Hernandez brings individual and putative class claims alleging
Shellpoint violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(RESPA), and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Shellpoint has moved to strike Plaintiff's class allegations
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), 23(c)(1)(A), and 23(d)(1)(D).

Hernandez alleges that Shellpoint, a loan servicer, engaged in a
pattern and practice of failing to properly process her and
others’ home-mortgage payments.

She claims that these failures led to "negligent or improper credit
reporting" and the assessment of "prohibited or improper fees."

Hernandez' proposed FCRA class is defined as follows:

   "All loan borrowers in the United States during the applicable
   statute of limitations period, (1) who have or had mortgage
loans
   secured by residential real property obtained for personal,
family,
   or household use, (2) whose mortgage loans are serviced by
   [Shellpoint], (3) who[se] payments were inaccurately identified
by
   [Shellpoint] as past due 30 or more days, (4) which such
   delinquency was furnished to the credit bureaus, (5) who were
   harmed, within the statutory limits prescribed by 15 U.S.C.
section
   1681p of the FCRA, due to [Shellpoint]'s practice of failing to

   conduct a reasonable investigation and/or reinvestigation into
   consumer disputes received, and (6) who were also harmed by
   [Shellpoint]'s practice of continuing to furnish inaccurate
and/or
   incomplete information to the credit bureaus in violation of the

   FCRA."

Newrez is a nationwide mortgage lender and servicer.

A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Mar. 8, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yqRm43
at no extra charge.[CC]

NO LIMIT INVESTIGATIVE: Fails to Pay OT Premiums, Johnson Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. NO LIMIT INVESTIGATIVE AND SECURITY SERVICES,
LLC and ROBERT FORD, individually, Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-00046-TCB (N.D. Ga., March 8, 2024) accuses the Defendants
of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and all other
applicable relief under the FLSA.

Plaintiff Johnson worked for the Defendants as an hourly paid,
non-exempt employee. However, when Plaintiff worked overtime hours,
he was paid their straight hourly wage instead of time and one-half
their hourly wage, says the Plaintiff.

No Limit Investigative and Security Services, LLC operates as an
investigation and security business service in Fayette County,
Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Train Derailment Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Gorman of Morning Journal reports that a federal judge on March
13, 2024 denied a request by Norfolk Southern to dismiss the class
action lawsuit against them as a result of the Feb. 3, 2023,
derailment of a train carrying chemicals that court papers said was
dubbed "32 Nasty" by rail workers because of concerns over its
safety.

U.S. Judge Benita Y. Pearson in the U.S. Northern District Court of
Ohio also denied claims by three companies named as third-party
defendants by Norfolk Southern to have their cases dismissed as
well, except for one claim.

She also denied motions by those companies -- OxyVinyls LP and GATX
Corp. and General American Marks Co. -- to dismiss the class action
suit.

The plaintiffs in the cases are seeking damages for economic losses
caused by the derailment, as well as for emotional distress. Jury
selection in the case is set for March 31, 2025.

The derailment caused a leak of chemicals that were being carried
by the rail cars, and the decision was made later to burn off the
chemicals, which resulted in a gigantic smoke plume that made
headlines across the world.

In her ruling on Norfolk Southern's request, Judge Pearson wrote
that in prior court documents the train that was officially known
as 32N was known by railway workers as "32 Nasty" to rail workers
because of their concerns about its safety risks."

The derailment was caused by a failed bearing on one of the cars,
Judge Pearson wrote.

Norfolk Southern asked for the suit and any claim for punitive
damages to be dismissed, saying there was "no single actionable
claim," Judge Pearson wrote.

Judge Pearson wrote that the complaint "alleges conduct sufficient
to support a request for punitive damages" as one of the reasons
for her denial of Norfolk Southern's request.

As for the three companies named as third-party defendants in the
suit, Judge Pearson denied their request except for one claim.

Under civil procedure, the defendant in the case can file a claim
against a third party, claiming that the third party is responsible
for all or part of the damages in the case. Norfolk Southern asked
last summer that the parties be considered third-party defendants
because of their work handling the rail cars or chemicals. [GN]

OAK STREET HEALTH: McCrae Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Tahari McCrae, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. OAK STREET HEALTH, INC. and OAK STREET HEALTH MSO, LLC,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01670 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2024), is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law, that she is entitled to recover from the Defendants: unpaid
wages, including overtime, due to time-shaving, liquidated damages,
statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.

In addition to working her schedule, throughout his employment,
Plaintiff worked an additional 4.5 hours beyond that scheduled time
each week, which were uncompensated despite working 49.5 hours per
week, Plaintiff's compensable time would be reduced due to
Defendants' policy of limiting Plaintiff's compensation to 8 hours
per shift. As Plaintiff worked 5 shifts a week, her compensable
weekly time was typically reduced from 49.5 hours to 40 hours.

The Defendants knowingly and willingly failed to pay Plaintiff,
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class regular and overtime
wages for all hours worked due Defendants' time-shaving practices.
The Defendants knowingly and willingly failed to pay Plaintiff and
the Class members premium payments demanded by state wage laws,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants, to work as a medical
assistant primarily at the Facility located in Brooklyn, New York.

OAK STREET HEALTH, INC., operates primary care centers within the
United States serving approximately 206 care centers across 25
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone: 212-465-1180
          Fax: 212-465-1181


OKLAHOMA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY: Collins Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Karlie Ann Collins, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Oklahoma Baptist University,
Case No. CJ-24-00033 was removed from the Pottawatomie County
District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Oklahoma on March 5, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00234-G to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.

Oklahoma Baptist University -- https://www.okbu.edu/ -- is a
private Baptist university in Shawnee, Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jessica A Wilkes, Esq.
          William B. Federman, Esq.
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 N Pennsylvania Ave
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: (405) 235-1560
          Fax: (405) 239-2112
          Email: jaw@federmanlaw.com
                 wbf@federmanlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Colin H. Tucker, Esq.
          RHODES HIERONYMUS JONES TUCKER & GABLE
          PO Box 21100
          Tulsa, OK 74121-1100
          Phone: (918) 582-1173
          Fax: (918) 592-3390
          Email: chtucker@rhodesokla.com

               - and -

          Emma C. Kincade, Esq.
          RHODES HIERONYMUS
          2 W. 2nd Street, #1000
          P.O. Box 21100
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Phone: (918) 582-1173
          Email: ekincade@rhodesokla.com


OVERLAND TERRACE: White Sues Over Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------
STARR WHITE, on behalf of herself and current and former aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. OVERLAND TERRACE HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS
CENTRE, LP; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
24STCV06002 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 11, 2024) seeks
to recover civil penalties, reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to
the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in an hourly position at
Defendants' location in Los Angeles beginning on or around November
14, 2023, and until on or around August 3, 2023. Allegedly,
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff all wages at the applicable
minimum wage for all hours worked due to Defendants' time shaving
policy. In addition, Defendants failed to include all remuneration
such ad, bonus pay, and shift differential pay for example, when
calculating Plaintiff and other current and former aggrieved
California-based hourly non-exempt employees' regular rate of pay
for the purpose of paying overtime, says the suit.

Overland Terrace Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LP is a senior
living provider based in Los Angeles, CA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Colby A. Meagle-Dunn, Esq.
          Cassandra A. Castro, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                  cmeagle@lelawfirm.com
                  ccastro@lelawfirm.com

P.F. CHANG'S III: Vega Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Luz Adriana Vega, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all similarly situated aggrieved employees v. P.F.
CHANG'S III, LLC dba P.F. CHANG'S, an Arizona limited liability
company; P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC., an Arizona corporation;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
30-2023-01358112-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Orange, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on March 4, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-00453.

The Complaint alleges ten causes of action: Failure to Pay Overtime
Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal
Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Waiting Time Penalties;
Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Violation of
Lab. Code; Violation of Lab. Code; Failure to Reimburse Necessary
Expenses; and Violation of California Business & Professions
Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Evan R. Moses, Esq.
          Christopher W. Decker, Esq.         
          Samuel Knecht, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-239-9800
          Facsimile: 213-239-9045
          Email: evan.moses@ogletree.com
                 christopher.decker@ogletree.com
                 samuel.knecht@ogletree.com


PEOPLES BANK: Brooks Wins Bid to Appoint Interim Class Co-Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael H. Watson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion to designate interim class co-counsel in the
lawsuit entitled Latasha Brooks, et al., Plaintiff v. Peoples Bank,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03043-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio).

Plaintiffs Latasha Brooks, Michael Brooks, Earl Blankenship,
Stephen McDonald, and Cheryl Barefoot, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, move the Court to designate
Terence R. Coates of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, and Philip J.
Krzeski of Chestnut Cambronne PA ("Counsel"), as interim class
co-counsel. The Defendant does not oppose the motion.

Judge Watson notes that Counsel have already begun working to
efficiently manage the litigation, have successfully litigated many
class actions involving data breach claims, have demonstrated
knowledge of applicable laws, and have the necessary resources to
prosecute the litigation. Accordingly, Counsel are qualified to be
interim co-counsel, and the Court believes Counsel will fairly and
adequately represent the class.

The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion to appoint interim class
co-counsel. The Court appoints Terence R. Coates of Markovits,
Stock & DeMarco, LLC, and Philip J. Krzeski of Chestnut Cambronne
PA, as interim class co-counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Feb. 26,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ehd37vnb from
PacerMonitor.com.


PIPING ENGINEERING: Faces Castaneda Wage & Hour Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE ARMANDO CASTANEDA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PIPING ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC., a
Corporation; AES ALAMITOS, LLC, Limited Liability Company; and DOES
1-20, inclusive, Case No. 24LBCV00502 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., March 12, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the
California Labor Code and brings a claim pursuant to the California
Private Attorneys General Act.

The Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendants, brings this action
to remedy alleged wage-and-hour violations by Defendants, including
failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, failing to provide meal
and rest breaks, failing to provide accurate wage statements, and
failing to pay all earned wages upon separation of employment.

Headquartered in Lancaster, CA, Piping Engineering Services, Inc is
a contract company specializing in the fixtures of power plants.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
       Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
       Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
       Levon Shant Yepremian, Esq.
       KJT LAW GROUP LLP     
       230 N. Maryland Ave. Suite 306
       Glendale, CA 91206
       Telephone: (818) 507-8525
       E-mail: chris@kjtlawgroup.com
               vache@kjtlawgroup.com
               casper@kjtlawgroup.com
               levon@kjtlawgroup.com

QUAKER OATS: Tepper Sues Over Harmful Chemicals in Oat Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL TEPPER, individually and on Behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02055 (N.D. Ill., March 11, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's alleged false and deceptive manufacturing, marketing,
and sale of oat-based products and asserts claims unjust
enrichment, and for violations of multiple state consumer fraud and
deceptive business practice laws, including the New York Consumer
Law for Deceptive Acts and Practices and the the New York Consumer
Law for False Advertising.

The Defendant has improperly and misleadingly packaged and marketed
its oat-based products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff,
regarding the presence or risk of chlormequat in the said products.
Chlormequat is a harmful chemical, and its consumption carries a
risk of adverse health impacts to the consumer. Defendant omits
from the products' packaging that they contain (or are at a risk of
containing) chlormequat. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks injunctive
and monetary relief on behalf of the proposed Class including (i)
requiring full disclosure of all such substances in Defendant's
marketing, advertising, and packaging; (ii) requiring testing for
such substances; and (iii) restoring monies to Plaintiff and the
members of the proposed Classes.

The Quaker Oats Company packages, labels, markets, advertises,
formulates, manufactures, distributes, and sells the oat-based
products throughout the United States, including New York,
California, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, and New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
          Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
          GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Telephone: (917) 983-2707
          Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
          E-mail: jpollack@4-justice.com
                  lfeldman@4-justice.com
                  Eservice@4-justice.com

                  - and -

          David J. George, Esq.
          Brittany Sackrin, Esq.
          GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
          9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite 302
          Lake Worth, FL 33467
          Telephone: (561) 232-6002
          Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
          E-mail: DGeorge@4-justice.com
                  BSackrin@4-justice.com
                  EService@4-justice.com

                  - and -

          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com

RED ROBIN: Court Approves Class & PAGA Settlement in Miller Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants preliminary approval of the
class action and PAGA settlement in the lawsuit captioned STEVEN
MILLER, Plaintiff v. RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:22-cv-02574-JCS (N.D. Cal.).

Before the Court is the parties' Motion for Order Provisionally
Certifying Settlement Class and Preliminarily Approving Class and
PAGA Settlement ("Motion"). A hearing on the Motion was held on
Jan. 26, 2024. Following the hearing, the parties filed an amended
settlement agreement and proposed order addressing concerns
expressed by the Court at the hearing.

The Court finds that the proposed settlement is the product of
serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations that occurred with
the assistance of an experienced wage and hour mediator, Todd
Smith, Esq. Accordingly, the Court grants preliminary approval of
the class settlement memorialized in the Stipulation Regarding
Class Action and PAGA Settlement ("Settlement Agreement"), which
has been amended consistent with the Court's instructions at the
Jan. 26, 2024 hearing.

Judge Spero finds the Plaintiffs and the proposed Class meet all of
the requirements for certification of a settlement class under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). The Court
provisionally certifies the following class under Rule 23(e), for
settlement purposes:

     All employees who are currently or have been employed by
     the Defendant in the State of California for workweeks
     during which those individuals work or worked as Assistant
     General Managers ("AGM"), Kitchen Managers ("KM"), or
     Assistant Managers ("AM") (collectively, "Salaried
     Managers") at any time from April 27, 2018, through
     Sept. 30, 2023, and shall exclude: (1) any workweeks any
     Salaried Managers who did not opt out of the settlement in
     Armando Bautista v. Red Robin International, Inc., Case No.
     STKCV-UOE-2018-0002270, Superior Court of the state of
     California, San Joaquin County ("Bautista") worked as KMs
     during the period between April 27, 2018, and Feb. 17, 2019;
     (2) any workweeks any Salaried Manager who consented to join
     a prior settlement in Outlaw v. Red Robin International,
     Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-04357, United States District Court
     for the Eastern District of New York ("Outlaw") worked
     during the period between April 27, 2018, and March 31,
     2020; and (3) any Salaried Manager who signed an arbitration
     agreement with the Defendant.

The Court approves the Settlement as to the PAGA representative
action.

The application of Rebecca Peterson-Fisher, Jennifer Liu, and Leah
Kennedy of Katz Banks Kumin LLP to be appointed as Class Counsel is
granted because they meet all of the requirements of Rule 23(g).

The Court finds that the Revised Proposed Notice, attached as
Exhibit B, fully complies with due process and Rule 23. The Revised
Proposed Notice provides the best notice practicable under the
circumstances.

The Court appoints Rust Consulting, Inc., as the Settlement
Administrator and directs it to comply with the terms of the
Settlement. The Court approves the Revised Proposed Notice and
directs its distribution to Class Members as outlined here. The
Court adopts the settlement procedure and schedule as outlined in
this Order.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on Aug. 16, 2024, at 9:30
a.m. via videoconference.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 26, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3e9hs3ph from PacerMonitor.com.


REDLAND, CA: Court Dismisses Appeals Maintenance Fee Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Redland Coast Today reports that Redland City Council acknowledges
the High Court's recent decision in relation to the class action
against Council regarding historic canal and lake maintenance
charges.

While disappointed, Council respects the Court's decision to
dismiss Council's appeal.

The decision means Council will be ordered to repay the
approximately $3.79m that was being claimed by the plaintiffs.

Council has not been ordered to repay $10m as inaccurately reported
by some media outlets.

Following the High Court’s directives, the Queensland Supreme
Court will now determine the terms of the settlement.

The monies sought by the plaintiffs in the case, was money that had
been raised historically by a special charge on lake and canal
properties and which had already been spent by Council to carry out
canal and lake maintenance works and repairs to revetment walls
bordering their properties.

It was one of Council's arguments to the High Court that the canal
and lakefront class action plaintiffs would effectively benefit
twice from this decision.

Council notes the ruling was a split decision (three to two) by the
High Court Justices, which indicates there was merit to Council's
argument that also had the support of the Queensland Attorney
General.

During the High Court deliberations, Chief Justice Gageler and
Justice Jagot concluded that the appeal should be allowed and that
"Council acted at all times in good faith, honestly believing that
it had complied with the processes required to levy the special
charges".

In 2016, Council reviewed and determined that an error had been
made in the administration of the special charge and subsequently
it was discontinued in the third quarter of financial year 2016/17.
The reserve funds holding this revenue were frozen at that time,
and a repayment scheme was instigated for the property owners.

At this time Council formed a community advisory panel with the
support of key stakeholders to assist deliberations on the
maintenance regime.

Council's belief is that it has an obligation to properly test
legal matters, such as the High Court appeal, through the courts
when it has significant impact for the city.

Ongoing maintenance work on private marine infrastructure such as
canal revetment walls is now largely funded through a rating
category for lake and canal properties that was introduced in June
2018 with the adoption of the 2018/2019 Council Budget.

Council pays for 10 per cent of the cost of works on revetment
walls at Raby Bay, which closely reflects the percentage of
revetment walls that are owned by Council, bordering public
facilities such as parks.

Council will now await further information regarding the High
Court's directives to the Queensland Supreme Court regarding the
appeal decision.

Q&A

How much is claimed?

There is a total of $3,791,536.80 of unrefunded special charges
that was collected and spent on the works at three estates (Raby
Bay, Aquatic Paradise and Sovereign Waters) during the six years of
the claim period from 2011/2012 to 2016/2017.

How many claimants are there?

There are 1055 claimants across the three estates.

How will the claimed amounts be repaid?

A repayment scheme will be decided by the Supreme Court. This will
include what percentage of the settlement - estimated to be between
25 and 50 per cent - will be returned to the litigation company
that funded the class action.

When is the repayment scheme anticipated to completed?

We anticipate the repayment scheme to be decided over the next few
months noting it is subject to the Court assessment of other
factors including the repayment amount being reduced to pay the
class action funder and submissions on interests and legal costs.

How does the decision effect current property owners in the three
estates?

This is a historical claim that may not affect the current property
owners in the three estates unless they are part of the claim who
paid special charges during the relevant period of 2011/12 to
2016/17. The decision does not affect the current rating or ongoing
maintenance work on canal revetment walls that is now largely
funded through a rating category for lake and canal properties that
was introduced in June 2018.

Is Council insured in these matters?

Council is insured for such events and will be making application
for the claim amount as well as legal and administrative costs.
[GN]

RIBBON WORLDWIDE: Tepepa et al. File Wage Claim Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL TEPEPA, LEONEL NOCELO, ELKHOUAS LAIDI, JOSE FARIA and JOSE
LUIS ALBERTO MUNOZ, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated v. THE RIBBON WORLDWIDE 44 LLC d/b/a BACALL’S
RESTAURANT, and KENNETH STURM, Case No. 1:24-cv-01855 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 12, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid wages, damages, and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated employees (i.e., servers, bussers, runners,
barbacks, and bartenders) who are or have been employed by
Defendants in the three years preceding the filing of this action.
They allege that Defendants have engaged in a pattern, practice and
policy of committing FLSA and NYLL violations, including failing to
compensate their food service workers at the federal and state
minimum wage, and misappropriating workers' tips.

