---

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

              Monday, April 1, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 66

                            Headlines

2200 RESTAURANT: Briefing on Lorenzo Conditional Cert Bid Stayed
4E BRANDS: Callantine IDCSA Suit Seeks Class Status
AFFORDABLE HEALTH: Gilliam Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Tennessee
AGILON HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set on May 20
AIR METHODS: Williams Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info

AMAZON.COM: Court Narrows Claims in Video Litigation
AMERICAN HEALTH: Febles Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Sales Agents
AMERICAN HONDA: Class Cert Bid in Balletto Due March 14, 2025
AMN HEALTHCARE: Pappas Sues Over Unlawful Business Practices
ANTHONY FASULO: Palumbo Seeks Final OK of Proposed Settlement

ANYWHERE REAL: Burnett Suit Seeks $4.8B Judgment vs HomeServices
APPLE INC: AirTag Tracking Class Action Suit Moves Forward
APPLE INC: CAT Upholds Litigation Funding Agreement in UK
APPLE INC: Court Certifies Class Suit Over AirTags Stalking Claims
APPLE INC: Settles Class Suit for $490M Over iPhone Demand in China

ASR GROUP: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over Sugar Price Fixing
BANK OF MONTREAL: Faces Class Suit Over E-Transfer Theft
BARCLAYS PLC: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set May 17
BATTLE CREEK: 6th Circuit Addresses Suit on Unreimbursed Expenses
BEYOND MEAT: Bid to Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit Granted in Part

BIG LOTS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Barnes Due August 14
CANADA: PSAC Members Not Included in Indigenous Class Action
CAPITAL ONE: Wins Class Suit Over Foreign Currency Swap Overcharges
CARMAX AUTO: Serrano Suit Removed to S.D. California
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge

CELLARY INC: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CENTRAL GARDEN: Flodin Seeks to Seal Class Cert. Documents
CENTRAL GARDEN: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of California Residents
CHUBB LTD: Court Reverses SXSW Class-Action Defense, Settlement
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Goodrow Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania

CITRIX SYSTEMS: Nunn Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
CITY CENTRE RESIDENTIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Maintenance Issues
CLIMATE SOLAR: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
COLONIAL LIFE: Seawell Suit Seeks Class Certification
COLTER ENERGY: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Response in Joyce

COMCAST CABLE: Metzger Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
CONCENTRA HEALTH SERVICES: Faces Data Breach Suit in MI Court
CONCENTRA HEALTH: Moreno Suit Removed to C.D. California
CONCENTRA HEALTH: Tate Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
CONTEMPORARY INFORMATION: Garcia Suit Removed to M.D. Florida

CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Settles Data Breach Suit for $2.45-Mil.
CORECIVIC INC: Lopez Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates
COUNTRY OAKS: Parker Seeks to Certiy California Resident Subclasses
COVANTA DADE: Brashevitzky Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
COVANTA DADE: Suit Seeks to File Memorandum Under Seal

CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due April 17
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Settles Class Suit by Fixing Jail Conditions
DATABRICKS INC: Faces O'Nan Suit Over Copyright Infringement
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Bid to Certify Class in Pappas Partly OK'd
DOTDASH MEDIA: Langston Files Suit in D. Utah

DR KELLYANN LLC: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
E.I. DU PONT: Faces Class Suit Over Wastewater Contamination
EDDIE BAUER: Ninth Cir. Reverses False Ad Class Suit Dismissal
ENSIGN UNITED: Faces Nava Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ERIC SHOES INC: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

EXPEDIA GROUP: Echevarria Seeks Leave To File Exhibits Under Seal
FANTASIA INDUSTRIES: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FCA US: Bid to Certify New York & California Classes Stricken
FUNNY TIME INC: Stevenson Sues Over Unpaid Wages
G.SKILL INT'L: Hurd Class Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes

GATE GOURMET: Howell Suit Removed to D. Colorado
GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Pesticides in Cereals
GENOMMA LAB USA: Harris Files Suit in E.D. California
GETTYSBURG COLLEGE: Vigliano Sues Over Retention of Tuition
GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks to Strike Corrected Bid to Certify Class

GOODYEAR TIRE: Shumate Sues Over Unlawfully Fixed Prices
GOOGLE LLC: Wins Class Suit Over Use of IBM Photo Database
GORIS GROCERS: Romero Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage
GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Class Suit Over Gas Emissions Discussed
GREENSBORO COLLEGE: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach Response

GRETCHEN SCOTT: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HART CONSUMER PRODUCTS: Conrad Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama
HAUS OF HANZ: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HERMES INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Birkin Sales Practices
HERSHEY COMPANY: Faces Suit Over Lily's Chocolate Stevia Claims

HOUSE FOODS: Zuniga Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement
HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES: Must File Class Cert Responses by April 4
INDIVIOR PLC: Higher Court Strikes Out Securities Class Action
INNOVIZ TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Claim
JBS SA: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Claims

JINDAL POLY: Faces Class Action Over Securities Claims
JUUL LABS: Settlement in Product Liability Suit Gets Final Nod
K&D LIQUORS INC: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
KANG LONG: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
KHRG SACRAMENTO: Barr Suit Removed to E.D. California

KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Class Settlement in Armstrong Gets Final Nod
KINDER MORGAN: Anderson Suit Transferred to S.D. California
L'OREAL USA: Snow Sues Over Unsafe Levels of Benzene
LA TERRA FINA USA: Vineyard Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
LATAM AIRLINES: Faces Consumers Suit in Chilean Court

LATOYA HUGHES: Court Terminates Ausby, et al., in Class Action
LEDGER SAS: Banai Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
LEGEND GROUP BRANDS: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
LEVB INC: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
LINDA BAMMANN: Court Dismisses LGT Complaint w/o Prejudice

LINKEDIN CORP: Faces Monopoly Class Suit Over Premium Subscription
LOS PAISANOS MEAT: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LOUISIANA: Loses Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Order in Alex Suit
LYFT INC: Faces Class Suit Over Wheelchair Accessibility Concerns
M.A.C. COSMETICS: Byrd Suit Transferred to N.D. California

MAC COSMETICS: Parties Seeks More Time to File Amended Complaint
MACONDO DORAL: Toro Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MAGIC WOK: Grajeda Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
MALABAR KITCHEN: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MANPOWERGROUP: Tucker Files TCPA Suit in D. Oregon

MARK CUBAN: Karnas Suit Seeks to Certify Nationwide Issue Classes
MAURICES INCORPORATED: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Dennis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MAYO FOUNDATION: Teresa Files Suit in D. Utah
MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL: Court Stays Colinayo Class Suit

MDL 2924: 4 Suits Consolidated in Ranitidine Product Litigation
MDL 3080: LDG Case Consolidated in Insulin Pricing Litigation
MDL 3081: 3 Suits Consolidated in Port Catheter Implant Row
MEDQ INC: Ramey Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII and PHI
MERCER UNIVERSITY: Koerner Files Suit in M.D. Georgia

META PLATFORMS: Court Certifies Advertisers' Class Action Suit
META PLATFORMS: Lyons Central Joins Mental Health Crisis Suit
MIG FURNITURE INC: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MILLIMAN INC: Handorf Suit Transferred to N.D. Iowa
MIT45 INC: B.D. Sues Over False and Misleading Sales Practices

MODERNIZE INC: Grochowski Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
MOISES VILLALOBOS: Lacy Files Suit in S.D. Texas
MORTGAGE CONTRACTING: Gay Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Texas
MUNCHKIN INC: Miramontes Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
NATERA INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 31, 2025

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Impacts of Proposed Settlement Discussed
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Losses Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Disability Plan
NATIONAL INSURANCE: Prosser Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
NEO G USA: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
NEW DIRECTIONS: Henderson Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages

NEW YORK GOLD: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NEW YORK, NY: Seabrook Files Suit in S.D. New York
NEXT BRIDGE: Shareholder Files Class Suit Over Misleading Info
NISSAN MOTORS: Settles 2017 Data Breach Class Suit for $1.82MM
NVIDIA CORP: Faces Nazemian Suit Over Copyright Infringement

OFFICE DEPOT: Benge Suit Removed to E.D. California
OFFICESCAPES LLC: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
ON TIME TRANSPORT: Isaac Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
ONTARIO: Court Certifies Basic Income Pilot Program Class Suit
ONTARIO: Faces Class Action on Basic Income Program Cancellation

OXY USA: Seeks Extension to Respond to Class Cert Bid
PABST BREWING: Wins Summary Judgment Bid v. Peacock
PAULA'S CHOICE: Vargison Sues Over False Advertisements
PENUMBRA INC: Faces Labor Suit in California Superior Court
PERDUE FOODS: Court Tosses Parker Bid for Conditional Certification

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Ruling Sets Standards for FLSA Class Cert
PHYSICIANS IMMEDIATE: Faces Class Suit Over Data Breach Response
POPPIN INC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PPG INDUSTRIES: Parties Seek to Extends Fact Discovery Deadline
PREMIER HEALTH: Pierce Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts

PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Roberts Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Court Tosses Vogt Bid to Certify Class
PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION: Wicklein Sues Over Breach of Contract
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Allowed to Seal Exhibits in Watson Suit
PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Sibert Files Bid to Seal Materials Under Seal

PROPZU INC: Rayburn Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
QSC LLC: Beauchamp Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
QUAKER OATS: Faces Another Class Suit Over Pesticide Contamination
QUIDELORTHO CORP: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
REALPAGE INC: Kabisch Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas

RGM DISTRIBUTION: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
RINGCENTRAL INC: Discovery Ongoing in Reuben Shareholder Suit
ROAD RUNNER SPORTS: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROBERT MARSH ENTERPRISES: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ROBLOX CORPORATION: Gentry Sues Over Illegal Gambling Operation

ROCKET COMPANIES: Seeks to File Class Sur-Reply in Shupe Suit
SAINT AUGUSTINE: May Face Class Suit Over Missed Paychecks
SALEM COUNTY, NJ: Plaintiff's Bids to Amend and Consolidate Nixed
SAN DIEGO, CA: Class Settlement in Bloom Gets Initial Nod
SAZERAC COMPANY: Andrews Suit Seeks to Certify Class

SELENE FINANCE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
SEOUL SHOPPING: Santana Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SEPHORA USA: Court Dismisses Clean Beauty Class Action Lawsuit
SHELDON POLLACK: Higher Court Dismisses Medical Malpractice Suit
SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces New Securities Fraud Class Action Suit

SILVERGATE BANK: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Bhatia Class Suit
SOLVE IT!: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SONDER HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Delaying Financial Results
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Birg FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Dismissal of Consolidated Suit Affirmed

SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Securities Suit Over Plane Design Flaws
SSR MINING: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Information
STRENGTH20 LLC: Pimentel Seeks Conditional Status of Collective
SUNDAY IN BROOKLYN: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SUNFOOD CORPORATION: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

TENNESSEE ORTHOPAEDIC: Settles Class Action Suit Over Data Breach
TENNESSEE ORTHOPAEDIC: Settles Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
TERVIS TUMBLER: General Pretrial Management Entered in Herrera
THEMIS BAR REVIEW: Sahagun Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII
TIKTOK INC: Bravo Files Suit in N.D. Illinois

TINDER INC: Froelich Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
TKO HOLDINGS: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Class Suit for $335-Mil.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Kesselman Due July 19
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT: Schenk Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TRANSAMERICA CORP: Smith Appeals Suit Dismissal to 5th Cir.

TRINITY UNIVERSAL: Butler Files Suit in N.D. Texas
TTI CONSUMER POWER: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
UNICORN WEALTH: Fernandez Suit Removed to S.D. California
UNITED STATES: $125MM Deal in Pacer Court System Suit Granted OK
UNITED STATES: CCWP Wins Class Certification Bid

UNITED STATES: Court Tosses Tucker Class Suit with Prejudice
UNITED STATES: Etzenhouser Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert.
UNITED SUGAR: Faces Another Class Suit Over Sugar Price Fixing
UNITY SOFTWARE: Wins Shareholders' Securities Class Suit
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA: Sangster Sues Over Denial of All Wages

UTAH SELL NOW: James Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
UTAH: Hansen Files Class Action Over State's Parole Procedures
VAL GROUP INTERNATIONAL: Herrera Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VALE SA: Faces Class Suit Over 2015 Mariana Dam Collapse in Brazil
VALLEY FIBERS: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

VALMED INC: Melgar de Melgar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VAXART INC: Class Cert Hearing in Himmelberg Continued to April 4
VAXART INC: Seeks to Leave to File Sur-Reply in Himmelberg Suit
VEEVA SYSTEMS: Tidyman Sues Over Age Discrimination
VITA COFFEE: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

VRC COMPANIES: Licon Suit Removed to C.D. California
VULCAN SPORTING: Herrera Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WALGREENS BOOTS: Navarro Sues Over Unsafe Levels of Benzene
WALMART INC: Navarro Sues Over Benzene in Acne Treatment Products
WESTERN UNION: Faces Data Privacy Suit in California Court

WESTLAKE CORP: Settlement in Securities Suit for Court OK
WHALECO INC: Rejects Bid to Compel Arbitration in OTSA Class Suit
WINGSTOP INC: Sued for Violating Illinois Biometrics Privacy Law
WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to Oct. 3
YOU DESIGN WE CREATE: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

ZOOM TECHNOLOGIES: Court Narrows Claims in Wysocki Suit

                            *********

2200 RESTAURANT: Briefing on Lorenzo Conditional Cert Bid Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIAN LORENZO, v. 2200
RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a DUNE BY LAURENT TOURONDEL, Case No.
0:24-cv-60078-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge William Dimitrouleas
entered an order granting the joint motion to stay briefing of
Plaintiff's conditional certification motion pending completion of
mediation, filed March 14, 2024, as follows:

    1. The Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is
denied
       without prejudice to the Plaintiff refiling the motion
within
       ten (10) days of the April 18, 2024 mediation in the event
that
       the case is not resolved at the mediation.

    2. Further, if this case does not resolve at mediation and the
       Plaintiff refiles his motion for conditional certification,
the
       Defendant will be permitted 30 days to respond to the motion

       and The Plaintiff will have seven (7) days to reply.

The Parties have agreed to attend an early, class-based mediation
on April 18, 2024 rather than to presently proceed with briefing
the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification

A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9zumMl at no extra
charge.[CC]

4E BRANDS: Callantine IDCSA Suit Seeks Class Status
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELODY CALLANTINE, on
behalf of herself, her minor children K.C. and L.C., and all others
similarly situated, v. 4E BRANDS NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-00801-DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiff move the Court to
enter an order that the Plaintiff's claims under Indiana's
Deceptive Consumer Sales Act ("IDCSA") may proceed as a class
action.

    1. This class action seeks redress for the harms brought about
by
       the Defendant 4e Brands placing defective hand sanitizer
into
       the stream of commerce containing the poisonous chemical
       methanol.

       4e Brands' products were placed on the market with deceptive

       misrepresentations relating to the active ingredients and
       effectiveness of its hand sanitizer. Specifically, the
       Defendant marketed its hand sanitizer as containing Ethyl
       Alcohol when, in fact, it contained poisonous methanol.

    2. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class consisting of (a) all

       Indiana residents, (b) who, within two years of the filing
of
       this action, (c) purchased any type of Blumen Hand
Sanitizer,
      (d) placed into the stream of commerce by 4e Brands or its
       affiliates or related companies, (e) that contained methanol
as
       an active ingredient.

    3. All requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal

       Rules of Civil Procedure have been met.

    4. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is not

       practicable. Discovery revealed that the Defendant
distributed
       for sale at least 100,000 and as many as 300,000 units of
hand
       sanitizer that fell under the recall for methanol
       contamination.

    5. The Plaintiff requests certification of either: (a) a class
as
       to all issues, or (b) a class on liability and statutory
       damages.

    6. The Plaintiff also requests that the law firm of Pfeifer
Morgan
       & Stesiak LLP be appointed as counsel for the class.

4e Brands manufactured, marketed and sold personal care products
throughout the United States.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u2OXMi at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas E. Sakaguchi, Esq.
          Ryan G. Milligan, Esq.
          Peter D. Hamann, Esq.
          PFEIFER MORGAN & STESIAK LLP
          53600 N. Ironwood Road
          South Bend, IN 46635
          Telephone: (574) 272-2870
          Facsimile: (574) 271-4329
          E-mail: DSakaguchi@pilawyers.com
                  RMilligan@pilawyers.com
                  PHamann@pilawyers.com

AFFORDABLE HEALTH: Gilliam Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Affordable Health
Solutions Inc. The case is styled as William Steven Gilliam, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Affordable
Health Solutions Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00020 (M.D. Tenn., March
12, 2024).

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

Affordable Health Solutions Inc. (AHS) --
https://affordablehealthonline.com/ -- has been serving the health
and life insurance needs of clients in New Hampshire and Maine
since 2002.[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

               - and -

          Scott Alan Lanzon, Esq.
          THE LANZON FIRM
          550 W. Main Street, Suite 550
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Phone: (865) 212-0955
          Fax: (865) 212-0956
          Email: scott.lanzon@gmail.com


AGILON HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set on May 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your agilon health, inc. (NYSE:AGL)
investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the
federal securities laws, follow the link below for more
information:

https://zlk.com/pslra-1/agilon-health-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=72018&wire=1

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

THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against
Agilon Health, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders
who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between
January 9, 2019 and January 9, 2024.

CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that:

     (1) touting the Company's purported visibility into
utilization trends and medical costs;

     (2) failing to disclose increased medical costs that Agilon
had incurred prior to and during the class period due to higher
utilization of healthcare by MA patients;

     (3) falsely stating that its incurred-but-not-reported reserve
was adequate;

     (4) making false and misleading statements about the
effectiveness of its business model;

     (5) issuing overly optimistic financial guidance; and

     (6) issuing risk disclosures that were materially false and
misleading because they characterized adverse facts that had
already materialized as mere possibilities.

WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in agilon health stock during
the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go
to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/agilon-health-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=72018&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.

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

CONTACT:

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

AIR METHODS: Williams Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself individually and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AIR METHODS CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00642-NRN (D. Colo., March 8, 2024) is
a class action arising out of the recent cyberattack and data
breach resulting from Defendant's failure to implement reasonable
and industry standard data security practices.

The Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class
Members' sensitive information, including their full names and
contact information ("personally identifiable information") and
health insurance and medical treatment information, which is
protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have
been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft. Through this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to remedy
these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the data
breach.

The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients at
Defendant.

Air Methods Corporation is an air medical service company that
provides over 100,000 transports for patients annually.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com

AMAZON.COM: Court Narrows Claims in Video Litigation
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Amazon Prime Video Litigation Case
No. 2:22-cv-00401-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo Martinez
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant
Amazon's motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims under Washington law are
dismissed. Amazon's motion is denied as to all other claims. The
parties are to promptly propose a class certification briefing
schedule.

Accordingly, giving the Plaintiffs the benefit of every inference
at this stage, the Court finds that it is not clear that Amazon's
Terms and Conditions sufficiently informed Plaintiffs that their
digital content was not, in fact, "bought" in the usual sense of
the term but was "limitedly licensed" and subject to cancellation.


The Plaintiffs filed their amended Complaint on Sept. 12, 2022. The
Plaintiffs bring this putative class action alleging damages from
overpaying for Digital Content due to Amazon's misconduct.

The Plaintiffs allege that Amazon overcharged and "deceived
consumers by misrepresenting that it was selling them Digital
Content when, in fact, it was really only licensing it to them."

The Plaintiffs raise claims under California, New York, and
Washington consumer protection law, including: (1) California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (2) California's False
Advertising Law ("FAL"); (3) California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"); (4) New York's General Business Law ("GBL"); and (5) the
Washington Consumer Protection Act ("WCPA"), as well as common law
claims for unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including but not limited to
statutory, compensatory, incidental, and consequential damages,
injunctive relief, equitable monetary relief, punitive or exemplary
damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs are Amazon consumers from New York, California, and
Washington. The Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Digital
Content of movies or television shows from Amazon, and then lost
access to the Digital Content they purchased.

Amazon is an American online retailer and provides consumers with
the option to 'Buy" movies, television or cable shows and music"
via its website or "Prime Video app."

A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Bddpem at no extra
charge.[CC]

AMERICAN HEALTH: Febles Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Sales Agents
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IZAIAH FEBLES and NICHOLAS
PERILLO, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v.
AMERICAN HEALTH REFORM SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a AMERICAN HEALTH
MARKETPLACE, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No.
2:24-cv-00047-JLB-KCD (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to
enter an order:

    1. Conditionally certifying the following class of Sales
Agents:

         All employees who sold insurance for Defendant at any time

         in the three (3) years preceding the filing of the
Complaint,
         who worked overtime and who's regular rate for purposes of

         calculating overtime compensation did not include
commissions
         or bonuses.

    2. Authorizing the form and content of the Notice (Exhibit C)
and
       Consent Form (Exhibit D).

    3. Within 10 days of the order, requiring the Defendant to
produce
       a list with the names, addresses, phone numbers, email
       addresses and last four digits of social security numbers,
for
       all current or former employees within the class
definition.

    4. Within 10 days of the order, requiring the Defendant to post

       the Notice and Consent Form in a conspicuous place at its
       Oakland Park, Florida office.

    5. Within 10 days of Defendant's production of the list,
       authorizing the Plaintiffs' counsel to send a copy of the
       Notice and Consent Form to all putative class members by
U.S.
       mail, email, and text message.

The case arises under the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Complaint allegations arise from a
uniform compensation policy The Defendant applied to all Sales
Agents, which did not include non-discretionary income in the
calculation of overtime compensation.

The Plaintiffs, the 12 opt-ins, and the putative collective members
are Defendant's Sales Agents across Florida and the country.

The Defendant is a health insurance agency that provides its
customers with health plan shopping and enrollment services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rg9Apu at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason L. Gunter, Esq.
          Conor P. Foley, Esq.
          GUNTERFIRM
          2165 W. First St., 104
          Fort Myers, FL 33901
          Telephone: (239) 334-7017
          E-mail: Jason@GunterFirm.com
                  Conor@GunterFirm.com

AMERICAN HONDA: Class Cert Bid in Balletto Due March 14, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEVERLY BALLETTO, et al.,
v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-01017-JSW (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered an order setting case
management dates and vacating case management conference as
follows:

  Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off:          Jan. 15, 2025

  Initial Expert Disclosure:             March 14, 2025

  Rebuttal Expert Disclosure:            May 15, 2025

  Expert Discovery Cut-Off:              June 30, 2025

  Class Certification Motion:            March 14, 2025

  Class Certification Response:          May 15, 2025

  Class Certification Reply:             June 16, 2025

  Class Certification Motion Hearing:    July 25, 2025, at 9:00
a.m.

American Honda develops new concepts and designs for future Honda
automobiles.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qOA5E3 at no extra
charge.[CC]

AMN HEALTHCARE: Pappas Sues Over Unlawful Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
JEAN PAPPAS, JOHANNAH HETHERINGTON, NIKOLE DOMKE, MICHELLE
ANDERSON, and JANE ANGELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMN HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.,
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., AND KAISER FOUNDATION
HOSPITALS, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01426-AGT (N.D. Cal., March
8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
contract, breach of contractual duty of good faith and fair
dealing, promissory estoppel, quantum meruit/quasi-contract,
fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, negligent
misrepresentation, inducing breach of contract, tortious
interference with contractual relations, and violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, AMN is enticing travel nurses to sign
with AMN by offering a fixed-term assignment at an attractive
agreed-upon pay rate to staff a particular healthcare facility,
like Kaiser, which makes up a significant share of AMN's business
in order to maintain the significant profit margins that had become
accustomed to during the COVID-19 pandemic and to gain a
competitive advantage that will allow to become the exclusive
staffing agency for more hospitals and healthcare providers.
Accepting the assignment typically involves the nurse foregoing
other employment opportunities, securing short-term housing,
relocating within or across states, and incurring related expenses.
However, after the nurse accepts the position and starts the
assignment, AMN makes a "take-it-or-leave-it" demand to accept less
pay or be terminated.

AMN tells its nurses that it is being forced to cut pay rates by
its healthcare facility clients, like Kaiser, who AMN blames for
unilaterally lowering their "bill rates," i.e., the rate the
healthcare facility has agreed to pay AMN. The Defendant is
knowingly engaging in these "bait-and-switch" practices and
perpetrating fraud on travel nurses in a quest for profit and
market share, says the suit.

This lawsuit seeks recovery for the pay losses Plaintiffs and other
travel nurses experienced as the result of AMN's unlawful business
practices, which AMN blames on the facilities it staffs -- like
Kaiser facilities. AMN and Kaiser are jointly and severally liable
or share civil liability for payment of wages wrongfully retained,
rescinded, or unpaid as asserted herein, the suit asserts.

AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. operates as a temporary healthcare
staffing company. The Company provides travel nurse staffing
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
          HARTLEY LLP
          101 W. Broadway, Suite 820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5822
          E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com

               - and -

          Larkin Walsh, Esq.
          Brandi Spates, Esq.
          Ross Merrill, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: walsh@stuevesiegel.com
                  spates@stuevesiegel.com
                  merrill@stuevesiegel.com

ANTHONY FASULO: Palumbo Seeks Final OK of Proposed Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK PALUMBO, ROSARIO
PRATO, MAURICIO MARTINEZ, and JOSEPH OVILE as participants and/or
former participants of the Pavers and Road Builders District
Council Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Apprenticeship, Skill
Improvement and Safety Fund and the United Plant and Production
Workers Local 175 Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, and Apprenticeship,
Skill Improvement and Safety Fund, on behalf of themselves and all
persons similarly situated, v. ANTHONY FASULO, et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-00797-PKC-RML (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court for an order:

     i. Granting final approval of the proposed settlement;
  
    ii. Certifying a Settlement Class;

   iii. Confirming appointment of Jennifer S. Smith, and David W.
New
        as Class Counsel, as provided in the Preliminary Order;

    iv. Confirming appointment of Named Plaintiffs Mark Palumbo,
        Rosario Prato, Mauricio Martinez and Joseph Ovile as Class

        Representatives, as provided in the Preliminary Order;

     v. Approving case contribution awards for Named Plaintiffs of

        $1,500 each;

    vi. Binding all Class Members to the terms of an agreed-upon
        release of all claims resolved by the Settlement;

   vii. Awarding such other and further relief as is just and
proper.

The Defendants include ALBERT ALIMENA, DOMINICK AGOSTINO, JOHN
PETERS, ROBERT CHEVERIE, FRANCISCO FERNANDEZ, JAMES KILKENNEY,
PHILIP FAICCO, VINCENT MASINO, ANTHONY ROBIBERO and KEITH LOSCALZO
and/or their successors, in their capacity as present and former
Trustees of the Pavers and Road Builders District Council Pension
Fund, Welfare Fund, Apprenticeship, Skill Improvement and Safety
Fund and the PAVERS AND ROAD BUILDERS DISTRICT COUNCIL PENSION
FUND, WELFARE FUND, and APPRENTICESHIP, SKILL IMPROVEMENT AND
SAFETY FUND.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T8xZZX at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer S. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JENNIFER SMITH PLLC
          One Liberty Plaza
          165 Broadway, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (347) 342-2213

                - and -

          David W. New, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID W. NEW
          Rutherford, NJ 07070

ANYWHERE REAL: Burnett Suit Seeks $4.8B Judgment vs HomeServices
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA BURNETT, JEROD
BREIT, JEREMY KEEL, HOLLEE ELLIS, and FRANCES HARVEY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, REALOGY HOLDINGS CORP. (n/k/a ANYWHERE
REAL ESTATE, INC.), HOMESERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., BHH AFFILIATES,
LLC, HSF AFFILIATES, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY,
INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-00332-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court entry of judgment on the jury's verdict against the
HomeServices Defendants as follows:

   1. The damages awarded by the jury should be trebled pursuant to
15
      U.S.C. section 15(a);

   2. After trebling, credit should be given in the amount of
      $626,500,000 to reflect the settlements with NAR, Keller
      Williams, Anywhere and RE/MAX;

   3. Post-judgment interest should be awarded pursuant to 28
U.S.C.
      section 1961(a);

   4. The judgment should state that the HomeServices Defendants
are
      jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of the
      judgment;

   5. The judgment should state the class definition pursuant to
Rule
      23(c)(3);

   6. The judgment should confirm Class Plaintiffs' right to an
award
      of the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorneys' fee,
but
      defer consideration of such issues until after all post-trial

      proceedings and merits appeals are resolved; and

The Plaintiffs contend that the Court should enter judgment on the
jury's verdict in the amount of $4,729,432,616 against the
HomeServices Defendants jointly and severally.

The Court should also award post-judgment interest at a rate of
5.4% running from November 1, 2023, and certify its judgment as
final.

National Association is an American trade association for those who
work in the real estate industry.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 18, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=07FVjH at no extra
charge.[CC]

APPLE INC: AirTag Tracking Class Action Suit Moves Forward
----------------------------------------------------------
Noah Goldberg of Los Angeles Times reports that victims of stalkers
who used Apple AirTags to track their whereabouts will be able to
move forward with their lawsuit against the tech giant, a federal
judge has ruled.

On March 15, 2024's decision by U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria
in San Francisco came in a class-action lawsuit that accuses Apple
of taking inadequate steps to prevent stalkers from using the
AirTag tracking devices, which the Silicon Valley company once
called "stalker-proof."

The judge dismissed numerous claims, but allowed a select few to
proceed past Apple's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, adding that
Apple may prevail later in the case.

"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, but that determination cannot be made at this early
stage," the judge wrote in the decision.

The lawsuit, filed by 38 plaintiffs, cited the "unparalleled
accuracy, ease of use (it fits seamlessly into Apple’s existing
suite of products), and affordability" as the factors that make the
AirTag such an effective tool for stalkers. The AirTag was launched
in 2021 by Apple in order to help users keep track of keys, phones
and wallets.

Roughly the size of an overcoat button, an AirTag signals its
location wirelessly to Apple's iCloud service so it can be traced
with Apple's Find My app. The AirTag's signal is encrypted, but
that doesn't stop stalkers from hiding AirTags in people's cars or
luggage and using them to follow their movements.

Apple has argued in the lawsuit that misuse of its products is not
the company's fault, but the fault of the user. The company cited a
ruling related to car crashes during which a driver was distracted
by an iPhone. In that case, Apple was not found liable.

But Chhabria said the harm in this case is directly related to the
stated purpose of the product.

"A smartphone serves a great multitude of functions, one of which
is video calls, and it's only incidental to any of those functions
that a user would be distracted and crash their car. But the sole
function of a tracking device is to track location — and the
injuries arise directly from the tracking device performing that
function," he wrote.
Apple has said it has worked to mitigate the issue.

"AirTag was designed to help people locate their personal
belongings, not to track people or another person's property, and
we condemn in the strongest possible terms any malicious use of our
products. Unwanted tracking has long been a societal problem, and
we took this concern seriously in the design of AirTag," the
company said in a 2022 statement.

The company referred to notifications people are sent on their
devices if there is an AirTag tracking them. The plaintiffs said,
however, that sometimes users still do not understand they are
being tracked and the notifications come hours after the device is
attached. [GN]

APPLE INC: CAT Upholds Litigation Funding Agreement in UK
---------------------------------------------------------
complianceconcourse.willkie.com reports that on March 12, 2024, the
Competition Appeal Tribunal ("CAT") ruled to uphold the use of a
litigation funding agreement ("LFA") proposed by Justin Gutmann,
the class representative of a lawsuit against Apple Inc., Apple
Distribution International Limited, and Apple Retail UK Limited in
connection with defective batteries in more than 20 million iPhones
in the United Kingdom. Apple had petitioned the Tribunal to
challenge the Gutmann LFA that had been revised to enable the
payment of a litigation funder's fee from class damages ahead of
class members. Apple argued that the funder's fee should only be
paid from unclaimed damages and sought to overturn the class
certification (which was awarded on November 1, 1023) by asserting
that the LFA was inappropriate, impermissible as a matter of law,
and rendered Gutmann unsuitable to serve as a class
representative.

The CAT unanimously determined that it was permissible for an LFA
to pay a funder from an award of damages. The Tribunal examined
section 47C(6) of the Competition Act 1998 (the "Act"), which
grants the Tribunal power in opt-out proceedings to make orders
related to unclaimed damages. Because Section 47C is generally
silent regarding the payment of a funder's fee from a damages
award, the Tribunal reasoned that if the legislature had been
opposed to such a payment arrangement, it would have stated this.
The Tribunal also determined that using a portion of the damages
award to pay a funder's fee was consistent with Section 47C(3)(b)
of the Act that enables the Tribunal to order the payment of
damages "to such other person as it sees fit." The Tribunal also
held that the terms of the Gutmann LFA were not inappropriate
because it contained no presumptions that impacted the Tribunal's
discretion with regards to priorities and sums to be awarded.

Apple had also challenged the Gutmann LFA on the grounds that the
funder's return was excessive and disproportionate and that the LFA
created a risk of conflicts of interest between the funder and
Gutmann and the funder and the class. While the Tribunal
acknowledged that the funder's return was large and may be subject
to scrutiny at the conclusion of the proceedings, it found that the
amount was not "sufficiently extreme" to refuse certification at
this stage. The Tribunal also decided that, while potential
conflicts between a funder and class members are inevitable to a
point in any LFA, the Gutmann LFA contained certain protections
that, when coupled with the Tribunal's supervisory role, made
potential conflicts manageable. [GN]

APPLE INC: Court Certifies Class Suit Over AirTags Stalking Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheyenne MacDonald, writing for engadget, reports that a San
Francisco judge has ruled that Apple must face a lawsuit accusing
the company of negligence over the potential stalking risks created
by its AirTags, Bloomberg reports. While the bulk of the roughly
three dozen claims in the class-action suit were dismissed, US
District Judge Vince Chhabria denied Apple's bid to have the suit
thrown out based on three plaintiffs' claims alleging that "when
they were stalked, the problems with the AirTag's safety features
were substantial, and that those safety defects caused their
injuries."

While the suit argues that Apple was warned of the potential for
its Bluetooth item trackers to be misused and thus should be held
liable under California law, Apple disagrees, according to
Bloomberg. After it released AirTags, Apple later rolled out safety
features designed to thwart stalking attempts, like an update that
made it so AirTags would emit a loud sound when they get a certain
distance from their owner and notifications about unknown trackers.
Apple and Google also last year announced that they're working
together on developing industry standards to proactively fight the
misuse of tracking devices.

Nevertheless, the lawsuit argues that AirTags have "become the
weapon of choice of stalkers and abusers," Bloomberg reports. The
case was filed in the Northern California district court. [GN]

APPLE INC: Settles Class Suit for $490M Over iPhone Demand in China
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Dobberstein of The A Register reports that Apple will cough
up $490 million to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging CEO Tim
Cook concealed plummeting iPhone demand in China from
shareholders.

A court document filed last March 15, 2024 details a settlement
[PDF] pending approval before a Northern District of California
judge.

The incident dates back to late 2018 when, during an Apple earnings
call, Cook stated that China -- unlike Brazil, India, Russia and
Turkey -- was not one of the markets where Apple faced sales
pressure due to weakened currency.

"In relation to China specifically, I would not put China in that
category. Our business in China was very strong last quarter. We
grew 16 percent, which we're very happy with. iPhone in particular
was very strong. Very strong double-digit growth there," Cook said,
according to a transcript of his remarks.

That utterance was an expensive mistake.

The shareholder class action, led by Norfolk County Council as
Administering Authority of the Norfolk Pension Fund, considered the
remarks deceptive, given Apple cut supplier production in China
just four days after the call. And by early 2019, Apple again
trimmed its forecasts by between $5 billion and $9 billion on the
back of deteriorating economic conditions in China.

"While we anticipated some challenges in key emerging markets, we
did not foresee the magnitude of the economic deceleration,
particularly in Greater China. In fact, most of our revenue
shortfall to our guidance, and over 100 percent of our
year-over-year worldwide revenue decline, occurred in Greater China
across iPhone, Mac and iPad," explained Cook.

He added that China's economy began to slow in the second half of
2018, with the September quarter producing the second lowest GDP in
25 years.

    PC 'price hike' coming as cost of memory soars -- analysts
    No App Store needed: Apple caves, will allow sideloading in EU
    Apple Vision Pro rentals take China by storm ahead of official
release
    Duo face 20 years in prison over counterfeit iPhone scam

According to court documents, defendants alleged that Cook made
"materially false and misleading statements and omissions about
demand for the newly released iPhones and Apple's business in
China."

"This $490 million recovery is not just an outstanding result for
investors who purchased their Apple securities during the two-month
class period, it is a testament to the perseverance of the lead
plaintiff, the UK's Norfolk Pension Fund, in pursuing the action to
the brink of trial," stated Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
partner Shawn A Williams, who served as lead counsel for
investors.

According to the law firm, the settlement will be the third-largest
securities class action recovery ever in the Northern District of
California -- a district that's home to plenty of tech giants.

Apple's settlement -- which ends four years of litigation efforts
-- is not an admission of liability.

"Defendants have expressly denied and continue to deny that they
have violated the federal securities laws or any other laws, or
have otherwise misled investors as alleged in this Action, but in
recognition that further litigation will be protracted, overly
burdensome, expensive, and distracting, have determined that it is
desirable and beneficial for them to resolve the Action," court
documents state.

The fruit cart sought -- and failed -- to have the case dismissed
last June. [GN]

ASR GROUP: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over Sugar Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit
alleges several of the country's largest sugar producers and
sellers have illegally conspired to artificially inflate the price
of granulated sugar in the United States.

The 37-page sugar antitrust lawsuit alleges in particular that ASR
Group, American Sugar Refining and subsidiary Domino Foods;
Michigan Sugar; United Sugar Producers & Refiners Cooperative; and
Commodity Information and principal Richard Wistisen have since at
least January 2019 unlawfully exchanged detailed, competitively
sensitive, non-public information about granulated sugar prices,
capacity, sales, volume supply and demand. The defendants' alleged
price-fixing conspiracy has harmed those who buy granulated sugar
-- also known as refined, white or table sugar -- from the
companies directly, including food and beverages makers, retailers,
food service companies and distributors, the suit claims.

The goal of the alleged price-fixing conspiracy was for the sugar
producers to ensure that they would not undercut each other's
prices for the commodity and cause prices to drop as they would in
a truly competitive market, the lawsuit alleges.

According to the filing, United, ASR/Domino and non-party Louisiana
Sugar Refining are the only companies in the U.S. that currently
produce granulated sugar, the predominant form of sugar sold
nationwide, from cane sugar. Michigan Sugar, a cooperative
consisting of hundreds of farmers, produces granulated sugar from
sugar beets, the case adds.

The suit shares that 80 percent of all sugar sold nationally is
granulated sugar.