The Ribbon Worldwide 44 LLC owns and operates Bacall's, a
restaurant located at 220 West 44th Street, New York, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

       Jeffrey E. Goldman, Esq.
       THE LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY E. GOLDMAN     
       260 Madison Ave., 15th Floor
       New York, NY 10016
       Telephone: (212) 983-8999
       Facsimile: (646) 693-2289

               - and –
     
       Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
       THE KLEIN AND CARDALI LAW GROUP
       39 Broadway, 35th Floor
       New York, NY 10006
       Telephone: (212) 344-9022
       Facsimile: (212) 344-0301

ROLLIE'S SMOKE: Martinez Seeks Damages for Unfair Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL ALBERTO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GUL K. IQBAL and RAJA IQBAL d/b/a ROLLIE'S
SMOKE SHOP, ROLLIES CONVENIENCE & SMOKE SHOP III INC., ROLLIES
CONVENIENCE & SMOKE SHOP IV INC., ROLLIES CONVENIENCE & SMOKE SHOP
V INC., ROLLIES CONVENIENCE & SMOKE SHOP VI INC., ROLLIES
CONVENIENCE & SMOKE SHOP VII INC., and R & S WHOLESALERS INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01792 (E.D.N.Y., March 11, 2024) seeks
damages for Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants on or about November 17,
2022. He continued working for them until on or about January 16,
2024, when he was forced to resign due to the Defendants' dangerous
and illegal conduct. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiff and other employees the required overtime
wage rates, failed to pay them on the scheduled pay dates, and
failed to pay them for a "spread of hours" when they worked more
than 10 hours per day. They also failed to give Plaintiff and other
employees the wage notices and statements required by federal and
state laws, says the suit.

Gul K. Iqbal and Raja Iqbal own and operate a wholesale business
and at least six convenience stores and smoke shops under a single
trade name "Rollies."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J.P. Howley, Esq.
          THE HOWLEY LAW FIRM P.C.
          1345 Avenue of the Americas, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10105
          Telephone: (212) 601-2728

SA TELECELL: Faces Rangel Wage & Hour Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
ANGELICA RANGEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SA TELECELL, INC. AND CHIN YONG OM, INDIVIDUALLY, Case
No. 5:24-cv-00261 (W.D. Tex., March 12, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed as a sales representative by Defendants
from January 2023 to January 2024. Plaintiff alleges that sales
representatives have not been paid at time-and-one half their
regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
within a workweek. Instead, the Defendants pay their sales
representatives the same rate or "straight time" for all hours
worked, including all hours worked over 40 per workweek. Overtime
hours are also not reflected on sales representatives' paychecks,
even though Defendants track their time, added the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorney's costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest under the FLSA.

SA Telecell Inc. is a telecommunications company headquartered in
Bexar County, TX. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
        WELMAKER LAW, PLLC     
        409 N. Fredonia, Suite 118
        Longview, TX 75601
        Telephone: (512) 799-2048

                - and –
     
        Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
        THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
        P.O. Box 10099
        Houston, TX 77206
        Telephone: (713) 868-3388
        Facsimile: (713) 683-9940

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over Defective Washing Machines
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that plaintiff
Susan Zabransky filed a class action lawsuit against Samsung
Electronics America Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Why: Zabransky claims Samsung top-loader washing machines have a
flange defect that causes the appliances to prematurely corrode.

Where: The Samsung class action lawsuit was filed in New Jersey
federal court.

Certain Samsung top-loader washing machines can corrode
prematurely, a recent class action lawsuit claims.

Plaintiff Susan Zabransky alleges a defect causes the flange on the
bottom of the washing machines' tub to corrode, releasing tiny
particles during washing cycles, according to the Samsung class
action lawsuit.

Zabransky says the particles can clog hoses, preventing water from
properly draining. As a result, mold and other debris allegedly
accumulates on the corroded flange and is released onto clothing
during wash cycles.

Samsung knew about the defect as early as 2013 due to consumer
complaints, Zabransky claims. However, when consumers complained
about the alleged defect, Samsung reportedly told them how to clean
the top-loader washing machine and, in some cases, offered to send
out a service technician at the consumer's expense.

The service call fee could be close to $100, the class action
lawsuit alleges.

Consumers who tried to replace the allegedly defective flange
reportedly were often unable to find the replacement part. Those
who did manage to find a replacement flange had to pay nearly $200
for it, not including labor costs, Zabransky claims.

"However, a new flange, made of the same material, only provides a
band aide type fix as the replacement flange will also corrode in a
short period of time," the Samsung class action says.

Zabransky claims Samsung concealed the flange defect in its
top-loader washing machines and routinely declined to provide
consumers with warranty repairs or other remedies.

Had she known the Samsung washing machines corrode, Zabransky says
she would not have purchased one, or she would not have paid as
much for the appliance. She filed the class action lawsuit on
behalf of a nationwide class and New Jersey subclass of consumers
who purchased Samsung top-loader washing machines with a flange
prone to deteriorating due to the alleged defect.

The Samsung class action lawsuit asserts claims for violations of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the Truth-in-Consumer Contract,
the Warranty and Notice Act, fraudulent concealment, unjust
enrichment and breach of implied and express warranties.

In 2022, Samsung recalled some of its top-loading washing machines
because they were allegedly prone to overheating and posed a fire
hazard.

Zabransky is represented by Joseph LoPiccolo, John N. Pulos and
Anthony S. Almeida and Bruce H. Nagel and Randee Matloff of Nagel
Rice LLP. [GN]

SOUTHERN CROSS: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Sylvester Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
CLINT SYLVESTER, individually and for all others similarly situated
v. SOUTHERN CROSS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01796 (E.D.N.Y., March 11,
2024) seeks to recover untimely wages and other damages from
Southern Cross, LLC pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

Southern Cross employed Sylvester as a service line technician in
and around Westchester County, New York from approximately
September 2021 until December 2021. Despite being a manual worker,
Southern Cross failed to properly pay Plaintiff Sylvester his wages
within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which they
earned such wages. Instead, Southern Cross paid Plaintiff on a
bi-weekly basis in willful violation of the NYLL, says the suit.

Headquartered in Peachtree Corners, GA, Southern Cross provides the
utility industry with many routine field services, including leak
detection, Advanced Metering Infrastructure/Automatic Meter Reading
installation, and maintenance, standard meter services, regular
field services, pipeline integrity, and related services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
           PELTON GRAHAM LLC
           111 Broadway, Suite 1503
           New York, NY 10006
           Telephone: (212) 385-9700

                   - and -

           Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
           Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
           JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
           11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
           Houston, TX 77046
           Telephone: (713) 352-1100
           Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
           E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                   adunlap@mybackwages.com

                   - and -

           Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
           BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
           11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
           Houston, TX 77046
           Telephone: (713) 877-8788
           Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
           E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

SOVOS COMPLIANCE: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $3.53M
-----------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Sovos Compliance agreed to pay more
than $3.53 million to resolve claims that it failed to prevent a
2023 data breach that compromised about 490,000 consumers'
information.

The settlement benefits individuals who received a data breach
notice from Sovos or a Sovos customer indicating their information
was compromised.

Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim Sovos failed to
prevent a 2023 data breach of its MOVEit Transfer application. As a
result, hackers were allegedly able to gain access to information
stored by Sovos customers, including some within the financial
industry.

The Sovos MOVEit Transfer software is intended for securely
transferring sensitive files.

Sovos Compliance has not admitted wrongdoing but agreed to a $3.53
million settlement to resolve the data breach class action
lawsuit.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members have two payment
options.

For the first payment option, claimants can receive up to $2,000
for unreimbursed ordinary losses incurred between May 31, 2023, and
June 10, 2024, that were fairly traceable to the breach; up to $125
for lost time; and up to $10,000 for extraordinary expenses.

Ordinary expenses include out-of-pocket costs such as bank fees,
communication charges, travel expenses, credit costs and identity
theft protection services. Class members can claim up to five hours
of lost time at a rate of $25 per hour and must provide a
description of the actions they took in response to the data
breach. Extraordinary expenses include documented, unreimbursed
losses resulting from fraud or identity theft that are fairly
traceable to the Sovos Compliance data breach, occurred between the
date of the breach and before the claim form deadline and are not
already covered by the ordinary expense category. Class members
must have made a reasonable effort to avoid or seek reimbursement
for the loss.

For the second payment option, class members can receive a flat
rate payment of $150.

For both payment options, class members who are California
residents can receive an additional statutory reward of $100.

All class members are eligible for up to three years of credit
monitoring. Class members who received two years of credit
monitoring and identity theft protection from Sovos or a Sovos
connection following the initial data breach notification can
receive an additional year of services under the settlement.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 24, 2024.

The final approval hearing for the Sovos Compliance data breach
settlement is scheduled for July 23, 2024.

To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by June 10, 2024.
Who's Eligible

Individuals who received a data breach notice from Sovos or a Sovos
customer indicating their information was compromised.
Potential Award

$12,125
Proof of Purchase

Protection service bills, expense receipts, credit reports, police
reports or other documentation is needed for certain claims.

Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »

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

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

Claim Form Deadline

06/10/2024
Case Name

In re: Sovos Compliance Data Security Incident Litigation, Case No.
1:23-cv-12100-AK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts

Final Hearing

07/23/2024
Settlement Website

SovosDataIncidentSettlement.com
Claims Administrator

In re: Sovos Compliance Data Security Incident Litigation
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
PO Box 5324
New York, NY 10150-5324
833-462-4282
Class Counsel

Mason Barney
Tyler Bean
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP

Jeff Ostrow
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA
Defense Counsel

Michelle L Visser
ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP [GN]

SSR MINING: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to
investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of SSR Mining Inc. (NASDAQ: SSRM) resulting from allegations that
SSR Mining may have issued materially misleading business
information to the investing public.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=23047 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On February 13, 2024, before the market opened,
SSR Mining filed a current report on Form 8-K with the SEC, which
stated there was a "suspension of operations at the Copler mine as
a result of a large slip on the heap leach pad. This event occurred
in the morning of February 13, 2024 at approximately 6:30 am EST,
and all operations at Copler have been suspended as a result."

Also on February 13, 2024, during market hours, Reuters published
an article entitled "SSR Mining halts gold production in Turkey
after landslide, shares tank". This article stated, in pertinent
part, that SSR Mining had suspended production "at a mine in
eastern Turkey after a landslide, which left at least nine miners
missing[.]"

On this news, SSR Mining's stock fell $5.22 per share, or 53.7%, to
close at $4.50 per share on February 13, 2024.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

STEIN SAKS: S.D. New York Dismisses Goldberg Disabilities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued an Opinion and Order granting the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled MARK GOLDBERG,
Plaintiff v. STEIN SAKS, PLLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-03089-MKV (S.D.N.Y.).

Judge Vyskocil notes that this Opinion draws its facts from the
Amended Complaint ("AC"), the factual allegations of which are
accepted as true for purposes of resolving this Motion.

Plaintiff Mark Goldberg brings this putative class action against
Defendant Stein Saks, PLLC, alleging that Stein Saks, a law firm,
failed to make its website accessible to blind and visually
impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"), the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), the New
York State Civil Rights Law ("NYSCRL"), and the New York City Human
Rights Law ("NYCHRL").

Mr. Goldberg is a visually impaired and legally blind person, who
uses screen-reading software to access the Internet. Stein Saks is
a law firm that provides information on its legal services and
instructions on how to contact the firm for consultation through
its website, steinsakslegal.com (the "Website").

On an unspecified date, Goldberg accessed the Website with the
intention of researching, contacting and potentially retaining
legal counsel. He was interested in obtaining legal counsel because
he had been assaulted on the New York subway system and was seeking
representation for that matter. However, he encountered
accessibility barriers when using the Website, which prevented him
from obtaining information about Stein Saks and contacting Stein
Saks about potential legal representation.

Mr. Goldberg, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated
this action by filing a complaint. Stein Saks filed a pre-motion
letter, requesting leave to move to dismiss the complaint pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court entered a scheduling order on Stein Saks' contemplated
motion, permitting Goldberg to file an amended complaint and
cautioning that this would be his last opportunity to amend in
response to any issue raised in Stein Saks' pre-motion letter.
Goldberg obtained counsel and filed the AC.

Stein Saks moves to dismiss the case pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Goldberg filed an opposition. Stein Saks replied. Stein Saks
contends that the Court must dismiss the action pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1) because Goldberg lacks Article III standing. Stein Saks
argues that Goldberg has failed to plead injury in fact.

Judge Vyskocil finds that: "Goldberg's allegations do not plausibly
suggest that he has suffered injury in fact, and thus has standing
to sue, under Second Circuit precedent. To begin, Goldberg does not
allege how many times he attempted to access the Website or on what
dates." Nor does the AC contain particularized allegations
regarding how Goldberg learned of Stein Saks or the Website, why he
believed Stein Saks could provide competent representation for his
subway assault case (particularly where he alleges that the firm
specializes in representing visually impaired individuals in ADA
accessibility cases, not tort cases), whether he searched for
comparable legal services elsewhere, or why Stein Saks' legal
services were preferable over comparable legal services.

Moreover, Judge Vyskocil says, Goldberg fails to adequately allege
any ongoing interest in Stein Saks' legal services from which the
Court could reasonably infer that he intends to return to the
Website. Indeed, Goldberg does not allege that he intends to return
to the Website for the purpose for which he purportedly originally
accessed it--to obtain information regarding legal representation
in connection with an assault.

The Court cannot overlook that Goldberg's original complaint did
not allege any intent to visit or return to the Website for legal
services or consultation, but rather to purchase nonexistent goods,
including "a hat and other products," that Stein Saks does not
sell. Judge Vyskocil points out that Goldberg's reliance on a mere
profession of an intent to return to the Website is not enough to
establish standing for prospective relief.

Accordingly, the Court dismisses Goldberg's ADA claim for lack of
standing.

Judge Vyskocil notes that Goldberg's NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims are
governed by the same standing requirements as his ADA claim.
Because the Court concludes that Goldberg lacks standing under the
ADA, the Court must also dismiss Goldberg's NYSHRL and NYCHRL
claims for lack of standing. In addition, having dismissed
Goldberg's sole federal claim, the Court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over his NYSCRL claim.

Finally, the Court also dismisses Goldberg's cause of action for
"Declaratory Relief" because a request for relief in the form of a
declaratory judgment does not by itself establish a case or
controversy involving an adjudication of rights.

When a complaint is dismissed for lack of standing, courts
generally grant a plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.

Judge Vyskocil says Goldberg already has been permitted to amend
after being put on notice of the alleged deficiencies in his
claims. In initially granting Goldberg leave to file the AC, the
Court cautioned that such would be Goldberg's last opportunity to
amend in response to any issue raised in Stein Saks' pre-motion
letter.

Mr. Goldberg does not request the opportunity to further amend and
has not identified any proposed amendments that would cure his
pleading and confer standing. Accordingly, the Court declines to
grant him leave to amend.

For these reasons, the Court grants the motion to dismiss. The AC
is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is requested to
terminate the motion pending at docket entry 20 and to close the
case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Feb. 26,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3kz6jy from
PacerMonitor.com.


SUB-ZERO GROUP: Court Grants Bid for Inspection of Karp's Home
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOHN BANKHURST, PAMELA ANDERSON, JONATHAN
ZANG, and JESSE KARP, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUB-ZERO GROUP INC. and WOLF
APPLIANCE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00253-wmc (W.D.
Wis.), Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin grants the Defendants'
motion to compel the inspection of Plaintiff Jesse Karp's home.

As the Defendants explain in their motion, they read the
Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint (the "FAC"), as
focusing on the dangerous pollutants emitted by Wolf's gas stoves,
a danger about which the Defendants failed to warn the Plaintiff
class before its members purchased these stoves. According to the
Defendants, however, any elevated levels of emissions from natural
gas appliances usually result from poor-quality or ill-maintained
appliances or from inefficient or inadequate ventilation.

It follows then, say the Defendants, that they should be allowed to
inspect the stoves and the premises of the class's representatives
in order to determine whether there actually are harmful pollutants
being emitted from their Wolf appliances, and to determine whether
the appliance is correctly installed and whether the premises are
properly ventilated.

The three other class representatives have allowed the Defendants
to conduct these inspections. But Karp doesn't want the Defendants'
people in his house, period. Karp and his wife have a two year-old
child, and they are very concerned about the health and safety of
the family, to the point that they don't let hardly anybody into
their house that they don't know.

The Plaintiffs respond that the Defendants have misread the FAC:
when it is read correctly, it is clear that home inspections of any
Plaintiff's residence is irrelevant to any claim or defense in this
action. According to the Plaintiffs, their claim is purely
economic: they contend that no one in this nationwide class ever
would have paid as much as they did for a Wolf gas appliance if the
Defendants had disclosed the risks posed by pollutant emissions
because the stoves would have been worth significantly less if Wolf
had disclosed the risks posed by pollutant emissions.

In response to the Defendants' observation that class
representatives Bankhurst, Anderson and Zang all have allowed the
requested inspections of their homes, the Plaintiffs argue that an
inspection of Karp's home is not relevant to any claim or defense
and, therefore, is not within the bounds of permissible discovery.
The Plaintiffs also invoke Rule 26(b)(1)'s proportionality
requirement. However, the Plaintiffs have waived their relevance
and proportionality arguments by not raising them prior to the
Defendants' inspections of the residences of the other three
representative Plaintiffs.

Discovery either is relevant and proportional or it's not; a party
cannot selectively invoke these requirements to a particular
discovery request based on who in their camp is affected by the
request, Judge Crocker says. Having allowed the Defendants to
inspect the homes of Bankhurst, Anderson and Zang without objecting
on these grounds, Judge Crocker holds that it is too late for the
Plaintiffs to do so now on Karp's behest.

This, alone, is grounds to grant the Defendants' motion to compel,
Judge Crocker holds. Even absent waiver, the Court finds that these
inspections are sufficiently relevant to the issues that the
Plaintiffs appear to be raising in the FAC to allow the requested
discovery.

Judge Crocker notes that in the FAC, the Plaintiffs set forth in
painstaking detail their view of the severe and broad-ranging
health risks posed worldwide by gas appliances. It borders on
apophasis for the Plaintiffs now to claim that this meticulous
recitation is nothing more than background for their actual claims
of failure-to-warn.

But, even if the Court accepts this assertion, the Plaintiffs
nonetheless have put this information into play by including it in
their FAC, so the Defendants are entitled to develop the evidence
that they deem tactically and strategically necessary to meet it
and counter it as this proposed class action progresses. Who ends
up prevailing in this thrust-parry-riposte will be decided later;
for discovery purposes, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs'
allegations in the FAC entitle the Defendants to inspect the homes
of the representative Plaintiffs.