"In the past 20 years, the price of Granulated Sugar has doubled on
an indexed basis," the complaint reads. "There is no economic
rationale for the rate of price increases."

As the lawsuit tells it, there is also no "economically rational
reason" for the sugar production defendants -- United, ASR/Domino
and Michigan Sugar -- to share with each other competitively
sensitive, non-public information. Per the filing, the
non-anonymized data -- including current pricing, crop size, crop
yields, future beliefs on pricing and sold positions -- was shared
between the companies, allegedly facilitated by Commodity
Information, for the purpose of enabling them to "effectuate their
agreement to artificially affect prices and avoid competing with
one another."

"Commodity does not gather information through voluntary surveys or
periodic polling that it anonymizes," the suit elaborates.
"Instead, the Producing Defendants regularly shared competitively
sensitive information about their pricing and sold positions with
Commodity, and Commodity in turn contemporaneously shared that
competitively sensitive information with the Producing Defendants."


The filing notes that "similar conduct" among granulated sugar
producers decades ago led to a 1978 consent decree that banned
exchanges of information between competitors.

The case looks to cover all direct buyers of granulated sugar from
any of the producing defendants in the U.S., beginning January 1,
2019 to the present. [GN]

BANK OF MONTREAL: Faces Class Suit Over E-Transfer Theft
--------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Evans of New Market Today reports that 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,
and the others who have had similar issues didn't either, she
said.

"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 said.

It's frustrating, she added.


"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 said "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.

"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.

Anyone wanting to connect with Sammit regarding this matter can
email her at jumprun1@yahoo.com. [GN]

BARCLAYS PLC: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set May 17
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of acquirers of a short
position in Barclays' iPath Series B S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures
Exchange Traded Note ("ETN") under the symbol "VXXB" (hereinafter
"VXX") due to selling VXX ETNs, selling VXX call options, and/or
buying VXX put options and who held that position as of the close
of market on March 13, 2022. A class action lawsuit has already
been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than May 17, 2024.

The case is against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, James E.
Staley, Tushar Morzaria, and C.S. Venkatakrishnan (together,
"Defendants").

SO WHAT: If you acquired a short position of VXX ETNs you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Barclays class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=23523 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has
already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than May 17, 2024. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, Barclays failed to
inform investors and the market that it had not implemented any
internal controls to monitor the issuances of securities from its
shelf registrations, and that it had issued and sold billions of
dollars of unregistered securities, including VXX ETNs, in
violation of the federal securities registration laws. Barclays
illegally sold over $17 billion of unregistered securities over
approximately 18 months. Once its misconduct came to light,
Barclays had to suddenly and without warning suspend any further
issuances and sales of new VXX ETNs. This suspension of sales,
which was announced just before the market opened on March 14,
2022, caused the market price of VXX to skyrocket and investors who
were short VXX to suffer substantial losses.

To join the Barclays class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=23523 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

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

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

Contacts

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

BATTLE CREEK: 6th Circuit Addresses Suit on Unreimbursed Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., writing for DuaneMorris.com, reports that
on March 12, 2024, in Parker v. Battle Creek Pizza, Inc. No.
22-2119 (6th Cir. Mar. 12, 2024), a three-judge panel of the Sixth
Circuit addressed the issue of what standard applies for
calculating reimbursements of vehicle expenses owed under the FLSA
to delivery drivers who use their own vehicles for their jobs. The
consolidated appeal arose from dueling opinions of U.S. District
Courts in Michigan and Ohio on the same issue.

The Sixth Circuit concluded that neither the IRS standard mileage
rate (the approach of the court in Michigan), nor an employer's
"reasonable approximation" of vehicle costs (the approach of the
court in Ohio), satisfies an employer's minimum wage obligations
under the FLSA. The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court
opinions and sent the cases back to their respective courts for
further proceedings on remand. The Sixth Circuit's decision is
essential reading for all businesses with delivery drivers,
particularly those defending minimum wage claims involving drivers'
expenses, a hot-button litigation issue percolating in courts
across the country.

Case Background

To set the stage, the FLSA requires payment of the minimum wage
(currently $7.25 an hour) to employees "free and clear." In the
U.S. Department of Labor regulations interpreting the statute, 29
C.F.R. Sec. 531.35 states that employers cannot shift business
expenses to their employees if doing so causes the employees' wages
to drop below the minimum wage. In another section of the FLSA
regulations, the DOL addresses how to calculate an employee's
"regular rate of pay" for overtime calculations when the employer
reimburses an employee's business expenses. In that regulation at
29 C.F.R. Sec. 778.217(c), the DOL says employers may "reasonably
approximate" the amount of the expenses to be reimbursed. The DOL
regulations say nothing, however, about how to calculate such an
approximation, and whether the analysis applies to wages owed other
than overtime wages.

The district court in Parker v. Battle Creek Pizza, Inc.,
20-CV-00277 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 28, 2022), held that use of the IRS
mileage rate satisfied the FLSA. The court deferred to the DOL's
Field Operations Handbook, the internal manual that guides
investigators for the Wage and Hour Division. In the Field
Operations Handbook. The DOL takes the enforcement position at Sec.
30c15(a) that employers may, in lieu of reimbursing an employee's
actual expenses, use the IRS standard business mileage rate to
determine the amount of reimbursement owed to employees for FLSA
purposes. By contrast, the district court in Bradford v. Team
Pizza, Inc., 20-CV-00060 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 19, 2021), rejected the
IRS mileage rate in favor of an employer's "reasonable
approximation" of the drivers' expenses.

The IRS standard business mileage rate, currently $.67 a mile, is
intended to represent gasoline, depreciation, maintenance, repair
and other fees pertaining to vehicle upkeep. Employers' "reasonable
approximation" of an employee's costs in using their personal
vehicles to perform work typically is lower than the IRS rate.

The Sixth Circuit's Ruling

The Sixth Circuit highlighted the basic requirement of the FLSA to
pay employees at least the minimum wage for hours worked. As the
Sixth Circuit stated, when an employee's hourly wage is the minimum
$7.25 an hour, any underpayment of the employee for costs they
expended to benefit the employer necessarily causes them to receive
less than the minimum wage.

Although it acknowledged the difficulty of calculating vehicle
expenses on an employee-by-employee basis, the Sixth Circuit
reasoned that any "approximation" of an employee's personal vehicle
costs -- whether it be the employer's own calculation or the IRS's
standard business mileage rate -- is contrary to the FLSA where it
results in an employee receiving less than the minimum wage.

The Sixth Circuit declined to defer to the DOL's interpretation in
the FLSA regulations or the agency's Field Operations Handbook. It
emphasized that the FLSA regulation supporting the "reasonable
approximation" method -- 29 C.F.R. Sec. 778.217(c) -- addressed
overtime calculations, not minimum wage. The Sixth Circuit also
found use of the IRS standard business mileage rate to be fatally
flawed. As it explained, the IRS's rate, though more generous in
application than the "reasonable approximation" method, disfavors
high-mileage drivers like delivery drivers and fails to account for
regional and other differences inherent in maintaining a vehicle.
Id. at 6.

The Sixth Circuit did not announce a new standard to replace the
two approaches it rejected. However, it offered a three-part
framework for the district courts to consider on remand. Similar to
the burden-shifting framework in Title VII disparate treatment
cases, the Sixth Circuit suggested that an FLSA plaintiff might
present prima facie proof that a reimbursement was inadequate. The
employer would then bear the burden to show that the amount it
reimbursed bore a reasonable relationship to the employee's actual
costs. The plaintiff would have an opportunity to attack the
employer's reasoning while bearing the ultimate burden to prove
failure to receive minimum wages.

Implications For Employers

Although the Sixth Circuit's ruling in Parker is binding only on
federal courts in Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee and Kentucky, the
opinion may prompt courts around the country to reconsider reliance
on the DOL's "reasonable approximation" standard and the IRS's
standard business mileage rate when evaluating minimum wage claims
of delivery drivers. Considering that FLSA claims asserting
underpayment for vehicle expenses already is a favorite topic of
the plaintiffs' class action bar, we expect the opinion to unleash
a flood of new lawsuits in this area. All businesses with delivery
drivers ought to keep a close watch on how the Michigan and Ohio
district courts apply the Sixth Circuit's ruling on remand.

A silver lining in the decision may well be the notion that as
calculating the appropriateness of reimbursement is required on a
driver-by-driver basis, such claims seem difficult to ever
certify.

The opinion in Parker is also significant in light of the Supreme
Court's forthcoming ruling on the viability of the Chevron
doctrine, the framework in which courts generally defer to
agencies' interpretation of federal statutes. In rejecting the
DOL's interpretation of the FLSA, the reasoning in Parker may be a
harbinger of future rulings under the FLSA and a panoply of other
statutory schemes if the Supreme Court abandons Chevron deference.
[GN]

BEYOND MEAT: Bid to Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal judge has agreed to dismiss several portions of a
consolidated class action accusing Beyond Meat of misleading
consumers about its products' protein content and nutritional
value.

At the root of the lawsuit, according to an opinion filed by U.S.
District Judge Sara Ellis, is Beyond Meat's "Future of Protein"
marketing campaign, which includes labels that prominently display
how much plant-based protein is incorporated into each serving of a
given product. Plaintiffs allege the representations are false,
citing "commissioned independent laboratory testing" challenging
Beyond Meat's assertions about both total grams and the percentage
of recommended daily value.

According to the plaintiffs, the number of protein grams per
serving as listed on nutrition facts panels can result from one of
two calculation methods, one using a factor of nitrogen content and
the other "adjusted for protein digestibility by using the protein
digestibility-corrected amino acid score," (abbreviated as PDCAAS),
according to Ellis. They allege Beyond Meat's labels fell
significantly short on either measure.

Ellis granted the company's motion to dismiss a request for an
injunction, noting four named plaintiffs alleged they wouldn't buy
Beyond Meat products if the labels were corrected. Other plaintiffs
said they would buy more products with corrected labels, but did
not say they would continue to buy Beyond Meat goods, depriving
them of the ability to claim a risk of future deception.

Although Beyond Meat also challenged the plaintiffs' ability to
pursue claims under consumer fraud laws in states where none of
them live, Ellis said the concerns were suitable for post-discovery
class certification analysis and couldn't be used to undercut
standing at this stage.

Beyond Meat also argued the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act pre-empts
all the claims, meaning the plaintiffs could only pursue certain
state-law allegations. It argued the law allows front-label protein
content information to be derived from either the nitrogen or
PDCAAS methods, whereas the plaintiffs said the nitrogen method is
improper.

Ellis said other courts have considered the same question and
agreed with the plaintiffs' position, but she singled out her own
2016 opinion in Gubala v. HBS International Corporation as being
resolved in error "upon closer examination of the regulations and a
review of subsequent caselaw."

She agreed with plaintiffs' position "that because Beyond Meat uses
the nitrogen method to make a protein content claim, (the law)
requires it to calculate the corrected amount of protein using the
PDCAAS method and display that amount as a (percentage of daily
value) in the (nutrition facts panel). But the court disagrees that
this requirement carries over to the method Beyond Meat must use in
calculating the amount of protein displayed on the products' front
labels."

Ultimately, Ellis agreed with Beyond Meat that the lawsuit seeks to
impose requirements beyond the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's
regulatory scheme for implementing the FDCA. She said her
"conclusion is further supported by the FDA's guidance on its
webpage concerning front-label claims. In a question-and-answer
published in 2022 addressing which method manufacturers should use
for protein content claims, the FDA indicated that either the
nitrogen or PDCAAS methods may be used to determine compliance for
protein content claims and noted that the existence of two methods
for compliance was ‘by design.' "

Beyond Meat further said the FDCA pre-empted claims regarding
protein content even using the nitrogen method because its labels
fall within the FDA's allowable margin of error. But Ellis said
that is a factual question not suitable for a motion to dismiss,
noting the parties dispute the relevance of whether the protein
comes from peas, rice and yeast, as Beyond Meat claims, or result
from a mechanical and chemical extraction process, per the
lawsuit.

Ellis said Beyond Meat also challenged the plaintiff's independent
testing as failing to meet FDA standards, and while they
"implicitly concede they did not conduct" FDA-level testing, Ellis
agreed plaintiffs don't need prove the testing specificity in order
to survive a motion to dismiss. She further refused to dismiss
remaining state law claims because of her determination the
plaintiffs "plausibly alleged violations of the FDA regulations
with respect to all but their claims that the front-label protein
content claims must use the PDCAAS method."

Beyond Meat also failed to convince Ellis to dismiss the
plaintiffs' warranty claims and rejected its contention their
claims needed to meet common law fraud requirements. However, she
did agree to dismiss the fraud-based claims from one plaintiff who
challenged whether the products are indeed "all natural, organic
and healthy" because the consolidated complaint includes a detailed
ingredient list.

Plaintiffs are represented by Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips
Grossman, of Bloomfield Hills, Mich.; Bursor & Fisher, of New York;
Sultzer Law Group, of Poughkeepsie, N.Y.; Fegan Scott, of Chicago;
Shub Law Firm, of Haddonfield, N .J.; and Lockridge Grindal Nauen,
of Minneapolis.

Beyond Meat declined a request for comment. [GN]

BIG LOTS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Barnes Due August 14
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barnes v. Big Lots, Inc.,
Case No. 7:22-cv-09782 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 16, 2022), the Hon.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered an order granting letter motion
for extension of time to complete discovery.

-- The Plaintiff's motion for class               Aug. 14, 2024
    certification is due by:

-- The Defendants' opposition to the              Sept. 19, 2024
    motion is due by:

-- The Plaintiff's reply, if any,                 Oct. 3, 2024
    is due by:

-- Fact discovery shall be completed by:          May 23, 2024

-- Expert discovery shall be completed by:        Sept. 26, 2024

-- All discovery shall be completed by:           Sept. 26, 2024

The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other
fraud.

Big Lots is an American discount retail chain headquartered in
Columbus, Ohio.[CC]

CANADA: PSAC Members Not Included in Indigenous Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
psacunion.ca reports that in 2021, a group of Indigenous workers
filed a class action lawsuit against the federal government for
widespread systemic racism in federal Indigenous agencies and
departments.

Where is it now?

The original statement of claim included workers at Indian Oil and
Gas Canada (IOGC), Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous
Relations and Northern Affairs which would have made some PSAC
members eligible to participate in the lawsuit. However, the
statement of claim was recently amended to limit eligible
plaintiffs to only current and former Indigenous employees and
contractors at IOGC. PSAC does not currently represent any workers
at this agency.

Although PSAC members are no longer part of the class action
lawsuit, it may be later expanded to re-include our members as the
case moves forward.

PSAC supports Yvette Zentner and Letitia Wells, the Indigenous
federal public service workers who launched the legal action
against the federal government, as well as all other workers
joining in this lawsuit as they wait for certification of their
claim by the Federal Court. In November, the Canadian government
stated it plans to strike down the lawsuit on jurisdictional
grounds.

PSAC continues to support the Black Class Action lawsuit as they
fight to address harms at work and barriers to career advancement
in the federal public service.

PSAC will continue to fight for its members and for all workers in
Canada so that every workplace is free of racism, harassment and
discrimination. [GN]

CAPITAL ONE: Wins Class Suit Over Foreign Currency Swap Overcharges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP of JD Supra reports that on
March 5, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia dismissed a purported class action complaint in which
plaintiffs alleged the defendant banks used "fictional" foreign
exchange rates that deviated from those incorporated into
plaintiffs' agreements with the defendants.

Specifically, the plaintiffs asserted that defendants charged the
plaintiffs "fictional" rates imposed by credit card companies, and
in so doing, breached their relevant contracts with the plaintiffs
and violated several state consumer protection laws.

In dismissing the complaint, the court concluded that although the
plaintiffs had standing to sue, their breach of contract claim
failed as a matter of law because the complaint failed to identify
any specific promises regarding exchange rates in the relevant
contracts, and a singular reference to credit card companies' rules
did not incorporate such rules into the relevant contracts. The
court further rejected the plaintiffs' argument that an agency
relationship existed between the credit card companies and
defendants, reasoning that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly
demonstrate defendants had any ability to control the rates.

The court similarly dismissed all the plaintiffs' consumer
protection law claims, concluding that the relevant laws did not
permit for a breach of contract to serve as the basis for an unfair
or deceptive trade practice. [GN]

CARMAX AUTO: Serrano Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jorge Serrano, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC., a
Virginia corporation; and Does 1 through 1D, inclusive, Case No.
23STCV23547 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California on March 8, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01922.

The Plaintiffs Complaint alleges nine causes of action: Failure to
Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages;
Meal Period Violations; Rest Period Violations; Failure to Timely
Pay All Final Wages at Time of Termination of Employment; Wage
Statement Violations; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; Failure to
Produce Requested Employment Records and Unfair Business Practices
Business & Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jack S. Sholkoff, Esq.
          Catherine L. Brackett, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAXMIS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-239-9800
          Facsimile: 213-239-9045
          Email: jack.sholkoff@ogletree.com
                 catherine.brackett@ogletree.com


CASSAVA SCIENCES: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Cassava Sciences, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00751 (W.D. Tex., Filed Aug. 27,
2021), the Hon. Judge David A. Ezra entered an order referring
motion to certify class to Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower.

The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.

Cassava Sciences is an American pharmaceutical company based in
Austin, Texas.[CC]



CELLARY INC: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cellary, Inc. The
case is styled as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Cellary, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-01730
(E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2024).

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

Cellary, Inc. -- https://www.cellary.com/ -- are a boutique wine
shop in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn offering a unique selection of small
production, organic, biodynamic, natural and sustainable
wines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CENTRAL GARDEN: Flodin Seeks to Seal Class Cert. Documents
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FLODIN, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, BREEDER'S
CHOICE PET FOODS, INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
4:21-cv-01631-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their administrative motion to consider
whether another party's material should be sealed.

The Plaintiffs also seek to file under seal unredacted versions of
Plaintiffs' Motion, the Declaration of Courtney Vasquez and the
Declaration of Colin Weir brief that quote, summarize, or otherwise
reference the subject record.

The records at issue support Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, appointment of class representatives and appointment
of class counsel, that is being filed concurrently with this
administrative motion.

Central Garden is a marketer and producer of quality branded
products for the pet and lawn and garden supplies markets.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YUufLW at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dave Fox, Esq.
          Joanna Fox, Esq.
          Courtney Vasquez
          FOX LAW, APC
          201 Lomas Santa Fe Dr., Suite 420
          Solana Beach, CA 92075
          Telephone: (858) 256-7616
          Facsimile: (858) 256-7618
          E-mail: dave@foxlawapc.com
                  joanna@foxlawapc.com
                  courtney@foxlawapc.com

CENTRAL GARDEN: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of California Residents
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FLODIN, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, BREEDER'S
CHOICE PET FOODS, INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
4:21-cv-01631-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs John Flodin and Aaron
Brand move the Court for an Order that this case proceed to the
merits as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and
23(b)(3):

-- California Subclass

    "All residents of California who purchased the Products from
March
    8, 2017 through December 1, 2020."

-- Washington Subclass

    "All residents of Washington who purchased the Products from
March
    8, 2017 through December 1, 2020."

    Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendant, its assigns,
    successors, and legal representatives; (ii) any entities in
which
    Defendant has controlling interests; (iii) federal, state,
and/or
    local governments, including, but not limited to, their
    departments, agencies, divisions, bureaus, boards, sections,
    groups, counsels, and/or subdivisions; and (iv) any judicial
    officer presiding over this matter and person within the third

    degree of consanguinity to such judicial officer.

The Plaintiffs further request that the Court certify the Class
(and each of its Subclasses), appoint the Plaintiffs as Class
Representatives, and appoint Fox Law, APC as Class Counsel pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants falsely represented that
avocado is a main ingredient in AvoDerm.

The Defendants uniformly and prominently labeled the Products with
the false and misleading Avocado Misrepresentations throughout the
Class Period.

Straight from the mouth of the Defendants' own Senior Director of
Regulatory Affairs, Ms. Lorri Chavez, Defendants do not use "real
avocados" in AvoDerm at all.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wG0VIK at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dave Fox, Esq.
          Joanna Fox, Esq.
          Courtney Vasquez, Esq.
          FOX LAW, APC
          201 Lomas Santa Fe Dr., Suite 420
          Solana Beach, CA 92075
          Telephone: (858) 256-7616
          Facsimile: (858) 256-7618
          E-mail: dave@foxlawapc.com
                  joanna@foxlawapc.com
                  courtney@foxlawapc.com


CHUBB LTD: Court Reverses SXSW Class-Action Defense, Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Dilworth, writing for Business Insurance, reports that the
5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a Chubb Ltd. unit's win
against SXSW LLC over the defense and coverage of a more than $1
million settlement to resolve a class action over the cancellation
of the Austin, Texas-based music festival South by Southwest in
2020.

The three-judge appeals court panel, in SXSW LLC v. Federal
Insurance Co., disagreed with the trial judge's finding that a
contract exclusion and a professional services exclusion in SXSW's
policy from Federal barred coverage.

Two ticket holders sued the music festival host in April 2020 after
it refused to refund their ticket costs after the event was
canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The lead plaintiffs asserted
claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and conversion.
The suit was settled in February 2022, court records show.

SXSW sued Federal in October 2021 after it refused to defend it
against the suit. The parties each filed summary judgment motions,
and the trial judge ruled that while the class action sought a
covered loss, exclusions in the Chubb unit's policy barred
coverage.

In reversing the trial judge's decision, the appeals court panel
concluded that the contract exclusion did not apply because the
class-action plaintiffs' claims were not limited to SXSW's purchase
agreement.  The panel also found that the professional services
exclusion was inapplicable because the festival host's refunding of
tickets is not a professional service.   

Representatives for the parties did not respond to requests for
comment. [GN]

CITRIX SYSTEMS: Goodrow Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Raymond Goodrow, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Citrix Systems, Inc.; COMCAST
CABLE COMMUNICATIONS LLC doing business as: XFINITY; Case No.
0:24-cv-60100 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 14, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01129-JMY to the
proceeding.

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

Citrix Systems, Inc. -- http://www.citrix.com/-- is an American
multinational cloud computing and virtualization technology company
that provides server, application and desktop virtualization,
networking, software as a service, and cloud computing
technologies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey Miles Ostrow, Esq.
          Steven Patrick Sukert, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA
          1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-4216
          Phone: (954) 525-4100
          Fax: (954) 525-4300
          Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                 sukert@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Alan M. Feldman, Esq.
          Samuel Mukiibi, Esq.
          Zachary Arbitman, Esq.
          FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG
LLP
          1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 567-8300
          Fax: (215) 567-8333
          Email: afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com
                 smukiibi@feldmanshepherd.com
                 zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Allison E. Delaurentis, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          2929 Arch Street, Suite 1700
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Phone: (445) 207-7813
          Email: ADeLaurentis@goodwinlaw.com

               - and -

          Caitlin F Saladrigas, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1900 West
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: (561) 650-8349
          Email: caitlin.saladrigas@hklaw.com

               - and -

          Hyun Yoon, Esq.
          Paul Bond, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market Street, Ste. 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 252-9537
          Email: Eric.Yoon@hklaw.com
                 paul.bond@hklaw.com

               - and -

          Sophie L. Kletzein, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          31 West 52nd Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 513-3567
          Email: sophie.kletzein@hklaw.com


CITRIX SYSTEMS: Nunn Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alexander W. Nunn, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC. and COMCAST CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-60029 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
March 14, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01130-GJP to the
proceeding.

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

Citrix Systems, Inc. -- http://www.citrix.com/-- is an American
multinational cloud computing and virtualization technology company
that provides server, application and desktop virtualization,
networking, software as a service, and cloud computing
technologies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexandra Warren, Esq.
          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          Brendan Thompson, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Phone: (202) 789-3960
          Email: awarren@cuneolaw.com
                 charles@cuneolaw.com
                 brendant@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          Daniella Bhadare-Valente, Esq.
          Morgan L. Burkett, Esq.
          NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
          1201 Demonbreun St., Suite 1000
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 244-1713
          Email: cbarrett@nealharwell.com
                 dbhadare-valente@nealharwell.com
                 mburkett@nealharwell.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amy L. Drushal, Esq.
          TRENAM KEMKER SCHARF BARKIN FRYE O'NEILL & MULLIS
          101 E Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 2700 PO Box 1102
          Tampa, FL 33601-1102
          Phone: (813) 223-7474
          Fax: 229-6553

               - and -

          Allison E. Delaurentis, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          2929 Arch Street, Suite 1700
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Phone: (445) 207-7813
          Email: ADeLaurentis@goodwinlaw.com

               - and -

          Caitlin F. Saladrigas, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1900 West
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: (561) 650-8349

               - and -

          Hyun Yoon, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market Street, Ste. 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 252-9537
          Email: Eric.Yoon@hklaw.com


CITY CENTRE RESIDENTIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Maintenance Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
D'Quan Lee, writing for waff.com, reports that the owners and
managers of a luxury apartment complex located in the heart of
downtown Huntsville are at the center of a newly-filed class-action
lawsuit.

City Centre Residential LLC and Willow Bridge Inc. own Eclipse
Residences. The companies are accused of negligence, recklessness
and breach of contract.

The lawsuit claims maintenances issues such as false fire alarms,
flooding and extensive water shut-off have plagued tenants for
months with little being done to address it.

"They deserve that if these problems are happening that they're
appropriately addressed. And that's why we brought the lawsuit
because we don't think they have been," said Eric Artrip, who is
representing residents.

The lawsuit claims none of the managers or owners live at the
apartment.

Artrip believes that's one of the biggest issues, because the
companies don't have anyone on-site to deal with issues like false
fire alarms.

The lawsuit claims moments like that have happened several times,
including a fire alarm that went off from 1 a.m. to 5 a.m.

It also says the flooding was the result of faucets in vacant
apartments that weren't left dripping during January's deep freeze,
leading to frozen and burst pipes.

It says if tenants were to break their lease for a sense of peace,
they'd have to pay an excessively high price to do it.

But Artrip says this lawsuit will change that through abatement --
lessening of the rent -- and restructuring the terms of the lease.

"What we want is the court to step in and change the contract
removing the economic handcuffs that these tenants have been placed
in taking out in other words that seven months rent payment penalty
if they want to leave," Artrip said.

We reached out to both City Centre Residential LLC and Willow
Bridge Inc., but they didn't want to comment on pending litigation.
[GN]

CLIMATE SOLAR: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Martinez, and other similarly situated v. CLIMATE SOLAR
SOLUTIONS LLC; PATRICK MOLESWORTH; PROSOLAR CALIFORNIA LLC; and
DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV06226 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., March 13, 2024), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to compensate for all hours worked; failure to pay
minimum wages; failure to pay overtime; failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements; failure to pay wages owed every pay
period; failure to pay wages when employment ends; failure to
provide rest breaks; failure to provide meal breaks; failure to
reimburse business expenses; failure to provide personnel records;
failure to provide pay records; in violation of the California
Labor Code and The Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA");
Discrimination in violation of Fair Employment And Housing Act
("FEHA"); retaliation in violation of FEHA; failure to prevent
discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA; retaliation in
violation of Labor Code; violation of Business And Professions
Code.

CLIMATE SOLAR did not provide Plaintiff and other similarly
situated aggrieved employees with the minimum wages to which they
were entitled for all work performed and did not compensate him and
others for all hours worked pursuant to California Labor Code. This
is so because Plaintiff and others consistently worked "off the
clock" in that the company had a policy of rounding down hours to
the detriment of employees who would not be paid for all hours
worked. In addition, the company's time clock system had an auto
deduct of meal periods on a daily basis, irrespective of whether
Plaintiff and others actually received and were able to take meal
periods. Since Plaintiff and others were not able to take
consistent meal/rest breaks due to not being able to leave his
post, Plaintiff and others were unequivocally not paid for all
hours worked and were not even paid the minimum wage in
contravention of California law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff started working at CLIMATE SOLAR in 2022 as an
electrical lead installation and later as an inspection
technician.

CLIMATE SOLAR SOLUTIONS LLC and PROSOLAR CALIFORNIA LLC are
California Limited Liability Companies, doing business in the
County of Los Angeles, State of California, and which employed
Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harout Messrelian, Esq.
          MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
          500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: (818) 484-6531
          Facsimile: (818) 956-1983


COLONIAL LIFE: Seawell Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HENRY R. SEAWELL, III &
KATHRYN D. SEAWELL, v. COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00278-TFM-MU (S.D. Ala.), the Plaintiffs move the
Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (3), for an Order
certifying the following classes:

   -- The Injunctive Class

      "All persons residing in one of the 42 "Subject
Jurisdictions"
      who (a) as of the Court's grant of class certification, have
in  
      place a Cancer Select or Cancer 1000 series insurance policy

      issued by Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company.

   -- The Money Damage Class

      "All persons residing in one of the Subject Jurisdictions who

      (a) were issued a Subject Policy, and (b) whose policy was in

      force at any time either (1) from July 15, 2016 through the
date
      of final judgment (for persons whose policies were issued in
the
      States of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Idaho, and South
      Dakota), or (2) from July 15, 019 through the date of final
      judgment in this action (for all persons residing in any
other
      "Subject Jurisdiction"), and (c) who has made a claim for
oral
      chemotherapy benefits under the Subject Policy regarding a
      multi-day prescription fill under which Colonial has paid
only
      one daily benefit.

This case is brought as a one-count breach of contract claim which
turns on the meaning of a uniform provision in an insurance policy
--specifically, the meaning of the oral chemotherapy benefit
provision in Defendant Colonial Life & Accident Insurance
Company's
Cancer 1000 and Cancer Select Policies.

The class comprises approximately 2,534 cancer patient claimants
spread across 42 states. All of the purported class members had the
same relevant policy language for oral chemotherapy benefits.
Colonial
processed the claims the same way for all claimants, failing to pay
the full oral chemotherapy benefits owed on multi-day prescription
fills.

Colonial Life provides disability, life, accident, critical
illness, cancer, dental and vision benefits.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9biqI3 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Desmond V. Tobias, Esq.
          Bryan E. Comer, Esq.
          TOBIAS & COMER, LLC
          1203 Dauphin Street
          Mobile, AL 36604
          Telephone: (251) 432-5001
          Facsimile: (251) 432-0714
          E-mail: bryan@tmclawyers.com

                - and -

          Henry R. Seawell, IV, Esq.
          THE SEAWELL FIRM, LLC
          Mobile, AL 36640
          Telephone: (251) 434-5012
          Facsimile: (251) 434-5013
          E-mail: hseawell@seawellfirm.com

                - and -

          Wilson F. Green, Esq.
          WILSON F. GREEN LLC
          301 19th Street North, Ste. 525
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 722-1018
          E-mail: wilson@wilsongreenlaw.com

COLTER ENERGY: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Response in Joyce
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYAN JOYCE, individually
and for Others Similarly Situated, v. COLTER ENERGY SERVICES USA,
INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01367-DSC (W.D. Pa.), the Defendant requests
the Court to enter an order extending the deadline by which it is
required to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for FLSA conditional
certification by seven days, until March 28, 2024.

   1. On March 7, 2024, the Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's motion for

      FLSA conditional certification and issuance of
court-authorized
      notice.

   2. In accordance with the Section II.B. of the Practices and
      Procedures of Judge David Stewart Cercone, the deadline by
which
      The Defendant is required to respond to the Plaintiff's
motion
      for FLSA Conditional Certification is March 21, 2024.

   3. Due to the complexity of the issues raised within the motion,

      the fact that it relies upon extensive deposition testimony
and
      other documents, and counsel's current workload and competing

      deadlines, the Defendant requires additional time to prepare

      the Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's motion for FLSA
      conditional certification.

   4. Counsel for Plaintiff does not object to the relief sought in

      this Motion.

Colter is a provider of production testing equipment and services
to the oil and gas industry.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 18, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8FrK8x at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jason Stitt, Esq.
          Gillian G. O'Hara, Esq.
          Michael T. McDonnell, III, Esq.
          Diana Fields, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          121 S. Whittier, Suite 330
          Wichita, KS 67207-1045
          Telephone: (816) 502-4605
          E-mail: Jason.Stitt@Kutakrock.com
                  Gigi.Ohara@KutakRock.com
                  Michael.McDonnell@KutakRock.com
                  Diana.Fields@kutakrock.com

COMCAST CABLE: Metzger Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Charles Metzger, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
d/b/a XFINITY, and CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-60126 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on March 11, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01051-JMY to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, doing business as Xfinity --
http://www.xfinity.com/-- is an American telecommunications
business segment and division of Comcast Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William Wright, Esq.
          THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
          515 N. Flagler Drive P300
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: 561-514-0904
          Email: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          Brian D. Flick, Esq.
          DANNLAW
          15000 Madison Avenue
          Lakewood, OH 44107
          Phone: (216) 373-0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          Email: notices@dannlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, Illinois 60602
          Phone: (312) 440-0020
          Fax: (312) 440-4180
          Email: tom@attorneyzim.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher C. Hoffman (SBN 176334)
          Keia J. Atkinson (SBN 316649)
          A.J. Sparagna (SBN 335193)
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Phone: (858) 597-9600
          Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
          Email: choffman@fisherphillips.com
                 katkinson@fisherphillips.com
                 asparagna@fisherphillips.com


CONCENTRA HEALTH SERVICES: Faces Data Breach Suit in MI Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Select Medical Holdings Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K
report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in February 21, 2024, that its
subsidiary Concentra Health Services, Inc. is facing a class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan on February 19, 2024 against Perry Johnson &
Associates, Inc., a third-party vendor of health information
technology solutions, and Concentra.

The lawsuit was brought by Elliot Curry, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated on February 20, 2024.

Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that he became the victim of
identity theft as a result of the data breach and that Concentra
had lax data security policies.

Concentra, a division of Select Medical, is a provider of
occupational medicine, urgent care, physical therapy, drug
screening, physical exams, and more.


CONCENTRA HEALTH: Moreno Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Brianna Lauren Moreno, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONCENTRA HEALTH
SERVICES, INC., a Nevada corporation; SELECT EMPLOYMENT SERVICES,
INC.; a corporation; SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION; a Delaware
corporation; DUKE KRATHIUM, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV03388 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March
13, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02073.

In determining the amount in controversy to support its Notice of
Removal, Defendants apply a reasonable violation rate based only on
damages sought by Plaintiff as a result of the alleged: failure to
provide compliant meal periods; failure to authorize and permit
compliant rest periods; and waiting time penalties for final wages;
and attorneys' fees.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher W. Decker, 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: christopher.decker@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Briana LaBriola, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor
          695 Town Center Drive
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: 714-800-7900
          Facsimile: 714-754-1298
          Email: briana.labriola@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Jared L. Palmer, Esq.
          Carolyn B. Hall, Esq.
          Ethan Lai, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-442-4810
          Facsimile: 415-442-4870
          Email: jared.palmer@ogletree.com
                 carolyn.hall@ogletree.com
                 ethan.lai@ogletree.com


CONCENTRA HEALTH: Tate Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Stephen Tate also known as: Steven Tate,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Concentra Health Services, Inc., Select Medical Holdings
Corporation, Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc., Case No.
4:24-cv-00293 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on March 12, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01813-RPK-LGD to
the proceeding.

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

Concentra -- https://www.concentra.com/ -- provides everything
employers need to keep workers safe and healthy, from injury care
and physical therapy to education and vaccinations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq.
          CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL
          308 Hutchinson Road
          Ellisville, MO 63011
          Phone: (314) 541-0317
          Fax: (855) 710-7706
          Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com


CONTEMPORARY INFORMATION: Garcia Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jose L. Garcia, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Contemporary Information Corp., Case
No. 23-CA-017491 was removed from the 13th Judicial Circuit
Hillsborough County Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on March 8, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-00619 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

Contemporary Information Corp. -- https://www.cicreports.com/ --
provides background screening services for landlords and
residential real estate management companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ruel W. Smith, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 1310
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 276-1662
          Fax: (813) 276-1956
          Email: rsmith@hinshawlaw.com


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Settles Data Breach Suit for $2.45-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn M. Rattigan, writing for National Law Review, reports that
Convergent Outsourcing Inc., a debt-collection agency, settled a
data breach class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington for $2.45 million. The class action suit
against Convergent alleged that the business failed to protect the
personal information of over 640,000 individuals. The breach
occurred in June 2022.

Plaintiffs alleged that Convergent failed to implement appropriate
security measures to protect and secure personal information in its
possession, failed to monitor its network for security
vulnerabilities, or implemented appropriate security practices.

Pursuant to the settlement, class members may receive up to $1,500
each for lost time and direct expenses related to the breach (e.g.,
credit monitoring services), or upwards of up to $10,000 for
extraordinary expenses. A third option would allow class members to
receive a pro-rata share of the remaining settlement fund. [GN]

CORECIVIC INC: Lopez Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL LOPEZ, on behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. CORECIVIC, INC., et
al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02358-MDB (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order certifying the case as a collective
action:

The proposed class consists of the BCCF inmates housed in cell
house 3 on August 4, 2021, and in cell house 2 on August 10, 2021
who were strip searched. There were approximately 100 inmates in
each cell house for a total of 200 inmates.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants initiated, participated
in, allowed, and instructed others to perform mass strip searches
of the 100 inmates being held within cellhouse 2. The inmates were
not isolated from the view of non-participating staff, other
inmates, female staff and were required to disrobe, lift their
genitalia for a visual inspection, and bend at the waist before
spreading their buttocks so that their anuses could be observed
while coughing.

Despite receiving multiple similar complaints, on August 10, 2021,
the Defendants, conducted an identical mass strip search on the
approximately 100 inmates in cellhouse 2 at BCCF, the Plaintiff
adds.

The Plaintiff Michael Lopez was an inmate being housed in cellhouse
2 at Bent County Correctional Facility (BCCF) on August 4, 2021.

CoreCivic is a company that owns and manages private prisons and
detention centers and operates others on a concession basis.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 18, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HFCYBV at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd F. Bovo, Esq.
          BOVO LAW GROUP, LLC
          650 S. Cherry Street, Suite 1400
          Denver, CO 80246
          Telephone: (303) 333-4686
          Facsimile: (303) 595-5334
          E-mail: todd@bovolaw.com

COUNTRY OAKS: Parker Seeks to Certiy California Resident Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERMA PARKER, v. COUNTRY
OAKS PARTNERS, LLC; SUN MAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES; and DOES 1-250,
inclusive, Case No. 8:23-cv-00195-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion or class
certification of her claims against the Defendants.