As a corollary to this point, even if the Court were to
unreservedly accept the Plaintiffs' assertions that this really is
a straight-up failure-to-warn case, Judge Crocker still would find
the home inspections relevant to that issue, standing alone.

Judge Crocker does not know how the Plaintiffs' expert intends to
accurately quantify the monetary value of Wolf's failure to advise
Karp and the other class members that their gas appliances emitted
nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and fine particulate matter at
levels the EPA and World Health Organization have said are unsafe
and linked to respiratory illness, cardiovascular problems, cancer,
and other health conditions. But it appears that Karp has continued
to use his Wolf gas range in the year and a half since he reports
he first learned of these dangers.

In sum, Judge Crocker holds that the Defendants are entitled to
inspect Karp's kitchen. That said, the Court is sensitive to Karp's
concerns about letting strangers into his family's home. To that
end, the Defendants must employ all reasonably necessary measures
to accommodate Karp's concerns.

And if Karp does not believe that such measures suffice, this is an
easy problem for Karp to solve: he can withdraw as a representative
Plaintiff and fall back into the class, Judge Crocker opines. At
that point, the Defendants would have no right--and no reason--to
come into his house. Judge Crocker points out that this is Karp's
choice to make.

Hence, Judge Crocker grants the Defendants' motion to compel
inspection of Plaintiff Jesse Karp's home. Each side will bear its
own costs on this motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 26, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bv77ayuz from PacerMonitor.com.


SUPERIOR DRILLING: Monteverde Investigates Sale to Drilling Tools
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC investigates: Superior Drilling
Products, Inc. (NYSE: SDPI), relating to its proposed sale to
Drilling Tools International Corp. Under the terms of the
agreement, SDPI shareholders are expected to receive a combination
of cash and Drilling shares. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/superior-drilling-products-inc.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

-- Minim, Inc. (Nasdaq: MINM), relating to its proposed merger
with e2Companies, LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, MINM
shareholders are expected to own approximately 3% of the combined
company. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/minim-inc. It is free and there
is no cost or obligation to you.

-- The L.S. Starrett Company (NYSE: SCX), relating to its proposed
sale to an affiliate of MiddleGround Capital. Under the terms of
the agreement, SCX shareholders are expected to receive $16.19 in
cash per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/ls-starrett-company. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

-- Akari Therapeutics, PLC (Nasdaq: AKTX), relating to its
proposed merger with Peak Bio Inc. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/akari-therapeutics-plc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask?

     Do you recover money for shareholders?
     Do you litigate and go to Court?
     Do you even go to the office and wear a suit?

About Monteverde & Associates PC

Juan Monteverde is a Spaniard and a born fighter. Our firm
litigates and has recovered money for shareholders. . . and we do
it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national
class action securities firm with a successful track record in
trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:

     Juan Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
     New York, NY 10118
     United States of America
     jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
     Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]

UNDER ARMOUR: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland denies the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment in the lawsuit titled IN RE UNDER ARMOUR SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:17-cv-00388-RDB (D. Md.).

The basic allegation in this putative class action is that
Defendants Under Armour, Inc. ("Under Armour," "UA," or the
"Company") and its co-founder and former Chief Executive Officer
Kevin Plank (collectively, "Defendants") misrepresented the level
of consumer demand for Under Armour products.

The Consolidated Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") alleges violations
of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), as well as Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
Lead Plaintiff Aberdeen City Council as Administrating Authority
for the North East Scotland Pension Fund and Plaintiffs Monroe
County Employees' Retirement System and KBC Asset Management
contend that the Defendants misled investors and defrauded the
market by falsely claiming that consumer demand for the Company's
products was strong between the third quarter of 2015 and the
fourth quarter of 2016.

The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants manipulated the
Company's financial results, and otherwise led investors to believe
that Under Armour's 26-consecutive quarter year-over-year growth
streak was "intact" when demand for the Company's products was in
decline.

Ten motions are presently pending in this case: Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment; Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Surreply
to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; three (3) motions to
exclude expert testimony and opinions filed by the Plaintiffs; four
(4) motions to exclude expert testimony and opinions filed by the
Defendants; and Defendant Under Armour, Inc.'s Motion to Seal.

The Court heard oral argument from the parties on Feb. 9, 2024, on
the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment. A hearing on the seven (7) motions to exclude expert
testimony and opinions is presently scheduled for April 9, 2024,
and April 10, 2024. Accordingly, the instant Memorandum Opinion
addresses only the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment.

Judge Bennett notes that to prove a violation of Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, the Plaintiffs must
establish six elements, two of which the Defendants challenge
through their Motion for Summary Judgment. Specifically, the
Defendants challenge whether the Plaintiffs can show a genuine
issue of material fact as to the requisite material
misrepresentation or omission and scienter (i.e., a wrongful state
of mind) elements.

With respect to the first element, Judge Bennett finds that the
circumstances under which the challenged statements were made
creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether such
statements were in fact misleading. Likewise, with respect to
scienter, there are genuine issues of material fact that must be
addressed by the jury as the finder of fact in this case.

Pursuant to this Court's Order dated Sept. 29, 2022, Plaintiffs
Aberdeen, Monroe, and KBC are Class Representatives. The Plaintiffs
bring this federal class action under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and
20A of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or acquired common
stock of Under Armour between Sept. 16, 2015, and Nov. 1, 2019 (the
"Class Period").

The Consolidated Third Amended Complaint ("TAC")--the operative
complaint in this class action--names Under Armour and Plank as the
sole Defendants. Under Armour is an inventor, marketer, and
distributor of branded athletic performance apparel, footwear, and
accessories. Plank co-founded Under Armour and currently serves as
its Executive Chairman and Brand Chief. Plank served as Under
Armour's CEO from 1996 through Dec. 31, 2019, and has served as its
Chairman of the Board since Under Armour went public in 2005.

The class action was initiated on Feb. 10, 2017, upon Plaintiff
Brian Breece filing a complaint against Under Armour, Plank, and
then-Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") Chip Molloy. After
consolidation with other lawsuits filed against Under Armour,
Plank, and numerous other defendants, the Court dismissed the
Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint on Sept. 19, 2018.

On Nov. 16, 2018, Lead Plaintiff Aberdeen filed a Consolidated
Second Amended Complaint for violations of the federal securities
laws, naming only Under Armour and Plank as Defendants. That Second
Amended Complaint alleged that between Sept. 16, 2015, and Jan. 30,
2017, the Defendants issued a series of false and misleading
statements about demand for Under Armour products and the company's
financial condition

On Aug. 19, 2019, the Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint
with prejudice. Judgment was entered on Sept. 9, 2019, and on Sept.
17, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Based on the
reports of the WSJ that Under Armour was the subject of SEC
investigations, the Lead Plaintiff moved on Nov. 18, 2019, for an
indicative ruling, requesting that the Court grant the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Relief from the Court's Sept. 9, 2019 Judgment pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), if the Fourth Circuit
remanded for that purpose.

On Jan. 22, 2020, the Court granted the Lead Plaintiff's request.
Accordingly, the Court held that it would permit the Lead Plaintiff
to file a third amended complaint bringing claims against the
Defendants for violations of the Exchange Act.

On Oct. 14, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed the operative
Consolidated Third Amended Complaint for violations of the federal
securities laws, alleging that Defendants Under Armour and Plank
misled investors during the Class Period by falsely claiming that
consumer demand for the Company's products was strong between the
third quarter of 2015 and the fourth quarter of 2016.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants led investors to believe
that Under Armour's 26-consecutive quarter 20% year-over-year
revenue growth streak was "safely intact," when in reality demand
for the company's products was in decline. They claim that the
Defendants manipulated the Company's financial results by pulling
sales forward from future quarters and engaged in other allegedly
suspect sales practices. The Plaintiffs assert violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b–5 promulgated
thereunder against Defendants Under Armour and Plank (Count I);
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, again against both
Under Armour and Plank (Count II); and violation of Section 20A of
the Exchange Act against Defendant Plank (Count III).

On May 31, 2021, the Court denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the TAC. On Dec. 1, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Class Certification, which was granted on Sept. 29, 2022.

Discovery in this matter has now concluded, and a 12-day jury trial
is scheduled to begin on July 15, 2024. Pursuant to the Scheduling
Order in this case, deadline to file dispositive motions and
challenges to experts was Oct. 2, 2023.

The Defendants have moved for summary judgment and to exclude or
limit the opinions and testimony of Professor M. Todd Henderson, D.
Paul Regan, Professor Mark A. Cohen, and Matthew D. Cain, Ph.D. The
Plaintiffs have moved to exclude or limit the opinions and
testimony of Paul A. Gompers, Wayne Guay, and Laurie Wilson. Also
pending is Defendant Under Armour, Inc.'s Motion to Seal and the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment.

Through their Motion for Summary Judgment, the Defendants contend
that summary judgment should be granted on all counts. Among other
things, the Defendants assert that they are entitled to summary
judgment because the undisputed facts show that they did not make a
material misrepresentation or omission, and the undisputed record
cannot support a scienter determination as a matter of law.

If summary judgment is not granted in full, the Defendants submit
that the Court should modify the class definition by shortening the
Class Period, which currently is Sept. 16, 2015, through Nov. 1,
2019, to begin no earlier than Oct. 25, 2016, and end no later than
Aug. 1, 2017.

While the Plaintiffs concede that they have not established any
GAAP violations based on pull forwards and that a failure to
disclose under Item 303 of Regulation S-K cannot support their
claim, the Court finds that the circumstances under which the
challenged statements were made creates a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether such statements were in fact misleading. As
such, Judge Bennett holds that summary judgment is inappropriate on
this basis.