The Plaintiff seeks class certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)
and 23(b)(3) of the Class defined as:

   a. Subclass One: "Private Pay Residents-CLRA Claim Only"

      All persons who resided in (or continue to reside in) the
      California skilled nursing facility COUNTRY OAKS PARTNERS LLC

      dba COUNTRY OAKS COMMUNITY CARE, from Dec. 22, 2019 through
the
      date of the final disposition of this action pursuant to a
      Standard Admission Agreement, and whose claims are not
subject
      To arbitration because neither the resident nor the
resident's
      responsible party (as defined in the Standard Admission
      Agreement) agreed to or accepted the arbitration contract in

      writing, wherein the Defendants were reimbursed for services

      provided to a "class member" by private pay and/or privately

      acquired insurance and/or any HMO or PPO.

   b. Subclass Two: "All Residents -First And Second Causes of
Action"

      All persons who resided in (or continue to reside in) the
      California skilled nursing facility COUNTRY OAKS PARTNERS LLC

      dba COUNTRY OAKS COMMUNITY CARE, from December 22, 2019
through
      the date of the final disposition of this action pursuant to
a
      Standard Admission Agreement, and whose claims are not
subject
      to arbitration because neither the resident nor the
resident's
      responsible party (as defined in the Standard Admission
      Agreement) agreed to or accepted the arbitration contract in

      writing.

   c. Subclass Three: "Health & Safety Code Section 1430(b)
Violations
      -1430(b) Claim Only"

      All persons who resided in (or continue to reside in) the
      California skilled nursing facility COUNTRY OAKS PARTNERS LLC

      dba COUNTRY OAKS COMMUNITY CARE, from Dec. 22, 2019 through
the
      date of the final disposition of this action pursuant to a
      Standard Admission Agreement, regardless of the manner in
which
      the Defendants were reimbursed for services, and whose claims

      are not subject to arbitration because neither the resident
nor
      the resident's responsible party (as defined in the Standard

      Admission Agreement) agreed to or accepted the arbitration
      contract in writing.

The case is tailor-made for class certification; common issues not
only predominate, but they are exclusive of any individual
questions.

Country Oaks providing inpatient nursing and rehabilitative
services.

A copy of Plaintiff's motion dated March 15, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nlH6u4 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathryn A. Stebner, Esq.
          Brian S. Umpierre, Esq.
          STEBNER GERTLER GUADAGNI & KAWAMOTO
          A Professional Law Corporation
          870 Market Street, Suite 1285
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 362-9800
          Facsimile: (415) 362-9801
          E-mail: kathryn@sggklaw.com

COVANTA DADE: Brashevitzky Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVROHOM BRASHEVITZKY, et.
al, v. COVANTA DADE RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-20861-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs request that the
Court enter an order:

   (1) Certifying the case to proceed as a class action pursuant to

       Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3), or alternatively Rule
23(c)(4);

   (2) Designating the Plaintiffs Avrohom Brashevitzky and Maria
Duran
       as Class Representatives and the law firms of Watts Guerra
LLP
       and Kaplan & Kaplan International Law Firm, LLC as Class
       Counsel; and

   (3) For such further relief as this Court deems equitable and
just.

The Plaintiffs and putative Class members are those who resided or
owned real property near the Miami-Dade County Resources Recovery
Facility when a fire erupted in February 2023.

The Plaintiffs assert that due to the Defendants' negligence in
failing to prevent and/or contain a fire at the Facility resulted
in a toxic plume. The Defendants should be liable for the cost of
property remediation and medical monitoring for all those exposed
to toxins released by the fire.

The Plaintiffs move the Court to certify a class action on behalf
of the following classes:

       Property Damage Class:

       "All persons or entities who, as of the date of the Court's

       certification order, owned real property in the Class Area
as
       bounded by NW 106th Street in the north, to Okeechobee
       Road/SR27, to Palmetto Highway 826 in the east, NW 41stt
       Street/36th Street to the south, and the Florida Turnpike
to
       the west;"

       Medical Monitoring Class:

       "All natural persons who resided within the Class Area as
       bounded by NW 106th Street in the north, to Okeechobee
       Road/SR27, to Palmetto Highway 826 in the east, NW 41st
       Street/36th Street to the south, and the Florida Turnpike to

       the west at any point between Feb. 12, 2023 and March 2,
2023."

Covanta Dade is in the recycling, waste materials business.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CAR6P2 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Francisco Guerra, IV., Esq.
          Alicia O'Neill, Esq.
          Jennifer A. Neal, Esq.
          Mikal C. Watts, Esq.
          WATTS GUERRA LLP
          875 E. Ashby Place, Suite 1200
          San Antonio, TX 78212
          Telephone: (210) 447-0500
          E-mail: fguerra@guerrallp.com
                  aoneill@guerrallp.com
                  jneal@guerrallp.com
                  mcwatts@wattsguerra.com

                - and -

          Bruce C. Kaplan, Esq.
          KAPLAN & KAPLAN
          INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRM, LLC
          9737 Doral Boulevard, Suite 482
          Miami, FL 33178
          Telephone: (305) 407-2420
          E-mail: bkaplan@kaplan.attorney

COVANTA DADE: Suit Seeks to File Memorandum Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVROHOM BRASHEVITZKY, et.
al, v. COVANTA DADE RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-20861-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting them leave to file under seal Memorandum in
Support of Motion for Class Certification.

Covanta Dade is in the recycling, waste materials business.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JPdv6O at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Francisco Guerra, IV., Esq.
          Alicia O'Neill, Esq.
          Jennifer A. Neal, Esq.
          Mikal C. Watts, Esq.
          WATTS GUERRA LLP
          875 E. Ashby Place, Suite 1200
          San Antonio, TX 78212
          Telephone: (210) 447-0500
          E-mail: fguerra@guerrallp.com
                  aoneill@guerrallp.com
                  jneal@guerrallp.com
                  mcwatts@wattsguerra.com

                - and -

          Bruce C. Kaplan, Esq.
          KAPLAN & KAPLAN
          INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRM, LLC
          9737 Doral Boulevard, Suite 482
          Miami, FL 33178
          Telephone: (305) 407-2420
          E-mail: bkaplan@kaplan.attorney

CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due April 17
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dunn v. Cuyahoga County,
et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00364 (N.D. Ohio, Filed Feb. 23, 2023),
the Hon. Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan entered an order on motion to
extend deadlines as follows:

-- Non-expert discovery:                   Dec. 16, 2024

-- Expert discovery:                       March 17, 2025

-- Dispositive motions:                    April 17, 2025

-- Class certification motion:             April 17, 2025

Cuyahoga County is an urban county located in the northeastern part
of the U.S. state of Ohio. The county seat and largest city is
Cleveland.

 


CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Settles Class Suit by Fixing Jail Conditions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Maziasz, writing forwww.ideastream.org, reports that Cuyahoga
County has reached a settlement with 19 plaintiffs who were
involved in a class action lawsuit over conditions at the Cuyahoga
County jail.

Last week, Cuyahoga County Council agreed to make updates to the
facility, and address policies that have been problematic for
years.

Back in 2018, a U.S. Marshals report found that conditions at the
jail were inhumane. Those conditions, as well as staffing
shortages, led to multiple inmates dying in jail custody in the
last several years.

That Marshals report led to calls for reform and the aforementioned
lawsuit. The lawsuit didn't call for any monetary settlement for
plaintiffs, but instead focused on fixing the conditions at the
jail.

Moore wanted to address issues he saw in the application of
pesticides in farming practices. His drone services are aimed at
creating a safer and more targeted way to apply pesticides and
other chemicals, like fertilizers, to crops.

He spoke with "Sound of Ideas" host Jenny Hamel about where his
passion for technology came from and how he plans to grow the
company. [GN]

DATABRICKS INC: Faces O'Nan Suit Over Copyright Infringement
------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart O'Nan, an individual; Abdi Nazemian, an individual; and
Brian Keene, an individual; and Representative Plaintiffs v.
Databricks, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Mosaic ML, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01451 (N.D.
Cal., March 8, 2024) arises from the Defendant's acts of direct and
vicarious copyright infringement that caused injury to Plaintiffs
and Class members.

The Defendants distributed MosaicML Pretrained Transformer, a
series of large language models created by MosaicML. The Plaintiffs
and Class members are authors. They own registered copyrights in
certain books that were included in the training dataset that
MosaicML has admitted copying to train its MPT models.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and Class members never
authorized MosaicML to use their copyrighted works as training
material. All those rights belong exclusively to Plaintiffs under
the U.S. Copyright Act. The Plaintiffs allege that MosaicML
repeatedly copied the Infringed Works without their permission. The
Plaintiffs have been injured by MosaicML's acts of direct copyright
infringement. The Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages,
actual damages, restitution of profits, and other remedies provided
by law, says the suit.

Databricks, Inc. provides software solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Christopher K. L. Young, Esq.
          Elissa Buchanan, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800  
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
                  eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew Butterick, Esq.
          1920 Hillhurst Avenue, #406
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Telephone: (323) 968-2632
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940  
          E-mail: mb@buttericklaw.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Clark, Esq.
          Laura M. Matson, Esq.
          Arielle S. Wagner, Esq.
          Eura Chang, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: bdclark@locklaw.com
                  lmmatson@locklaw.com
                  aswagner@locklaw.com
                  echang@locklaw.com

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Bid to Certify Class in Pappas Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE PAPPAS, et al.,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02800-RC (D.D.C.),
the Hon. Judge Rudolph Contreras entered an order granting in part
and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class and
appoint class counsel; and denying as moot Defendant's motion to
strike.

The Plaintiffs-- on their own behalf and on behalf of a proposed
class of similarly situated individuals -- sue the District
of Columbia and Pamela A. Smith, in her official capacity as the
Chief of Police of the Metropolitan Police Department of DC for
violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Each Plaintiff alleges that he or she was involuntarily retired
from Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") pursuant to the
department's involuntary disability retirement policy.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify an overall class comprised of:

      All current and former employees of Defendants who were
employed
      as MPD sworn law enforcement officers at any time between
      Dec. 9, 2014, and the date that class certification is
granted
      who developed a physical or mental disability and were
referred
      to the Police and Firefighters Retirement Relief Board for
      disability retirement even though Defendants never determined

      their suitability for extended leave, job restructuring, and

      reassignment and who were disability retired or whose
Retirement
      Board decision remains pending.

The Plaintiffs also seek certification of two subclasses.
The first proposed subclass includes "all Class Members who were
disability retired as MPD sworn law enforcement officers between
Dec. 9, 2014 and June 30, 2017."

The second proposed subclass includes "all Class Members who were
referred for disability retirement between July 1, 2017 and the
date that class certification is granted and who were disability
retired or whose Retirement Board decision remains pending."

The Plaintiffs served as police officers in the DC MPD.

A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated March 14, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=McuPqK
at no extra charge.[CC]

DOTDASH MEDIA: Langston Files Suit in D. Utah
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dotdash Media. The
case is styled as Teressa Langston, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Dotdash Media doing business as:
Dotdash Meredith, Case No. 1:24-cv-00046 (D. Utah, March 13,
2024).

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

Dotdash Media doing business as Dotdash Meredith --
https://www.dotdashmeredith.com/ -- is America's largest digital
and print publisher, with brands including PEOPLE, Better Homes &
Gardens, Allrecipes, Investopedia, Verywell, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Scofield, Esq.
          PETERS SCOFIELD
          7430 Creek Rd., Ste. 303
          Salt Lake City, UT 84093-6160
          Phone: (801) 322-2002
          Email: dws@psplawyers.com


DR KELLYANN LLC: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr Kellyann LLC. The
case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Dr Kellyann LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-00219 (W.D.N.Y., March 13, 2024).

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

Dr. Kellyann Petrucci, M.S., N.D. -- https://drkellyann.com/ -- is
a board-certified naturopathic physician, nutrition expert, and
resident health authority on numerous TV programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP
          122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620
          New York, NY 10168
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


E.I. DU PONT: Faces Class Suit Over Wastewater Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------
susmangodfrey.com reports that there is a class action lawsuit
against E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company and The Chemours
Company FC, LLC ("the Defendants") that alleges that beginning in
1980, the Fayetteville Works plant, operated by the Defendants,
discharged wastewater containing per- and polyfluorinated
substances ("PFAS") into the Cape Fear River, contaminating the
water. The Court decided that this case should be certified as a
class action on behalf of two "Classes" or groups of people that
could include you. The Court has not decided who is right. There is
no money or other benefit available now and no guarantee there will
be.

What is this case about?

The lawsuit alleges that beginning in 1980, the Fayetteville Works
plant, operated by the Defendants, discharged wastewater containing
PFAS into the Cape Fear River, contaminating the water. As a
result, the lawsuit alleges that drinking water was contaminated
and water pipes were damaged. It alleges that PFAS can cause
certain cancers and other diseases, and that people living close to
the plant who drank the polluted water became sick because they
were exposed to PFAS. The lawsuit also alleges the Defendants knew
PFAS was dangerous and did not tell anyone that they released these
chemicals into the Cape Fear River and the environment around the
Fayetteville Works plant. The Defendants deny these claims and deny
they did anything wrong. The lawyers for the Classes will have to
prove their claims in Court.

Who is included?

In this class action there are two Classes, and you are included if
you are an owner or renter of residential property from February 1,
2015 to present whose property (1) is serviced by a public water
utility servicing Bladen, Brunswick, Cumberland, New Hanover, or
Pender Counties that draws water from or obtains water drawn from
the Cape Fear River downstream of the Fayetteville Works plant
("Public Utility Class"); or (2) receives drinking water from a
groundwater source with quantifiable concentrations of any of
certain PFAS from the Fayetteville Works plant ("Groundwater
Class"). There are also three damages subclasses:

     (1) current residential property owner-occupiers or renters
who have not yet installed both reverse osmosis filters and new
water heaters on their property ("Owner-Occupier/Renter Damages
Subclass");

      (2) property owners or renters who paid for bottled water,
water heaters, and/or reverse osmosis filters from 2017 to present
("Purchaser Damages Subclass"); or

      (3) property owners who purchased their residential property
prior to June 2017 and have not installed both reverse osmosis
filters and new water heaters ("Long-Time Property Owner Damages
Subclass").

Who represents the Classes?

The Court has appointed a group of attorneys to represent the
Classes as "Class Counsel." You do not have to pay Class Counsel or
anyone else to participate. Instead, if Class Counsel recovers
money or benefits for the Class(es), they will ask the Court for
their attorneys’ fees and expenses. If approved, these fees and
expenses will be deducted from any money obtained for the Class(es)
or paid separately by the Defendants. You may hire your own lawyer
to appear in Court for you, but if you do, you have to pay that
lawyer.

What are my options?

To stay in the Class(es), you do not have to do anything. If money
or benefits are obtained, you will be notified of how to request a
share. If you stay in the Class(es), you will not be able to sue
the Defendants on your own about the claims in this lawsuit. If you
want to maintain your rights to sue on your own, you must exclude
yourself by June 12, 2024 by following the procedure set forth on
the website for the case, www.NCPFASLitigation.com. If you exclude
yourself, you cannot get money or benefits from this lawsuit if any
are awarded.

For more information:
Call: (877) 495-0948
Visit: www.NCPFASLitigation.com [GN]

EDDIE BAUER: Ninth Cir. Reverses False Ad Class Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Taylor, writing for mondaq, reports that as many readers
know, deceptive pricing cases have exploded in recent years. While
we've seen some defendant success in cases where plaintiffs have
been unable to prove actual harm, not all defendants have been so
lucky. The most recent Eddie Bauer case is a cautionary tale
showing that deceptive pricing issues still loom large. Here's what
happened:

In 2020, a consumer sued Eddie Bauer LLC and its parent company in
the Eastern District of Washington, accusing the retailer of
violating Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) by
misleadingly promoting discounts of 50% on items that never were
sold at the claimed original prices. The lawsuit was dismissed by a
district court judge who ruled that Clark, the named plaintiff, was
ineligible for monetary damages under the UTPA because she failed
to demonstrate an "ascertainable loss of money or property." Clark
appealed.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court sought guidance from the Oregon
Supreme Court on whether Clark had to allege a misrepresentation as
to a "characteristic, quality or feature" of the items she
purchased to claim an "ascertainable loss" under the UTPA. In
response, the Oregon Supreme Court stated that if a consumer
decides to purchase an item based on false information given by the
seller regarding the item's past prices or current sale price, this
situation can still represent a quantifiable loss under UTPA, even
without any misrepresentation of the item's attributes or quality.

Based on this clarification, in January, the Ninth Circuit majority
determined that Clark sufficiently demonstrated "ascertainable
loss", thus making her lawsuit improperly dismissed. The majority
panel was concerned with the possibility that Clark might again be
uncertain about the authenticity of Eddie Bauer's sales,
questioning whether they represent genuine discounts or not, which
was enough to establish a tangible injury. This decision allowed
her to proceed with her lawsuit, specifically her claim for an
injunction, though her requests for disgorgement and restitution
were denied.

Following this decision, Eddie Bauer requested an en banc review of
the Ninth Circuit's decision. The retailer argued that the Ninth
Circuit ruling permitted the lawsuit to advance despite no ongoing
risk of deception, and was thus inconsistent with a Supreme Court
ruling from 2021 suggesting that actual harm is required for
standing for injunctive relief. The Ninth Circuit announced they
would not entertain any more requests for a rehearing on this
matter, leaving the Ninth Circuit's decision to stand. Clark v.
Eddie Bauer LLC, No. 21-35334, 2024 WL 177755 (9th Cir. Jan. 17,
2024).

This case is an important reminder that deceptive pricing cases can
still present a major risk for retailers and advertisers, and an
area to watch closely from a compliance perspective. [GN]

ENSIGN UNITED: Faces Nava Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAN NAVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENSIGN UNITED STATES DRILLING, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00873 (S.D. Tex., March 8, 2024) is a
class action arising from the Defendant's violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all
current and/or former employees who worked as floorhands or
pumphands and who were not paid at one and one-half times their
regular rates of pay for all of the hours over 40 that they worked
in a workweek during the past three years to recover back wages,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs under the FLSA.

Plaintiff Nava was employed by the Defendant from September 1,
2021, to October 23, 2023 as a floorhand and as a pumphand.

Ensign United States Drilling, Inc. provides energy services. The
Company specializes in drilling wells for oil and gas field
operations. Ensign United States Drilling operates Worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES  
          Lyric Centre
          440 Louisiana Street | Suite 1110
          Houston, TX 77002-1055
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739  
          E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net

ERIC SHOES INC: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eric Shoes, Inc. The
case is styled as Nihal Erkan, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Eric Shoes, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01747
(E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2024).

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

Eric Shoes, Inc. -- https://ericshoes.com/ -- carry Comfort &
Designer Shoes from over 70 Major Brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


EXPEDIA GROUP: Echevarria Seeks Leave To File Exhibits Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIO ECHEVARRIA, v.
EXPEDIA GROUP, INC., HOTELS.COM L.P., HOTELS.COM GP, ORBITZ, LLC,
Case No. 1:19-cv-22621-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file under
seal exhibits in support of his motion for partial class
certification.

Mr. Echevarría requests the Court to permit the filing under seal
of exhibits 1-22 to Plaintiff's motion for partial class
certification. The exhibits consist of documents produced by the
Defendant and designated as confidential under the July 31, 2020,
Stipulated Confidentiality and Protective Order.

Expedia is an American travel technology company that owns and
operates travel fare aggregators and travel metasearch engines.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sz5NsE at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andres Rivero, Esq.
          Alan H. Rolnick, Esq.
          Ana C. Malave, Esq.
          RIVERO MESTRE LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 445-2500
          Facsimile: (305) 445-2505
          E-mail: arivero@riveromestre.com
                  arolnick@riveromestre.com
                  amalave@riveromestre.com

                - and -

          Manuel Vazquez, Esq.
          MANUEL VAZQUEZ, P.A.
          2332 Galiano St., Second Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 445-2344
          Facsimile: (305) 445-4404
          E-mail: mvaz@mvazlaw.com

FANTASIA INDUSTRIES: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fantasia Industries
Corp. The case is styled as Angela Wahab, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Fantasia Industries Corp., Case
No. 1:24-cv-01798 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2024).

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

Fantasia Industries Corp. -- https://fantasiahaircare.com/ -- is in
the personal care product manufacturing business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


FCA US: Bid to Certify New York & California Classes Stricken
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FCA US LLC Monostable
Electronic Gearshift Litigation, Case No. 2:16-md-02744-DML-DRG
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge David Lawson entered an order:

-- Granting the Defendant's motion to strike, and

-- Striking the Plaintiffs' motion to certify New York and
California
    classes.

The Court said, "The plaintiffs have failed to present good grounds
for the Court to revisit the question of class certification for
the claims of the New York and California plaintiffs, and their
motion to certify new classes for those jurisdictions is tardy and
procedurally improper at this stage of the litigation. The Court
therefore will grant the defendant's motion to strike."

The Plaintiffs' motion --or renewed motion -- for class
certification in substance constitutes a request for
reconsideration of the Court’s 2019 ruling that denied the same
relief that now is sought once again.

However, the plaintiffs fail to establish any viable legal grounds
for
revisiting the class certification question at this late stage of
the proceeding.

In October and November 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (JPML) issued orders transferring numerous cases to this
district for consolidation with the proceedings in the Monostable
Gearshift Litigation, MDL No. 16-2744.

On Dec. 9, 2019, the Court granted in part the MDL plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and certified a common issues class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and (c)(4).

FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MtYRj7 at no extra
charge.[CC]

FUNNY TIME INC: Stevenson Sues Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------
Natalie Stevenson, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. FUNNY TIME, INC, D/B/A GOLD CLUB POMPANO, a Florida
Profit Corporation, and MICHAEL TOMKOVICH, in his individual
capacity, Case No. 0:24-cv-60408-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 14, 2024),
is brought seeking unpaid wages, including "kick-backs", liquidated
damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendants
violation of the minimum wage and record keeping requirements of
the FLSA.

During her employment, Plaintiff was paid no wages by Defendants
and only received tips from customers. The Plaintiff worked
approximately over 40 hours in a given week. The Defendants
"required" Plaintiff to work a minimum of 7 hours for the day
shift. However, when Plaintiff did not show up to work on her own
volition, the managers would reach out to her. Additionally,
Defendants required Plaintiff to utilize her tips to pay the
Company's staff. The Plaintiff was required pay a $20 house fee.
The Plaintiff was also required to tip the Defendant's staff. As a
result of these common policies, Plaintiff is entitled to receive
full minimum for each hour worked as repayment improperly
unpaid/deducted from her wages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as an entertainer for Defendant from April
2021 to February 2023.

FUNNY TIME, INC, D/B/A GOLD CLUB POMPANO, is a Florida For Profit
Corporation and operates its business within Broward County,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Hall, Esq.
          Annie Blanc, Esq.
          THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
          1560 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 600
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          Phone: (407) 574-4999
          Facsimile: (833) 813-7512
          Email: ahall@theleachfirm.com
                 ablanc@theleachfirm.com
                 yhernandez@theleachfirm.com


G.SKILL INT'L: Hurd Class Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRISTAN HURD and KEN
DIMICCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. G.SKILL INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISE CO., LTD., G.SKILL
USA, INC., RACERSPEED, INC., and NEUTECK, INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-00685-SSS-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court to certify the case as a class action under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) on June 14, 2024:

   (1) California class

       "All California individuals who made an online purchase of
       G.Skill's High-Speed Memory within the governing statute of

       limitations period. For the California class, the Plaintiffs

       seek to certify UCL, FAL, CLRA, express warranty, and
negligent
       misrepresentation claims;"

   (2) New York class

       "All New York individuals who made an online purchase of
       G.Skill's High-Speed Memory within the governing statute of

       limitations period. For the New York class, the Plaintiffs
seek
       to certify claims under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section 349 and
       section 350;" and

   (3) Consumer protection class

       "All individuals who made an online purchase of G.Skill's
High-
       Speed Memory within the governing statute of limitations
period
       from the following states:

       Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,
       Washington, D.C., Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Maryland,

       Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
Nevada,
       New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
       Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island,
       Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.

For the consumer protection class, the Plaintiffs seek to certify
claims under the relevant state consumer protection statutes for
each state.

The following people are excluded from the proposed classes: (1)
any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding over this action and the
members of their family; (2) Defendants, Defendants' subsidiaries,
parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the
Defendants or their parents have a controlling interest and their
current employees, officers, and directors; (3) persons who
properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the
Class; (4) persons whose claims in this matter have been finally
adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiffs'
counsel and Defendants' counsel, and their experts and consultants;
and (6) the legal representatives,
successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons.

The Plaintiffs also move for their appointment as the class
representatives and for the appointment of Richard Lyon, Simon
Franzini, Jonas Jacobson, and Connie Cheng of Dovel & Luner and
Kevin Kneupper and Cyclone Covey of Kneupper & Covey as class
counsel.

The California Plaintiff Tristan Hurd and New York Plaintiff Ken
Dimicco contend that the Defendants mislead reasonable consumers by
claiming that G.Skill's High-Speed Memory products run at certain
speeds (for example, 3200 MHz for a DDR-4 memory product, or 5600
MHz for a DDR-5 memory product) when in truth the memory runs at a
much slower speed (2133 MHz for DDR-4 memory, and 4800 MHz for
DDR-5 memory).

G.SKILL is a Taiwanese computer hardware manufacturing company.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tn8KgB at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

                - and -

          Kevin Kneupper, Esq.
          A. Cyclone Covey, Esq.
          KNEUPPER & COVEY, PC
          17011 Beach Blvd., Ste. 900
          Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5998
          Telephone: (512) 420-8407
          E-mail: kevin@kneuppercovey.com
                  cyclone@kneuppercovey.com

GATE GOURMET: Howell Suit Removed to D. Colorado
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Asia Howell and Demarkis Mccollister,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.
GATE GOURMET, INC., Case No. 2024CV30238 was removed from the
District Court for Arapahoe County, Colorado, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado on March 7, 2024, and assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-00633-RMR.

The Plaintiffs filed this action against Gate Gourmet for alleged
violations of the Colorado Wage Act and the Colorado Minimum Wages
of Workers Act. The Plaintiff's claims arise out of their
allegations that they did not receive rest breaks under Colorado
law, which is governed, in part, by Colorado's COMPS Orders. COMPS
Order #39, Section 5, as well as prior versions of the COMPS
Orders, provide that rest breaks may be governed by a collective
bargaining agreement.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stephen E. Baumann II, Esq.
          Hannah J. Fitzgerald, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 800
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: 303.629.6200
          Fax: 303.629.0200
          Email: sbaumann@littler.com
                 hfitzgerald@littler.com


GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Pesticides in Cereals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eva Hagan, writing for greenmatters, reports that after a dangerous
pesticide was detected in Cheerios-brand cereals, a class action
lawsuit was filed against General Mills Inc., in California.
Chlormequat, the chemical found in Cheerios and other oat-based
products, raised major concern after studies showed that exposure
can harm fetal growth and reproductive health in animals and
humans.

Many experts worry about the potential effects of chlormequat
exposure on children's health. Therefore, the chemical's presence
in Cheerios, a classic childhood cereal, is ringing many alarm
bells, and has people asking questions. So, here are the details of
the Cheerios class action lawsuit.

What is the Cheerios class action lawsuit?

In early 2024, plaintiffs Katrina and Benjamin Necaise sued General
Mills Inc. in a California class action lawsuit. They claim
Cheerios, Honey Nut Cheerios, Frosted Cheerios, and Oat Crunch Oats
N' Honey Cheerios contain dangerous levels of pesticides, per Top
Class Actions.

The plaintiffs alleged that independent lab testing found unsafe
amounts of chlormequat chloride, an agricultural pesticide.
According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), there are many
concerns about how chlormequat chloride can affect children's
health. Studies on animals have revealed that the pesticide can
negatively impact the reproductive system, and even affect fetal
growth.

According to Top Class Actions, the plaintiffs claimed that General
Mills Inc. did not warn of the chlormequat in its Cheerios
products; they believe that if customers had been warned of the
chemical's presence, some may not have bought the cereal. By not
revealing this critical information, the case argues General Mills
violated California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

For those of you, like me, who have eaten Cheerios since childhood
you may be wondering -- why hasn't this always been an issue? Well,
chlormequat is actually not even allowed to be sprayed on food
crops in the U.S. In 2018, the Trump Administration approved a
small amount of the chemical on imported oat products. The
allowable level then increased in 2020, per the EWG.

Even in these small doses, the effects of chlormequat are
concerning. According to Class Action, the chemical is used in
crops as a growth hormone blocker, keeping the plants from getting
too large to improve the harvesting efficiency. However, according
to the lawsuit, ingesting chlormequat can affect human and animal
development as well, possibly by hindering puberty, fertility, and
healthy growth of the fetus, per Top Class Actions.

Cheerios are not the only oat-based products with chlormequat.

Cheerios-branded cereals are not the only food products that have
been found to contain chlormequat. Days before the lawsuit was
brought against Cheerios, Quaker Oats (a popular oatmeal, granola,
flour, and cereal brand), also received a class action over the
amounts of chlormequat in its products, per Top Class Actions.

In fact, the EWG has identified chlormequat in 92 percent of
oat-based food products tested in May 2023. What's worse, the EWG
tested the urine of 96 people between 2017 and 2023 and found
chlormequat in 77 samples. It was also noted that detections were
more frequent for samples taken closer to 2023, which suggested
that exposure could be increasing.

To avoid exposure to chlormequat, the solution is fairly simple:
buy products made with organic oats, as organic crops are not
sprayed with pesticides. [GN]

GENOMMA LAB USA: Harris Files Suit in E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Genomma Lab USA, Inc.
The case is styled as Chinyere Harris, on behalf of herself, and
all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Genomma
Lab USA, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00289-JLT-SKO (E.D. Cal., March 8,
2024).

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

Genomma Lab USA, Inc. -- https://www.genommalab.com/en/ -- provides
consumer products. The Company offers pharmaceuticals, cosmetics,
and nutritional products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Brent Wisner, Esq.
          WISNER BAUM LLP
          11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1750
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: (310) 820-6231
          Email: rbwisner@wisnerbaum.com


GETTYSBURG COLLEGE: Vigliano Sues Over Retention of Tuition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Vigliano, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GETTYSBURG COLLEGE, Case No.
1:24-cv-00437-CCC (M.D. Pa., March 13, 2024), is brought for
damages and restitution, resulting from Gettysburg's retention of
the tuition paid by Plaintiff and the other putative Class Members
for in-person education and services not being provided, and
seeking 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 paid tuition to enroll in Gettysburg's on-campus, in
person educational program, including all the benefits and services
associated therewith for the entirety of the semester. The
Plaintiff's paid-for experience was cut short mid-way through the
spring of 2020, when that in-person educational experience was
taken away from Plaintiff and other students at Gettysburg for the
remaining duration of the Spring 2020 semester.

In March 2020, in response to the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus,
the virus that causes the COVID-19 disease (the "COVID-19
pandemic"), Gettysburg, like many other universities, transitioned
to remote online-only education, canceled on-campus recreational
events, canceled student activity events, and ordered students to
refrain from going on campus. As a result, the on-campus
educational experience for which student paid for was no longer
available to Gettysburg students for the remainder of the Spring
2020 semester.

Despite the harsh reality that students could no longer enjoy the
benefit of the bargain for which they pre-paid, Gettysburg refused
to provide a prorated refund of tuition tied to an on-campus
educational experience that was not available to students for a
significant part of the Spring 2020 semester. Accordingly,
Gettysburg's students lost the benefits of the bargain for services
and the experience they paid for but could no longer access or use
following the school's transition to remote learning in March 2020.
By not giving prorated refunds for tuition charged for on-campus
education and services not provided, Gettysburg breached its
contracts with students or was otherwise unjustly enriched.

It cannot be disputed that the circumstances underlying this legal
action are unfortunate and unprecedented. However, the students did
not choose these circumstances, and they certainly did not agree to
pay tuition for online-only education and services. It is unfair
and unlawful for Gettysburg to retain tuition for campus- based
in-person education and services not being provided and to pass the
financial losses on to its students.

Importantly, Plaintiff does not challenge Defendant's discretion in
adhering to federal, state, and local health guidelines, but rather
challenges Defendant's decision to retain the tuition, paid by
Plaintiff and other students for in- person education, experiences,
access to campus, and services, without providing such, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is an undergraduate student during the Spring 2020
semester.

Gettysburg offers undergraduate students the option to pick minimal
online classes or an on-campus, in-person educational experience on
its campus in Gettysburg, 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
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: 412-231-0246
          Email: gary@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
          Phone: (516) 873-9550
          Email: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
                 aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks to Strike Corrected Bid to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL T. PARKER and
PATRICE PARKER, v. GOLDMAN SACHS MORTGAGE COMPANY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-03581-ADC (D. Md.), the
Defendants request that the Court must:

   (1) strike the Corrected Motion to Certify Class, ECF 77,

   (2) enter a briefing schedule on non-party Alice Mejia's motion
to
      intervene, and

   (3) hold in abeyance further briefing on Plaintiffs' motion to
       certify class and subclass, ECF 70, until the Court rules on

       the motion to intervene.

On Feb. 26, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class
and subclass and memorandum in support. Pursuant to the agreement
of the parties and the Court's approval, the Defendants were slated
to file their opposition to the first motion to certify on Friday,
March 29, 2024.

Goldman is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4H136x at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Melissa O. Martinez, Esq.
          Nicholas B. Jordan, Esq.
          Brian E. Pumphrey, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          500 East Pratt Street, Suite 1000
          Baltimore, MD 21202-3169
          Telephone: (410) 659-4432
          Facsimile: (410) 659-4482
          E-mail: mmartinez@mcguirewoods.com
                  njordan@mcguirewoods.com
                  bpumphrey@mcguirewoods.com

GOODYEAR TIRE: Shumate Sues Over Unlawfully Fixed Prices
--------------------------------------------------------
Louise Shumate, individually and behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company; Compagnie Generale
des Etablissements Michelin SCA; Michelin North America Inc.;
Bridgestone Corporation; Bridgestone Americas, Inc.; Continental
Aktiengesellschaft; Continental Tire the Americas, LLC; Nokian
Tyres plc; Nokian Tyres North America, Inc.; Nokian Tyres Inc.;
Nokian Tyres U.S. Operation LLC; Pirelli & C. S.p.A; Pirelli Tire
LLC; Hankook Tire & Technology Co., Ltd.; Hankook Tire America
Corp.; Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd.; Yokohama Tire Corporation; Toyo
Tire Corporation; Toyo Tire U.S.A. Corp.; Kumho Tire Co.; Kumho
Tire U.S.A.; Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd.; Sumitomo Rubber
North America, Inc.; GITI Tire Global Trading Pte. Ltd.; and Giti
Tire (USA) Ltd., Case No. 5:24-cv-00449 (N.D. Ohio, March 8, 2024),
is brought stemming from a conspiracy among the world's largest
manufacturers of new replacement tires for passenger cars, vans,
trucks, and buses ("Class Tires") to unlawfully fix, raise,
maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of Class Tires sold in the
United States.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to
restrain trade by participating in an agreement or understanding to
raise and maintain prices for Class Tires at artificially high
levels in the United States. As a direct result of Defendants'
conspiracy, Plaintiff and members of the Class paid artificially
higher prices for Class Tires and thereby suffered antitrust
injury.

On January 30, 2024, the European Commission ("EC") conducted
unannounced raids at a number of Defendants' offices, as confirmed
by Defendants themselves, as part of an investigation into
suspected price coordination among tire producers. The EC
investigation is focused on the sale of Class Tires sold in Europe.
Evidence of an unlawful agreement to fix the prices of Class Tires
includes unprecedented and frequent parallel price increase
announcements and public signaling, which would be against the
economic self-interest of individual tire manufacturers in the
absence of an agreement to fix prices, and the EC investigation
into similar conduct.

The market for Class Tires is also highly susceptible to collusion
because it is highly concentrated and dominated by a handful of
companies, there are significant barriers to entry for new tire
manufacturers, demand for Class Tires is inelastic, common
membership in trade associations provides Defendants the
opportunity to exchange competitive information, and the tire
industry has a history of antitrust violations, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Class Tires within the State of Florida
directly from Defendant Bridgestone.

Goodyear is one of the world's leading tire companies and has a
significant presence both in the U.S. and globally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          KARON LLC
          700 W. St. Clair Avenue, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: (216) 622-1851
          Email: dkaron@karonllc.com

               - and -

          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          Robert J. Wozniak, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          100 Tri-State International, Suite 128
          Lincolnshire, IL 60069
          Phone: (224) 632-4500
          Email: dmillen@fklmlaw.com
                 rwozniak@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Phone: (610) 234-6486
          Email: kjustice@fklmlaw.com
                 jjagher@fklmlaw.com


GOOGLE LLC: Wins Class Suit Over Use of IBM Photo Database
----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown of Bloomberg Law reports that Google LLC defeated
a proposed class action alleging it used a database of photos
compiled by International Business Machines Corp. in violation of
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Steven Vance and Tim Janecyk alleged that Google failed to give
them notice or obtain their consent before obtaining and making use
of their photos, and had illegally profited from them, but Judge
Beth Labson Freeman of the US District Court for the Northern
District of California said March 15 that the Illinois statute
didn't cover their claims because it didn't apply. [GN]

GORIS GROCERS: Romero Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wage
----------------------------------------------------------
Gonsalo Romero, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
v. GORIS GROCERS NOSTRAND AVE CORP (DBA SILVER STAR MEAT MARKET)
and MARK A. GORIS, Individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-01758 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 8, 2024), is brought seeking to recover, inter alia, unpaid
overtime wage compensation for Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") as recently
amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"), and related
provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations
("NYCRR").

The Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to
compensate Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half the
regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per work week. However,
despite such mandatory pay obligations, Defendants only compensated
Plaintiff at a rate of $15 per hour and failed to pay Plaintiff his
lawful overtime pay for the period from April 2012 until January
21, 2024, during which he regularly worked well in excess of forty
(40) hours per workweek. Plaintiff also brings this action under
the Wage Theft Prevention Act for Defendants' failure to provide
written notice of wage rates in violation of said laws, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Class Suit Over Gas Emissions Discussed
----------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Forth of News Channel 3 reports that a class action
lawsuit filed in 2023 that alleged gas emissions from a Kalamazoo
paper mill violated the Clean Air Act and civil rights was
dismissed by a federal judge on March 15, 2024.

Environmental lawsuit Dancer v. United States of America was filed
in June of 2023 against Graphic Packaging International, along with
21 other defendants such as the City of Kalamazoo, the State of
Michigan, the United States of America, and multiple federal,
state, and local officials.

The original complaint alleged that residents living in the
northside neighborhood, a historically Black neighborhood, had been
disproportionally affected by hazardous pollution from Graphic
Packaging's plant for decades.

In May of 2023, the Michigan Department of Health and Human
Services, or MDHHS, released the results from a health consultation
that indicated that emission levels of hydrogen sulfide and other
volatile organic compounds in the area were often higher than the
EPA's limit.
Residents of the area had been complaining of foul odors coming
from the plant, causing them various health issues such as
headaches, lung issues, and other irritations.