The statements about the drivers of Under Armour's growth, about
demand for Under Armour's brand, about the strength of Under
Armour's core, premium full-price wholesale business, about Under
Armour's growth company status, about limiting liquidation and the
causes for increased liquidation, and about the status of
inventor--all create genuine issues of material fact as to whether
these statements were misleading, Judge Bennett says. Therefore,
the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on this basis is
denied.

Based on the evidence of record, Judge Bennett finds there is a
genuine issue of material fact on the element of scienter. The
Plaintiffs have established a question of fact concerning whether
the Defendants intended to deceive the market when it issued the
challenged statements. Simply stated, Judge Bennett says this is a
matter for the jury to decide.

The Court finds that the Defendants' alleged omission of the
information, coupled with internal communications demonstrating
Plank's knowledge of pull forwards and increased sales to
liquidators, create a genuine issue of fact on the question of
scienter.

According to the Defendants, the Class Period should begin no
earlier than Oct. 25, 2016--the day that the Company issued its Q3
2016 earnings release. However, Judge Bennett notes, the Plaintiffs
have proffered evidence that suggests that the Defendants' first
alleged misrepresentation and omission occurred during Under
Armour's Sept. 16, 2015 Investor Day. As such, the Court finds no
reason to adjust the Class Period.

While it is true that the Defendants raised the admissibility of
the SEC Order for the first time in their reply, the admissibility
of the SEC Order has no bearing on the Court's determination of the
pending Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Judge Bennett
opines. As such, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Surreply
is denied.

Nevertheless, the Court finds it prudent to address the
admissibility of the SEC Order. As shown by the parties' respective
positions, two competing federal rules of evidence are in play:
Rule 408, which generally prohibits the admission of settlement
information for purposes of establishing liability; and Rule
803(8)(C), which allows the admission of public records of public
agencies setting forth factual findings resulting from a lawful
investigation.

While this issue may await further briefing prior to trial, the
Court expressly notes that Rule 408 exists to protect a party that
settles one claim from having that settlement used against it to
establish liability (or the extent of liability) of that same party
in another lawsuit for the same claim. The Court does not envision
the SEC Order being admissible at the trial of this case.

For these reasons, Judge Bennett denies the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment, and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File
Surreply.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Feb. 26,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ye95dny3 from
PacerMonitor.com.


UNITED AUTO SUPPLY: Ferrara et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH FERRARA, SCOTT JOHNSON, and MICHAEL TRINCA, individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed
by UNITED AUTO SUPPLY OF SYRACUSE, INC., and/or any other entities
affiliated with or controlled by UNITED AUTO SUPPLY OF SYRACUSE,
INC. Plaintiffs, v. UNITED AUTO SUPPLY OF SYRACUSE, INC. and/or any
other entities affiliated with or controlled by UNITED AUTO SUPPLY
OF SYRACUSE, INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-00337-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y., March
8, 2024), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
as well as related damages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Labor Law, and the relevant New York Codes, Rules
and Regulations.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as hourly paid Drivers Warehouse
Associates, Warehouse Order Pickers, Counter Representatives,
Warehouse Supervisors, and other employees performing similar in
furtherance of Defendant's operations.

Headquartered in Syracuse, NY, United Auto Supply of Syracuse, Inc.
is a domestic corporation that operates as a wholesale distributor
of automotive supplies and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
           GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
           The White House
           7030 E. Genesee Street
           Fayetteville, NY 13066
           Telephone: (315) 314-8000
           Facsimile: (315) 446-7521
           E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com

                   - and -

           Ryan G. Files, Esq.
           GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
           The White House
           7030 E. Genesee Street
           Fayetteville, NY 13066
           Telephone: (315) 314-8000
           Facsimile: (315) 446-7521
           E-mail: rfiles@gclawoffice.com

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Ransomware Attack
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emily Baude of KSTP reports that UnitedHealth Group is facing a
class action lawsuit after hackers say they stole a significant
amount of data during a February ransomware cyberattack.

The Minnetonka-based health insurer is comprised of Change
Healthcare, Optum, UnitedHealthcare and UnitedHealth Group.

According to the class action complaint, UnitedHealth Group is one
of the country's biggest prescription medicine processors, billing
over 67,000 pharmacies nationwide and facilitating 15 billion
healthcare transactions annually.

The plaintiff says UnitedHealth Group should and could have taken
more measures to ensure patient confidentiality and prevent
cyberattacks.

The cyberattack

On Feb. 21, UnitedHealth Group said it had been the victim of a
ransomware attack, and a group of hackers claimed to have stolen at
least six terabytes of data from the health insurer. The attack
impacted prescription availability, paychecks for medical workers,
discharges from hospitals, and billing and care-authorization
portals across the country.

UnitedHealth Group confirmed that the ransomware group ALPHV, or
Blackcat, was responsible for the data breach.

Blackcat later took responsibility for the attack and claimed
UnitedHealth Group had paid $22 million for its data back.

While UnitedHealth Group has not confirmed it paid a ransom for its
data back, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS previously spoke to cybersecurity
expert Scott Spiro, who said, "The smoking gun, so to speak, was a
publicly visible $22 million transaction on Bitcoin's blockchain."

The cyberattack caused significant disruptions for patients needing
prescriptions filled and verifying insurance coverage.

According to the Department of Justice, Blackcat's method of
hacking typically involves stealing victims' data before encrypting
the network and servers, rendering them inaccessible. Blackcat then
demands a ransom in exchange for the decryption keys.

The Department of Justice added that the information often makes
its way onto the dark web, even if the ransom is paid.

Class action lawsuit

On March 13, 2024, a class action complaint was filed in federal
court against UnitedHealth Group.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a Texas woman, says that since the
breach, the plaintiff has spent "considerable" time and effort
investigating the breach and checking her financial and medical
records to ensure there was no unauthorized activity.

The lawsuit also alleges that UnitedHealth Group's cybersecurity
practices and policies were insufficient, did not meet
industry-standard measures, and did not protect the class action
members.

It goes on to say that, as one of the largest health care providers
in the world, the United could and should have implemented
practices to detect and prevent cyberattacks.

The plaintiff and members of the class action are seeking
compensatory damages and injunctive relief for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust
enrichment by UnitedHealth Group.

The class action is also seeking for UnitedHealth to remediate its
policies and procedures around cybersecurity, in order to prevent a
future attack.

5 EYEWITNESS NEWS reached out to UnitedHealth Group for a response
and a spokesperson replied, "We are focused on the investigation
and recovery of Change Healthcare's operations."

Earlier this month, a health analytical firm, First Health
Advisory, estimated the cyberattack had cost health care providers
more than $100 million per day so far.

On March 13, 2024, the Office for Civil Rights announced that it is
investigating whether Change Healthcare followed protocol and laws
protecting patient privacy.

The investigation was spurred by the "unprecedented magnitude" of
the attack, Office for Civil Rights Director Melanie Fontes Rainer
said in a letter.

Change Healthcare said on March 13, 2024 that all of its major
pharmacy and payment systems were back online. Last week, the
company said it expects to start reestablishing connections to its
claims network and software on March 18. [GN]

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Groom Seeks Damages Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA GROOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED; UNITEDHEALTHCARE,
INC.; OPTUM, INC.; and CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., Case No.
0:24-cv-00915-KMM-TNL (D. Minn., March 12, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust
enrichment over a significant data breach that has affected
millions of individuals, including Plaintiff.

This action arises from a massive data breach experienced by
Defendant UnitedHealth Group (UHG) during which confidential and
highly sensitive data, including personally identifiable
information (PHI) concerning millions of individuals were illegally
accessed. Plaintiff was among those whose PHI was compromised
during the data breach, which was announced by UHG in or around
February 2024. The cyberattack was carried out by "Blackcat", a
prominent ransomware group.

The Plaintiff alleges that the data breach that hit UHG's Change
Healthcare information technology systems was a result of UHG's
failure to enact adequate security measures and negligence in
safeguarding the sensitive information entrusted to it. The
Plaintiff and others similarly situated now face substantial risks
of medical-related theft, financial fraud, and identity-related
fraud both presently and in the foreseeable future.

The Plaintiff brings this action to seek remedies, including
compensatory damages and injunctive relief.

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated is a healthcare conglomerate based
in Minnetonka, MN. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC     
         1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
         Minneapolis, MN 55413
         Telephone: (612) 594-5933
         E-mail: emdrake@bm.net

                 - and –
     
         Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
         TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
         1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Telephone: (510) 254-6808
         E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com

UNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Over Privacy Laws Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Neal Deckant, writing for Northern California Record, reports that
Spanish-language television network Univision is facing a class
action lawsuit for allegedly violating federal privacy laws. The
suit accuses Univision of allowing Endeavor Streaming, a
third-party streaming vendor, to access the viewing habits of users
on its platform, Univision NOW.

Named plaintiffs, Dinorath Villalobos and Ezequiel Palomino, allege
that Univision disclosed titles and URLs of videos watched by
consumers along with their email addresses to Endeavor Streaming
without their consent. The lawsuit claims this violates the Video
Privacy Protection Act and California state law.

The case was filed in San Francisco federal court by attorneys Neal
J. Deckant, Stefan Bogdanovich and Ines Diaz Villafana, of Bursor &
Fisher, of Walnut Creek.

Plaintiffs are seeking a court order directing Univision to pay
statutory and punitive damages to a class of additional plaintiffs
which could include thousands of people who allegedly used
Univision NOW. [GN]

UPPER WESTSIDE: Coronell Sues Over Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS CORONELL, Plaintiff v. UPPER WESTSIDE RESTORATION, LLC (DBA
SERVPRO) and BENJAMIN VARGAS, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-01759 (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2024) arises out of Defendants'
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York
Labor Law, as recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act,
and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and
Regulations.

Plaintiff Coronell was employed by the Defendants as a demolisher
from approximately June 2021 until February 23, 2024. Throughout
his employment with the Defendants, he did not receive his lawful
overtime pay when he worked well in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, says the suit.

Headquartered in New York, NY, Upper Westside Restoration, LLC
provides emergency residential and commercial property restoration
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

WALMART INC: Faces Suit Over Fish Oil Supplements' False Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Styf, writing for Top Class Action, reports that plaintiff
Pearl Magpayo filed a class action lawsuit against Walmart Inc.

Why: Magpayo claims Walmart sells fish oil supplements that falsely
claim they contribute to heart health.

Where: The Walmart class action was filed in federal court in
California.

A new Walmart class action lawsuit claims the company sells fish
oil supplements that falsely claim they are good for heart health.

Walmart's Spring Valley Omega-3 Fish Oil Soft Gels makes claims on
its product with words such as "heart health," "fish oil is a
source of omega-3 fatty acids that support heart health,"
"omega-3," and the heart symbol on the front label, the class
action says.

However, the lawsuit says there is no scientific proof that taking
fish oil supplements has an effect on heart health and
cardiovascular disease prevention.

"Despite the lack of evidentiary support, companies like defendant
continue to make false and misleading claims related to Omega-3
supplements because reasonable consumers are particularly
vulnerable to such claims," the class action says.

Required FDA disclaimer not included on Walmart fish oil
supplements, lawsuit says.

While omega-3 supplements don't improve heart health, those who eat
seafood one to four times per week are less likely to die of heart
disease, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health
(NIH).

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires omega-3
supplements making heart-health claims to provide a disclaimer
stating, "Supportive but not conclusive research shows that
consumption of EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk
of coronary heart disease."

The FDA disclaimer does not appear on the Walmart fish oil
supplements, the lawsuit says.

Nestlé Health Sciences also is facing a class action lawsuit
claiming it falsely advertises that its Nature's Bounty fish oil
supplements help improve heart health.

The plaintiff is represented by Ruhandy Glezakos, Benjamin Heikali
and Joshua Nassir of Treehouse Law LLP.

The Walmart fish oil heart disease class action lawsuit is Magpayo
v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01350, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California. [GN]

WHEATFIELD, NY: Bid to Replace Keefes in Andres Suit Due March 22
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Christina Reiss of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York directs the Plaintiffs to file motions to
substitute the Keefes by March 22, 2024, in the lawsuits styled
ELIZABETH ANDRES, et al., Plaintiffs v. TOWN OF WHEATFIELD, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00377-CCR (W.D.N.Y.), ALICIA
BELLAFAIRE, et al., Plaintiffs v. TOWN OF WHEATFIELD, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00560-CCR (W.D.N.Y.), and THEODORE
WIRTH, III, et al., Plaintiffs v. TOWN OF WHEATFIELD, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01486-CCR (W.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs are current or previous owners or renters of
residential properties in North Tonawanda, New York, and the
surrounding area, who have lived in that area for at least one
year. They seek to bring a class action lawsuit against the Town of
Wheatfield (the "Town"); Crown Beverage Packaging, LLC; Greif,
Inc.; Republic Services, Inc.; and Industrial Holdings Corporation
arising out of the Plaintiffs' alleged exposure to toxic substances
emanating from the Town's Nash Road landfill (the "Site").

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motions to extend time
to substitute Plaintiffs Charlee Clark, Joseph E. Clark, Carole
Keefe and John Keefe, and the Defendants' cross-motions to dismiss
Plaintiffs Charlee Clark and Joseph Clark (the "Clarks"), and
Plaintiffs Carole Keefe and John Keefe (the "Keefes"). Defendant
Industrial Holdings Corporation does not take a position on the
Plaintiffs' motions to extend time or the Defendants' cross-motions
to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs opposed the Defendants' cross-motions to dismiss on
Dec. 19, 2023, and the Defendants replied on Dec 22, 2023, at which
point the Court took the motions under advisement.

On July 28, 2022, the Plaintiffs served supplemental initial
disclosures on the Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(l),
which included an attached spreadsheet providing information and
estimates of past out-of-pocket medical expenses and past lost
wages experienced to date. The spreadsheet indicated six Plaintiffs
were deceased: Joseph E. Clark, Joan Corrigan, John Keefe, Scott
Schultz, Karen Skupien, and Donald Zatkos.

On Sept. 9, 2022, the Defendants filed the same spreadsheet as part
of a motion to hold the Plaintiffs in contempt for failing to make
complete initial damages disclosures. On Oct. 14, 2022, the
Plaintiffs filed it as an attachment to their memorandum in
opposition to the Defendants' motion.

In December of 2022, in seeking an extension of time to file Case
Management Affidavits, the Plaintiffs argued, among other things,
that they needed more time because the deaths of some Plaintiffs
have made it difficult (and for some impossible) to complete the
Case Management Affidavits by the current deadline, including the
deaths of the Clarks and the Keefes.

The Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the claims of ten
Plaintiffs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(l) on June 1, 2023,
including the claims of the Clarks and the Keefes. The Plaintiffs
opposed the motion to dismiss on June 15, 2023, and the Defendants
filed their reply on June 22, 2023.

On Aug. 22, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed the pending motions to
extend time to substitute the Clarks and the Keefes with legal
successors to represent their respective estates. They requested an
extension of 180 days from Aug. 30, 2023, arguing that time was
needed for probate and real estate related legal work, which in New
York state, take a significant period to complete due in no fault
to the Plaintiffs, to be completed before the proper substitutions
could take place.

On Oct. 5, 2023, the Court granted the parties' stipulated motion
to extend the Defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise respond
to the Plaintiffs' motions to extend time to substitute until
thirty days following the Court's issuance of a decision with
respect to the Defendants' Rule 25(a)(1) motion to dismiss.
Thereafter, the Court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 25(a)(1), concluding that statements noting the
deaths of certain Plaintiffs had not been filed until June 22,
2023, and the ninety-day window for filing a motion to substitute
any of the ten Plaintiffs addressed in that motion, including the
Clarks and the Keefes, began on that date.

On Dec. 5, 2023, the Defendants opposed the Plaintiffs' motions to
substitute and cross-moved to dismiss the Clarks' and the Keefes'
claims, arguing the Plaintiffs have not identified good cause to
request an extension of time to substitute and, in the absence of
an extension of time, dismissal is required because any motion to
substitute would be untimely. As the Defendants point out, the New
York State Surrogate's Court docket indicates administrators were
appointed for the Keefes' estates in July 2023, and no estate
administration proceedings have commenced for the Clarks even
though the Plaintiffs have known the Clarks were deceased since at
least December 2022.

Due to the lack of substitutions, the Clarks and the Keefes have
not filed Case Management Affidavits. The Defendants ask the Court
to dismiss the Clarks' and the Keefes' claims or require the
Plaintiffs to explain why their lack of diligence should be
excused.

In response, the Plaintiffs proffer that Jennifer Page, the
putative fiduciary of the Clarks' estates, did not receive
necessary waivers from family members until December 2023 and that
Ms. Page intends to pursue letters and administration to complete
substitution diligently. The Plaintiffs assert that although the
fiduciary, Lauren Olewnik, for the Keefes' estates received
voluntary administration in summer 2023, this legal status is not
sufficiently formal to allow her to act as a legal representative
in a personal injury litigation. In August 2023, Ms. Olewnik began
pursuing formal administration when advised of the need for a
different legal status.

The Defendants counter that the Plaintiffs' lack of diligence has
caused undue delay and that the Plaintiffs have failed to identify
a date-certain by which substitution could be achieved. They point
out that, in light of the 2020 and 2022 deaths of these Plaintiffs,
the Plaintiffs have had ample time to encourage the families to
pursue formal administration in order to facilitate substitution.

The Plaintiffs moved to substitute Ms. Page, as fiduciary of the
Clarks' estates, as Plaintiff on Jan. 29, 2024.

Although the Plaintiffs did not move for substitution within the
ninety-day window, they moved for an extension of time within the
ninety-day window, and their requests for an extension of time
were, therefore, timely, Judge Reiss holds.

Judge Reiss notes that the Clarks' putative administrator
experienced difficulties obtaining waivers necessary for her
appointment, and the Keefes' putative administrator initially
obtained a legal status insufficient for proceeding with the
present litigation and has since taken steps to rectify this
error.

With the purpose of flexibility underlying Rule 25(a)(l) and the
non-rigorous standard for good cause in mind, Judge Reiss points
out that the difficulties in appointing administrators here suffice
to demonstrate good cause for an extension of time to substitute.

The Court, therefore, grants the Plaintiffs' motions for an
extension of time. The Plaintiffs will file motions to substitute
the Keefes by March 22, 2024, or the claims of the Keefes will be
dismissed. The Plaintiffs are warned that further continuances are
unlikely to be granted. Because the Court grants the Plaintiffs'
motions, the Defendants' motions to dismiss are denied without
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Entry Order dated Feb. 26, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ye4cp3xa from PacerMonitor.com.


WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of World Acceptance Corporation (NASDAQ: WRLD)
resulting from allegations that World Acceptance Corporation may
have issued materially misleading business information to the
investing public.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=22834 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On February 23, 2024, the U.S. Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") published an order
establishing supervisory authority over installment lender World
Acceptance Corporation. The order stated "the CFPB has reasonable
cause to determine that the Respondent, World Acceptance
Corporation, is a nonbank covered person that is engaging, or has
engaged, in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to
the offering or provision of one or more consumer financial
products or services."