Prior to its dismissal, the lawsuit called for a jury trial, $600
million in damages, and for Graphic Packaging to close or decrease
gas emissions.

Working together with the City of Kalamazoo, the plant installed a
monitoring system for residents to track emission levels.

The monitoring system can be found online, and users have the
ability to change the dates to see past emission levels.

Graphic Packaging released the following statement regarding the
dismissal:

    We take our community's health and safety very seriously, and
we take pride in our responsibility as a good neighbor, community
partner and employer to 750 people at our Kalamazoo manufacturing
facility. While we are pleased with the Court's ruling and remain
proud of our work and our record in Kalamazoo, we will continue to
seek solutions to help improve the environment. We have invested
millions of dollars in ongoing facility improvements and air
monitoring equipment. Since 2021, these investments have driven an
81% reduction in our hydrogen sulfide emissions levels, which were
already under state limits. We will continue to work alongside city
leaders and state and federal regulators to achieve further
progress. However, we will also defend ourselves vigorously against
false and frivolous claims.

Following the judge's decision, Kalamazoo Communications Manager
Michael Smith said the city is pleased and that it was the "right
decision based on facts and the law."

Read the full statement:

The City continues to make ongoing capital improvements to the
Kalamazoo Wastewater Reclamation Plant, including more than $13
million in completed odor mitigation initiatives and $12 million in
upcoming projects. Some of these projects include new processes in
the KWRP to reduce the number of trucks leaving the plant,
improvements to how waste is handled and stored, upgrades to the
piping systems to minimize odors, as well as the placement of 19
air quality monitors in and around the KWRP.

The KWRP treats approximately 27 million gallons of wastewater
daily from throughout the Kalamazoo County region, with daily
testing and regulatory oversight from state and federal agencies.
[GN]

GREENSBORO COLLEGE: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach Response
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brayden Stamps, writing for Fox8, reports that Greensboro College
is the defendant in a class-action lawsuit regarding its response
to a data breach that involved highly sensitive information.

On Feb. 5, 2024, Greensboro College said it completed a review of
the data breach of its computer systems. The breach took place
between Aug. 10, 2023, through Aug. 21, 2023.

The college says it initiated the review after it "detected
potentially malicious activity related to some of its computer
systems" and that it "responded promptly" after becoming aware of
the breach.

Sensitive information such as Social Security numbers, driver's
license numbers, state identification numbers, financial account
information, dates of birth, passport numbers, medical information
and health insurance information were among the sensitive data
involved.

In March 2024, Greensboro College was named as the defendant in a
class-action lawsuit regarding their handling of the data breach.

The lawsuit alleges that the school first became aware of the data
breach "in or around August 2023" and did not notify anyone who was
impacted until Feb. 29 and that over 52,000 people suffered "injury
and ascertainable losses" as a result of the data breach.

The lawsuit also claims that Greensboro College remains in
possession of the compromised data which "remains vulnerable to
additional hackers and theft," and that the data breach was caused
by Greensboro College's "failure to implement adequate and
reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols."

The lawsuit also alleges that Greensboro College harmed the victims
of the data breach in its decision to wait six months to notify
them about it as the victims "would be in a better position to
protect themselves" had it been reported when it first discovered.
[GN]

GRETCHEN SCOTT: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gretchen Scott, LLC.
The case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Gretchen Scott, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-01784 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2024).

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

Gretchen Scott Designs -- https://www.gretchenscottdesigns.com/ --
is a clothing and textile designer shop that provides cotton tops,
dresses, and jackets. Mount Vernon, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HART CONSUMER PRODUCTS: Conrad Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hart Consumer
Products Inc. The case is styled as Michael Conrad, on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated v. Hart Consumer Products
Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-00307-CLM (N.D. Ala., March 11, 2024).

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

Hart Consumer Products, Inc. -- https://www.harttools.com/ -- is a
company based in South Carolina, United States, and is a
manufacturer of high-precision dies, jigs, fixtures, and
gages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Matthew Stephens, Esq.
          METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C.
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: (205) 939-0199
          Fax: (205) 939-0399
          Email: mstephens@mtattorneys.com


HAUS OF HANZ: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Haus of Hanz, Inc.
The case is styled as Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, v. Haus of Hanz, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-01756 (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2024).

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

Haus Of Hanz, Inc. -- https://hausofhanz.com/ -- is a curated
shopping destination of clothing for Men, Women & Kids Accessories
& Lifestyle products for all.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


HERMES INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Birkin Sales Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Williams, writing for Business of Fashion, reports that
Hermes is being accused of unlawful "tying" in a class action
lawsuit in the US.

Two California shoppers allege they were required to buy ancillary
products from other categories (such as the brand's apparel,
scarves and homeware) before being allowed to purchase the
Paris-based brand's sought-after Birkin handbags.

Counsel for the plaintiffs claim that Hermes is in violation of US
antitrust regulations, which define certain practices of bundling
goods or tying them to other purchases as an abuse of market
power.

"The tying product, the Birkin Handbags, is separate and distinct
from the tied products, the ancillary products required to be
purchased by consumers," the complaint reads. "Plaintiffs have
alternative options for the ancillary products and would prefer to
choose among them independently from their decision to purchase
Birkin handbags."

The complaint points to the company's commission structure for
sales associates as evidence of the alleged scheme: store staff do
not receive a commission on Birkin handbags, and as such are
compensated based on how effectively they push other styles or
categories, according to the complaint.

On handbag blogs and social media, Hermes buyers have reported for
years that as the company (and demand for its iconic bags) has
grown, sales associates have become increasingly strict about only
offering Birkins and Kellys to clients who buy heavily across other
categories. Hermes denies the practice: "Hermes strictly prohibits
any sales of certain products as a condition to the purchase of
others," the brand told BoF last year. CEO Axel Dumas has
acknowledged, however, that stores are encouraged to vet buyers and
attribute the sold-out bags only to "real" clients as the company
seeks to thwart an explosion of resale activity for its products.

Hermes isn't the only brand that has been linked to such practices.
Dealers of watchmaker Rolex have been accused of requiring shoppers
to buy from sister brand Tudor before being allowed to buy Rolex
products. [GN]

HERSHEY COMPANY: Faces Suit Over Lily's Chocolate Stevia Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that
plaintiffs Nicole Loza, Kimberly Hall and Nicole Rivera filed a
class action lawsuit against The Hershey Company.

Why: Loza, Hall and Rivera argue Hershey misleadingly represents
that its Lily's chocolate products are primarily sweetened with
stevia, when, in reality, they are primarily and predominantly
sweetened with erythritol.

Where: The Hershey class action lawsuit was filed in California
federal court.

Hershey misleadingly represents that its Lily's chocolate products
are primarily sweetened with stevia, a new class action lawsuit
alleges.

Plaintiffs Nicole Loza, Kimberly Hall and Nicole Rivera's class
action lawsuit claims Hershey's Lily's chocolate products --
labeled "Stevia Sweetened" -- are, in reality, "predominantly and
primarily" sweetened with the "highly processed sugar alcohol"
erythritol.

"Defendant's labeling of the Lily's chocolates as 'Stevia
Sweetened' is designed to -- and does -- deceive, mislead, and
defraud consumers like Plaintiffs," the Hershey class action
states.

Loza, Hall and Rivera want to represent a nationwide class and
California subclass of consumers who have purchased Hershey's
Lily's chocolate products since March 8, 2020, and the present.

Loza, Hall and Rivera argue consumers may seek out products they
believe are sweetened with stevia since it is a "natural
plant-based sweetener" that has "understood health benefits" and is
preferred over "alternative sweeteners that present health risks."


Erythritol, meanwhile, has been shown in recent studies to be
"disruptive to gut health" as well as linked to "increased risk of
heart attack and stroke," the Hershey class action alleges.

"Consumers reasonably understand (and believe) that products
marketed as 'Stevia Sweetened' obtain their sweet taste from
Stevia, not some other sweetener, let alone an artificial, harmful
sweetener," the Hershey class action states.

Loza, Hall and Rivera claim Hershey is guilty of unjust enrichment
and common law fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation and of
violating California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising
Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

The three plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request declaratory
and injunctive relief along with an award of compensatory,
statutory, punitive and treble damages for themselves and all class
members.

A consumer filed a similar class action lawsuit against Hershey
earlier this year over claims the company falsely advertises that
its organic, plant-based chocolate is ethically and sustainably
sourced.

Have you purchased Hershey's Lily's chocolate products? Let us know
in the comments.

The plaintiffs are represented by Seth A. Safier, Marie A. McCrary
and Hayley A. Reynolds of Gutride Safier LLP.

The Hershey Lily's chocolate class action lawsuit is Loza, et al.
v. The Hershey Co., Case No. 3:24-cv-01455, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. [GN]

HOUSE FOODS: Zuniga Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRVING CARLOS ZUNIGA, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HOUSE FOODS
AMERICA CORPORATION, a California corporation; HOUSE FOODS HOLDING
USA, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 8:22-cv-00372-CJC-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order preliminarily approving
the class action settlement and certifying a class for settlement
purposes.

The proposed Settlement resulted from the Parties' participation in
an all-day mediation session before an experienced wage and hour
class action mediator, Todd Smith, and subsequent settlement
discussions.

The Settlement provides for a substantial financial benefit to the
three settlement classes defined as follows:

   (1) Fair Credit Reporting Act (FRCA) Class Members: all current,

       former, and prospective employees of the Defendant who
applied
       for a position with the Defendant and had a Background Check

       performed during the period from Oct. 15, 2019 through June
16,
       2023.

   (2) BTB Class Members: all current and former employees of the
       Defendant in the State of California who applied for a
position
       with the Defendant and had a Background Check performed
during
       the period from Nov. 19, 2018 through June 16, 2023.

   (3) Aggrieved Employees: all current and former employees of
       Defendant in the State of California who applied for a
position
       with the Defendant and had a Background Check performed
during
       the period from March 30, 2020, through June 16, 2023.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant will pay a
non-revisionary Gross Settlement Amount of $75,000.00 to settle the
action and obtain a release of claims under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, California Labor Code, and California Private
Attorneys' General Act ("PAGA") in favor of the Released Parties.

The Settlement Sum will also serve as full satisfaction of all
claims arising from the Action, including the Plaintiff's request
for an enhancement award, administration expenses, and payment to
the Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA").

House Foods operates a tofu business in the United States.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 18, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q3nlQL at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228

                - and -

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Vedang J. Patel, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1460 Westwood Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 438-5555
          Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
          E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
                  vedang@tomorrowlaw.com

HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES: Must File Class Cert Responses by April 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cordova Lima v.
Housekeeping Services of Hilton Head, LLC, et al., Case No.
9:22-cv-04490 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 12, 2022), the Hon. Judge Bruce
Howe Hendricks entered an order granting motion for extension of
time to file response.

-- The Defendants Housekeeping Services of Hilton Head, LLC; David
L. Myers; DMS, LLC; and Carlos Acosta Responses to Plaintiff's
motion for conditional class certification due is by April 4, 2024.


The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
involving denial of overtime compensation.[CC]

INDIVIOR PLC: Higher Court Strikes Out Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Redhead, writing for nortonrosefulbright.com, reports
that In Wirral Council v Indivior PLC [2023] EWHC 3114 (Comm), the
High Court struck out a securities class action which had been
commenced as a representative action under CPR 19.8, and provided
that the claims should be brought in the usual way by ordinary
multi-party proceedings. The judgment highlights some of the
factors that the Court will consider when deciding whether to
exercise its discretion in favour of allowing representative
proceedings to continue.

Background

The Claimant used the representative action procedure under CPR
19.8 to bring claims on behalf of various individuals ("Represented
Persons") pursuant to sections 90 and 90A and Schedule 10A of the
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ("FSMA") ("Representative
Proceedings"). Under CPR 19.8, a claim may be brought by or against
a party as a representative of others with the "same interest" in
the claim. A party can initiate proceedings under CPR 19.8 "as of
right" but the Court has discretion whether to allow the
proceedings to continue by reference to the overriding objective.

Although this was the first time that CPR 19.8 had been used to
bring securities claims under sections 90, 90A and Schedule 10A of
FSMA, the Claimant maintained that it was entitled to proceed in
this way and that the Supreme Court decision in Lloyd v Google LLC
[2021] UKSC 50 effectively endorsed such an approach.

The Claimant considered that bringing a representative action under
CPR 19.8 would be less risky, costly and burdensome than using
ordinary multi-party proceedings and would provide access to
justice for a number of the Represented Persons who would not
otherwise be able to bring claims in their own names due to funding
issues. These advantages stemmed from the Claimant's adoption of a
"bifurcated process". This would enable "defendant-side" issues
that were common to the Represented Persons to be decided at an
initial stage, leaving individual "claimant-side" issues (such as
standing to sue, reliance, causation and quantum) to be dealt with
later on. Accordingly, the Represented Persons would get the
benefit of the findings on the common issues without having been
required to plead their case, provide disclosure or other evidence
beforehand. The Claimant was open about the fact that bifurcation
was "the sole purpose and stated advantage" of the Representative
Proceedings.

The Defendants applied for the claims to be struck out on the basis
that representative proceedings were not the appropriate procedure
for such claims under FSMA. The Defendants argued that the claims
should be brought in the usual way by ordinary multi-party
proceedings with each Represented Person being a Claimant. The
Defendants' principal argument was that if the proceedings were
allowed to continue as a representative action, they would prevent
the Court from case-managing the proceedings in the manner it had
done in similar cases brought by way of ordinary proceedings. A
representative action would allow the Claimant to dictate the
structure of the proceedings, in particular as to what issues were
to be tried at the bifurcated first stage trial.

Decision

The Court exercised its discretion by deciding not to allow the
claims to continue as representative actions and struck them out.
The Court concluded that it would be unfair and unjust, and
contrary to the overriding objective, to allow the Representative
Proceedings to oust the jurisdiction of the Court to case manage
the claims from the start.

Key takeaways

The judgment highlights some key factors that the Court will or
will not take into account when considering whether to allow the
continuation of representative proceedings:

     1. Policy reasons: The Court made it clear that it was not
deciding the strike-out applications on policy grounds or to say
how securities claims in general should be brought. Instead, the
Court will decide how to exercise its discretion in the particular
case before it.

     2. Access to justice: The Court noted that it was important to
ensure that there was appropriate access to justice for individuals
who would not be able to bring claims save by way of a
representative action. However, where there are perfectly feasible
non-representative proceedings available, the Court should be able
to weigh whether those are preferable to representative proceedings
both from the parties' and the Court's point of view.

     3. The Court's case management powers and discretion: The
judgment emphasises the importance of the Court's discretion to
decide case management issues. Parties should not fear putting case
management into the hands of the Court. The Court will weigh the
arguments on both sides and decide what is in the best interests of
the parties, the Court and the administration of justice. The Court
considered that the availability of a bifurcated process in
representative actions should not be the principal reason for using
representative actions.
  
     4. Risk/Costs: The Represented Persons and their funders did
not want to take on the risk and costs of pursuing proceedings in
circumstances where the Judge managing the case might require them
to provide disclosure and witness evidence before a first trial had
taken place on common "defendant-side" issues. While the Court
understood that desire, it did not consider that it was a
legitimate basis for removing the Court's power to case manage the
claims.

     5. Overriding objective: The Court reinforced the fact that it
would have regard to the overriding objective when deciding whether
to allow the continuation of representative proceedings. In this
case, the Court held that it would be unfair and unjust, and
contrary to the overriding objective, to allow the Representative
Proceedings to oust the jurisdiction of the Court to case manage
the claims from the start.

Defendants should take comfort from this decision which reinforces
the importance of the Court's role as an active case-manager of
claims. The clear message is that Claimants should not be able,
unilaterally and without any input from the Defendants or the
Court, to use CPR 19.8 to structure proceedings in the way that
they choose. [GN]

INNOVIZ TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Innoviz
Technologies Ltd. ("Innoviz" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: INVZ)
securities between April 21, 2021 and February 28, 2023, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Innoviz investors have until May 14, 2024 to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Innoviz investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On March 1, 2023, Innoviz released its fiscal full year 2022
financial results, reporting GAAP earnings per share of negative
$0.94, missing consensus estimates by $0.06, and revenue of $6.03
million, missing consensus estimates by $0.96 million.
Additionally, the Company issued 2023 guidance in the range of $12
to $15 million, significantly below consensus estimates of $30
million.

On this news, Innoviz's stock price fell $0.71, or 15%, to close at
$4.04 per share on March 1, 2023, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that:

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

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

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

     (4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased Innoviz securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts

      Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
      Howard G. Smith, Esquire
      215-638-4847
      howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
      www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]

JBS SA: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 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]

JINDAL POLY: Faces Class Action Over Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------
business.outlookindia.com reports that minority shareholders of
Jindal Poly Films have initiated a class action suit against the
management and promoters of the company before the National Company
Law Tribunal (NCLT) alleging loss due to their actions.

The petitioners, which collectively hold a 4.99 per cent
shareholding in Jindal Poly Films, a manufacturer of specialty
films, have alleged "oppression and mismanagement" against them and
have sought damages from the company.

The petition filed under section 245 of the Companies Act, alleged
that the sale of optionally-convertible preference (OCPS) shares
and redeemable preferences shares (RPS) held by the company in a
subsidiary to its promoter entity SSJ Trust and other firms at
depressed valuations had caused a loss to the company and should be
declared null and void.

They have requested NCLT to declare the sale of OCPS and RPS to SSJ
Trust (through its trustees Shyam Sunder Jindal and Subhadra
Jindal) and Jindal Poly Investment as being null and void, and
reverse the said transactions in the books of Jindal Poly Films.

They have also requested NCLT to direct the promoters and company
officials involved in the management of the company to compensate
Jindal Poly Films with respect to loss on sale of OCPS amounting to
Rs 2,268.03 crore.

As an interim relief, they have sought a status quo regarding OCPS
and RPS from the tribunal.

The matter was listed before the Delhi-based Principal bench of the
NCLT, which after a brief hearing has put the matter to April 9 for
the next hearing.

It has also alleged that the "write-off of loans" provided by
Jindal Poly Films to Jindal Thermal resulted in devaluation of the
securities of the company.

They have also alleged the sale of shares of Jindal Thermal held by
Jindal Films to a promoter group entity in which majority shares
are owned by a trust belonging to the promoter group of Jindal Poly
Films.

Jindal Poly Films is a part of the USD 2 billion BC Jindal Group,
which operates a wide range of products and solutions for more than
6 decades.

The group is involved in diverse businesses including Polyester &
Polypropylene films, Power generation, Cold Rolled Steel Strips,
Galvanized Sheets, etc. [GN]

JUUL LABS: Settlement in Product Liability Suit Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In Re: Juul Labs, Inc.,
Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation
Case No. 3:19-md-02913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H.
Orrick entered an order granting final approval of the Settlement.

The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable,
and adequate under the Rule 23(e)(2) factors.

Settlement Class Members were given until February 5, 2024 to
exclude themselves from the proposed Settlement, and until Feb. 6,
2024 to object to it.

For purposes of the Settlement only and this Final Approval Order
and Judgment, the Class Plaintiffs have moved to certify the
following Settlement Class:

      "All individuals who purchased, in the United States, a JUUL

       product from brick and mortar or online retailers before
       Dec. 6, 2022."

       Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) the judges in
this
       MDL and any other judges that have presided over the
       litigation, including the coordinated proceeding captioned
JUUL
       Labs Product Cases, Judicial Counsel Coordination Proceeding

       No. 5052, pending in the Superior Court of California,
County
       of Los Angeles, Department 11, Settlement Master Thomas J.
       Perrelli, and their staff, and immediate family members; (b)

       representatives, heirs, successors, and wholly or partly
owned
       subsidiaries or affiliated companies; (c) Class Counsel and

       their employees; (d) any individuals who purchased JUUL
       purposes of resale or distribution; and (f) all individuals
who
       timely and properly excluded themselves from the Settlement

       Class Plaintiffs and Altria seek to resolve economic loss
       claims (other than claims asserted in In re Juul Labs, Inc.

       Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-02345-WHO that arise

       from alleged anticompetitive conduct) asserted against
Altria
       involving the manufacture, labeling, marketing, and sale of

       JUUL—an electronic nicotine delivery system consisting of
an
       electronic cigarette and a nicotine pack called a JUULpod.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants created, marketed, and sold
JUUL by misleading the public about the addictiveness and risks of
JUUL,
and by trying to expand the market by capturing and addicting
individuals—specifically including minor users—who had not
previously used tobacco or e-cigarette products.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qzwGru at no extra
charge.[CC]

K&D LIQUORS INC: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against K&D Liquors, Inc. The
case is styled as Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, v. K&D Liquors, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-01772-ARR-CLP (E.D.N.Y., March 11, 2024).

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

K & D Liquors, Inc., doing business as K & D Wines and Spirits --
https://www.kdwine.com/ -- provides alcoholic beverages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


KANG LONG: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kang Long U.S.A.
Corporation. The case is styled as Derrick Anderson, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. Kang Long U.S.A.
Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-01774-RER-VMS (E.D.N.Y., March 11,
2024).

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

Kang Long Group, Inc. -- https://www.kanglongus.com/ -- operates in
the restaurant industry. The Company provides restaurant
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


KHRG SACRAMENTO: Barr Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ashley Barr, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. KHRG SACRAMENTO LLC, a limited
liability company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 24CV002365
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on March 13, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 2:24-cv-00780-TLN-DB.

The Complaint asserts seven causes of action for failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements under California Labor Code;
failure to pay sick leave under California Labor Code; unpaid meal
period premium under California Labor Code; unpaid rest period
premium under California Labor Code; unpaid overtime wages and
waiting time penalties under California Labor Code; penalties under
the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") and California Labor
Code; and unfair business practices in violation of California
Business and Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Class Settlement in Armstrong Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA ARMSTRONG, et al.,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, v.
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-03150-M (N.D. Tex.),
the Hon. Judge Barbara Lynn entered an order:

-- Granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of
settlement;
    and

-- Granting the plaintiffs' motion for approval of attorneys'
fees,
    expenses and service awards.

On Oct. 16, 2020, the Plaintiffs Kimberly Armstrong et al. sued the
Defendant on behalf of a putative class, seeking damages based on
purchases of Wipes contaminated with pluralibacter gergoviae.

In Nov. 2020, a similar complaint was filed by Dawn Rothfeld in the
Eastern District of New York, and in June 2021, that case was
transferred to this District.

On July 9, 2021, the Rothfeld action was consolidated with the
earlier filed Armstrong case.

The Settlement provides for a Settlement Class defined as follows:


   "All persons in the United States and United States territories
who purchased recalled lots of Cottonelle Flushable Wipes ("Wipes")
between February 7, 2020 and December 31, 2020 for personal use and
not for resale, and any persons residing in the same household.

The Settlement expressly excludes from the Settlement Class:

    (1) Kimberly-Clark, its subsidiaries, parent companies,
        successors, predecessors, and any entity in which
        KimberlyClark or its parents have a controlling interest
and
        their current or former officers, directors, and employees;


    (2) the Court and its officers and employees; and

    (3) any Settlement Class Members who submitted a valid Request
for Exclusion on or before the Opt-Out Deadline.

Kimberly-Clark is an American multinational personal care
corporation that produces mostly paper-based consumer products.

A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated March 14,
2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HsQZQ9 at no extra charge.[CC]

KINDER MORGAN: Anderson Suit Transferred to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Catherine Anderson, an individual on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Kinder Morgan Inc., Does 1 through
100 inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-10669 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on March 11,
2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00473 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.

Kinder Morgan, Inc. -- https://www.kindermorgan.com/ -- is one of
the largest energy infrastructure companies in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth C. Nguyen, Esq.
          Milan L. Moore, Esq.
          Paul Keith Haines, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          2155 Campus Drive, Suite 150
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Phone: (424) 322-4772
          Fax: (424) 322-4775
          Email: slidman@lidmanlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher C. Hoffman (SBN 176334)
          Keia J. Atkinson (SBN 316649)
          A.J. Sparagna (SBN 335193)
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Phone: (858) 597-9600
          Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
          Email: choffman@fisherphillips.com
                 katkinson@fisherphillips.com
                 asparagna@fisherphillips.com


L'OREAL USA: Snow Sues Over Unsafe Levels of Benzene
----------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Snow, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. L'OREAL USA, Inc. and DOES 1 to
50, Inclusive, Case No. 1:24-cv-00110-MWJS-KJM (D. Hawaii, March 8,
2024), is brought is a consumer fraud Class Action to redress the
economic harms caused by Defendant's sale of benzoyl peroxide acne
treatment drug products ("BPO Products" or "Products") without
warning consumers the BPO Products contain unsafe levels the potent
human carcinogen benzene, and that the BPO Products were at risk of
degrading further into benzene under normal use, handling, and
storage conditions.

The BPO Products are "drugs" used to treat acne vulgaris ("acne"),
formulated with a chemical called benzoyl peroxide ("BPO"), along
with other inactive ingredients, to make acne treatment creams,
washes, scrubs, and bars. Before being sold to the public, the
Products must be made in conformity with current good manufacturing
practices and must conform to quality, safety, and purity
specifications. Defendant's BPO Products did not.

BPO Products should not contain benzene, nor degrade into benzene,
except under extraordinary circumstances. A drug is adulterated if
it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or
decomposed substance, is impure, or mixed with another substance.
Under the FDA Act it is a crime to introduce or deliver "into
interstate commerce any food, drug, device, tobacco product, or
cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded." If benzene is found in
any on-market or post-market Product, the drug manufacture must
contact the FDA to initiate a voluntary recall.

The BPO Products marketed and sold to Plaintiff, the Class, the
Subclasses, and the public by the Defendant decomposed into benzene
rendering them materially different than advertised, i.e., by
containing unsafe levels of benzene. Benzene is a known human
carcinogen. Studies dating to the 1800s have led to a consensus
within the medical and scientific communities that benzene
exposure, even in low amounts, increases the risk of blood cancers
and other adverse effects.

The Defendant's statements and omissions of material health and
safety information unreasonably placed Plaintiff, the Class, the
Subclasses, and the public at risk of exposure to benzene without
their knowledge and consent. The Defendant's statements were false,
misleading, unsubstantiated, and blatantly deceptive. As a result
of the consumer deception, the Plaintiff, the Class, the
Subclasses, and the public were economically harmed, as they
purchased a product that they otherwise would have never purchased.
They were also physically harmed by being exposed to a known human
carcinogen, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff bought BPO Products including L'Oreal's La Roche
Effaclar Duo Dual Acne Treatment from May 2023 to October 2023.

L'Oreal conducted business and derived substantial revenue from its
manufacturing, advertising, marketing, distributing, and selling of
the Products within the State of Hawaii.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Margery S. Bronster, Esq.
          Robert M. Hatch, Esq.
          BRONSTER FUJICHAKU ROBBINS
          A Law Corporation
          1003 Bishop Street, Suite 2300
          Honolulu, Hawai'i 96813
          Phone: (808) 524-5644
          Facsimile: (808) 599-1881
          Email: mbronster@bfrhawaii.com
                 rhatch@bfrhawaii.com

               - and -

          R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
          Stephanie B. Sherman, Esq.
          WISNER BAUM, L.L.P
          11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1750
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: (310) 207-3233
          Facsimile: (310) 820-7444
          Email: bwisner@wisnerbaum.com
                 ssherman@wisnerbaum.com


LA TERRA FINA USA: Vineyard Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Tricia Vineyard, individually, and on behalf
of all similarly situated current citizens of Illinois v. LA TERRA
FINA USA, LLC, Case No. 24-LA-0133 was removed from the Circuit
Court for the 20th Judicial Circuit, County of St. Clair, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on March
11, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00704-MAB.

In the Petition, Plaintiff alleges that she and the class members
suffered economic harm when they purchased a product sold by La
Terra Fina that purportedly bore a label featuring one or more
alleged misrepresentations. The Plaintiff brings claims under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA)
and Illinois common law.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amanda N. Catalano, Esq.
          Daniel L. Stanner, Esq.
          TABET DIVITO & ROTHSTEIN LLC
          209 South LaSalle Street, 7th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (312) 762-9450
          Email: acatalano@tdrlaw.com
                 dstanner@tdrlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven J. Rosenbaum, Esq.
          Dillon H. Grimm, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          850 Tenth Street, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20001
          Phone: (202) 662-6000
          Email: srosenbaum@cov.com
                 dgrimm@cov.com


LATAM AIRLINES: Faces Consumers Suit in Chilean Court
-----------------------------------------------------
LATAM Airlines Group S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 10, 2023, that on June 25, 2020, the
National Corporation of Consumers and Users (CONADECUS) filed a
class action against LATAM Airlines Group S.A. in a Chilean court,
for alleged breaches of the Law on Protection of Consumer Rights
due to flight cancellations caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic,
requesting the nullity of possible abusive clauses, the imposition
of fines and compensation for damages in defense of the collective
interest of consumers.

In July 4, 2020, the company filed a motion for reversal against
the ruling that declared the action filed by CONADECUS admissible,
a decision is pending to date. On July 11, 2020, the company
requested the court to comply with the suspension of this case,
ruled by the Chile Insolvency court, in recognition of the foreign
reorganization procedure pursuant to the Chilean Insolvency Act,
for the entire period that said proceeding lasts, a request that
was accepted by the court.

CONADECUS filed a motion for reconsideration and an appeal against
this resolution should the motion for reconsideration be dismissed.
The Chile Insolvency court dismissed the reconsideration motion on
August 3, 2020, but admitted the appeal. The appeal is currently
pending before the Santiago court of Appeals.

On December 22, 2022, LATAM filed a motion requesting the stay to
be lifted, given the current state of the reorganization procedure.
In December 30, 2022, CONADECUS agreed to LATAM's request and in
January 23, 2023, the Santiago court of Appeals granted LATAM's
motion and lifted the stay. Notwithstanding its decision on the
stay, the Santiago court of Appeals still wants to hear oral
arguments on the case, scheduling a hearing for March 1, 2023. The
amount at the moment is undetermined.

Parallel to the lawsuit in Chile, on August 31, 2020, CONADECUS
filed on appeal with the Bankruptcy court because of the automatic
suspension imposed by Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code that,
among other things, prohibits the parties from filing or continuing
with claims that involve a preliminary petition against the
Borrowers.

CONADECUS petitioned (i) for a stay of the automatic suspension to
the extent necessary to continue with the class action against
LATAM in Chile and (ii) for a joint hearing by the Bankruptcy court
and the Chile Insolvency court to hear the matters relating to the
claims of CONADECUS in Chile. On September 16, 2020, the Borrowers
filed their objection against CONADECUS' appeal and the Official
Unsecured Creditors Committee presented a statement in support of
the Borrowers' position.

On December 18, 2020, the Bankruptcy court partially granted
CONADECUS's request, only in the sense of allowing them to continue
with their appeal against the resolution of the 23rd Civil court
and only for the purposes that the court of Appeals determine
whether or not the suspension is appropriate under the Chilean
Insolvency Act.

In February 9, 2021, the Bankruptcy court entered an order to lift
the automatic stay to permit the continuation of CONADECUS' appeal
in Chile against the judicial approval of a class action settlement
with the Chilean Association of Consumers and Users (AGRECU).

On December 22, 2022, LATAM Airlines Group filed a motion
requesting the stay of the proceedings to be lifted, given the
current state of the reorganization procedure. On December 30,
2022, CONADECUS agreed to LATAM Airlines Group's request. On
January 23, 2023, the Santiago Court of Appeals granted LATAM's
motion and lifted the stay. On November 24, 2023, the Court
dismissed LATAM’s motion for reversal against the ruling that
declared the action filed by CONADECUS admissible. On December 4,
2023, LATAM filed a statement of defense against said decision.

LATAM Airlines Group S.A. is an airline holding company based in
Chile.


LATOYA HUGHES: Court Terminates Ausby, et al., in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN MURPHY, EMERALD
AUSBY, LAVARIUS McFADDEN, GIOVONNIE MELDEY, ERIC SMITH, JOHN DOES
Nos. 1-3, v. LATOYA HUGHES, ANTHONY WILLS, TONYA KNUST, and JOLENE
KLUMP, Case No. 3:24-cv-00349-SMY (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Staci
M. Yandle entered an order terminating the Plaintiffs Emerald
Ausby, Lavarius McFadden, Eric Smith, and Giovonnie Meldey/Giovanni
Medley from the action.

The John Doe Plaintiffs are dismissed from this action without
prejudice. The only Plaintiff remaining in this case is Steven
Murphy.

The Clerk of Court is directed to open three new cases for
Plaintiffs Ausby, McFadden, and Smith against all of the Defendants
listed in the caption of this case.

The new cases shall be captioned as follows:

   1. Emerald Ausby, Plaintiff v. Latoya Hughes, et al.,
Defendants.

   2. Lavarius McFadden, Plaintiff v. Latoya Hughes, et al.,
      Defendants.

   3. Eric Smith, Plaintiff v. Latoya Hughes, et al., Defendants.

Steven Murphy, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
("IDOC") currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center,
filed the instant lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for
alleged deprivations of his and other Menard inmates'
constitutional rights.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 14, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AwteYM
at no extra charge.[CC]

LEDGER SAS: Banai Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ali Banai, Zachary Bruce, Steven Chu, Jorge
Taylor, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
individuals v. Ledger SAS, Ledger Technologies, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-00132 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on March 11, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-02052 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Fed. Election
Commission: Failure Enforce Compliance.

Ledger -- https://www.ledger.com/ -- offers certified crypto asset
hardware wallets bringing optimal protection level to your
bitcoins, ethereums, XRP and more - without sacrificing usability
or control.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas Michael Werman, Esq.
          John Frawley, Esq.
          Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
          WERMAN LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          77 West Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 419-1008
          Fax: (312) 410-1025
          Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                 jfrawley@flsalaw.com
                 msalas@flsalaw.com

               - and -

          Sally Jasmine Abrahamson, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          335 18th Place NE, Washington, DC 20002
          Phone: (202) 830-2016
          Email: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Athanasia Charmani, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN
          301 Elizabeth St.
          New York, NY 10012
          Phone: (917) 327-1387
          Email: acharmani@winston.com

               - and -

          Daniel Tramel Stabile, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          200 S Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2400
          Miami, FL 33131-5340
          Phone: (305) 910-0787
          Email: dstabile@winston.com


LEGEND GROUP BRANDS: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Legend Group Brands
Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Legend Group Brands
Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00214 (W.D.N.Y., March 12, 2024).

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

Legend Brands -- https://www.legendbrands.com/ -- is the world's
leading manufacturer of professional restoration and cleaning
solutions used for professional cleaning, maintenance, and
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal

               - and -

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP
          122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620
          New York, NY 10168
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


LEVB INC: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Cruz Garcia, and other similarly situated v. LEVB INC.; LEVON
BAKALIAN; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV06213 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 13, 2024), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to compensate for all hours worked;
failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime; failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay wages
owed every pay period; failure to pay wages when employment ends;
failure to provide rest breaks; failure to provide meal breaks;
failure to reimburse business expenses; failure to provide
personnel records; failure to provide pay records; in violation of
the California Labor Code and The Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA").

LEVB did not provide Plaintiff and other similarly situated
aggrieved employees with the minimum wages to which they were
entitled for all work performed and did not compensate him and
others for all hours worked pursuant to California Labor Code. This
is so because Plaintiff and others consistently worked "off the
clock" in that the company had a policy of 2 rounding down hours to
the detriment of employees who would not be paid for all hours
worked. In addition, the company's time clock system had an auto
deduct of meal periods on a daily basis, irrespective of whether
Plaintiff and others actually received and were able to take meal
periods. Consequently, Plaintiff was not being paid for all hours
worked and was not being paid the minimum wage for all hours
worked. Moreover, the work hours were seemingly rounded. In
addition, LEVB failed to pay proper reporting time pay to all
employees, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff started working at LEVB as a delivery driver in early
2022.

LEVB INC. is a California corporation, doing business in the County
of Los Angeles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harout Messrelian, Esq.
          MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
          500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: (818) 484-6531
          Facsimile: (818) 956-1983


LINDA BAMMANN: Court Dismisses LGT Complaint w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LASE GUARANTY TRUST,
derivatively on behalf of JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., v. LINDA B.
BAMMANN, STEPHEN B. BURKE, TODD ANTHONY COMBS, JAMES SCHINE CROWN,
JAMES DIMON, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01331-EK-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Eric Komitee entered an order dismissing complaint
without prejudice.

Lase may file a motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint
within thirty days. Any such motion should include the proposed
amended complaint as an exhibit in accordance with this court's
individual rules and practices.

If Lase does not seek leave to amend within thirty days, judgment
shall enter, and the case shall be closed.

In sum, Lase has failed to adequately plead a material misstatement
or omission in the 2021 proxy statement. The Section 14(a) claim is
accordingly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).

A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YKRllY at no extra
charge.[CC]

LINKEDIN CORP: Faces Monopoly Class Suit Over Premium Subscription
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gennaro, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
a federal judge allowed claims to proceed against LinkedIn
Corporation from a class of users who say the company has a
monopoly over the professional networking market, allowing it to
charge more money for its premium service.

The plaintiffs are subscribers to LinkedIn Premium, which provides
paying users with additional features on the business and
employment-focused social media site. Subscriptions range from
$14.99 to $99.95 per month.

Through centralized data and machine learning models, LinkedIn has
amassed a trove of data that has created a powerful barrier to
market entry, the plaintiffs say, staving off would-be rivals who
don't stand a chance at competition without those assets.

LinkedIn goes to great lengths to protect its monopoly, the
plaintiffs claim, including selling private user data through
application programming interfaces to exclusive third parties known
as "partners," who agree not to compete with LinkedIn.

In their complaint the plaintiffs cited a 2019 blog post on Medium,
titled "The frustrations of dealing with the LinkedIn API."

"LinkedIn has a number of APIs, there's the Profile-API for getting
users profiles and there's the Profile-Edit-API which can be used
to send a patch of the user's profile to update the content. In
order to use the Profile-Edit-API you need to have the w_compliance
permission associated with your app. The w_compliance permission is
gained via LinkedIn's partner program where an app that promises
not to compete with LinkedIn or abuse the API can gain access to
more data."

The plaintiffs also relied on information from a public website
discussing LinkedIn's API agreement policies.

LinkedIn said the case should be dismissed, and argued that the
blog post, which was not written by a LinkedIn employee or
developer, was an "unverified source" and the plaintiffs could not
rely on it to plead any monopoly claims -- and that outside of the
blog post the plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded that LinkedIn
engaged in any anticompetitive conduct.

U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. ruled that there was enough
on the record at this point, however, for the customers to
adequately plead that LinkedIn has "no competitive check" for what
prices it can charge for Premium users.

"Plaintiffs identify some of defendant's API partners and allege
that these companies, but for signing API agreements, would be well
positioned to compete with defendant," Gilliam wrote. "These facts
adequately allege that defendant entered into non-compete
agreements which work to 'impair the opportunities of rivals and do
not further competition.'"

With his ruling Gilliam lifted a previously issued stay on
discovery in the case.

The judge wrote that LinkedIn's argument about the blog post being
an unverified source don't matter at this point because the
plaintiffs have pleaded a cognizable legal theory. "Whether this
theory bears out factually is for a later stage, but plaintiffs
have adequately alleged it," he wrote.

Similarly, the attempted monopolization survived because they were
based on the same evidence as actual monopolization claims, the
judge said, thwarting LinkedIn's argument to toss the claims
because the company didn't have a "specific intent to control
prices or destroy competition."

"Plaintiffs claim that but for the non-compete agreements, there
would be greater price competition in the premium product market
that defendant currently monopolizes. The [first amended complaint]
pleads that defendant 'charges premium subscription prices that
range from $29.99 to $99.95,' and that 'no general social networks
provide comparable subscription products that enhance a user's
ability to access information about others on the social
network.'"

According to the plaintiffs, this anticompetitive conduct allows
LinkedIn to enjoy "unheard of" price stability.

"Together, these allegations adequately plead harm to competition,"
Gilliam Jr. wrote. [GN]

LOS PAISANOS MEAT: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Los Paisanos Meat
Market Inc. The case is styled as Derrick Anderson, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. Los Paisanos Meat
Market Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01778-DLI-VMS (E.D.N.Y., March 11,
2024).

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

Paisano's Butcher Shop -- https://butchershopdirect.com/ -- is
Brooklyn's premier butcher offering friendly, helpful service,
family owned and operated for generations since 1960.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


LOUISIANA: Loses Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Order in Alex Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX A., by and through
his guardian, Molly Smith; BRIAN B.; and CHARLES C., by and through
his guardian, Kenione Rogers, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. GOVERNOR JOHN BEL EDWARDS, in his
official capacity as Governor of Louisiana; WILLIAM SOMMERS, in his
official capacity as Deputy Secretary of the Office of Juvenile
Justice, JAMES M. LEBLANC, in his official capacity as Secretary of
the Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Case No.
3:22-cv-00573-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Richard Bourgeois,
Jr. entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for
reconsideration.

The Court said, "The parties shall bear their own costs. Having
considered the arguments of the parties, the Court finds no basis
to reconsider (or otherwise modify or vacate) the Motion to Enforce
Order."

On August 31, 2023, the district judge granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, appointing the Plaintiffs as class
representatives for the following class:

       All youth who are now or will be in the custody of OJJ who
have
       been, might be, or will be transferred to the OJJ site at
       Angola or another adult prison (the "Principal Class"),
       including a subclass of all current and future youth with
       disabilities within the meaning of the ADA and Section 504
of
       the Rehabilitation Act in the custody of OJJ who have been,

       might be, or will be transferred to the OJJ site at Angola
or
       another adult prison (the "Disabilities Subclass").

On Aug. 19, 2022, the plaintiff Alex A. commenced this putative
class action on behalf of certain individuals under the secure care
of the Office of Juvenile Justice ("OJJ”) to obtain injunctive
relief preventing their transfer from the Bridge City Center for
Youth ("BCCY") to a location at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at
Angola known as the Bridge City Center for Youth at West Feliciana
("BCCY-WF").

On Sept. 23, 2022, the district judge denied Alex A.'s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, allowing the transfer of the youths to
BCCY-WF based on certain promises regarding the temporary nature of
the facilities and the conditions of confinement.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Uv5Nzi at no extra
charge.[CC]

LYFT INC: Faces Class Suit Over Wheelchair Accessibility Concerns
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo!Finance reports that Slater Vecchio LLP announces that it has
submitted a class action complaint alleging Uber and Lyft are
breaching the Human Rights Code by failing to offer
wheelchair-accessible services across British Columbia.

While Uber and Lyft offer wheelchair-accessible services across
some cities in North America, no such option exists for those in
the Lower Mainland and other cities in British Columbia. This
decision by Uber and Lyft has led to individuals who require
wheelchairs and similar assistance devices experiencing difficulty
travelling across the province.

The BC Human Rights Tribunal recently concluded that Uber's failure
to offer wheelchair-accessible services amounted to a human rights
violation and awarded the complainant $35,000 for loss of dignity.

In light of this, Slater Vecchio LLP has submitted a class action
in British Columbia on behalf of individuals with physical
disabilities and wheelchair users in British Columbia who face
challenges accessing Uber and Lyft's services due to their
disabilities.

"We've come a long way when it comes to making society more
accessible for those with mobility issues, but there's obviously
still some work to do. This complaint is about reminding American
companies like Lyft and Uber that they have responsibilities to
their passengers -- all passengers -- they need to be upholding"
said Saro Turner, partner at Slater Vecchio LLP

If you are a person with a physical disability or a wheelchair user
in British Columbia who has encountered difficulties accessing Uber
and Lyft services, Slater Vecchio LLP encourages you to reach out.
Please fill out the form on our website located here:
https://www.slatervecchio.com/class-action/uber-accessible-services-class-action/
[GN]

M.A.C. COSMETICS: Byrd Suit Transferred to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ebony Byrd, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. M.A.C. Cosmetics Inc., 1-50 Does, 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-06720 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on March 15,
2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01639-PHK to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Employment
Discrimination.

M.A.C. Cosmetics Inc. -- https://www.maccosmetics.com/ -- offers a
large selection of professional quality makeup must-haves for All
Ages, All Races, All Sexes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent Charles Granberry, Esq.
          Aaron David Boal, Esq.
          Courtney Marisa Miller, Esq.
          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          LAVI AND EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 432-0000
          Fax: (310) 432-0001
          Email: vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                 aboal@lelawfirm.com
                 cmiller@lelawfirm.com
                 jlavi@lelawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Allison S Wallin, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          2049 Century Park East 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 553-0308
          Fax: (800) 715-1330
          Email: AWallin@littler.com

               - and -

          Emily Julia Atherton, Esq.
          KLINEDINST PC
          777 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 406-1100
          Fax: (310) 406-1101
          Email: Eatherton@Klinedinstlaw.com

               - and -

          Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Phone: (213) 896-6000
          Fax: (213) 896-6600
          Email: jzargarof@sidley.com

               - and -

          Julianne G. Park, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS BOCKIUS LLP
          300 S Grand Ave., 22nd FL
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 612-2500
          Email: julianne.park@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Nathaniel H Jenkins, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          500 Capitol Mall Suite 2000
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Phone: (916) 830-7200
          Fax: (916) 561-0828
          Email: njenkins@littler.com

               - and -

          Susan Tianyang Ye, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          50 W San Fernando St., Ste. 7th Floor
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Phone: (415) 795-3462
          Email: SYe@littler.com


MAC COSMETICS: Parties Seeks More Time to File Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IGNACIO MACIEL, RUTH
TORRES, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
persons, v. M.A.C. COSMETICS INC., a New York corporation; and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-03718-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the
parties stipulate to the following four-month extension of the
current deadlines to permit time for settlement discussions through
mediator Mr. Ross, as follows:

   1. The deadline for Plaintiff to file amended complaint or
motion
      to amend complaint previously due on March 8, 2024, be
extended
      to June 8, 2024.

   2. Close of fact discovery currently due by April 8, 2024, be
      extended to Aug. 8, 2024.

   3. The Plaintiffs' expert reports currently due by May 5, 2024,
be
      extended to Sept. 5, 2024.

   4. The Defendants' expert Reports currently due by June 4, 2024,
be
      extended to Oct. 4, 2024.

   5. The Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert reports currently due by June

      29, 2024, be extended to Oct. 29, 2024.

   6. Close of expert discovery currently due by July 19, 2024, be

      extended to Nov. 19, 2024.

   7. Daubert Motions and Motion for Class Certification currently
due
      by Aug. 8, 2024, be extended to Dec. 8, 2024.

   8. Oppositions to Daubert Motions and Motion for Class
      Certification, currently due by Sept. 10, 2024, be extended
to
      Jan. 10, 2025.

   9. Daubert motions and motion for class certification hearing
      currently set for Nov. 14, 2024, at 02:00 p.m. be continued
to a
      date convenient for the Court on or after February 24, 2025.

MAC Cosmetics provides personal care products.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 18, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SO0pCQ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew Righetti, Esq.
          John Glugoski, Esq.
          RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
          2001 Union Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Telephone: (415) 983-0900
          E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com
                  jglugoski@righettilaw.com

                - and -

          Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
          NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
          2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200
          Newport Beach, CA 92663
          Telephone: (949) 270-2798
          Facsimile: (949) 209-0303
          E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Allison S. Wallin, Esq.
          Susan T. Ye, Esq.
          Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553-0308
          Facsimile: (800) 715-1330
          E-mail: awallin@littler.com
                  sye@littler.com
                  njenkins@littler.com

MACONDO DORAL: Toro Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Anaida Toro, and other similarly situated individuals v. MACONDO
DORAL, INC., d/b/a Macondo Coffee Roasters; MACONDO FLORIDA LLC., a
Florida limited liability company d/b/a Macondo Coffee Roasters,
and FABIO CARO, Case No. 1:24-cv-20965-RS (S.D. Fla., March 13,
2024), is brought to recover money damages for unpaid overtime
wages under the laws of the United States, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("the Act").

The Plaintiff worked approximately an average of 50 hours per week
without being compensated at the rate of not less than one- and
one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed. The
Plaintiff was employed as a cook performing the same or similar
duties as that of those other similarly situated cooks whom the
Plaintiff observed working in excess of 40 hours per week without
overtime compensation. However, the Corporate Defendants did not
properly compensate the Plaintiff for hours that the Plaintiff
worked in excess of 40 per week. The Plaintiff seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages accumulated from the date of hire and/or from
3 (three) years back from the date of the filing of this Complaint,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as cook from 09/27/2022
until her wrongful termination on 10/16/2023.

MACONDO DORAL, INC. d/b/a Macondo Coffee Roasters is a corporation
duly authorized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida
and conducting business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julisse Jimenez, Esquire
          THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, Florida 33180
          Phone: (305) 482-1475
          Email: julisse@legalopinionusa.com


MAGIC WOK: Grajeda Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lucrecia Grajeda, an individual v. MAGIC WOK RESTAURANT INC., a
California Corporation; KEVIN V. LEE, an individual; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive; Case No. 24STCV6163 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., March 12, 2024), is brought against the Defendant's
violation of the Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor
Code ("PAGA") as a result of failure to pay minimum and overtime
wages.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants misclassified Plaintiff and
others as independent contractors, paying them outside of payroll
(in cash), and depriving them of various labor law protections
afforded to employees, in violation Of Labor Code. The Defendants
failed to keep track of Plaintiffs and other employees' actual
hours worked. Employees' pay was rounded and inaccurate. Meal and
rest breaks violations based on business necessities and often
short, late, interrupted, or nonexistent. Plaintiff would not
receive breaks; She would be forced to eat fast on the job when
time allowed. Plaintiff worked in excess of 8 hours per day with no
overtime pay. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff's final pay
upon separation, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants.

MAGIC WOK RESTAURANT INC. is a restaurant business operating out of
Pico Rivera, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq.
          SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (818) 473-5003
          Facsimile: (818) 476-5619
          Email: contact@slawla.com


MALABAR KITCHEN: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Malabar Kitchen, LLC.
The case is styled as Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, v. Malabar Kitchen, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-01779 (E.D.N.Y., March 11, 2024).

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

Malabar Kitchen, LLC is India's one of the Largest Manufacturers of
Commercial Kitchen Equipment and Display solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


MANPOWERGROUP: Tucker Files TCPA Suit in D. Oregon
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manpowergroup. The
case is styled as Tyson Tucker, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. Manpowergroup, Case No.
1:24-cv-00454-CL (D. Ore., March 12, 2024).

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

ManpowerGroup -- https://www.manpowergroup.com/en -- is an American
multinational corporation headquartered in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David McGlothlin, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          301 E. Bethany Home Road, Suite C-195
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: (602) 265-3332
          Email: david@kazlg.com



MARK CUBAN: Karnas Suit Seeks to Certify Nationwide Issue Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dominik Karnas, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Mark
Cuban, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-22538-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying nationwide
issue classes, pursuant to Federal Rules 23(a), 23(b)(3), and
23(c)(4):

-- Security Class

    "All persons or entities in the United States who, from
applicable
    statutes of limitation through July 5, 2022, purchased,
    repurchased, invested, reinvested, deposited, held, and/or
    transferred additional funds to an Earn Program Accounts (EPA)

    and/or purchased, repurchased, invested, and/or reinvested in
VGX
    Tokens."

    Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their officers,
    directors, affiliates, legal representatives, and employees,
any
    customers who make a timely election to be excluded, any
    governmental entities, any judge, justice, or judicial officer

    presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate
    families and judicial staff.

-- Solicitation Class

    All persons or entities in the United States who, from Oct. 27,

    2021 through July 5, 2022, purchased, repurchased, invested,
    reinvested, deposited, held, and/or transferred additional
funds
    to an EPA and/or purchased, repurchased, invested, and/or
    reinvested in VGX Tokens.

    Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their officers,
    directors, affiliates, legal representatives, and employees,
any
    customers who make a timely election to be excluded, any
    governmental entities, any judge, justice, or judicial officer

    presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate
    families and judicial staff.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter an order:

   (a) Appointing the proposed Class Representatives to serve as
Class
       Representatives for the proposed Nationwide Issue Classes;
and

   (c) Appointing The Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC and Boies Schiller
       Flexner LLP, to serve as Co-Lead Class Counsel for the
Proposed
       Issue Classes.


On Oct. 23, 2019, Voyager began offering EPAs, its interest-bearing
cryptocurrency accounts, to public investors. Every single account
Voyager offered and sold to its customers was necessarily an EPA.

The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals invested in

Voyager's EPAs and VGX, Voyager's native crypto token.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1rNNxq at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
          Barbara C. Lewis, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Continental Plaza
          3250 Mary Street, Suite 202
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 740-1423
          E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                  joseph@moskowitz-law.com
                  barbara@moskowitz-law.com

                - and -

          Jose M. Ferrer, Esq.
          Desiree Fernandez, Esq.
          MARK MIGDAL HAYDEN LLP
          8 SW 8th Street, Suite 1999
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 374-0440
          E-mail: jose@markmigdal.com
                  desiree@markmigdal.com

                - and -

          David Boies, Esq.
          Stephen Neal Zack, Esq.
          Tyler Ulrich, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 749–8200
          E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com
                  szack@bsfllp.com
                  tulrich@bsfllp.com

MAURICES INCORPORATED: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maurices
Incorporated. The case is styled as Julie Dalton, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Maurices
Incorporated, Case No. 0:24-cv-00942-NEB-LIB (D. Minn., March 14,
2024).

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

Maurices Inc. -- https://www.maurices.com/ -- stylized as maurices,
is an American women's clothing retail chain based in Duluth,
Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
          One Central Avenue West, Suite 203
          St. Michael, MN 55376
          Phone: (763) 515-6110
          Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Dennis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maxim Healthcare
Staffing Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Iena Dennis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Maxim Healthcare Staffing Services, Inc., Maxim Healthcare
Services, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0003396 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Joaquin Cty., March 18, 2024).

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

Maxim Staffing -- https://www.maximstaffing.com/ -- is a healthcare
staffing agency committed to the recruitment, training, and
management of a diverse healthcare workforce for our clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM
          9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: 949-379-6250
          Fax: (949) 379-6251
          Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com


MAYO FOUNDATION: Teresa Files Suit in D. Utah
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mayo Foundation for
Medical Education and Research. The case is styled as Sherry
Teresa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Case No.
4:24-cv-00033-TS (D. Utah, March 12, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Mayo Clinic -- https://www.mayo.edu/ -- is a nonprofit organization
committed to clinical practice, education, and research, providing
whole-person care to everyone who needs healing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Scofield, Esq.
          PETERS SCOFIELD
          7430 Creek Rd., Ste. 303
          Salt Lake City, UT 84093-6160
          Phone: (801) 322-2002
          Email: dws@psplawyers.com


MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL: Court Stays Colinayo Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARWIN COLINAYO,
individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL INC., a Virginia
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
2:22-cv-01616-DJC-KJN (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J.
Calabretta enters the following order granting joint motion to stay
in its entirety until further order of the
Court.

-- All dates and deadlines are vacated;

-- No later than 14 days after the parties have finalized and
    executed a long form settlement agreement, the Parties shall
file
    a joint report advising the Court of the status of the case;
and

-- If the parties are unable to finalize and execute a long form
    settlement agreement before May 1, 2024, the Parties shall file
a
    joint report advising the Court of the status of the case and
the
    Court will set a scheduling conference to set a date for
    completion of class certification discovery and a hearing on
the
    Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

McKesson is a medical distributor of medical supplies, durable
medical equipment, surgical supplies, medical lab supplies, and
more.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BUqW1r at no extra
charge.[CC]

MDL 2924: 4 Suits Consolidated in Ranitidine Product Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district action captioned "In re: Zantac (Ranitidine)
Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2924, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, transfers four actions from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois to the Southern District of
Florida and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge
Robin L. Rosenberg for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

According to the Panel, the four actions involve common questions
of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2924; allegations
that ranitidine, the active molecule in "Zantac" and similar
heartburn medications, can form the carcinogen
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), either during storage or when
metabolized in the human body. Like the actions in the MDL,
plaintiffs in these four actions allege that they developed cancer
caused by ingestion of Zantac or similar ranitidine-containing
products.

Plaintiffs in the four actions moved to vacate the panel's order
that conditionally transferred their respective actions to the
Southern District of Florida for inclusion in MDL No. 2924.
Defendants GlaxoSmithKline LLC opposed the motions to vacate.
Plaintiff argued that federal subject matter jurisdiction over
their actions is lacking and that their pending motions for remand
to state court should be decided before transfer.

But the panel held that such jurisdictional objections generally do
not present an impediment to transfer. Plaintiffs also contended
they will experience delay in resolution of their remand motions
and prejudice if transferred to the MDL, yet the panel ruled that
transfer of an action is appropriate if it furthers the expeditious
resolution of the litigation taken as a whole, even if some parties
to the action might experience inconvenience.

A full-text copy of the court's January 31, 2024 transfer order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2924-Transfer_Order-1-24.pdf


MDL 3080: LDG Case Consolidated in Insulin Pricing Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district action captioned "In re: Insulin Pricing
Litigation," MDL No. 3080,Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers the
case styled as "LDG Medical Services Group, L.L.C., et al. v. Eli
Lilly and Company, et al.," C.A. No. 3:23−01515 (D.P.R.) to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to Judge Brian R. Martinotti for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The litigation concerns an alleged scheme between insulin
manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBM) to artificially
and fraudulently inflate the price of insulin and other diabetes
medications. The principal players in the alleged scheme are
insulin manufacturers Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Inc.,
and Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, and three PBMs - CVS Caremark,
Express Scripts, Optum Rx, and their various corporate affiliates.

LDG Medical Services moved to vacate the order conditionally
transferring the action to MDL No. 3080. Defendants CaremarkPCS
Health, L.L.C., Caremark Puerto Rico, L.L.C., Express Scripts,
Inc., and OptumRx, Inc. opposed the motion and support transfer.

According to the panel, the action involves common questions of
fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 3080, and that
transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Centralization was warranted for actions alleging a scheme between
insulin manufacturers Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Inc.,
and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, and pharmacy benefit managers CVS
Caremark, Express Scripts, and Optum Rx, to artificially and
fraudulently inflate the price of insulin and other diabetes
medications. The LDG Medical Services action undisputedly concerns
the same alleged insulin pricing scheme and defendants.

In its opposition to transfer, plaintiffs principally argued that
the Puerto Rico legal claims cannot be efficiently litigated in the
MDL because they involve novel issues unique to the Puerto Rico
Civil Code, which the transferor court is better situated to
interpret and transfer to a distant forum will be inconvenient.
However, the panel has often transferred actions asserting unique
state law claims to an MDL where, as here, the action shares a
common factual core with the MDL actions. Moreover, it is "within
the very nature of coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
in multidistrict litigation for the transferee judge to be called
upon to apply the law of more than one state," adds the panel.

A full-text copy of the court's January 31, 2024 order is available
at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3080-Transfer_Order-1-24.pdf

MDL 3081: 3 Suits Consolidated in Port Catheter Implant Row
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation captioned "In re: Bard Implanted
Port Catheter Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 3081, Judge
Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, transfers one case each from the U. S.
District Court for the District of Colorado, District of New Jersey
and Northern District of Texas, all to the District of Arizona and,
with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge David G. Campbell
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Defendants Becton, Dickinson & Company; C.R. Bard, Inc.; Bard
Access Systems, Inc.; and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. moved to
vacate the order that conditionally transferred the three actions
to the District of Arizona for inclusion in MDL No. 3081.
Plaintiffs opposed the motion.

These actions arise from the from allegations that defendants
manufacture the catheter component of their port devices with a
concentration of barium sulfate that is too high, which reduces the
material integrity of the catheter, and can lead to injuries,
including infection, fracture of the catheter, migration of the
catheter and thrombosis.

In opposing transfer, defendants argued that transfer would
impermissibly expand the scope of the MDL because these three
complaints also include allegations of additional defects in their
devices that may account for the infections plaintiffs suffered.
Along with the alleged catheter defect, plaintiffs allege that the
port reservoir component of the devices at issue was comprised of
Polyoxymethylene (POM), which can undergo oxidative degradation,
leading to reduction of the mechanical properties of the polymer
and the formation of cracks, fissures, and other physical defects.
Plaintiffs allege this increases the risk of thrombosis and
infection. They further allege that the port reservoir includes
three palpation bumps, which can cause undue compression on the
tissue of the subcutaneous pocket into which the port is placed and
lead to ulceration and tissue necrosis.

Defendants had suggested that the parties wait for individualized
discovery to indicate whether a particular action involves a
catheter-related injury and, if so, seek transfer at that time.
However, the panel ruled that requiring the parties and the courts
to engage in protracted discovery and other pretrial proceedings
outside the MDL while the parties attempt to determine the exact
mechanism of causation would negate many of the benefits of the
transfer. Plaintiffs' injuries are indivisible, and the panel has
previously found that alternative theories of causation of a
plaintiff's injury are appropriate to include in an MDL, even
where, unlike here, those alternative theories involved a separate
product manufactured by a previously unnamed defendant.

A full-text copy of the court's February 5, 2024 order is available
at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3081-Transfer_Order-1-24.pdf


MEDQ INC: Ramey Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII and PHI
----------------------------------------------------------
Cheri Ramey and Jana Harrison, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MEDQ, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00231-SDJ
(E.D. Tex., March 14, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive that it
collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices,
including, but not limited to, names, dates of birth, driver's
license numbers, Social Security numbers, ("personally identifying
information" or "PII") and medical and health insurance
information, which is protected health information ("PHI", and
collectively with Private Information, "Private Information") as
defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
of 1996 ("HIPAA").

Former and current patients at Defendant's clients are required to
entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private Information,
without which Defendant could not perform its regular business
activities, in order to obtain medical services from Defendant's
clients. Defendant retains this information for at least many years
and even after the relationship has ended. By obtaining,
collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private
Information of Plaintiffs and Class Members, Defendant assumed
legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and
safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion.

The Defendant's investigation concluded that the Private
Information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiffs' and
approximately 54,000 other individuals' information. The Defendant
failed to adequately protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
Private
Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly
sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private
Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or
careless acts and omissions and their utter failure to protect its
clients' patients' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained
Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information because of its
value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiffs and
Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the
Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes.

In breaching their duties to properly safeguard its clients'
patients' Private Information and give them timely, adequate notice
of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to
negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state
statutes, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are victims of the Data Breach.

The Defendant, a corporation that provides its healthcare clients
"with platform neutral, automated enterprise imaging workflow
solutions."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC - DALLAS
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Phone: (214) 744-3000
          Fax: (214) 744-3015
          Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 332-4200
          Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com


MERCER UNIVERSITY: Koerner Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercer University.
The case is styled as Mary Koerner, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Mercer University, Case No.
5:24-cv-00083-TES (M.D. Ga., March 11, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Mercer University -- https://www.mercer.edu/ -- is a private
research university with its main campus in Macon, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas Colella, Esq.
          1133 Penn Ave., 5th Fl.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Email: NickC@lcllp.com


META PLATFORMS: Court Certifies Advertisers' Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Yahoo!Finance, reports that a divided
U.S. appeals court said Meta Platforms must face a class action by
advertisers that accused the Facebook and Instagram owner of
overcharging them by fraudulently inflating the number of people
their ads might reach.

In a 2-1 decision on Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in San Francisco said advertisers could sue for damages as
a group over Meta's claims about the "potential reach" of their
ads.

Advertisers said the metric used measured the number social media
accounts, not the lower number of actual people, and inflated the
number of potential viewers by as much as 400%.

The court also decertified a separate class seeking injunctive
relief, meaning the advertisers cannot sue as a group, because it
wasn't clear that the main plaintiff had legal standing to sue.

A dissenting judge would have decertified both classes. The
advertisers have estimated Meta could owe more than $7 billion of
damages, court papers show.

Meta and its lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.

The Menlo Park, California-based company has said ads generate
"substantially all" of its revenue, which totaled $134.9 billion in
2023. Net income was $39.1 billion.

Class actions afford potentially greater recoveries at lower cost
than if plaintiffs are forced to sue individually.

Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas wrote for the majority that because
Meta provided the same alleged misrepresentation about potential
reach, advertisers could try to prove that their alleged damages
stemmed from a "common course of conduct."

The class covers potentially millions of individuals and businesses
that have paid for ads on Facebook and Instagram since Aug. 15,
2014.

Their lawsuit included a claim that senior executives knew that
duplicate and fake accounts, including from bots, inflated the
"potential reach" metric, but took steps to cover it up.

Circuit Judge Danielle Forrest, in a partial dissent, said she
would decertify the damages class because of individualized
questions about what advertisers understood about what Meta was
telling them before they bought ads.

Geoffrey Graber, a lawyer for the advertisers, said he looked
forward to taking the damages case to a jury.

The case is DZ Reserve et al v Meta Platforms Inc, 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals, No. 22-15916. [GN]

META PLATFORMS: Lyons Central Joins Mental Health Crisis Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Buchiere, writing for Finger Lakes Times, reports that The
Lyons Central School District has joined a class-action lawsuit
against social media platforms, alleging they have contributed to a
mental health crisis among some young people, among many negative
consequences.

A number of other districts in the region have joined the legal
action as well.

According to Education Week, various class-action lawsuits "allege
that social media companies have designed highly addictive products
that are harmful to mental health and that they have marketed them
to youth who are in a developmental stage that makes them uniquely
susceptible to manipulation."

Meta, TikTok, SnapChat, and YouTube are among the companies
targeted in the legal actions.

Lyons Superintendent of Schools Matt Barr issued the following
press release last week on the Board of Education's Feb. 13
decision to join the class-action suit:

"The Lyons Central School District has entered into legal
proceedings against social media companies alongside school
districts nationwide, emphasizing our commitment to addressing the
negative impact of social media on our students," the district
said. "We recognize the susceptibility of adolescents to social
media pressures, leading to concerns such as body dissatisfaction
and low self-esteem, which can often lead to mental health
challenges and youth depression. Importantly, it is worth noting
that this action will not impose any financial burden on the
district."

In an interview with the Finger Lakes Times, Barr said that the
class-action suit is similar to one districts filed against
companies that targeted vaping products to younger people. That
resulted in an out-of-court settlement, with funds distributed to
districts that joined in the action. Barr did not have the amount
Lyons received from that settlement.

He said the district has seen the negative impact of social media
on student behavior.

"We're concerned about the social and emotional well-being of our
students," he said. "There have been administrative actions to deal
with social media."

Barr noted that unlike previous generations, students today "can't
get away from it all" outside the school day because of the
omnipresence of social media.

The resolution that districts have passed states that schools
continue "to experience significant problems with student use of
social media, which use, among other things, has created a
substantial and ongoing interruption of and disturbance to its
educational mission; has resulted in the diversion of substantial
resources in an attempt to abate and prevent such use and its
results harms; and poses a significant risk to the health and
well-being of its students."

The Phelps-Clifton Springs, Geneva, South Seneca, Marcus Whitman,
Penn Yan, and Romulus school districts are among the others that
have signed onto the legal action.

Last week, the Phelps-Clifton Springs Central School District
issued a statement to the Finger Lakes Times on the Board of
Education's decision to join the lawsuit, which it approved at its
February meeting.

"We value the health and safety of our students and have invested
time, resources, and training to filter social media sites on
campus and teach students about digital citizenship and the proper
use of social media," the statement said. "Joining this lawsuit
sends a message that the addictive nature of some social platforms
and the encouragement of unsafe behaviors on these networks impacts
the emotional well-being of our students."

Chris Thomas, an assistant professor of educational leadership and
policy at the University of Florida, told Education Week that "most
of these (lawsuits) are as much about legal success as they are
about shaping issues and winning in the court of public opinion."

Social media firms say in their defense that they have taken
measures to make their platforms safe. However, in a U.S. Senate
hearing in January about harmful content on social media, Mark
Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, apologized to families who said their
children were harmed by social media use. [GN]

MIG FURNITURE INC: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MIG Furniture, Inc.
The case is styled as Angela Wahab, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. MIG Furniture, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-01792 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2024).

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

MIG Furniture Design -- https://modern1furniture.com/ -- is an
online retailer and direct importer of modern and contemporary
furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


MILLIMAN INC: Handorf Suit Transferred to N.D. Iowa
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lawrence Handorf, BOAGF Holdco LP, PHT Holding
II LP, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Milliman, Inc., Case No. 1:24-mc-00094 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa on March 11,
2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-mc-00002 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Civil Miscellaneous Case.

Milliman -- https://www.milliman.com/ -- formerly Milliman &
Robertson, is an international actuarial and consulting firm based
in Seattle, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan C. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 336-8330
          Email: rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com


MIT45 INC: B.D. Sues Over False and Misleading Sales Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
B. D. and L. M., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MIT45 INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00499-L-DEB (S.D. Cal.,
March 14, 2024), is brought against Defendant for false,
misleading, deceptive, and negligent sales practices regarding its
kratom powder, capsule, gummy, and liquid extract products (the
"Products").

Kratom is a type of plant indigenous to Southeast Asia which can
produce psychoactive effects when ingested. Dried kratom leaves are
sold as a loose powder, packaged into gel capsules, or made into an
extract. However, what reasonable consumers do not know, and
Defendant fails to disclose, is that the "active ingredients" in
kratom are similar to opioids. That is, kratom works on the exact
same opioid receptors in the human brain as morphine and its
analogs, has similar effects as such, and critically, has the same
risk of physical addiction and dependency, with similar withdrawal
symptoms.

The Defendant relies on its Products' innocuous packaging and the
public's limited knowledge about kratom and its pharmacology to get
users addicted, while reaping profits along the way. Reasonable
consumers do not expect the liquid extract bottles, gummies, and
pouches of kratom powder, which they can purchase at gas stations
and corner stores, to perform like an opioid with the same
addictive potential of morphine and its analogs. Defendant relies
on this ignorance and does nothing to correct it. Such activity is
outrageous and is in contravention of California law and public
policy.

The Defendant has engaged in a systemic effort to peddle an
addictive substance to unsuspecting and oftentimes vulnerable
consumers. Plaintiffs seek relief in this action individually, and
as a class action on behalf of similarly situated purchasers of
Defendant's Products, for: violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"); violation of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"); violation of California's False Advertising
Law ("FAL"); breach of implied warranty; unjust enrichment; fraud
by omission; and negligent misrepresentation, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased kratom Products in California.

The Defendant operates under the brand name MIT45 (short for both
"Mitragynine," the active alkaloid in kratom, and "Mitragyna," the
kind of kratom plant that produces kratom leaves) and is a growing
producer and seller of kratom Products in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Luke Sironski-White, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
                 lsironski@bursor.com


MODERNIZE INC: Grochowski Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Modernize, Inc. The
case is styled as Alan Grochowski, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Modernize, Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-14069-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 8, 2024).

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

Modernize -- https://modernize.com/ -- is a tech company based in
Austin, Texas that connects homeowners interested in having
projects done with contractors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammad Reza Kazerouni, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Ave, D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (949) 612-9999
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: mike@kazlg.com


MOISES VILLALOBOS: Lacy Files Suit in S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moises Villalobos,
Jr. The case is styled as Antonio Maurice Lacy, on the behalf of
all SHU patients and similarly situated v. Moises Villalobos, Jr.,
sued in their individual and official capacity; Assistant Warden
Dana Sullivan, sued in their individual and official capacity;
Nurse Practitioner Crystal Mable, sued in their individual and
official capacity; UTMB, sued in their official capacity; Patient
Liaison Program Office of Professional Standard TDCJ Health;
TDCJ-CID, sued in their official capacity; Case No. 4:24-cv-00896
(S.D. Tex., March 11, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

Moises Villalobos Jr. is a Warden I for the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MORTGAGE CONTRACTING: Gay Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mortgage Contracting
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Lane Gay, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Mortgage Contracting Services,
LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00217 (E.D. Tex., March 11, 2024).

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

Mortgage Contracting Services LLC -- https://mcs360.com/ --
provides mortgage services. The Company offer property inspections
and preservation, REO property maintenance, vacant property
registrations, valuations, settlement services, title, and other
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elton 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


MUNCHKIN INC: Miramontes Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Miramontes, and other similarly situated v. MUNCHKIN,
INC.; LYNEER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
Case No. 24STCV06309 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 13,
2024), is brought against the Defendants for failure to compensate
for all hours worked; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay
overtime; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
failure to pay wages owed every pay period; failure to pay wages
when employment ends; failure to provide rest breaks; failure to
provide meal breaks; failure to reimburse business expenses;
failure to provide personnel records; failure to provide pay
records; in violation of the California Labor Code and The Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"); Discrimination in violation of Fair
Employment And Housing Act ("FEHA"); retaliation in violation of
FEHA; failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in
violation of FEHA; retaliation in violation of Labor Code;
violation of Business And Professions Code.

The Defendants did not provide Plaintiff and other similarly
situated aggrieved employees with the minimum wages to which they
were entitled for all work performed and did not compensate her and
others for all hours worked pursuant to California Labor Code. This
is so because Plaintiff and others consistently worked "off the
clock" in that the company had a policy of rounding down hours to
the detriment of employees who would not be paid for all hours
worked. Consequently, Plaintiff was not being paid for all hours
worked and was not being paid the minimum wage for all hours
worked. In addition, the Defendants failed to pay proper reporting
time pay to all employees. Moreover, and to the extent that
employees' meal breaks were interrupted, Plaintiff and others did
not receive compensation for any work performed while "off the
clock" on a break, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff started working for the Defendants as a labor worker
in January 2022.

MUNCHKIN, INC. is a Delaware corporation, doing business in the
County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harout Messrelian, Esq.
          MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
          500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: (818) 484-6531
          Facsimile: (818) 956-1983


NATERA INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 31, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH COPLEY AND
RACHEL CALCATERRA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. NATERA, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-06342-YGR
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers sets the
following trial and pretrial dates:

  Last day to join parties or amend              May 1, 2024
  pleadings:

  Close of fact discovery:                       Dec. 16, 2024

  Deadline to file motion for class              Jan. 31, 2025
  certification and any expert reports in
  support thereof:

  Deadline to file opposition to class           April 30, 2025
  certification motion and any expert
  reports in support thereof:

  Deadline to file reply in support of           June 30, 2025
  motion for class certification:

In addition, the Court vacates the initial case management
conference set for Monday, March 18, 2024. Should parties wish to
have a case management conference, the Court is amendable to
setting such a conference for Monday, March 25, 2024. If parties
wish to do so, they shall inform Courtroom Deputy Edwin Cuenco.

Good cause showing and pursuant to joint stipulation of the
parties, the Court also continues the hearing for the Motion to
Dismiss, currently scheduled for March 19, 2024, to April 2, 2024,
to coincide with the hearing on the Motion to Sever.

The parties must comply with both the Court’s Standing Order in
Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil
Cases for additional deadlines and procedures. All Standing Orders
are available on the Court’s website at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders.

Natera is a clinical genetic testing company.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1lXXVc at no extra
charge.[CC]

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Impacts of Proposed Settlement Discussed
--------------------------------------------------------------
tpcar.org reports that following up on NAR's March 15 announcement
of a proposed settlement to end the Sitzer/Burnett class-action
lawsuit, Washington REALTORS has released a video update breaking
down the three aspects of the proposed settlement and what their
impacts are likely to be for real estate practitioners in
Washington State.

At a fundamental level, the proposed rules will place further
importance on a buyer brokers' ability to demonstrate the value
that they're providing for their client. New State law, requiring
buyer brokers to have an agency agreement in place prior to
providing real estate services, further drives home the point that
communicating value to buyer clients is more important than ever.

Thanks to the proactive advocacy work done by Washington REALTORS,
two components of the proposed settlement agreement are already law
in Washington State. Those components are:

-- Written agreements for MLS participants acting for buyers:
While NAR has been advocating for the use of written agreements for
years, in this settlement we have agreed to require MLS
participants working with buyers to enter into written
representation agreements with their buyers. This change took
effect in Washington State on January 1, 2024.

-- Buyer and seller broker compensation must be negotiated in a
decoupled agreement. This means that the seller will agree to
negotiate compensation with the listing firm in an established
amount, and separate of that agreement the seller may, if they
choose, make offers of concession.

An additional change included in the proposed settlement agreement,
which would also be new practice in Washington State, is a
prohibition of publishing any seller offers of buyer broker
compensation in a listing on a REALTOR-owned MLS. The impact of
this change is still to-be-determined, however, as the NWMLS, which
controls roughly ¾ of the territory in the state, is not REALTOR
owned. While the proposed settlement agreement does offer a
provision for NWMLS to enter the settlement and to enjoy the
protections of the agreement negotiated by NAR, it is unknown if
NWMLS will elect to join as a party to the agreement.

While there are many steps along the way for buyer brokers to
provide value for their clients, the change related to seller
concessions is a key opportunity in a transaction for a buyer
broker to display value in tangible dollars and cents. Sellers may
offer concessions in their MLS listing which could include covering
parts or all of a buyer broker's commission, and any other aspects
of the transaction such as closing costs or material defects to the
home which require repair at the expense of the buyer.

Between a negotiated buyer agency agreement, signed by the buyer
broker and client prior to shopping for a new home, and the
allowance for the seller to still list concessions to the buyer in
an MLS listing, there will likely be an opportunity for negotiation
on the buyer broker's final commission amount as a part of
completing a real estate transaction. Take advantage of this
opportunity!