On this news, World Acceptance Corporation's stock fell $11.23 per
share, or 8.6%, to close at $118.59 per share on February 26,
2024.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

YOUNG ADULT: Class Action Settlement in Lagunas Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOANA RIOS LAGUNAS, v.
YOUNG ADULT INSTITUTE, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00654-RS (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order granting motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement:

The Plaintiff has demonstrated that the Settlement Class may be
certified under Rule 23(e) and that the proposed Settlement
Agreement appears to fall within the parameters of what would be
fair, adequate, and reasonable.

-- Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the proposed Settlement Class is
    preliminarily certified, with the Class Period running from
Feb.
    14, 2019, through and including Dec. 23, 2023.

-- The Plaintiff Joana Rios Lagunas is preliminarily appointed
Class
    Representative for the Settlement Class. Carolyn Hunt Cottrell
and
    Ori Edelstein of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP are
    preliminarily appointed as Class Counsel for the same.

-- Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions is appointed as
    Settlement Administrator.

The Plaintiff Joana Rios Lagunas filed this state-law wage and hour
action on behalf of herself and employees who worked for Young
Adult Institute, Inc. ("YAI"). YAI is a corporation that owns and
operates facilities in California serving people with intellectual
and developmental disabilities.

The parties have now reached a proposed class action settlement
resolving Plaintiff's class claims. Under its terms, the Defendant
will pay a non-reversionary settlement of $850,000.00 to
the approx. 299 class members.

The Plaintiff also seeks certification of the Settlement Class
pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
proposed settlement appears to be within the ambit of what is fair,
reasonable, and adequate; therefore, subject to revisions being
made to the proposed class notice, Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement is granted.

The Plaintiff filed this class action suit in February 2023. The
Plaintiff avers YAI failed to pay employees wages and overtime
wages to which they were entitled, to pay employees for other off-
the-clock (but required) work, to reimburse employees for
work-related expenses, to provide adequate meal and rest breaks, to
provide adequate wage statements, to maintain adequate payroll
records, and to provide sick pay.

The Settlement Class is defined as follows:

   "All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees who worked
for
   Defendant in the state of California any time between February
14,
   2019, and December 23, 2023."

Additionally, the group of class members entitled to Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") payments are defined as follows:

   "All non-exempt employees for Defendant in California between
   January 29, 2022, and December 23, 2023."

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Settlement Class
stands to receive a gross settlement amount of $850,000.00, minus
proposed attorney fees of $283,333.33 (33.3%), counsel’s costs up
to $12,000.00, settlement administration fees up to $12,000.00, a
service award to the named Plaintiff of $10,000.00, and $20,000.00
in PAGA fees ($15,000.00, or 75%, in PAGA penalties to the Labor
and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") and $5,000.00, or 25%,
distributed to the Aggrieved Employees).

Thus, Plaintiff represents the Net Settlement Amount for the 299
class members will be approximately $512,616.67, or about $1,714.60
per
class member. The Plaintiff plans, upon final approval, to
distribute settlement checks to participating class members to be
cashed within 180 days.

Young Adult is an organization serving people with Intellectual and
developmental disabilities in the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=348LOe at no extra
charge.[CC]

ZYMERGEN INC: Wang Has Leave to File 2nd Amended Class Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled BIAO WANG, et al., Plaintiffs v. ZYMERGEN
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-06028-PCP (N.D. Cal.),
Judge P. Casey Pitts of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants Lead Plaintiff Biao Wang leave to
file a second amended complaint.

The current operative complaint in this case was filed Feb. 24,
2022. It includes a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act
against Zymergen, a group of Individual Defendants, and a group of
Underwriter Defendants; as well as a claim under Section 15 of the
Securities Act against the Individual Defendants and a third set of
Defendants, the Controlling Stockholders, which included a group of
SoftBank parties, a group of DCVC parties, and a group of True
Ventures parties.

SoftBank parties consist of SVF Excalibur (Cayman) Limited; SVF
Endurance (Cayman) Limited; and SoftBank Vision Fund (AIV M1) L.P.
DCVC parties consist of Data Collective II, L.P. and DCVC
Opportunity Fund, L.P. True Ventures parties consist of True
Ventures IV, L.P.; True Ventures Select I, L.P.; True Ventures
Select II, L.P.; True Ventures Select III, L.P.; and True Ventures
Select IV, L.P.

On Nov. 29, 2022, the Court dismissed the Section 15 claim on the
basis that there were not "sufficient allegations to suggest that
the 'Controlling Stockholders' acted in concert." That dismissal
was with leave to amend: The Court ordered that any amended
complaint is due within 28 days, but also directed that if the
Plaintiffs wish to proceed on this complaint, they can always seek
leave to amend at a later stage if discovery reveals additional
information relevant to the dismissed claims.

The Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint within 28 days of
that order. Shortly thereafter, the Court entered a scheduling
order setting a deadline of Dec. 21, 2023, to amend pleadings. On
Dec. 21, 2023--the amendment deadline--Mr. Wang filed the present
motion for leave to file a second amended class action complaint.
He attached a proposed complaint to his motion. The proposed
complaint would replead the previously dismissed Section 15 claims
against the three sets of Controlling Stockholders.

Mr. Wang says the proposed additions are based on discovery
obtained to date. The proposed complaint would also add claims
against the investment management companies for the three sets of
funds. The Underwriter Defendants do not oppose leave to amend. The
Individual Defendants filed an opposition. The Controlling
Stockholders, who would be re-added as Defendants, filed motions to
intervene for the limited purpose of opposing Mr. Wang's motion for
leave to amend.

The Court granted these motions and accepted the Controlling
Stockholders' opposition briefs to consider arguments specific to
the motion for leave to amend that those parties would not be able
to raise in a subsequent motion to dismiss.

Judge Pitts finds that the Defendants and would-be Defendants, who
oppose leave to amend, have not demonstrated the kind of delay, bad
faith, or prejudice that would warrant not letting Mr. Wang amend
his complaint given the liberal standard of Rule 15 and the Court's
previous order that specifically contemplated Mr. Wang re-adding
the Section 15 claims based on discovery.

Although the Defendants also attack the merits of Mr. Wang's
proposed new claims and contend that amendment would be futile,
Judge Pitts says their arguments will be better addressed in the
context of a fully briefed motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.

Some of the opposing parties also argue that Mr. Wang's proposed
amendment will cause undue delay by requiring another round of
briefing on another motion to dismiss. But this is not the kind of
delay courts consider when determining whether to grant leave to
amend under Rule 15, Judge Pitts explains. Amending pleadings will
almost always result in some degree of prospective delay. This is
part of the reason why Rule 16 requires the Court to set a deadline
for amending pleadings.

Here, though, Mr. Wang has specifically complied with that deadline
and has not unreasonably delayed bringing his motion for leave to
amend, Judge Pitts points out.

The Court can also consider a movant's "bad faith or dilatory
motive" in determining whether to grant leave to amend. Here, none
of the opposing parties explicitly argues that Mr. Wang is acting
in bad faith or out of motivation to delay this case

In short, Judge Pitts points out, there is no indication that Mr.
Wang has brought this motion in bad faith.

In sum, Judge Pitts holds, the opposing parties have not
demonstrated the sort of undue prejudice that would warrant not
granting Mr. Wang leave to amend the complaint. Leave must,
therefore, be granted.

Accordingly, the Court grants Mr. Wang's motion for leave to amend.
The Feb. 29, 2024 hearing on that motion is vacated. Mr. Wang's
proposed second amended class action complaint is deemed filed as
of the date of this order. Mr. Wang will refile the amended
complaint as a separate entry on the public docket within seven
days of this order.

The Feb. 29, 2024 Case Management Conference is also vacated. The
parties are ordered to meet and confer and file, by March 29, 2024,
an updated Joint Case Management Statement that proposes a full
case schedule through trial. The parties will also discuss briefing
schedules for any potential motions to dismiss the amended
complaint, as well as the current discovery cutoffs.

The parties should either indicate their agreement on these topics
and include their proposals in the updated joint statement, or
indicate their respective positions in the joint statement and
request that the Court hold a Case Management Conference.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 26, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n7xnty4 from PacerMonitor.com.


[^] Broadridge Sponsors 8th Annual Class Action Conference
----------------------------------------------------------
Broadridge Financial Solutions (NYSE: BR), a global Fintech leader,
is one of the sponsors of the Class Action Money & Ethics
Conference this May.

New York-based Broadridge -- https://www.broadridge.com/ -- has
been providing critical infrastructure that powers corporate
governance, capital markets and wealth and investment management
for nearly six decades.

Earlier this month, Broadridge launched its global Futures and
Options Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platform, expanding its
existing derivatives trading capabilities. A top 3 FCM has signed
as an anchor client.

Join Broadridge and others at the 8th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference on May 6, 2024.  Registration is now open.

This one-day event is also being sponsored by:

     * Atticus Administration, LLC;
     * Darrow.ai;
     * Davis Wright Tremaine LLP;
     * Duane Morris LLP;
     * Giftogram;
     * Hook Point;
     * JND Legal Administration;
     * Parabellum Capital;
     * Simpluris; and
     * Tremendous, a payouts platform

CAME 2024 will be held in-person at The Harmonie Club.  To
register, visit https://www.classactionconference.com/

For sponsorship or speakership opportunities, please contact:

     Will Etchison
     Tel: 305-707-7493
     E-mail: will@beardgroup.com



                            *********

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

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

Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***