To hone your negotiation skills, TPCAR recommends that its members
take advantage of a current NAR offer for a free Accredited Buyer's
Representative (ABR) Designation -- a $295 value -- to learn how to
display your value to a client. Sessions are scheduled over the
course of 2024 to enable members to take the course online at their
own pace.

While the terms of the agreed upon settlement payment include
changes to industry practices, and payment of a $418 million fee
over approximately four years, NAR denies any wrongdoings and
continues to believe that current policies benefit buyers and
sellers and promote access to property ownership, particularly for
lower- and middle-income buyers who can have a difficult-enough
time saving for a down payment. With this settlement, NAR is
confident it and its members can still achieve all those goals.

TPCAR will continue to keep its membership apprised of changes as
several steps remain prior to the settlement agreement receiving
final approval and its terms taking effect. [GN]

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Losses Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Disability Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tashan Reed, reporting for theathletic.com, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed by 10 former NFL players last February
against the NFL's disability plan is moving forward after the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted
in part and denied in part the NFL's motion to dismiss the
litigation.

According to court documents obtained by The Athletic, the court
granted the NFL's motion to dismiss all claims against the
individual defendants, including NFL commissioner Roger Goodell,
and also granted the NFL's motion to dismiss the individual breach
of fiduciary of duty claims, but the court denied the NFL's motion
to dismiss the denial of benefits claims.

The NFL moved to dismiss the lawsuit entirely last June because the
league said that the plaintiffs "fail to state a claim for any
violation" of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. As a
result of the court's decision, the denial of benefits claims made
in the lawsuit is set to proceed to discovery and trial.

The lawsuit, "Alford et al v. The NFL Player Disability & Survivor
Benefit Plan et al," alleges the defendants -- the NFL's disability
plan and each member of the NFL disability board -- breached their
fiduciary duty of loyalty to former NFL players through
misinformation in violation of ERISA and wrongfully denied them
benefits in violation of the terms of the NFL disability plan.
Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that the physicians consulted to
make decisions aren't neutral because they are financially
incentivized to deny disability claims.

"It's not benefiting the players who are really, actually hurt and
going through stuff in life," former NFL Willis McGahee, who's one
of the 10 plaintiffs, told The Athletic last year. "They're not
taking care of us. It's a sham."

The NFL disability plan, working alongside the NFLPA, offers three
potential benefits for former players: total and permanent
disability benefits, which are for former players who are unable to
work due to disability; line of duty disability benefits, which are
for players who have a substantial disablement due to NFL
activities; and neurocognitive disability benefits, which are for
players with mild or moderate neurocognitive impairment.

To receive benefits, former players must complete an online
application, provide supporting documents and attend at least one
medical examination by what's described as a "neutral physician"
chosen by the NFL disability board. Players awarded benefits
through the NFL disability plan can receive as much as $22,084 per
month.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is the chairman of the NFL
disability board, which has three voting members selected by the
NFLPA and three voting members selected by the NFL. Once the case
has been presented, a decision is reached after votes from the six
members.

"We have to obviously have a system to be able to identify who
qualifies for those benefits and who doesn't qualify for those
benefits," Goodell said last year. "And that's done with the union
and management. And the facts are that's done independently with
doctors who make a determination of whether the benefit, an
individual, qualifies under that program. So you don't want people
to benefit from it that don't qualify for it because it takes away
from people who do qualify for it. So you're always going to have
people who may think they qualify for it. Doctors disagree. The
joint board disagrees. That's the way the system works. But I would
tell you the benefits in the NFL are off the charts."

According to the NFLPA, almost 3,200 former players will receive
about $320 million in benefits in 2023. That's a sizable amount,
but a significant number of former players who are not eligible to
receive benefits believe they should. The plaintiffs of the lawsuit
believe they're representative of that group.

Chris Seeger of Seeger Weiss LLP and Sam Katz of Athlaw LLP are the
two attorneys representing the proposed class of former NFL players
in the lawsuit. They released the following statement to The
Athletic regarding the court denying the NFL's motion to dismiss
their lawsuit:

"The Court's order denying the NFL's attempt to dismiss this case
is a huge win for retired NFL players who have been subjected to
the NFL Disability Plan's systemic injustice for far too long,"
Seeger and Katz said. "On behalf of every former NFL player, we
look forward to continuing to shine a light on this betrayal by the
NFL, holding the Plan fully accountable, and correcting this broken
system so it is fair for players moving forward."

The plaintiffs are seeking recovery of benefits, but they're also
vying to remove the NFL disability board's members, aiming to
prohibit the use of "biased" doctors and hoping to "correct and
prevent further misinformation." The broader goal is to prevent
what they've alleged to happen from happening to others.

"When it's all over and done with, you would think they would be
there to help you out," McGahee said of the NFL. "Think about all
the money you've made. All of the excitement you put on that
football field. And you laid it out and put your body on the line
for those guys, for your teammates, for the team, for the city, for
the organization. And when it's all said and done, it's on to the
next person. You're old news." [GN]

NATIONAL INSURANCE: Prosser Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christopher Prosser, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. National Insurance Services of
America, Inc. also known as: National Insurance Direct, Inc. a/k/a
and d/b/a National Insurance Direct, Inc.; Aetna Health and Life
Insurance Company; Centene Corporation doing business as: Ambetter
Health Insurance d/b/a Ambetter Health Insurance; Medica Central
Insurance Company; Anthem Health Plans of Virginia, Inc. doing
business as: HMO Missouri, Inc. doing business as: Anthem Blue
Cross and Blue Shield d/b/a HMO Missouri, Inc., d/b/a Anthem Blue
Cross and Blue Shield; John and Jane Does 1 through 18; Case No.
23JE-CC01066 was removed from the Circuit Court of Jefferson
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on March 8, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00362 to the
proceeding.

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

National Insurance Services (NIS) -- https://www.nisbenefits.com/
-- provides employee benefit solutions exclusively for public
sector organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          David Krueger, Esq.
          BENESCH FRIEDLANDER LLP - Cleveland
          127 Public Square, Suite 4900
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: (440) 313-2974
          Fax: (440) 363-4588
          Email: dkrueger@beneschlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul A. Del Aguila, Esq.
          BENESCH FRIEDLANDER LLP - Chicago
          71 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 212-4938
          Email: pdelaguila@beneschlaw.com


NEO G USA: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NEO G USA Inc. The
case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. NEO G. USA Inc, Case No.
1:24-cv-00220 (W.D.N.Y., March 13, 2024).

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

Neo G -- https://www.neo-g.com/ -- offers a dynamic range of
Medical Grade orthopaedic and sports supports for all ages, body
types and events.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP
          122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620
          New York, NY 10168
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


NEW DIRECTIONS: Henderson Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Zenea Henderson, and other similarly situated v. NEW DIRECTIONS,
INC.; LEONARDO CUADRADO; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV06197 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 13, 2024), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to compensate for all
hours worked; including minimum wages and overtime in violation of
the California Labor Code and The Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA").

The Defendants violated Labor Code because it failed to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all
hours worked, including the statutory minimum wage for all hours
worked and for "off the clock" work. This is so because the
Defendants had a company policy wherein they would
disproportionately round down the number of hours worked, resulting
in "time shaving" and further resulting in aggrieved employees not
being paid for all hours worked. Furthermore, and to the extent
that Plaintiff and others worked through their meal periods while
"off the clock" or when their meal periods were interrupted due to
work obligations, they were not compensated for all hours worked,
which would be akin to a minimum wage violation. Moreover, the
Defendants failed to compensate its employees the proper reporting
time pay, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff started working at the Defendant as a Residence
Service Coordinator in mid-2023.

NEW DIRECTIONS, INC. is a California corporation, doing business in
the County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harout Messrelian, Esq.
          MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
          500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: (818) 484-6531
          Facsimile: (818) 956-1983


NEW YORK GOLD: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The New York Gold
Co., Inc. The case is styled as Damian Martin, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. The New York Gold Co., Inc.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01727 (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2024).

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

New York Gold Co. -- https://nygoldco.com/ -- offers a wide range
of gold, silver, platinum, and palladium bars and coins at the best
prices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW YORK, NY: Seabrook Files Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of New York, et
al. The case is styled as James Seabrook, on his own behalf and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. City of New York, Lynelle
Maginley-Liddie, Louis Molina, Vincent Schiraldi, Cynthia Brann,
Ronald Brererton, Anthony Monastero, Case No. 1:24-cv-02029-PKC
(S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights
Act.

New York City -- https://www.nyc.gov/ -- comprises 5 boroughs
sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alice Goldman Reiter, Esq.
          CUTI HECKER WANG LLP
          305 Broadway
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 620-2604
          Fax: (212) 620-2614
          Email: areiter@chwllp.com


NEXT BRIDGE: Shareholder Files Class Suit Over Misleading Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eddie Pan, writing for InvestorPlace Financial News, reports that
Meta Materials (NASDAQ:MMAT) stock is in the spotlight after a
shareholder of spinoff Next Bridge Hydrocarbons (NBH) filed a
class-action lawsuit against the oil and natural gas company and
several of its executives. These include former NBH President
George Palikaras and former Chairman and Chief Financial Officer
Ken Rice.

The class period spans from July 14, 2022 to Dec. 14, 2022 and is
open to all shareholders who acquired shares of NBH around Dec. 14,
2022 and experienced losses. NBH does not trade on an exchange and
is a private company in that regard. Its shares are not eligible
for electronic transfer.

Torchlight merged with Meta Materials in June 2021, which resulted
in legacy shareholders of Torchlight receiving non-voting Meta
preferred stock. The preferred stock represented the oil and gas
assets that Meta received from Torchlight.

Later on, Meta decided to spin off Torchlight's oil and gas assets
into NBH. In July 2022, NBH filed a Form S-1 registration statement
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

However, the lawsuit alleges that the registration statement was
improperly prepared and contained misleading information.

"The Registration Statement contained untrue statements of a
material fact and/or omitted to state material facts to make the
statements therein not misleading. The Registration Statement also
violated specific disclosure provisions within Regulation S-K,
which inter alia dictate what must be disclosed by issuers in
registration statements," reads the complaint.

For example, NBH stated that its oil and gas assets were worth
$47.29 million as of Sept. 30, 2022 and $45.66 million as of Dec.
31, 2021 when in fact they were actually "substantively worthless."
After the spinoff, Meta disclosed that the value of NBH's oil and
gas assets were "not substantive." Furthermore, the lawsuit states
that NBH failed to disclose information about its relationship with
Masterson Hazel Partners. [GN]

NISSAN MOTORS: Settles 2017 Data Breach Class Suit for $1.82MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abby O'Brien, writing for CTVNewsToronto.ca, reports that Nissan
customers in Canada may soon be eligible to file a claim in a
proposed $1.82 million class action settlement resulting from a
2017 data breach.

The settlement was negotiated after two respective lawsuits filed
in Ontario and Quebec in 2018 alleged that the manufacturer was
liable for the breach.

Nissan denies the allegations, none of which have been tested in
court. Instead, the parties opted to negotiate a settlement.

Here's what you need to know.

The data breach

According to Nissan, the breach took place in December 2017.

The next month, customers were issued letters informing them of the
breach and that their private data may have been exposed. According
to lawyers representing the plaintiffs, that letter did not explain
how or when exactly the breach occurred.

Personal information involved included names, addresses, credit
scores, vehicle makes and models, vehicle identification numbers,
loan amounts, and monthly payments.

At the time, Nissan said it contacted Canadian privacy regulators,
law enforcement, and data security experts to help investigate the
breach.

It also offered customers who may have been affected 12 months of
credit monitoring services.

What's next?

Before class members can claim part of the nearly $2 million
settlement, it must first be approved by the courts.

Ontario's Superior Court of Justice has scheduled its approval
hearing for April 24. A date has yet to be set for the hearing in
Quebec.

Who in Ontario would be eligible for payment, if approved?

Unlike the Quebec lawsuit which solely targeted Nissan Canada Inc.,
the Ontario matter named Nissan Canada Inc., Nissan Canada
Financial Services Inc., and Nissan North America, Inc.

If the settlement is approved, anyone who held active leases or
loans with the three companies listed between Dec. 22, 2016 and
Jan. 12, 2017 would be eligible for payment.

In that case, class members can apply to receive up to $2,500
each.

First, they will have to file a "documented claim," proving their
eligibility and demonstrating the damages, costs, or losses
incurred.

If they lack the needed evidence to prove eligibility and damages,
members would also have the option to file an "undocumented claim,"
in which they could see $35 in reimbursement paid to them.

If approved, members can file claims on the websites of the law
firms involved. [GN]

NVIDIA CORP: Faces Nazemian Suit Over Copyright Infringement
------------------------------------------------------------
Abdi Nazemian, an individual; Brian Keene, an individual; and
Stewart O'Nan, an individual; Individual and Representative
Plaintiffs v. NVIDIA Corporation, a Delaware corporation;
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01454 (N.D. Cal., March 8, 2024) arises
from the Defendant's acts of direct copyright infringement that
caused injury to Plaintiffs and Class members.

The Defendant created NeMo Megatron-GPT, a series of large language
models, released in September 2022. The Plaintiffs and Class
members are authors. They own registered copyrights in certain
books that were included in the training dataset that NVIDIA has
admitted copying to train its NeMo Megatron models.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and Class members never
authorized NVIDIA to use their copyrighted works as training
material. All those rights belong exclusively to Plaintiffs under
the U.S. Copyright Act. The Plaintiffs allege that NVIDIA made
multiple copies of the infringed works during the training of the
NeMo Megatron models without their permission and in violation of
their exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. On information and
belief, NVIDIA has continued to make copies of the infringed works
for training other models, say the Plaintiffs.

NVIDIA Corporation is a diversified technology company founded in
1993 that originally focused on computer-graphics hardware and has
since expanded to other computationally intensive fields, including
software and hardware for training and operating AI software
programs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Christopher K. L. Young, Esq.
          Elissa Buchanan, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800  
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
                  eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew Butterick, Esq.
          1920 Hillhurst Avenue, #406
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Telephone: (323) 968-2632
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940  
          E-mail: mb@buttericklaw.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Clark, Esq.
          Laura M. Matson, Esq.
          Arielle S. Wagner, Esq.
          Eura Chang, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: bdclark@locklaw.com
                  lmmatson@locklaw.com
                  aswagner@locklaw.com
                  echang@locklaw.com

OFFICE DEPOT: Benge Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Christopher Benge, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
OFFICE DEPOT, LLC a Delaware limited liability company; OFFICE
DEPOT, INC., a Delaware corporation; THE ODP CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
S-CV-0052031 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Placer, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on March 11, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 2:24-cv-00749-DJC-DB.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated
various provisions of the California Labor Code and committed
unlawful business practices. In addition to actual, consequential,
and incidental losses and damages on behalf of himself and a
putative class, Plaintiff seeks general and special damages,
liquidated damages, statutory and civil penalties, restitution,
pre-judgment interest, injunctive relief, costs, attorneys' fees,
and "for such other and further relief as the court may deem just
and proper."[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
          Samuel S. Sadeghi, Esq.
          Kevin J. Bohm, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
          Phone: +1.714.830.0600
          Fax: +1.714.830.0700
          Email: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com
                 samuel.sadeghi@morganlewis.com
                 kevin.bohm@morganlewis.com


OFFICESCAPES LLC: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Officescapes LLC. The
case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Officescapes LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-00215 (W.D.N.Y., March 12, 2024).

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

Officescapes LLC -- https://www.officescapes.com/ -- was founded in
2000. The Company's line of business includes the wholesale
distribution of flowers, nursery stock, and florist supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal

               - and -

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP
          122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620
          New York, NY 10168
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


ON TIME TRANSPORT: Isaac Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Nacanda Isaac, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ON TIME TRANSPORT, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-5
AND 6-10, Case No. UNN-L-000571-24 was removed from the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Union County, Law Division, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 15, 2024,
and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03250.

In the VI and VII Counts of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that
On Time Transport, Inc. violated federal law, namely the Family and
Medical Leave Act. The Complaint also includes state law claims for
alleged violations of the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lisa Barre-Quick, Esq.
          APRUZZESE, McDERMOTT, MASTRO & MURPHY, P.C.
          25 Independence Blvd.
          Warren, NJ 07095
          Phone: (908) 580-1776
          Email: lbarrequick@ammm.com


ONTARIO: Court Certifies Basic Income Pilot Program Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Vanmeer, writing for Kawartha411.ca, reports that the
Government of Ontario is facing a class action lawsuit brought on
by four Lindsay residents on behalf of 4,000 people who had
participated in the Ontario Basic Income Pilot.

The Pilot, which was meant to last for three years, was cancelled
after only one year. On March 4, 2024 the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice released a decision certifying the lawsuit as a class
proceeding. The class action claims damages for the sudden
cancellation of the Basic Income Pilot Project in July 2018 by the
Progressive Conservative government. The underlying Statement of
Claim, as reported previously, seeks damages of up to $200
million.

The suit was brought forward by Lindsay residents Dana Bowman,
Grace Hillion, Susan Lindsay, and Tracey Mechefske, who were
participants in the program.

"I was angry, I was anxious, and I wasn't sleeping," says
Mechefske.

Mechefske started her own natural skincare products business with
the income she received through the program. The cancellation
eliminated her ability to fund the business and pay down the debt
she'd accumulated to purchase materials.

To make matters worse, Mechefske says she was actively involved in
recruiting others in her community to sign up for the program.

"I convinced a lot of people that this would better their lives,
that's one of the reasons I'm so passionate about fighting this. It
wasn't just me who got hurt, everybody I encouraged to sign up got
hurt too."

"Basic income gave me dignity, it gave me hope, it gave me
financial stability," says Bowman.

Before being selected to participate in the pilot program, Bowman
received Ontario Disability Support Program ("ODSP") benefits. She
has since returned to ODSP and receives about $700 per month, half
of what she was receiving under the pilot.

"The Basic Income Pilot allowed me to help care for my
grandchildren. I could travel to my daughter's home to spend the
weekend, bring groceries, and have a family meal. I was able to
contribute to her dinner table, I wasn't taking from my
grandchildren. Now I feel like I'm a burden."

The Basic Income Pilot Project was introduced in 2017 to study the
impacts of a basic income. Approximately 4,000 Ontarians living in
Lindsay, Hamilton, and Thunder Bay enrolled in the Pilot, and
agreed to receive monthly payments for three years. In exchange for
the monthly payments, Class Members opened their lives to the
researchers.

Despite assurances that the Pilot would last for three years, the
government ended the Pilot after approximately one year. Basic
income payments ceased in March 2019.

The lawsuit alleges that the Province of Ontario breached the terms
and conditions of the contract it entered with the 4,000 Class
Members by ending the three-year program early. Organizations that
advocate on behalf of Canadians living with poverty and income
insecurity are pleased that the plaintiffs are taking this next
step in the legal process and hope the end result is nationwide
progress towards a level of financial security for everyone.

"There is an incredible amount of evidence which shows the benefits
of a basic income program," says Sheila Regehr, Chairperson of
Basic Income Network Canada. "If everyone has enough money to put
food on the table, a roof over their heads, maintain their dignity,
and be a part of the economy, we are all better able to manage the
other challenges that arise in our lives."

Subject to any appeals, the class action will now move onto the
second stage, which is the common issue trial.

"This is where we ask the Court to decide the legal issues that
were certified. In this case, that means the court will determine,
amongst other things, whether or not there was a binding contract
between the government and all class members, such that the
government owes damages for breaching the contract," says Stephen
Moreau, a partner at Cavalluzzo LLP and lead counsel for the
plaintiffs. "This is a group of very vulnerable people who deserve
the right to have their voices heard." [GN]

ONTARIO: Faces Class Action on Basic Income Program Cancellation
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that the Ontario government is facing a class
action lawsuit for the cancellation of the province's basic income
pilot project -- an abrupt move that some say caused significant
emotional and financial harm.

In a statement, Toronto law firm Cavalluzzo LLP says the class
action suit, brought forward by 4,000 people who took part in the
project, claims damages for the sudden cancellation in July 2018 by
Doug Ford's government. The lawsuit is seeking damages of up to
$200 million.

As part of the pilot, about 4,000 participants in Hamilton, Lindsay
and Thunder Bay earning less than $34,000 received just under
$17,000 annually. The amount decreased by 50 cents for every dollar
an individual earned through work and couples received a little
more than $24,000. People with disabilities received an additional
$6,000.

Lawyer Stephen Moreau, of Cavalluzzo LLP, said the province made a
promise to individuals to provide basic income payments for three
years.

"When you make a promise like that, you have to keep it. It's a
contract," he said.

"The government still does business and enters into contracts the
way people do. They don't get to change their minds once they've
entered into it. That's our allegation."

Moreau said the class action gives individuals, who might not be
able to afford to go to court individually, access to the judicial
system.

After Lindsay resident Dana Bowman was selected to participate in
the program, she said she could purchase fresh produce from her
local farmer's market, rather than eating canned food and using
food banks.

"It was just such a relief to be able to stand in the grocery line
and not worry that I wasn't going to have enough," Bowman said.

Prior to being selected to participate in the program, she said she
was receiving Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits.
While only receiving ODSP benefits, Bowman said she visited food
banks and purchased day-old foods. She struggled to afford haircuts
and laundry. The pilot program changed her life, she said. With the
additional income, she could also afford to more frequently visit
her daughter and grandchildren who live an hour's drive away.

During these visits, Bowman said she brought along food and treats
that she purchased herself, rather than feeling like "a burden to
[her daughter's] table."

After the cancellation of the pilot project, she has since returned
to ODSP and receives about $700 per month, half of what she was
receiving under the basic income pilot.

Bowman said she has returned to surviving from food banks and
buying day-old food. She can no longer afford to visit her daughter
and grandchildren as often as before.

"The floor was yanked out from underneath me," she said. "I just
felt so lied to."

Ontario government not commenting on case

CBC Toronto reached out to the premier's office but did not receive
an immediate response.

The project, which was introduced in 2017 with the goal of studying
the impacts of a basic income, was supposed to last for three
years.

While there are variations on its implementation, basic income
generally describes a policy in which the government gives
individuals unconditional cash transfers to meet basic needs.

At the time of the cancellation, then Minister of Children,
Community and Social Services, Lisa MacLeod, said the project was
expensive, and "clearly not the answer for Ontario families."

In a scrum at Queen's Park, MacLeod said she was not familiar with
the class action lawsuit.

"I can only speak to the fact that, at that time, we were making
some changes to social assistance, including raising the rates,"
she said.

Asked if there was something else she could say about why the pilot
project was cancelled, MacLeod said. "You'll have to ask Premier
Ford."  

In an email to CBC News, a spokesperson for the Ministry of
Children, Community and Social Services said they could not comment
on the case as it is before the courts.

While participating in the basic income project, Bowman said she
made plans to complete a college degree in social work. Under ODSP
conditions at the time, she said she would have lost coverage for
her medication if she had taken out a student loan to pursue her
degree.

"Basic income removed those barriers for me," she said.

The class action lawsuit is giving a voice to the program's
participants, Bowman said.

"I wasn't looking to get rich, this isn't free money," she said.
"It's dignity [and] financial stability." [GN]

OXY USA: Seeks Extension to Respond to Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERRY RIDER, trustee of
the Cherry Rider Family Trust, and R.W. and CATHY LUCAS,
co-trustees of the R.W. Lucas and Cathy Lucas Living Trust,
individually and as representative plaintiffs on behalf of persons
or concerns similarly situated, v. OXY USA INC., MERIT ENERGY
COMPANY, LLC, and MERIT HUGOTON, L.P., Case No.
6:23-cv-01274-KHV-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Defendants asks the Court to
enter an order granting an extension of time to respond to the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification until:

    (i) the Court has ruled on the pending motions to dismiss, and,
if    
        denied,

   (ii) Defendants have filed answers,

  (iii) the Court has held a Rule 16 scheduling conference and
entered
        a scheduling order for determination of class
certification,
        and

   (iv) the Court has set a date for a response to the Motion that
        allows adequate time for discovery on class certification
        issues.

The lawsuit was filed on Dec. 29, 2023. The Complaint sought relief
for a putative class of royalty owners for alleged underpayment of
royalties by Merit alleged to be in breach of a class action
settlement agreement that Oxy entered into in 2007.

Merit's alleged breach of this agreement did not begin until 2014
when Merit purchased the oil and gas properties from Oxy and began
paying royalties.

Oxy is an energy company, a chemical manufacturer and a carbon
management leader.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 18, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GexfUX at no extra
charge.[CC]


The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel M. McClure, Esq.
          Francisco Escobar-Calderon, Esq.
          James V. Leito IV, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77010-3095
          Telephone:(713) 651-5151
          Facsimile: (713) 651-5246
          E-mail: dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com
                 
francisco.escobarcalderon@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  James.leito@nortonrosefulbright.com

                - and -

          Robert W. Coykendall, Esq.
          Will B. Wohlford, Esq.
          Jonathan A. Schlatter, Esq.
          MORRIS, LAING, EVANS BROCK &
          KENNEDY, Chtd.
          300 N. Mead, Suite 200
          Wichita, KS 67202-2745
          Telephone: (316) 262-2671
          E-mail: rcoykendall@morrislaing.com
                  wwohlford@morrislaing.com
                  jschlatter@morrislaing.com

PABST BREWING: Wins Summary Judgment Bid v. Peacock
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDAN PEACOCK, v. PABST
BREWING CO., LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00568-DJC-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered an order granting Defendant's
motion for summary judgment.

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for the Defendant and
close the case. The Plaintiff's testimony alone would already be
insufficient to meet his burden and the sufficiency of that
evidence is even further degraded by the evidence presented by the
Defendant, such that no reasonable trier of fact could reach a
contrary conclusion.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to show
that there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a
reasonable consumer would have been deceived by the Defendant's
marketing.

The Plaintiff originally filed this action on March 15, 2018. The
current operative complaint, the Second Amended Complaint, was
filed on Sept. 19, 2019, and, after District Judge Troy L. Nunley
denied a motion to dismiss, the Defendant filed an answer. At the
close of class certification discovery, the Plaintiff filed a
motion to certify class.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant misled the Plaintiff and
others by marketing and selling "The Original Olympia Beer" as
using naturally filtered, artisan water from Tumwater, Washington
(a suburb of Olympia, Washington) despite the product being brewed
elsewhere in the country using lower quality water and brewing
methods.

Pabst is a brewer and marketer of alcoholic beverages.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nX1WSK at no extra
charge.[CC]

PAULA'S CHOICE: Vargison Sues Over False Advertisements
-------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Vargison and Rachael Forbis, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. PAULA'S CHOICE,
LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00342 (W.D. Wash., March 14, 2024), is
brought for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and
violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act as a result of the
Defendants false advertisements with their product labels promising
that its skincare products are 100% cruelty-free.

Paula's Choice's promise that its products were never tested on
animals can be found on its products themselves, as well as in all
its other media, publicity, and public relations materials,
including advertisements, websites, marketing campaigns, and
interviews. Over the years, Paula's Choice's product labels promise
that its skincare products are 100% cruelty-free. Those promises
include: "Never Animal Tested," and carry the Leaping Bunny
certification logo, which tells consumers the company and product
are cruelty-free.

Yet, despite claiming Paula's Choice was always cruelty-free and
repeating that promise for over 28 years, Paula's Choice
prioritized its profits over its principles. Paula's Choice has not
honored its promises, allowing animal testing on numerous products
just to gain access to one of the world's biggest consumer
marketplaces, China.

Paula's Choice claimed it was always cruelty-free and through its
Leaping Bunny certification, that it did not conduct animal tests
anywhere in the world. While portraying itself in the United States
as always being cruelty-free, Paula's Choice opted to import and
sell its products in China where testing on animals was mandatory
for companies like Paula's Choice during the class period.

When a company agrees to perform animal testing to gain access to
the Chinese market--while claiming the opposite in advertising, to
the public, and on every product that it sells--consumers who
purchased products with false representations about the
characteristics of the products are harmed. Because the marketplace
disdains cosmetic products affiliated with animal testing, the
members of the Class were damaged at the point of sale by
overpaying for cosmetics that were in fact actually tested on
animals despite assurances on the product and its packaging stating
otherwise, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a purchaser of any Paula's Choice skincare
products.

Paula's Choice is a manufacturer of professional skincare products,
founded by Paula Begoun.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean R. Matt, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, Washington 98101
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          Email: sean@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          Michella A. Kras, Esq.
          Alisa V. Sherbow, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          11 West Jefferson, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, Arizona 85003
          Phone: (602) 840-5900
          Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
          Email: rob@hbsslaw.com
                 michellak@hbsslaw.com
                 alisas@hbsslaw.com


PENUMBRA INC: Faces Labor Suit in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Penumbra, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in February 21, 2024, that on April 7, 2023, a
former contractor who had been retained by the company through a
third party staffing agency filed a putative class action lawsuit
as well as a Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) representative
action complaint against the company in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Alameda, on behalf of the
contractor and similarly situated Company contractors and employees
in California, alleging various claims pursuant to the California
Labor Code related to wages, overtime, meal and rest breaks,
reimbursement of business expenses, wage statements and records,
and other similar allegations.

Additionally, on April 10, 2023, a current employee of the company
filed a PAGA representative action complaint against the company in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda, on behalf of the employee and similarly situated company
employees in California, alleging similar claims. The complaints
seek payment of various alleged unpaid wages, penalties, interest
and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts.

Penumbra is a global healthcare company that designs, develops,
manufactures and markets a broad portfolio of products for
thrombectomy, embolization, access and immersive healthcare
technologies.


PERDUE FOODS: Court Tosses Parker Bid for Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER PARKER, on his own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PERDUE
FOODS, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00268-TES (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge
Tilman Self, III entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification because the Plaintiffs failed to meet
their burden of showing that there are a substantial number of
growers who desire to opt into this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective action.

Moreover, the Court dismisses opt-in Plaintiff Barbara Tripp from
this lawsuit without prejudice and, accordingly, denies Perdue's
motion to dismiss Opt-In Plaintiff Barbara Tripp's FLSA Claims as
moot.

The Plaintiff Parker will proceed on his individual claims.

Upon the issuance of the Order, the Parties will move on to Phase 2
of discovery, which will last five months. "Any motions for summary
judgment shall be filed on or before 60 days following the end of
discovery."

On Dec. 6, 2023, following six months of discovery, Parker and
Tripp filed this motion seeking conditional certification of this
collective action.

Mr. Parker claims that he "often worked over 60 hours per week,"
"was expected to be on call 24 hours a day," and that, "after
paying for expenses, he was making a fraction of the" federal
minimum wage.

The Plaintiffs seek to conditionally certify a proposed collective
that includes at least 1,300 growers "who grew chickens for Perdue
under a Perdue Poultry Producer Agreement" in the past three
years.

Mr. Parker worked as one of Perdue's growers in Georgia from
December 2016 through September 2019.

Perdue is a boiler chicken company.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1icNBG at no extra
charge.[CC]

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Ruling Sets Standards for FLSA Class Cert
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Natalie Bare, and Harrison Weimer, writing
for DuaneMorris.com, report that a recent ruling by Judge Joshua
Wolson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania highlights important distinctions in how courts
analyze conditional certification motions under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and class certification motions under Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In Fayad v. City of
Philadelphia, Case No. 23-CV-32 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 18, 2024), the Court
conditionally certified plaintiff's FLSA overtime claims on behalf
of a proposed collective action of paralegals at the City of
Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, but denied Rule 23 class
certification of the same claims under the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act ("PMWA"). According to the Court, conditional
certification was appropriate because the District Attorney's
Office had a uniform policy of classifying paralegals as
administratively exempt under the FLSA and therefore not paying
overtime wages. However, the same evidence fell short of clearing
the higher hurdle posed by the predominance requirement of Rule 23.
The decision reminds employers to factor these differing standards
into their litigation strategy.

Case Background

On January 4, 2023, Plaintiff Marybelle Fayad, a former paralegal
for the City of Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, sued her
former employer, alleging that it misclassified paralegals and
those with similar job duties as exempt and failed to pay them
overtime wages in violation of the FLSA and the PMWA.

Plaintiff moved for conditional certification under 29 U.S.C. Sec.
216(b) of the FLSA and for class certification of the PMWA claims
under Rule 23 based on deposition testimony from Unit supervisors,
job descriptions, company policies, and declarations of putative
plaintiffs establishing that the District Attorney's Office
uniformly classified paralegals (and others with similar job
duties) as exempt. In opposing both motions, the District
Attorney's Office argued that due to the paralegals' varying job
duties, responsibilities, working conditions, hours, shifts, and
units, they were not similarly situated and individualized issues
would predominate.

The Court's Ruling

On March 18, 2024, Judge Wolson granted Plaintiff's FLSA
conditional certification motion, but denied her Rule 23 class
certification motion, explaining that, "Rule 23 class certification
and FLSA collective action certification are fundamentally
different creatures." Id. at 20.

While Judge Wolson declined to include non-paralegals with
"substantially similar job duties" in the collective action
membership, he found that Plaintiff met her relatively light burden
to make a "modest factual showing" that the paralegals were
"similarly situated" because the "evidence shows the DAO has a
policy of classifying paralegals as administratively exempt under
the FLSA, and that it therefore fails to pay the paralegals
overtime." Id. at 20-21. The Court also noted that it would reach
the same result applying a heightened intermediate standard.

Judge Wolson opined that Rule 23, however, requires more;
specifically, it requires the Court to conduct a "rigorous
assessment" of the available evidence and the methods by which the
plaintiff proposes to use that evidence to prove the requirements
of Rule 23, including the requirement that "questions of law or
fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members." Id. at 22.

The Court explained that showing predominance required Plaintiff to
"proffer class-wide evidence to show that a) the DAO improperly
classified paralegals under the PMWA and b) the paralegals worked
overtime hours." Id. According to the Court, Plaintiff did the
former but not the latter.  Specifically, Plaintiff did not
"proffer common proof to show that the DAO's paralegals worked over
forty hours in a given week." Id. As a result, Judge Wolson
concluded "individual issues will predominate" because there would
be no way of knowing each paralegals hours worked without
individual inquiry. Id.

The Court found Plaintiff's testimony from one Unit supervisor fell
short of the "common evidence" of hours the paralegals worked
required to show predominance under Rule 23 because the testimony
did not apply to all 200 paralegals employed by the District
Attorney's Office. This single supervisor's testimony was not
common evidence to prove injury in fact to all paralegals. Id.

The Court also explained that the common proof "doesn't have to be
time records, but it has to be 'sufficient to show the amount of
the employees' work as a matter of just and reasonable inference.'"
Id. Plaintiff offered no alternate to time records; rather, as the
Court put it: "She just asks me to draw an inference from the
absence of records." Id. The Court clarified that demonstrating
predominance does not require a plaintiff "to prove the measure of
each paralegal's damages," but rather the plaintiff "must be able
to demonstrate the fact of damage (meaning injury or impact) on a
class-wide basis." Id.

Implications For Employers

The Fayad decision underscores the low burden that plaintiffs must
typically meet to demonstrate that their proposed FLSA plaintiffs
are "similarly situated" for purposes of conditional certification.
As we reported in the Duane Morris Class Action Review
[https://blogs.duanemorris.com/classactiondefense/2024/01/09/it-is-here-the-duane-morris-class-action-review-2024/],
courts granted 75% of FLSA conditional certification motions in
2023.

Employers facing both class and collective actions in the same
litigation should be proactive and strategic in managing the timing
of discovery and motion practice in light of the differences in how
courts will analyze FLSA conditional certification motions versus
Rule 23 class certification motions. The decision also provides a
helpful analysis for employers opposing class certification of
misclassification claims in cases where plaintiffs offer no common
method of providing overtime work. [GN]

PHYSICIANS IMMEDIATE: Faces Class Suit Over Data Breach Response
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Heldut, writing for Cook County Record reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against medical clinic chain
Physicians Immediate Care and its parent company, The Aspen Group.
The lawsuit alleges that the companies failed to adequately protect
people's private information during a data breach.

Named plaintiff Wesley Lumpkins accuses the defendants of
negligence in their handling of the breach, which allegedly exposed
sensitive personally identifiable information, including medical
and health records.

The complaint states that the Aspen Group became aware of the
breach as early as April 2023 but allegedly did not disclose it
until February 2024, nearly 10 months later. This delay allegedly
put patients at risk and violated their privacy rights. Lumpkins is
seeking equitable and monetary damages on behalf of himself and
other similarly affected individuals.

The case was filed March 11 in Cook County Circuit Court.

Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Eugene Y. Turin, Timothy P.
Kingsbury and Andrew T. Heldut, of McGuire Law, of Chicago. [GN]

POPPIN INC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Poppin, Inc. The case
is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Poppin, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01789-JLR
(S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2024).

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

Poppin -- https://www.poppin.com/ -- creates modern office
furniture that enables productivity.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PPG INDUSTRIES: Parties Seek to Extends Fact Discovery Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIAN RODRIGUEZ, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00838-WSH-MPK (W.D. Pa.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending class
certification fact discovery deadline:

   1. Pursuant to the Case Management Order entered July 19, 2023,

      class certification fact discovery is set to close on March
26,
      2024.

   2. Due to the complexity of the issues in this case, the Parties

      request additional time to complete class certification fact

      discovery.

   3. The Parties will both benefit from the requested extension
and
       neither Party is prejudiced by the delay.

   4. There have been no previous extensions of discovery in this
      matter.

   5. A proposed order granting the relief sought is attached
hereto.

PPG is an American Fortune 500 company and global supplier of
paints, coatings, and specialty materials.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DMUG2b at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          50 Public Square, Suite 1900
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 912-2221
          Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
          E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com

                - and -

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Christopher M. Timmel, Esq.
          Sarah Sears, Esq.
          KLAFTER LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com
                  christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert W. Pritchard, Esq.
          Katelyn W. McCombs, Esq.
          Sean P. Dawson, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          625 Liberty Avenue, 26th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 201-7628
          Facsimile: (412) 774-1957
          E-mail: rpritchard@littler.com
                  kmccombs@littler.com
                  sdawson@littler.com

PREMIER HEALTH: Pierce Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gloria Pierce, Christine Hughes, Michael Finley,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Premier Health Partners, Case No. 3:23-cv-00364 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on March
11, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-10618-ADB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for the
Federal Trade Commission Act.

Premier Health -- https://www.premierhealth.com/ -- is the largest
comprehensive health care system.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian Flick, Esq.
          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          Dannlaw
          15000 Madison Avenue
          Lakewood, OH 44107
          Phone: (513) 645-3488
          Fax: (216) 373-0536
          Email: bflick@dannlaw.com
                 notices@dannlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew M. Engel, Esq.
          ANDREW M. ENGEL CO., L.P.A.
          15000 Madison Ave
          Lakewood, OH 44107
          Phone: (937) 477-9083
          Email: amengel@sbcglobal.net

               - and -

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P. C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 440-0020
          Email: tom@attorneyzim.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Carrie Dettmer Slye, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER
          312 Walnut Street, Suite 3200
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4074
          Phone: (513) 852-2626
          Fax: (513) 929-0303
          Email: cdettmerslye@bakerlaw.com


PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Roberts Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Diamond Roberts, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Progress Software Corporation,
Delta Dental Plans Association, Delta Dental of California, Delta
Dental of New York, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00346 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
March 8, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-10589 to the
proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Phone: (708) 628-4959
          Email: whitneys@hbsslaw.com


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Court Tosses Vogt Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LILLIAN LOUISE MORGAN
VOGT, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 4:22-cv-00385-SRC (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Stephen Clark entered an order denying Vogt's motion to certify
class.

The Court finds that individual questions predominate over common
questions and denies class certification for the negligence claims.
Finding that Vogt's claims do not satisfy Rule 23(b), the Court
denies Vogt's motion for class certification.

Arguing that Progressive violated Missouri titling law and harmed
numerous car purchasers, Vogt seeks certification of two classes.
Both classes pertain to Missouri's definition of "salvage
vehicle."

First, the "55(c)" class consists of

   "all individuals who purchased and currently own a vehicle
   which Progressive had previously declared salvage as a result of

   settlement of a claim but for which Progressive obtained a clean

   title."

Second, the "55(a)" class consists of:

   "All individuals who purchased and currently own a vehicle
   previously sold by Progressive which was damaged during a year
that
   is no more than six years after the manufacturer's model year
   designation for such vehicle to the extent that the total cost
of
   repairs to rebuild or reconstruct the vehicle to its condition
   immediately before it was damaged for legal operation on the
roads
   or highways exceeds eighty percent of the fair market value of
the
   vehicle immediately preceding the time it was damaged but for
which
   Progressive obtained a clean title."

After purchasing a used minivan, Plaintiff Lillian Vogt learned
that the minivan had been totaled in an accident just four months
before. Believing Defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance Company
concealed the damage to the minivan, Vogt filed suit in state
court, and Progressive removed the case to this Court.

Vogt alleges the following. In June 2020, a 2014 Dodge Caravan,
insured by Progressive, incurred damage in a collision. After,
Progressive declared the minivan a total loss and purchased it for
salvage. Progressive then instructed its salvage vendor to obtain a
clean title for the minivan and sold it to K&B Auto.

Progressive provides personal, automobile, homeowner, boat,
renters, business, life, and health insurance services.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 14, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lBOhNx
at no extra charge.[CC]

PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION: Wicklein Sues Over Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Wicklein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION, PROGRESSIVE COMMERCIAL
HOLDINGS, INC., and ARTISAN AND TRUCKERS CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No.
3:24-cv-00143-slc (W.D. Wis., March 8, 2024), is brought on behalf
of Plaintiff and all other similarly situated claimants in
Wisconsin who received a payment for the loss of a totaled vehicle
from Progressive, where Progressive used valuation reports prepared
by Mitchell International, Inc. ("Mitchell")--in conjunction with
J.D. Power—to determine the actual cash value ("ACV") of the
totaled vehicles.

By using these valuation reports, Progressive systematically
undervalues claimants' totaled vehicles by applying so-called
"Projected Sold Adjustments" ("PSAs") that are: arbitrary; contrary
to appraisal standards and methodologies; and not based in fact, as
they are contrary to the used car industry's market pricing and
inventory management practices. PSAs should never be applied and
their application in Plaintiff's situation breach the contract.

Specifically, Progressive—through Mitchell—systemically applies
a PSA, which results in a significant downward adjustment to the
base values of the comparable vehicles used to calculate the ACV of
Plaintiff's and Class Members' total loss vehicles. In the provided
Vehicle Valuation Report ("VVR"), Progressive explains that the PSA
represents "the fact that consumers typically negotiate a purchase
price less than the list price" "where the comparable vehicle is
listed for sale." However, a PSA is not applied in cases where
there is available actual sold data for the comparable vehicle or
where a comparable vehicle is listed at a "no haggle" dealership.
Id. This reduction is contrary to appraisal standards and
methodologies and is not based in fact.

Upon information and belief, neither Progressive nor Mitchell has
ever conducted any study or research to determine whether such
"consumer purchasing behavior" exists and impacts ACV in the modern
used-car market. Nevertheless, Progressive applies a PSA to the
advertised (or listed) price of comparable vehicles to determine
the "market value" of the total loss vehicles.

To arrive at its conclusion that consumers negotiate down the
advertised price, Progressive, through its vendors, intentionally
distorts the data, excludes transactions that undercut its false
hypothesis, and ignores market realities, all for the purpose of
applying a capricious and unjustified PSA to artificially deflate
the value of total loss vehicles.

This pattern and practice of undervaluing comparable and total loss
vehicles when paying automobile total loss claims through
arbitrary, unsupported, and unjustified adjustments, benefits the
insurer at the expense of the insured and violates Progressive's
policies with its insureds. As a result of Progressive's deceptive,
fraudulent, and unfair scheme, Plaintiff and the putative class
members did not receive the benefit of their bargain and sustained
actual damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff had a contract with Progressive Corporation for
automobile insurance.

Progressive issues insurance policies in Wisconsin and is
registered with the Wisconsin Insurance Department.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abou B. Amara, Jr., Esq.
          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
          Bailey Twyman-Metzger, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South Sixth Street #2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 333-8844
          Email: aamara@gustafsongluek.com
                 awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
                 btwymanmetzger@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq.
          Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
          Sahil Koul, Esq.
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Phone: (816) 984-8100
          Email: Ashlea@PaulLLP.com
                 Rick@PaulLLP.com
                 Sahil@PualLLP.com


PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Allowed to Seal Exhibits in Watson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA WATSON,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, V.
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
5:22-cv-00203-DCR-MAS (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Danny Reeves
entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to seal

   (1) an unredacted copy of Progressive's response in opposition
to
       the Plaintiff's motion for class certification,

   (2) Exhibits A, D, and F in their entirety, and

   (3) unredacted copies of Exhibits B, C, G, P, Y, Z.

The Court said, "The Defendant has filed an unopposed motion to
seal portions of its response in opposition to the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification and certain exhibits. Pursuant to
Local Rule 5.6 and the Protective Order governing this matter,
Progressive notes that the documents it seeks to seal contain
proprietary business information belonging to third party subpoena
respondents."

Under the facts presented, the interest in sealing outweighs the
public's interest in accessing the records and that the request is
narrowly tailored, the Court adds.

Progressive underwrites auto, fire, marine, and casualty
insurance.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AcLbkw at no extra
charge.[CC]

PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Sibert Files Bid to Seal Materials Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIARA SIBERT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE
SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01179-LKG (D. Md.), the
Plaintiff, pursuant to Local Rule 105.11 and the Protective Order,
moves the Court for an order allowing her to file under seal
materials designated confidential by the Defendant, and non-parties
Mitchell International, Inc., and J.D. Power, within and appended
to Plaintiff's reply in support of her motion for class
certification.

Specifically, the Plaintiff requests that the following documents
be filed under seal and restricted from public access:

-- Excerpts of the Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for
class
    certification;

-- Exhibit 14 – Deposition transcript of Dr. Walker dated May
18,
    2023;

-- Exhibit 15 – Deposition transcript of Dr. Walker dated Dec.
8,
    2022;

-- Exhibit 16 – Document describing the methodology of Mitchell
and
    J.D. Power's total loss vehicle valuation system; and

-- Exhibit 17 – document describing Progressive's process for
    identifying mileage where odometer is unreadable.

The Plaintiff discharges her obligation under Local Rule 105.11 and
the Protective Order, by:

   (1) providing a non-confidential description of what is to be
       sealed and requesting the material be sealed from public
       access, and

   (2) serving this Motion, along with the material to be filed
under
       seal, and a highlighted copy of material to be filed with
       redactions on the Defendant and non-parties, Mitchell and
J.D.
       Power.

Progressive offers auto, trailers, motorcycles, boats, renters,
condos, flood, life, and health insurance services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 18, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ADgX3T at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
          JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC
          478 E. Altamonte Drive, Ste. 108-570
          Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
          Telephone: (407) 720-4057
          E-mail: jacob@jacobsonphillips.com

                - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Edwin Eliu Elliott, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479.2299
          E-mail: edwine@shamisgentile.com
                  ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                - and -

          Cary Joshi, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: cjoshi@baileyglasser.com

                - and -

          Hank Bates, Esq.
          Lee Lowther, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W. 7th Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
                  llowther@cbplaw.com

PROPZU INC: Rayburn Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Propzu, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as William Rayburn, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Propzu, Inc., Jason Saphire,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01042-VMC (N.D. Ga., March 8, 2024).

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

PROPZU covers Real estate marketing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 400-4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


QSC LLC: Beauchamp Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against QSC, LLC. The case is
styled as Kevin Beauchamp, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. QSC, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01840 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 11, 2024).

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

QSC -- http://www.qsc.com/-- is an American manufacturer of audio,
video and control products such as amplifiers, loudspeakers,
cameras, video endpoints, and digital signal processors including
the Q-SYS networked audio, video and control platform.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


QUAKER OATS: Faces Another Class Suit Over Pesticide Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Action, reports that laintiff
Daniel Tepper filed a class action lawsuit against The Quaker Oats
Company.

Why: Tepper alleges that Quaker fails to disclose its products may
be contaminated with the toxic chemical pesticide chlormequat
chloride.

Where: The Quaker pesticide lawsuit was filed in Illinois federal
court.

The Quaker Oats Company is facing another Quaker class action
lawsuit alleging the company failed to inform consumers its
products may contain the toxic chemical pesticide chlormequat
chloride.

Chlormequat has reportedly been linked to reproductive and
developmental problems in animals, but its effects on humans have
not yet been thoroughly evaluated, the Quaker class action lawsuit
says.

Plaintiff Daniel Tepper says he purchased several Quaker products
that were at risk of containing undisclosed chlormequat. He claims
he would not have purchased the products, or would have paid less
for them, had he known they potentially contained a toxic
chemical.

Chlormequat is used to prevent grain crops from bending over, the
Quaker class action lawsuit explains. A recent peer-reviewed study
reportedly detected chlormequat in several Quaker products,
including:

-- Quaker Oats Old Fashioned Oats
-- Quaker Oats Instant Oatmeal Maple & Brown Sugar
-- Quaker Oats Oatmeal Squares Honey Nut
-- Quaker Oats Oatmeal Squares Brown Sugar
-- Quaker Oats Simply Granola Oats Honey & Almond
-- Quaker Oats Chewy Dark Chocolate Chunk Snack Bar

The study did not find detectable levels of chlormequat in organic
products, according to the Quaker pesticide lawsuit.

Quaker knows consumers want to eat nutritious, healthy and safe
foods, Tepper says. He points to the company's website which says
Quaker products are "Delicious and nutritious to help support your
healthy lifestyle" and held to "The Quaker Standard" of quality.

Tepper says he relied on Quaker to sell food products without
harmful toxins, chemicals and contaminants.

"Reasonable consumers, like plaintiff, certainly expect the food
they eat and feed their family to be free from chlormequat, a
substance with the risk of adverse health consequences," Tepper
says.

If there are potentially toxic substances in a food product, the
manufacturer should disclose this information so consumers can make
informed choices, the Quaker pesticide lawsuit argues.

The Quaker pesticide class action lawsuit asserts claims for
violations of multiple state consumer fraud and deceptive business
practice laws and unjust enrichment.

A separate Quaker class action lawsuit filed last month makes
similar allegations that the company's products contain dangerously
high levels of chlormequat. [GN]

QUIDELORTHO CORP: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to
investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of QuidelOrtho Corporation (NASDAQ: QDEL) resulting from
allegations that QuidelOrtho may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased QuidelOrtho 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=22828 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, after market hours,
QuidelOrtho filed a Current Report regarding its Fourth Quarter
2023 financial results on Form 8-K with the SEC announcing
QuidelOrtho's "[r]espiratory revenue decreased by 49% as reported
and in constant currency."

On this news, QuidelOrtho's stock fell $21.5 per share, or 32%, to
close at $45.27 per share on February 14, 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]

REALPAGE INC: Kabisch Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joshua Kabisch, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. RealPage, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:24-cv-00274 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas on March 13, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00281 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.

RealPage -- https://www.realpage.com/ -- provides data analytics,
property management software, and services to efficiently manage
rental properties and real estate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          Michaela L. Wallin, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-3000
          Email: ecramer@bm.net
                 mwallin@bm.net

               - and -

          Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 559-9745
          Email: dwalker@bm.net

               - and -

          Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
          Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, Ste. 2900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-956-1000
          Email: bglackin@lchb.com
                 dharvey@lchb.com

               - and -

          Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
          Hannah R. Lazarz, Esq.
          Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          222 2nd Avenue South, Ste. 1640
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Phone: (615) 313-9000
          Email: mchalos@lchb.com
                 hlazarz@lchb.com
                 kbyrd@lchb.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Breanna Van Engelen, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
                 breannav@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq.
          Javier A. Lopez, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 372-1800
          Email: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com
                 jal@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          Christian P. Levis, Esq.
          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Peter Demato, Esq.
          Radhika Gupta, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          Email: vbriganti@lowey.com
                 clevis@lowey.com
                 pdemato@lowey.com
                 rgupta@lowey.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          Walter W. Noss, Esq.
          Yifan (Kate) Lv, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY P.C.
          707 Broadway, Suite 1410
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 625-5621
          Facsimile (314) 241-3525
          Email: cburke@koreintillery.com
                 wnoss@koreintillery.com
                 klv@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
          Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 500-6800
          Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                 swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
                 czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com
                 krayhill@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq.
          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          Alexander Sweatman, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-782-4880
          Facsimile: 312-782-4485
          Email: jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com
                 dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
                 asweatman@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
          Shashi K. Gowda, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Ste. 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-333-8844
          Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                 dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                 dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
                 sgowda@gustafsongluek.com

               - and –

          Dennis Stewart, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          600 W. Broadway, Ste. 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-595-3299
          Email: dstewart@gustafsongluek.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ryan Thomas Holt, Esq.
          SHERRARD ROE VOIGT & HARBISON, PLC
          150 Third Avenue South, Suite 1100
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Phone: (615) 742-4512
          Fax: (615) 742-4539


RGM DISTRIBUTION: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RGM Distribution,
Inc. The case is styled as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. RGM Distribution, Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-01731 (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2024).

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

RGM Distribution, Inc. (RGM) -- https://www.rgmdistribution.com/ --
is a Brooklyn, New York, based company that manufactures plumbing
fittings and plumbing fixtures.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RINGCENTRAL INC: Discovery Ongoing in Reuben Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
RingCentral, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 7, 2023, that a motion for judgment on the
pleadings was filed on January 23, 2023. The California Superior
Court for San Mateo County overruled the company's demurrer and
motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the parties are now
engaged in discovery.

The company filed a motion for summary judgment on February 16,
2024, and a hearing on the motion is set for August 2, 2024.

On June 16, 2020, a Meena Reuben filed a complaint against the
company for a putative class action lawsuit that claims, on behalf
of a class of individuals for whom, while they were in California,
the company allegedly intercepted and recorded communications
between individuals and the company's customers without the
individual's consent, in violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act (CIPA) Sections 631 and 632.7.

Reuben seeks statutory damages of $5,000 for each alleged violation
of Sections 631 and 632.7, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees
and costs, and other unspecified amount of damages. The parties
participated in mediation on August 24, 2021. On September 16,
2021, Reuben filed an amended complaint. The company filed a
demurrer to the amended complaint on October 18, 2021.

RingCentral, Inc. is a provider of software-as-a-service solutions
that enables businesses to communicate, collaborate and connect.


ROAD RUNNER SPORTS: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Road Runner Sports,
Inc. The case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Road Runner Sports, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-01794 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2024).

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

Road Runner Sports -- https://www.roadrunnersports.com/ -- is an
e-commerce platform that offers a large selection of running and
walking gear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROBERT MARSH ENTERPRISES: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robert Marsh
Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Derrick Anderson, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Robert Marsh
Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01782 (E.D.N.Y., March 11,
2024).

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

Robert Marsh Enterprises Inc., doing business as I DJ NOW --
https://www.idjnow.com/ -- operates as an online electronics
products retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


ROBLOX CORPORATION: Gentry Sues Over Illegal Gambling Operation
---------------------------------------------------------------
David L. Gentry, individually and as next friend of minor
Plaintiff, L.G., Osmany Rodriguez, individually and as next friend
of minor Plaintiff, O.R., Joshua R. Munson, individually and as
next friend of minor Plaintiffs, D.C., J.M., T.T. & R.T., and
Lavina Gann, individually and as next friend of minor Plaintiff,
S.J., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
ROBLOX CORPORATION, SATOZUKI LIMITED B.V., STUDS ENTERTAINMENT
LTD., and RBLXWILD ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01593-SK
(N.D. Cal., March 14, 2024), is brought concerning an illegal
gambling operation that is preying on children nationwide.

Roblox and its co-conspirators, Satozuki, Studs, and RBLXWild
maintain and facilitate an illegal gambling ecosystem, targeted at
children, through Roblox's online gaming platform and digital
currency.  Indeed, Roblox is the largest entertainment website in
the world for kids, with over 60 million daily active users. The
vast majority of Roblox's users are children under the age of 18.
In fact, at least 70% of Roblox's users are under the age of 18,
with more than half of all users being under the age of 13.

However, even though these children have made Roblox extremely
successful, Roblox systematically takes advantage of them. In its
relatively short existence, Roblox has been surrounded by a deluge
of negative attention as a dangerous space for children. Multiple
child advocacy agencies and consumer protection groups have spoken
out about Roblox's targeting of children with deceptive commercial
advertising and addictive content.

Roblox, along with its co-Defendants, is behind another growing
problem that has ensnared hundreds of thousands of its adolescent
and teenage users, causing substantial financial loss—illegal
online gambling. Roblox allows users to make purchases of virtual
items to be used in games or apps within the Roblox ecosystem.
These purchases can be made with Roblox's digital currency, called
Robux, which are exclusively created by and "only sold by the
Roblox company.

Robux are purchased using a credit card or digital payment service
and users then use this digital currency to buy items within the
various games hosted in the Roblox universe. Because most of
Roblox's users are minors, Roblox allows adults, such as a user's
parents, to purchase Robux for their children to use on the Roblox
ecosystem. Roblox also sells gift cards that permit the
user—often a minor child to make purchases of Robux.

In its Terms of Service, Roblox misleadingly represents to parents
and other users that its platform and digital currency are safe.
Further, Roblox explicitly represents that "experiences that
include simulated gambling, including playing with virtual chips,
simulated betting, or exchanging real money, Robux, or
in-experience items of value are not allowed." But this
representation is false, or misleading at best. In fact, Roblox
allows third party gambling websites, including the highly popular
online casinos operated by Defendants Satozuki, Studs, and RBLXWild
(collectively, the "Gambling Website Defendants"), to use the
Roblox website to accept online bets using Robux, to be placed on
games at the Gambling Website Defendants' virtual casinos. Roblox
also facilitates the Gambling Website Defendants' efforts to track
bets, complete transactions, wager Robux, and satisfy wagers in
their digital casinos.

Roblox and the Gambling Website Defendants have concocted an
illegal gambling ring to target the adolescents and teenagers who
comprise the majority of Roblox's users. Roblox knows its Robux are
being used to place bets in illegal virtual casinos, directly
facilitates this transfer within the Roblox ecosystem, then imposes
a fee on the ill-gotten gains accrued by the Gambling Website
Defendants when they seek to convert Robux to cash.

The Plaintiffs' minor children--like hundreds of thousands of
others across the United States--fell prey to this illegal scheme
and were victimized out of real money. As a result, the Gambling
Website Defendants have earned millions off the backs of those too
young to legally gamble, all the while providing Roblox with a
sizable cut of the money they've illegally obtained, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs are minor children and the parents of minor
children.

Roblox is one of the largest and fastest growing gaming platforms
in the world, designed to bring users together in a virtual
universe, or "metaverse."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael McShane, Esq.
          Ling Y. Kuang, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Phone: (415) 568-2555
          Email: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
                 lkuang@audetlaw.com


ROCKET COMPANIES: Seeks to File Class Sur-Reply in Shupe Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL SHUPE and
CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
ROCKET COMPANIES, INC., JAY D. FARNER, DANIEL GILBERT and ROCK
HOLDINGS INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-11528-TLL-APP (E.D. Mich.), the
Defendants asks the Court granting their unopposed motion and
permit them to file a sur-reply in further opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the issue of price
impact.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a), the Defendants' counsel conferred
with Plaintiffs' counsel by email to seek concurrence in the relief
sought by this Motion, and Plaintiffs do not oppose the Court
restoring Defendants' customary sur-reply on the issue of price
impact.

Rocket is a Detroit-based fintech company consisting of mortgage,
real estate and financial service businesses.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0Ya4Vl at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nick Gorga, Esq.
          Jeremy D. Lockhart, Esq.
          Carsten A. Parmenter, Esq.
          HONIGMAN LLP
          660 Woodward Avenue
          2290 First National Building
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 465-7000
          E-mail: ngorga@honigman.com
                  jlockhart@honigman.com
                  cparmenter@honigman.com

                - and -

          Deborah S. Birnbach, Esq.
          Adam Slutsky, Esq.
          Kate MacLeman, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          100 Northern Avenue
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 570-1000
          E-mail: dbirnbach@goodwinlaw.com
                  aslutsky@goodwinlaw.com
                  kmacleman@goodwinlaw.com

                - and -

          Jeffrey B. Morganroth, Esq.
          MORGANROTH & MORGANROTH, PLLC
          344 North Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 200
          Birmingham, MI 48009
          Telephone: (248) 864-4000
          E-mail: jmorganroth@morganrothlaw.com

                - and -

          Sharon L. Nelles, Esq.
          Jeffrey T. Scott, Esq.
          Julia A. Malkina, Esq.
          Jacob E. Cohen, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-4000
          E-mail: nelless@sullcrom.com
                  scottj@sullcrom.com
                  malkinaj@sullcrom.com
                  cohenja@sullcrom.com


SAINT AUGUSTINE: May Face Class Suit Over Missed Paychecks
----------------------------------------------------------
While some Saint Augustine's University employees have received
their paychecks, some told WRAL News they are still waiting.

Employees told WRAL News in February that the university missed
paychecks on several occasions since November, including twice
since February.

"It's always tragic when you see employees not getting paid
timely," said Katie Abernethy, a partner at the Noble Law Firm.

The Noble Law Firm specializes in employment law, and Abernethy
said if the school continues missing paychecks, they could open
themselves up to legal action from the employees.

"I think a class action lawsuit is pretty readily foreseeable
here," she said.

The school currently faces a $7.9 million tax lien from the IRS, as
well as owing money to other unpaid debts.

According to the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, employers must
pay their employees their earned wages on their scheduled payday.
Abernethy says when an employer does not pay their employees on
their payday,

Employees can sue their employer for the missed paychecks and
"liquidated damages," which Abernathy said is similar to a penalty
fee.

"Let's say you owe someone $15,000 in unpaid wages. Liquidated
damages would say they get that initial $15,000, and they get
another $15,000," Abernathy explained.

Abernethy said another route employees can take is filing a
complaint through the North Carolina Department of Labor's Wage and
Hours Division, but Abernethy said people who chose that option
could wait longer for a while.

"They do great work over there, but it is a taxpayer-funded agency
with limited dollars to spend and limited resources and personnel
to do things," Abernethy explained. "You can run into a large
backlog if you go through DOL. So don't be surprised if you file a
wage and hour claim with the DOL and you don't hear anything for a
few months."

Employees are protected from retaliation when they file these
lawsuits because of the Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act
(REDA).

According to the North Carolina Department of Labor, REDA protects
employees against retaliation for filing workplace safety and
health complaints and other protected activities.

Abernethy said if an employer fires an employee for filing a
lawsuit, they must pay them "treble damages," in addition to your
initial and liquidated damages if they are found liable.

Abernethy told WRAL News what she would like to see employers do in
similar situations to St. Augustine's: making sure employees are
paid first.

"I know a lot of time when trying to save a business or an
institution heading towards bankruptcy or financial difficulties .
. . the employee wages are going to get you in more trouble than
not paying than not paying your service provider or creditor on
time," she explained. "Those have legal liabilities you can attach,
but they're not as draconian as having to not only pay back your
employees, but potentially having to pay them back twice." [GN]

SALEM COUNTY, NJ: Plaintiff's Bids to Amend and Consolidate Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY NEDRICK, v. THE
COUNTY OF SALEM, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-05143-RBK-EAP (D.N.J.),
the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Pascal entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motions to amend and motion to consolidate.

The Plaintiff argues that Crump means the Court may toll the
statute of limitations for the putative class members during the
pendency of this case. The Court disagrees.

Crump only applies when a defendant to a second putative class
action invokes a statute of limitations defense and the plaintiff
argues that a previously-filed-and-dismissed action tolled the
applicable statute.

The Plaintiff seeks to add new parties who would ultimately replace
her as the putative class representative.

The Court scheduled oral argument on both Motions on Jan. 17, 2024,
and ordered Plaintiff to personally appear at the hearing. The
Plaintiff failed to appear.

The Plaintiff Nedrick was admitted to the Salem County Correctional
Facility ("SCCF") in or about June 2022.

The Plaintiff alleges on her own behalf and on behalf of two
prospective classes of pretrial detainees that the following
conditions at SCCF violate federal and state law:

   1. Being subjected to routine strip searches;

   2. Being forced to wear an anti-suicide smock that is unusually

      short and lacks functional fasteners;

   3. Being housed in a cell with a camera that broadcasts to 15-20

      locations throughout the jail;

   4. Being housed in a cell with a camera that broadcasts to 15-20

      locations throughout the jail that permits cross-gender
viewing;
      and

   5. Being denied medical supervision when upon admission, the
detainee is chemically dependent but not on prescription medication
to treat such condition.

Salem is the westernmost county in the U.S. state of New Jersey.
Its western boundary is formed by the Delaware River.

A copy of the Court's opinion dated March 13, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R1MFrS at no extra
charge.[CC]

SAN DIEGO, CA: Class Settlement in Bloom Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL BLOOM, STEPHEN
CHATZKY, TONY DIAZ, VALERIE GRISCHY, PENNY HELMS, BENJAMIN
HERNANDEZ, DOUG HIGGINS, SUZONNE KEITH, GERALD STARK, ANNA STARK,
and DAVID WILSON, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Case No.
3:17-cv-02324-AJB-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony Battaglia
entered an order:

-- Granting the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of

    settlement in its entirety;

-- Directing the 60-day notice period to begin within 30 days of
the
    entry of this preliminary approval order, in which any
    comments/objections can be filed by Class Members; and

-- Setting a final approval briefing schedule to begin within 21
days
    of the end of the 60-day notice period, with a hearing on
fairness
    and final approval of the settlement to be held on Oct. 10,
2024
    at 2:00 PM.

The Court finds the matters suitable for decision on the papers and
without oral argument, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1.d.1.
Accordingly, the Court vacates the hearing currently set for May 9,
2024, at 2:00 p.m.

On Nov. 15, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
against the City, alleging violations of the constitutional and
statutory rights of San Diego residents, including those with
disabilities who rely on their vehicles for shelter and cannot
access
alternative housing.

San Diego is a city on the Pacific coast of California known for
its beaches, parks and warm climate.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0DM17G at no extra
charge.[CC]

SAZERAC COMPANY: Andrews Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILBERT ANDREWS and STEVEN
KAHN, individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. SAZERAC COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01060-AS
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an Order
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b), and (c):

    1. Certifying a class of New York purchasers of Defendant
Sazerac
       Company, Inc.'s Southern Comfort malt beverage as follows:

         All persons who purchased the Southern Comfort Malt
Products
         in the State of New York at any time during the period
Feb.
         8, 2020, to the date of judgment.

    2. Appointing Wilbert Andrews and Steven Khan as
representatives
       of the Class; and

    3. Appointing Reese LLP, Sheehan & Associates, P.C., Bursor &
       Fisher, P.A., and Laukaitis Law LLC as Class Counsel.

Sazerac is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oMgBZc at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles D. Moore, Esq.
          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          121 N. Washington Ave., 4th Floor
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          E-mail: cmoore@reesellp.com
                  mreese@reesellp.com

                - and -

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd., Suite 412
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

                - and -

          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Jenna L. Gavenman, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
                  jgavenman@bursor.com

                - and -

          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
          954 Avenida Ponce De Leon
          Suite 205, 10158
          San Juan, PR 00907
          Telephone: (215) 789-4462
          E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com

SELENE FINANCE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARISSA CRUZ, ROBERT
ALLAN MARTIN, and KATRINA MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. SELENE FINANCE, LP, a Texas
Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-14297-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Parties
ask the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 6(b) & 16(b)(4)
and Local Rule 7.1, extending the current deadline for the
Plaintiffs to file motion for class certification up to and
including May 10, 2024.

    1. On Aug. 16, 2023, the Plaintiffs commenced this class action

       lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial
Circuit
       in and for St. Lucie County, Florida, styled Argona et al.
v.
       Selene Finance, LP, Case No. 562023CA002227AXXXHC.

    2. Selene removed the action to this Court on Sept. 27, 2023.

    3. Following permission from the Court to file the operative
       complaint in this matter, the Plaintiffs filed their Second

       Amended Complaint on Dec. 12, 2023.

    4. In light of the foregoing and pursuant to the Scheduling
Order,
       the Parties agreed to the extension of deadlines for class
       certification and Plaintiffs' motion that are set to occur
       without need to modify further scheduling deadlines at this

       time.

Selene operates as a residential mortgage company.

A copy of the joint's motion dated March 15, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ELjtw1 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sara Accardi, Esq.
          BRADLEY ARANT BOULT
          CUMMINGS LLP
          Thousand & One           
          1001 Water Street, Suite 1000
          Tampa, FL 33602-5809
          Telephone: (813) 559-5500
          Facsimile: (813) 229-5946
          E-mail: saccardi@bradley.com

                - and -

          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN
          BRYSON PHILLIPS
          GROSSMAN, PLLC
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: sharris@milberg.com
                  jcohen@milberg.com

SEOUL SHOPPING: Santana Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Renato R. Santana, Luis Antonio Miszquiri, and Jose Contreras, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SEOUL
SHOPPING, INC., HANSFOOD I CORP d/b/a H & Y MARKETPLACE, and TAEK
SUN HAN, Case No. 1:24-cv-01839 (E.D.N.Y., March 12, 2024), is
brought for damages and equitable relief based upon Defendants'
flagrant and willful violations of Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed to
him by: the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the minimum wage provisions of the New York Labor Law
("NYLL"), the overtime provisions of the FLSA and the NYLL.

Throughout their employment, and as relevant to this Complaint, for
the six-year period pre-dating the commencement of this action,
Defendants required Plaintiffs to work, and Plaintiffs did work,
more than 40 hours per week. However, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs at the overtime rate of pay of one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for each hour that Plaintiffs worked per
week in excess of forty, as the FLSA and the NYLL require.
Furthermore, Defendants failed to timely pay Plaintiffs for all
hours worked, and actually failed to pay Plaintiffs for all hours
they worked. Lastly, Defendants failed to furnish Plaintiff with
accurate and/or complete wage statements on each payday as the NYLL
requires or provide Plaintiffs with a wage notice containing the
criteria enumerated under the NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants.

The Defendants are grocery stores and their owners.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis M. Leon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
          108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 583-7400
          Email: LLeon@Cafaroesq.com


SEPHORA USA: Court Dismisses Clean Beauty Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Kovack, writing for BeautyMatter, reports that class-action
complaints alleging "consumer deception" as it relates to "clean"
beauty claims have plagued the beauty industry. In November 2022,
Sephora found itself in the class-action crosshairs of a law firm
notorious for filing complaints in New York federal court against
major companies for deceptive practices.

Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates, P.C. of Great Neck, New
York, filed a class-action complaint requesting a jury trial filed
in the Northern Federal District Court on behalf of Lindsey
Finster, a resident of Oneida, New York, and "others similarly
situated" over confusion about products sold as "clean" under
Sephora's "Clean at Sephora" program. According to the complaint,
the alleged damages were said to exceed $5 million, including
statutory and punitive damages but excluding interest and costs.

While the path of least resistance might have been to settle rather
than get embroiled in costly litigation, Sephora decided to fight
the complaint. In a motion to dismiss, Sephora argued that allowing
the case to move forward would "leave no word safe from linguistic
manipulation."

On March 15, Judge David Hurd of the US District Court for the
Northern District of New York US sided with Sephora. The 14-page
response stated that the plaintiff "failed to plausibly allege that
Sephora misled reasonable consumers when it marketed and sold its
'Clean at Sephora' cosmetics," or that Sephora "made any explicit
or implied promises that its 'Clean at Sephora' cosmetics were
all-natural and free of any potentially harmful ingredients."

The ruling continued, "The plaintiff's complaint leaves the Court
guessing as to how a reasonable consumer could mistake the 'Clean
at Sephora' labeling and/or marketing to reasonably believe that
the cosmetics contain no synthetic or harmful ingredients. Nowhere
on the label or in the marketing materials the plaintiff cites does
the defendant make any claim that the products are free of all
synthetic or harmful ingredients."

Kelly Bonner, associate at Duane Morris, shared, "I think it was a
relatively straightforward decision for the court. The retailer
very clearly stated its criteria for inclusion in its clean beauty
program -- 'formulated without parabens, sulfates SLS and SLES,
phthalates, mineral oil, formaldehyd, and other identified
ingredients; not 'free from synthetic ingredients.'" Simply because
the retailer's criteria for clean beauty differed from plaintiff's
doesn't make it misleading. It means that currently there are
varying definitions of clean beauty."

Sephora's win, in this case, is also a win for the industry,
drawing a line in the sand and better insulating similar programs
from the threat of consumer complaints seeking lucrative damages
and settlements.

The dismissal of Finster's complaint included leave to amend and
refile by March 29, 2024. [GN]

SHELDON POLLACK: Higher Court Dismisses Medical Malpractice Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has dismissed a medical
malpractice class action lawsuit for delay.

The lawsuit against Dr. Sheldon Victor Pollack was initiated in
2003 by representative plaintiff Anna Barbiero on behalf of 369
patients. The plaintiffs accused Dr. Pollack of negligence for
using an unapproved silicone product for lip augmentation
procedures. The plaintiffs alleged serious physical and emotional
injuries due to Dr. Pollack's treatments.

In Barbiero v. Pollack, 2024 ONSC 1548, the court ruled that the
21-year delay in proceeding with the case was "inordinate" and
"inexcusable," leading to a "substantial risk" that a fair trial
could not be conducted. The court underscored the importance of
timely justice and the potential prejudice to defendants in delayed
litigation.

The case hinged on Dr. Pollack's use of "Injectable Grade Liquid
Silicone" (IGLS), with allegations that he failed to inform
patients of risks and did not obtain informed consent. The class
action sought to prove negligence, battery, and failure to adhere
to the standard of care, claiming that the IGLS used was either an
unauthorized product or not approved for use in Canada.

Despite extensive legal proceedings, including attempts to test the
silicone product in question, the key sample necessary for testing
was eventually lost. The court noted that this significantly
impaired Dr. Pollack's ability to defend against the claims. This
loss and the extensive delay were deemed by the court to be
prejudicial to Dr. Pollack's defence.

The Superior Court highlighted the challenges in managing class
action suits, especially those spanning several decades. The court
noted the potential for new cases, as the dismissal does not
preclude other class members from initiating new actions, given the
suspension of limitation periods under class action proceedings.

Ultimately, the court granted the motion to dismiss the class
action for delay. The court said a dismissal order is necessary to
protect against the presumed and actual prejudice to Dr. Pollack
arising from the evidence before the court. [GN]

SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces New Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit
(the "Class Action") in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee against Shoals Technologies Group,
Inc. ("Shoals" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SHLS) and certain of its
executive officers (collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased Shoals common
stock between May 17, 2022 and November 7, 2023, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class").   The
Class Action filed by Saxena White P.A. is captioned: Westchester
Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefits Fund v.
Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:24-cv-00334 (M.D.
Tenn.).

Shoals, which is headquartered in Portland, Tennessee, purports to
be a leading provider of electrical balance of systems ("EBOS")
products used in generating solar power, among other uses.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants touted the Company's "focus
on quality and reliability" with regard to its EBOS components,
backed up by a warranty Shoals provided customers for its products.
Shoals further highlighted that its products met "stringent quality
requirements" and assured investors throughout the Class Period
that its reported "Cost of Revenue" included costs related to
product warranty liability. In reality, by no later than March
2022, Shoals learned of customers experiencing excessive pull back
of wire insulation, or "shrinkback," in wire harnesses used in the
EBOS products.

The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects in violation of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that:  

     (1) Shoals did not deliver EBOS products that met the highest
levels of quality and reliability;

     (2) Shoals had received reports of exposed copper conduit in
EBOS wire harnesses in a large number of solar fields and was aware
that a significant portion of its wire harnesses had defects;

     (3) Shoals would have to incur between $60 million to $185
million in costs to remediate the wire shrinkback issue; and

     (4) Shoals had understated its cost of revenue by millions of
dollars. As a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's financial guidance, business, operations, and prospects
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.

The truth was revealed after the close of markets on November 7,
2023. That day, Shoals filed its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the third quarter of 2023 with the SEC and held an accompanying
earnings call in which Defendants revealed that the wire shrinkback
issue was far more severe than previously disclosed.  Specifically,
the Company reported that the shrinkback issue affected 30% of
Shoals' harnesses installed between 2020 and 2022, booked a $50.2
million warranty expense for the quarter related to the shrinkback
issue, and provided a range of potential loss related to the
shrinkback issue of $59.7 million to $184.9 million.  In reaction
to these revelations, the price of Shoals' stock dropped $3.28 per
share, or more than 20%, over the next two trading days, from a
closing price of $16.23 per share on November 7, 2023 to a closing
price of $12.95 per share on November 9, 2023, wiping out
approximately $550 million in market capitalization.

If you purchased Shoals common stock during the Class Period and
were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be
able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to
be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee no later
than May 21, 2024. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed
representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery
in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a
recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent
Class member.

You may contact Marco A. Dueñas (mduenas@saxenawhite.com), an
attorney at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action.
You also may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the
Class Action. You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire
about actively joining the Class Action at www.saxenawhite.com.

Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, California,
and Delaware, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting
securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of
injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous
securities fraud class actions nationwide, Saxena White has
recovered billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors.

CONTACT INFORMATION

     Marco A. Dueñas, Esq.
     Saxena White P.A.
     10 Bank Street, Suite 882
     White Plains, New York 10606
     Tel.: (914) 437-8551
     Fax: (888) 631-3611
     Email: mduenas@saxenawhite.com
     www.saxenawhite.com [GN]


SILVERGATE BANK: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Bhatia Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Muchoki, writing for Crypto News Flash, reports that the
collapse of the FTX exchange and its sister firm Alameda Research
in late 2022 heavily impacted the former crypto-friendly bank
Silvergate Capital Corp, the holding company for Silvergate Bank.
As Silvergate opted to wind down its operations early last year, it
was reported that FTX was one of its major customers, and the
regulatory space was not friendly.

Nonetheless, Silvergate announced late last year that it had fully
repaid all the remaining deposit liabilities as the liquidation
process continued. Consequently, the California-based bank
indicated that it only had less than $10,000 in its balance sheet.


However, the latest revelations show Silvergate Capital is not
fully out of the woods, as it faces a glaring class action in the
coming months.

Silvergate's Troubles Escalates

According to a court document filed on March 20, 2024, to the
United States District Judge Bermudez Montenegro from the Southern
District of California, the motion by plaintiff Soham Bhatia and
other members against Silvergate Capital has been granted. Notably,
Silvergate will be defending itself against six charges in the
court of law after Judge Montenegro denied its motion to dismiss
the plaintiff's class action.

". . . Aiding and abetting fraud against all Defendants. Aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty against all Defendants. Unjust
enrichment against the Silvergate Defendants. Aiding and abetting
conversion against all Defendants. Violations of California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California Business and Professions
Code against all Defendants. Negligence against all Defendants,"
the court documents noted.

Judge Montenegro noted that the court finds the matter suitable for
determination without oral presentation. Furthermore, the court
understands that FTX assured its customers that their funds and
assets were stored safely in a segregated bank account only to end
up in a bankrupt condition.

According to the court filing, Silvergate's annual income increased
by a factor of 10 from $7.6 million before the FTX deposits.
Additionally, Silvergate's attempts to deny FTX bank transfers were
late as the majority of the funds had already been moved.

"Silvergate had a strong incentive to continue accepting FTX and
Alameda customer deposits and executing transfers because
Silvergate's business centered around the adoption of the FTX
exchange platform and app. It was foreseeable that allowing FTX
customer funds to be deposited into non-FTX accounts would lead to
fraud and harm the owners of those funds," the court filing further
noted.

Market Impact

The impact of the Silvergate Capital collapse on the cryptocurrency
has significantly faded as demonstrated by the rebound to over $2.6
trillion in market cap. Additionally, Bitcoin price recently
reached its new all-time high around $74k and Solana (SOL), which
was mostly impacted by FTX's implosion, is near its ATH than the
bear market low.

Meanwhile, the cryptocurrency market continues to feel the impact
as global regulatory oversights tighten, with some banks blocking
crypto-related payments. [GN]

SOLVE IT!: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solve It! Think Out
of the Box! The case is styled as Angela Wahab, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Solve It! Think Out of
the Box!, Case No. 1:24-cv-01795-MKV (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2024).

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

Solve It! Think Out of the Box! -- https://www.solveitpuzzles.com/
-- offers lively outpost stocking a wide selection of educational
puzzles in wood & metal as well as games.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


SONDER HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Delaying Financial Results
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Isabelle Kirkwood of Beta Kit reports that Montréal-founded, San
Francisco-headquartered Sonder, which leases and manages a
portfolio of short-term rental units, has announced that it is
delaying the release of its fourth quarter and full year 2023
financial results.

In a March 15 statement, Sonder said it recently identified
"accounting errors related to the valuation and impairment of
operating lease right of use assets and related items for the
fiscal years 2022 and 2023."

Sonder said the errors identified do not relate to cash and will
not impact its reported cash balances or statements of cash flows
during those periods. However, the company said it expects that
correcting the errors will increase its overall net loss and loss
per share during these timeframes.

The firm said it plans to refile its 2022 and 2023 financial
statements "as soon as practicable."

Following the news that it would delay filing, Sonder, which trades
on the Nasdaq, saw its stock fall from $4.55 USD at market open to
$3.65 at press time, a decrease of almost 20 percent.

After Sonder's announcement, shareholder rights law firm Johnson
Fistel, LLP released its own statement on March 18, 2024 announcing
it was commencing a class action investigation into whether Sonder
or any of its executive officers or others violated securities laws
by "misrepresenting or failing to timely disclose material, adverse
information to investors."

Sonder did release some estimated and unaudited results for the
fourth quarter and full year 2023. The startup said it achieved
approximately $164 million in revenue in Q4 2023 and approximately
$603 million for the full year, which would represent a 30 percent
increase in revenue from 2022.

The company estimated an operating cash flow shortfall of about $34
million in the fourth quarter, and approximately $108 million for
the entirety of 2023. Sonder said these figures include the impact
of restructuring and layoffs, plus charges related to lease
terminations. Sonder projected its occupancy rate was 82 percent
for both Q4 and the full year, and it had 12,200 live units at
year-end.

While now based in San Francisco, Sonder's Canadian roots go deep.
The company was founded in Montréal in 2012 by Martin Pecard,
Lucas Pellan, and Francis Davidson under the name Flatbook, and
later moved its headquarters to San Francisco and incorporated in
the US.

Sonder has secured substantial funding throughout its history, and
went public via a special purpose acquisition company in 2022.
However, Sonder has never reached profitability, and has more
recently focused on becoming cash flow positive. This effort has
included layoffs—Sonder reduced its workforce by over 20 percent
in 2022, and cut an additional 100 employees in the spring of 2023.


Last September, Sonder announced it would perform a reverse stock
split, which occurs when a firm consolidates its outstanding shares
into fewer and more valuable shares, without changing its market
capitalization. [GN]

SPECIALIZED LOAN: Birg FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Yuri Birg, Ilana Birg, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Specialized Loan
Servicing LLC, Case No. 2024-CH-00549 was removed from the Cook
County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on March 11, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-02053 to the
proceeding.

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

Specialized Loan Servicing LLC (SLS) -- https://www.sls.net/ -- is
an independent, third-party servicer delivering residential
mortgage products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arthur C. Czaja, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ARTHUR C. CZAJA
          7521 N. Milwaukee Avenue
          Niles, IL 60714
          Phone: (847) 647-2106
          Email: arthur@czajalawoffices.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Edward Keating, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          190 S. LaSalle Street, Ste. 3700
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 499-0137
          Email: ejkeating@duanemorris.com


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Dismissal of Consolidated Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2024, that on August 21,
2023, a consolidated securities litigation over alleged violations
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the company, its Chief
Executive Officer, Tom Gentile III, former Chief Financial Officer,
Jose Garcia, and former Controller (principal accounting officer),
John Gilson, for violations of the Exchange Act, has been
dismissed. The Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal.

On February 10, 2020, February 24, 2020, and March 24, 2020, three
separate private securities class action lawsuits were filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma, together with Gentile, Garcia, and Gilson. On
April 20, 2020, the Class Actions were consolidated by the court
and on July 20, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint which added Shawn Campbell, the company's former
Vice President for the B737NG and B737 MAX program, as a
defendant.

On August 21, 2023, the Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of
the Consolidated Class Action.

Spirit AeroSystems Holdings provides manufacturing and design
expertise in a wide range of fuselage, propulsion, and wing
products and services for aircraft original equipment manufacturers
and operators through its subsidiaries including Spirit.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Securities Suit Over Plane Design Flaws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for he
fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 21, 2024, that on May 3, 2023, a
private securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
company, its Chief Executive Officer, Tom Gentile III, and its
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Mark J.
Suchinski. An Amended Complaint was filed on December 19, 2023.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of certain purchasers of
securities of the company, who allege purported misstatements and
omissions concerning alleged faulty production controls and the
alleged incorrect installation of fittings on certain B737 MAX
planes. The specific claims in the Securities Class Action include
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants. Lead plaintiff and counsel in the b737 securities class
action have not yet been appointed.

Spirit AeroSystems Holdings provides manufacturing and design
expertise in a wide range of fuselage, propulsion, and wing
products and services for aircraft original equipment manufacturers
and operators through its subsidiaries including Spirit.


SSR MINING: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Information
---------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against SSR
Mining, Inc. ("SSR Mining" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SSRM). The
lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse
information regarding the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, including allegations that: (1) Defendants materially
overstated SSR Mining's commitment to safety and the efficacy of
its safety measures; and (2) SSR Mining engaged in unsafe mining
practices which were reasonably likely to result in a mining
disaster.

If you bought SSR Mining shares February 23, 2022 and February 27,
2024, and suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are
encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey Holzer,
Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at
(888)-508-6832 or, you may visit the firm's website at
www.holzerlaw.com/case/ssr-mining/ to learn more.

The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is May 17, 2024.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021 and 2022, dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content. 

CONTACT:

     Corey Holzer, Esq.
     Holzer & Holzer, LLC
     211 Perimeter Center Pkwy NE Suite 1010
     Atlanta, GA 30346
     (888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
     cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]

STRENGTH20 LLC: Pimentel Seeks Conditional Status of Collective
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Emmanuel Pimentel, et al.,
v. Strength20, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00544-JLB-KCD (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   (1) granting conditional certification of the collective action

       under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA");

   (2) expediting discovery production by the Defendants, within 15

       days of the Court's Order, of a complete list of each and
every
       person or entity – and their last known home address,
telephone
       number, and email addresses – who was ever contracted or
       employed directly or indirectly to provide armed or unarmed

       security guard services to protect disaster-stricken
properties
       in locations in and around, or near, Sanibel Island, Florida

       and Ft. Myers Beach, Florida as alleged in the underlying
       Second Amended Complaint following the destruction
occasioned
       by landfall of Hurricane Ian in the fall of 2022. This
includes
       all persons who provided security services directly or
       indirectly to, on behalf of, or for the benefit of any of
the
       Defendants named in the Second Amended Complaint;

   (3) requiring each Defendant to format and produce on an
expedited
       basis said list, both in hard copy and electronically in an

       editable Excel spreadsheet, organized alphabetically from
"A"
       to "Z", with each person's last known home address,
telephone
       number, and email addresses in separate fields corresponding

       with each name; and

   (4) permitting the Plaintiffs' counsel to mail a Court-Approved

       Notice to all such persons informing them of their rights to

       opt-in to this collective action by filing a Consent to Join

       lawsuit.

On July 23, 2023, "the Named Plaintiff Security Guards" originally
filed this lawsuit, as collective action alleging minimum wage and
overtime violations under the FLSA, under related statutory
violations under the Florida Minimum Wage Act ("FMWA"), and under
common law theories of liability.

The Complaint was subsequently amended with the "Second Amended
FLSA Complaint" such that the operative pleading now alleges
federal
and state statutory and common law causes of action against the
Defendants.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 18, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8fGGAL at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
          6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
          Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 665-9211
          E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com
                  faz@laborlawfla.com

                - and -

          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com
                  mbassett@forthepeople.com
                  yparrales@forthepeople.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          GLOBAL STRATEGIES CONSULTANT GROUP,
          CORP.
          500 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1710
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394

                - and -

          Carlos Aguilar, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CARLOS AGUILAR
          3760 Bird Road, Unit 404
          Miami, FL 33146
          Telephone: (305) 484-3991
          E-mail: globalstrategiescgcorp@gmail.com
                  aguilarc287@gmail.com

                - and -

          Jack C. Morgan III, Esq.
          Scott J. Hertz, Esq.
          ALOIA ROLAND LUBELL & MORGAN PLLC
          2222 Second Street
          Fort Myers, FL 33901
          Telephone: (239) 791-7950
          E-mail: JMorgan@lawdefined.com
                  KTurner@lawdefined.com
                  MPotts@lawdefined.com
                  JCMService@lawdefined.com
                  shertz@lawdefined.com
                  dosnac@lawdefined.com
                  sjhservice@lawdefined.com

SUNDAY IN BROOKLYN: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunday in Brooklyn IP
LLC. The case is styled as Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, v. Sunday in Brooklyn IP LLC,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01783 (E.D.N.Y., March 11, 2024).

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

Sunday in Brooklyn -- https://www.sundayinbrooklyn.com/ -- is a
restaurant located in Williamsburg in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


SUNFOOD CORPORATION: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunfood Corporation.
Think Out of the Box! The case is styled as Angela Wahab, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Sunfood
Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-01791 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2024).

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

Sunfood Corporation -- https://www.sunfood.com/ -- offers certified
organic raw food & healthy superfoods since 1995.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


TENNESSEE ORTHOPAEDIC: Settles Class Action Suit Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Adler, writing for The HIPAA Journal, reports that Knoxville,
TN-based Tennessee Orthopaedic Clinics has agreed to settle a class
action lawsuit that was filed in response to a March 2023
cyberattack and data breach that affected 46,679 individuals. The
information exposed included names, contact information, dates of
birth, diagnosis and treatment information, provider names, dates
of service, cost of services, prescription information, and/or
health insurance information.

The affected individuals were notified about the breach in early
May, and a class action lawsuit was rapidly filed that claimed
Tennessee Orthopaedic Clinics was negligent by failing to implement
reasonable and appropriate cybersecurity measures. According to the
lawsuit, the data breach could have been prevented if those
measures had been implemented. Tennessee Orthopaedic Clinics chose
to settle the lawsuit with no admission of wrongdoing to avoid
further legal costs and the uncertainty of trial. Under the terms
of the settlement, individuals who were notified about the data
breach may submit claims for ordinary expenses such as
communication charges, credit expenses, bank fees, and lost time
(max 3 hours at $20 per hour) up to a maximum of $1,500.

Claims of up to $4,000 may also be submitted for documented
extraordinary expenses such as losses due to fraud or identity
theft between March 20, 2023, and April 8, 2024, provided the
claimant made reasonable efforts to avoid those losses and those
losses have not already been reimbursed. All class members are also
entitled to two years of single bureau credit monitoring and
identity theft protection services. The deadline for exclusion or
objection to the settlement has passed, and the final approval
hearing was scheduled for March 14, 2024. Class members wishing to
submit claims must do so by April 8, 2024. [GN]

TENNESSEE ORTHOPAEDIC: Settles Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Tennessee Orthopaedic Clinics agreed
to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it
failed to protect consumer information from a 2023 data breach.

The settlement benefits individuals to whom Tennessee Orthopaedic
Clinics sent a data breach notification informing them their
information may have been affected in a March 2023 cyber incident.

Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim Tennessee Orthopaedic
Clinics could have prevented the March 2023 data breach by
implementing reasonable cybersecurity measures but negligently
failed to do so. Because of this negligence, hackers allegedly
gained access to sensitive consumer information.

Tennessee Orthopaedic Clinics is a network of orthopedic clinics in
Tennessee that help treat bone and joint conditions.

Tennessee Orthopaedic Clinics hasn't admitted wrongdoing but agreed
to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the data breach class action
lawsuit.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive up to
$1,500 for ordinary expenses such as bank fees, communication
charges, credit expenses and up to three hours of lost time at a
rate of $20 per hour if they spent at least one full hour dealing
with the data breach.

Class members can also receive up to $4,000 for documented
extraordinary data breach-related losses, including monetary losses
incurred due to fraud or identity theft, that occurred between
March 20, 2023, and April 8, 2024. The class member must have made
reasonable efforts to avoid or seek reimbursement for the
extraordinary losses.

All class members are eligible for two years of free one-bureau
credit monitoring that includes identity theft restoration
services.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 8, 2024.

The final approval hearing for the Tennessee Orthopaedic Clincs
settlement is scheduled for March 14, 2024.

Class members must submit a valid claim form by April 8, 2024, to
receive settlement benefits.
Who's Eligible

Individuals to whom Tennessee Orthopaedic Clinics sent a data
breach notification by informing them their information may have
been affected in a March 2023 cyber incident
Potential Award

$5,500
Proof of Purchase

Bank statements, account statements, bills, receipts, IRS letters,
police reports and other documentation
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

04/08/2024
Case Name

Bandy v. TOC Enterprises Inc. d/b/a Tennessee Orthopaedic Clinics,
et al., Case No. 3:23-CV-00598, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee
Final Hearing

03/14/2024
Settlement Website

TOCSettlement.com
Claims Administrator

Bandy v. TOC Enterprises, Inc.
Settlement Administrator
PO Box 5017
Portland, OR 97208-5017
info@TOCsettlement.com
888-928-4179
Class Counsel

Gary E Mason
Lisa A White
Danielle L Perry
MASON LLP

Kathryn H Walker
Taylor M Sample
BASS BERRY & SIMS PLC
Defense Counsel

Casie D Collignon
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP [GN]

TERVIS TUMBLER: General Pretrial Management Entered in Herrera
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDERY HERRERA, v. TERVIS
TUMBLER COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-01739-JHR-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.

Parties and counsel are cautioned:

   1. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must
be
      initiated in timeto be concluded by the close of discovery
set
      by the Court.

   2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
      discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need
for
      such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil
Rule
      37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.


   3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
conferences
      are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe

      that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the
need
      for a motion or narrow the issues.

   4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
proceeding
      (including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a
      deadline must be made in writing and in compliance with
section
      2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone
requests
      for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained.

Tervis is an American manufacturer of double-walled, insulated
tumblers.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5AMYxJ at no extra
charge.[CC]

THEMIS BAR REVIEW: Sahagun Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Sahagun, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THEMIS BAR REVIEW, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02065 (N.D.
Ill., March 12, 2024), is brought in response to Defendant's
practice of knowingly disclosing its users' personally identifiable
information ("PII") and video viewing activity to Facebook without
their consent in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act
("VPPA") and the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA").

This is a class action suit brought on behalf of all persons with
Facebook accounts who have purchased test preparation services from
themisbar.com, a website owned and operated by Themis Bar Review,
LLC. Specifically, themisbar.com uses code called the Facebook
Tracking Pixel to track what videos its users watch, and to then
send that data to Facebook along with their PII, including their
name and email address. The sharing of that data without consent of
Plaintiff or other consumers constitutes a violation of the VPPA
and the CIPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff created a Facebook account in 2016 and on September
27, 2022 enrolled for a bar preparation course on themisbar.com.

The Defendant owns and operates themisbar.com, which is used
throughout Illinois and the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
          NICK LARRY LAW LLC
          1720 W. Division St.
          Chicago, IL 60622
          Phone: 773.694.4669
          Email: nick@nicklarry.law

               - and -

          Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1330 Avenue of Americas, 32nd Fl.
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Fax: (212) 989-9163
          Email: jarisohn@bursor.com
                 pfraietta@bursor.com
                 aleslie@bursor.com


TIKTOK INC: Bravo Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TikTok, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Anibeth Bravo, Katie Murphy, Artemis Buckley,
Melanie Tado, Austin Recht, Carina Fleming, E. K., through her/his
guardian, Shloma Kaller, Yevgeniy S. Androshchuk, Maritza Albaran,
G. R., a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Mayra De La
Cruz, Michael Moody, Grace Schulte, Bradley Fugok, Adam KStorey,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. TikTok, Inc., ByteDance, Inc., Douyin Ltd. also known
as: Bytedance Ltd., Case No. 1:24-cv-02110 (N.D. Ill., March 15,
2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

TikTok -- https://www.tiktok.com/en/ -- is the world's leading
destination for short-form mobile videos.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Phone: (212) 643-0500
          Email: mreese@reesellp.com


TINDER INC: Froelich Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Bridget Froelich, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. TINDER, INC., Case No.
2024CH00824 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on March 12, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-02075.

On February 8, 2024, the Plaintiff filed in a three-count class
action complaint, asserting claims for violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). The Plaintiff claims
that when she uploaded photos to the Tinder service, Defendant
collected her biometric facial identifiers without her
authorization, and without informing her of Defendant's data
retention policy. The Plaintiff also claims that Defendant
"disclosed, redisclosed, or otherwise disseminated" her biometric
information without her consent, without authorization to complete
a financial transaction on her behalf, and not pursuant to a valid
warrant or subpoena or other applicable legal obligation. Based on
this alleged conduct, Plaintiff claims that Defendant violated
BIPA.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nicola Menaldo, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101-3099
          Phone: 206.359.8000
          Email: NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Hayden M. Schottlaender, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3300
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: 214.965.7700
          Email: HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Daniel T. Burley, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          110 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3400
          Chicago, IL 60606-1511
          Phone: 312.324.8400
          Email: DBurley@perkinscoie.com


TKO HOLDINGS: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Class Suit for $335-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dotun Akintoye, writing for ESPN.com, reports that TKO Holdings,
the parent company for the UFC, has reached a $335 million
settlement in two class action antitrust lawsuits filed by fighters
seeking better pay.

The settlement was agreed to March 13, a little more than a month
before a trial was set to begin in the U.S. District Court of the
District of Nevada on April 15, according to a U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

In their lawsuits, the plaintiffs had alleged the UFC was an
illegal monopsony that used anti-competitive practices to suppress
fighter wages and stifle rival promotions. The lawsuits, one of
which represented more than 1,200 individuals, spanned fighters who
competed in the UFC from Dec. 16, 2010, to June 30, 2017, and from
July 1, 2017 to 2021. The plaintiffs had initially sought up to
$1.6 billion in damages.

"We are pleased to have reached an agreement to settle all claims
asserted in both the [Cung] Le and [Kajan] Johnson class action
lawsuits, bringing litigation to a close and benefiting all
parties," a UFC spokesman said in a statement to ESPN. "The final
terms of the settlement will be submitted to the court for
approval."

The plaintiffs also released a statement on X, writing, in part:
"We are pleased with the settlement and will disclose more when we
file with the Court in 45-60 days." [GN]

TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Kesselman Due July 19
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLENN KESSELMAN, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
et al. v.  TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California
corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-06010-TJH-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. entered an order granting the
stipulation to continue deadlines as follows:

   1. All deadlines related to briefing and discovery in the
Court's
      class certification briefing order and the final pretrial
      conference date in the Court's Nov. 15, 2023, Order are
vacated.

   2. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion(s) for class
      Certification on or before July 19, 2024.

   3. The Defendants shall have until Aug. 30, 2024, to take the
      deposition of any expert disclosed in connection with
      Plaintiffs' motion(s) for class certification.

   4. The Defendants shall file their opposition(s) to any
motion(s)
      for class certification on or before sept. 27, 2024.

   5. The Plaintiffs shall have until Nov. 8, 2024 to take the
      deposition of any expert disclosed in connection with the
      Defendants' opposition(s) to any motion(s) for class
      certification.

Toyota is the North American Toyota sales, marketing, and
distribution subsidiary devoted to the United States market.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OXfRxR at no extra
charge.[CC]

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT: Schenk Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Traffic Management,
Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Schenk, on behalf of herself
and other similarly situated v. Traffic Management, Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2024-0002953 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., March
8, 2024).

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

Traffic Management, Inc. -- https://www.trafficmanagement.com/ --
is a full service traffic management company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aleksandra Urban, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
          Phone: 310-432-0000
          Fax: 310-432-0001


TRANSAMERICA CORP: Smith Appeals Suit Dismissal to 5th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Velma Smith filed an appeal from the District Court's
Judgment dated February 5, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled VELMA
SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. TRANSAMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Case No.
3:23-cv-00357-KHJ-MTP, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson.

This case arises from an insurance dispute. In 2013, JCPenney
offered its credit card holders an opportunity to purchase a group
hospital indemnity policy issued by Transamerica Life Insurance
Company. The policies of insurance between Defendants and Plaintiff
and the other proposed class members are binding contracts under
Mississippi law, supported by valid consideration in the form of
premium payments in exchange for insurance coverage.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached their contractual
duty to timely adjust the claims and pay Plaintiff and members of
the proposed class. The Defendants' actions in breaching its
contractual obligations, are the direct and proximate cause of
damages to Plaintiff and members of the proposed class. In light of
this, the Plaintiff and members of the proposed class are sought to
recover damages sufficient to make them whole for all amounts
Defendants unlawfully withheld or interest for untimely delay in
payment, says the suit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Kristi H.
Johnson entered an Order on February 5:

-- Granting Penney OpCo and TAIC's Motions to dismiss without
prejudice.

-- Granting TCS eServe's motion to dismiss with prejudice.

-- Granting Transamerica and AEGON's Motion to Dismiss with
prejudice as to Transamerica and without prejudice as to AEGON.

On the same day, the Court issued a final judgment consistent with
the said Order which was signed by Judge Johnson.

The appellate case is captioned as Smith v. Aegon USA, Case No.
24-60115, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, filed on March 8, 2024.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Velma Smith, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          David Malcolm McMullan, Jr., Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          404 Court Square, N.
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488

               - and -

          Richard C. Williams, Jr., Esq.
          UPSHAW WILLIAMS BIGGERS & BECKHAM, L.L.P.
          713 S. Pear Orchard Road
          Ridgeland, MS 39158
          Telephone: (601) 978-1996

               - and -

          Gary McKay Yarborough, Jr., Esq.
          YARBOROUGH LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          845-B Highway 90
          Bay Saint Louis, MS 39520-0000
          Telephone: (228) 467-5771

Defendants-Appellees Aegon USA, L.L.C., doing business as
Transamerica; Transamerica Life Insurance Company; Aegon Direct
Marketing Services, Incorporated, formerly known as Aegon Special
Marketing Services, Incorporated; Penney OpCo, L.L.C., doing
business as JCPenney, formerly known as JC Penney, Incorporated;
TCS e-Serve International Limited; Tata Consultancy Services
Limited; and Tata American International Corporation, are
represented by:

          Markham R. Leventhal, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
          1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 965-8189

               - and -

          Haley Fowler Gregory, Esq.
          BUTLER SNOW, L.L.P.
          P.O. Box 6010
          Ridgeland, MS 39158
          Telephone: (601) 985-4458

               - and -

          Thomas Ray Julian, Esq.
          DANIEL COKER HORTON & BELL, P.A.
          P.O. Box 1084
          Jackson, MS 39215-1084
          Telephone: (601) 969-7607

TRINITY UNIVERSAL: Butler Files Suit in N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trinity Universal
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Tony Butler, Jr., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Trinity
Universal Insurance Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-00602-B (N.D. Tex.,
March 12, 2024).

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

Trinity Universal Insurance Company operates as an insurance
company. The Company offers property and casualty insurance
products and 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


TTI CONSUMER POWER: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TTI Consumer Power
Tools, Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. TTI Consumer
Power Tools, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00216-LJV (W.D.N.Y., March 12,
2024).

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

Techtronic Industries (TTI) -- https://www.ttigroup.com/ -- is a
world-class leader in power tools, accessories, hand tools, outdoor
power equipment, as well as floorcare & cleaning.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal

               - and -

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP
          122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620
          New York, NY 10168
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


UNICORN WEALTH: Fernandez Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Antonio Fernandez, individually and behalf of
all similarly situated v. UNICORN WEALTH, a Florida limited
liability company; and DOES 1-50 Inclusive, Case No. 2024CV30238
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on March 10, 2024, and assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-00469-BAS-DEB.

The Plaintiff's lawsuit presents a federal question by asserting
claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On March 1,
2024, Plaintiff filed and served his First Amended Complaint
("FAC"). the Plaintiff's FAC alleges that Unicorn's advertising and
marketing disclosures violate California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act. the Plaintiff further alleges that Unicorn's website
disclosures violate the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
because Unicorn engaged in a telemarketing campaign to encourage
the Plaintiff and other consumers to purchase Unicorn's products
via subscription without first receiving their prior express
written consent.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ryan M. Poteet, Esq.
          Timothy K. Branson, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP
          101 W Broadway, Ste. 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 696-6700
          Facsimile: (619) 693-7124
          Email: rpoteet@grsm.com
                 tbranson@grsm.com


UNITED STATES: $125MM Deal in Pacer Court System Suit Granted OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Knappenberger, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge approved a $125 million settlement deal in a
class action, ordering the reimbursement for eligible users of the
Pacer electronic court system.

The suit, brought by the National Veterans Legal Services Program,
National Consumer Law Center and Alliance for Justice argued that
the government had wrongfully charged excessive fees -- by law only
meant to cover the cost of providing records -- to cover unrelated
projects.

According to the plaintiffs' suit, initially brought in 2016, the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts had used the excessive
fees through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records system
to cover the costs of installing audio systems to flat-screen
televisions for jurors.

As of 2016, the government had additionally increased Pacer fees
twice since 2002, when Congress passed the E-Government Act to
limit costs for users, the plaintiffs said, placing further hurdles
in the way of public access to the nation's judicial system.

U.S. Senior District Judge Paul Friedman noted Pacer's -- and the
case's -- long and fraught history in an opinion.

"For over 15 years, Pacer fees . . .  have been a subject of
controversy," the Bill Clinton appointee wrote. "As a result of the
litigation in this case, the United States will return over $100
million of these fees to users of Pacer. This litigation
substantially comes to a close."

Friedman noted that when Congress passed the E-Commerce Act 22
years ago, Pacer fees were set at $0.07 per page.

"But Pacer fees continued to rise," Friedman said, at first by a
single cent, to $0.08 per page in 2005. At the time, the director
of the judicial Administrative Office pointed to "congressional
guidance that the judiciary is expected to use Pacer fee revenue to
fund CM/ECF operations and maintenance."

Friedman pointed out in his opinion that by 2006, the judiciary had
raised $32.2 million of excess revenue from Pacer fees and expanded
the sorts of programs funded by the fees.

Such programs included courtroom technology upgrades, an online
"Jury Management System," a Violent Crime Control Act notification
system and a study to assess the feasibility of adding state court
documents to the system.

The fees increased again in 2012 to $0.10 per page, where the fees
stand today.

Between fiscal years 2010 and 2016, Friedman said, the judiciary
collected over $920 million in Pacer fees, with the total amount
collected each year in 2010 around $102.5 million and increasing to
$146.4 million by 2016.

Throughout the nearly decadelong litigation, the government
insisted the E-Government Act should be interpreted more broadly to
allow the judiciary to charge fees "as it deems necessary" and make
the additional funding categories lawful. Former U.S. District
Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, also a Clinton appointee, presided over
the case until her retirement, after which Friedman took over.

The plaintiffs argued the statute barred the judiciary from
charging more in fees "than is necessary to recoup the total
marginal costs of operating Pacer."

Huvelle rejected both arguments, finding the government's too broad
and the plaintiffs' too narrow. She ruled that the judiciary was
justified in using the fees to cover costs of managing the
electronic filing systems, but should not have used them to fund
studies and technology upgrades.

"Using Pacer fees for these expenses was improper because the
programs failed to further 'the public's ability to access
information on the federal court's CM/ECF docketing system,'"
Huvelle wrote at the time.

Both parties appealed Huvelle's decision to the Federal Circuit. In
August 2020, the appeals court affirmed, saying Huvelle "got it
just right" in her determination that Congress had limited fees to
just cover electronic docketing fees, not studies and upgrades.

The case was remanded to the lower court, where both parties moved
to settle the suit, agreeing upon the $125 million figure in May
2021 with the help of a mediator, reaching a final agreement in
April 2023.

In July, a claims administrator sent a settlement notice to over
500,000 Pacer account holders, with 80% of the total $125 million,
or $100 million, to be distributed. The remaining 20% -- $25
million -- was set aside for attorney's fees, litigation expenses
and service awards to the named plaintiffs, with a $10,000 limit on
the awards per plaintiff.

Each account holder will either be allocated $350, or the exact
amount they paid during the relevant class period if less. Those
who paid more will also receive a pro rata allocation from the
remaining common fund.

The settlement will be disbursed by a claims administrator who will
use the records of Pacer account holders to identify members and
distribute the payments. [GN]

UNITED STATES: CCWP Wins Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR
WOMEN PRISONERS, ET AL., v. UNITED STATES, ET AL., Case No.
4:23-cv-04155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers entered an order:

-- Granting the motion for class certification; and

-- Granting in part and denying in part the motion for a
preliminary
    injunction.

The Court ordered the parties to appear before it on Friday,
March 15, 2024, at 3:00 p.m.

The Court will issue a supplemental order on the requested relief
after that hearing.

The Court issues these, and other anticipated Orders so that the
constitutional rights of those imprisoned at the prison are no
longer at significant risk. The Court shall appoint a special
master forthwith. The Court will issue further Orders narrowly
tailored to address the ongoing retaliation which has resulted from
the convictions and sentencings of five prison officials, including
the previous warden, for criminal sexual abuse and sexual contact.


Given the record presented and the Court's personal observations,
further magnified by recent events, the Court finds the Bureau of
Prison ("BOP") has proceeded sluggishly with intentional disregard
of the inmates' constitutional rights despite being fully apprised
of the situation for years. The repeated installation of BOP
leadership who fail to grasp and address the situation strains
credulity. The Court is compelled to intercede.

The Plaintiffs move to certify a class of "all people who are now,
or will be in the future, incarcerated at Federal Correctional
Institute ("FCI") Dublin and subject to FCI Dublin's uniform
policies, customs, and practices concerning sexual assault,
including those policies, customs, and practices related to care in
the aftermath of an assault and protection from retaliation for
reporting an assault."

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Defendants
the United States of America; BOP; BOP Director Colette Peters; and
the FCI Dublin Warden.

In August of 2023, the Plaintiffs concurrently filed their motion
for a preliminary injunction and class certification.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sUI6YU at no extra
charge.[CC]

UNITED STATES: Court Tosses Tucker Class Suit with Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIUS KENTRELL TUCKER,
and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND STATE OF ILLINOIS, Case No.
3:23-cv-03877-SMY (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Staci Yandle entered
an order dismissing the Complaint with prejudice for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

-- The Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend complaint is denied.

-- The Clerk's Office is directed to close this case and enter
    judgment accordingly.

As an initial matter, Tucker seeks to bring a class action.
However, he is not represented by counsel and cannot pursue claims
on behalf of a class of plaintiffs. Therefore, his request for
class certification is denied

In sum, the Complaint does not survive screening under 28 U.S.C.
section 1915A and will be dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.

Mr. Tucker is an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections
(IDOC) and is currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center.
He filed this action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and
the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Tucker challenges his conviction and sentence for felony murder and
seeks release from confinement and money damages on behalf of all
inmates serving a sentence for felony murder in the State of
Illinois.

A copy of the Court's memorandum & order dated March 14, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k38uuk
at no extra charge.[CC]

UNITED STATES: Etzenhouser Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW J. ETZENHOUSER and
TAIGA S. ROHRER (On behalf of themselves and a class of similarly
situated individuals), v. THOMAS J. VILSACK, SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, In his official and individual
capacities, JEWEL H. BRONAUGH, FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, In her individual capacity, and U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Case No. 1:23-cv-03539-JMC (D.D.C.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court to extend the deadline for their response
to the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion from March
18, 2024, to April 1, 2024.

The Plaintiffs have conferred with opposing counsel for both
individual-capacity and official-capacity Defendants who have
indicated they do not oppose this motion.

The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on Feb.
26, 2024. Counsel for Individual-Capacity Defendants and
Official-Capacity Defendants filed their opposition briefs on March
11, 2024, and the Plaintiffs' response brief is due today, March
18, 2024.

The Plaintiffs' have multiple conflicting deadlines in other
matters due today (and this week) and counsel for the Defendants
have indicated they do not oppose granting the Plaintiffs more time
to fully respond to the Defendants' arguments in their opposition
motions.

United States Department of Agriculture is the federal executive
department responsible for developing and executing federal laws
related to farming, forestry, rural economic development, and
food.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 18, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1jKR0U at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Scott Lloyd, Esq.
          LLOYD, LEMMON, & HALE, PLLC
          15 Chester Street
          Front Royal, VA 22630
          Telephone: (540) 823-1110
          E-mail: scott@lloydlemmonhale.com

UNITED SUGAR: Faces Another Class Suit Over Sugar Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Sterk, writing for foodbusinessnews.net, reports that a
proposed anti-trust class-action lawsuit filed March 19 accuses
several major US sugar producers and others of artificially
inflating granulated sugar prices and seeks unspecified triple
damages among other things and demands a jury trial.

The case, Morelos Bakery LLC v. United Sugar Producers & Refiners
Cooperative et al (No. 0:24-cv-00966) was filed in US District
Court in the District of Minnesota by Morelos Bakery LLC, based in
St. Paul, Minn., on behalf of themselves and "all others similarly
situated."

The court documents filed in the Morelos Bakery case are similar to
those filed March 14 by KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. v ASR Group
International Inc. et al, in the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York (No. 1:24-cv-01941). Indications were a third
similar lawsuit also was filed, with the various lawsuits including
Great Harvest Bread in Duluth, Minn., and Connecticut restaurant
group WNT in addition to Morelos Bakery and KPH Healthcare.

Defendants named in both the Morelos Bakery and KPH Healthcare
cases include ASR Group International, Inc., American Sugar
Refining, Inc., Domino Foods, Inc., United Sugar Producers &
Refiners Cooperative F/K/A United Sugars Corp., Michigan Sugar Co.,
Commodity Information, Inc., and Richard Wistisen. The Morelos
Bakery case adds Cargill as a defendant.

"Since at least as early as Jan. 1, 2019, defendants and their
co-conspirators conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain and
stabilize prices for granulated sugar sold throughout the United
States," the Morelos court filing alleges, among other accusations.
The court filing said Morelos Bakery "purchased granulated sugar
indirectly from one or more defendants in Connecticut and suffered
antitrust injury as a result."

At least three of the defendants named said they believe the cases
were without merit and they would vigorously defend themselves from
"baseless accusations," without further commenting on the
litigation.

The plaintiff asks the court to certify the action as a class
action; adjudge and decree that the acts of defendants "are illegal
and unlawful . . . a per se violation of various state antitrust
and competition laws as alleged;" permanently enjoin and restrain
defendants (and others) from continuing in the alleged activities;
grant treble the amount of alleged (unspecified) damages; grant
further relief as the court deems just and appropriate; and demands
a trial by jury. [GN]

UNITY SOFTWARE: Wins Shareholders' Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes of Bloomberg Law reports that Unity Software Inc., and
two of its largest shareholders won dismissal, for now, of a
securities class action alleging they made misstatements and
omissions to investors about its "audience pinpointer" tool.

Unity offers graphic tools to create, run, and monetize real-time
2D and 3D content for mobile phones, tablets, PCs, consoles, and
augmented and virtual reality devices. Audience pinpointer is
intended to help advertisers work around user data protections
built into the latest iPhone models.

The lead plaintiffs Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System and Indiana Public Retirement System alleged that Unity,
Silver Lake Group LLC, and Sequoia. [GN]

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA: Sangster Sues Over Denial of All Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sangster, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA, Case No. 3:24-cv-00043-ARS
(D.N.D., March 14, 2024), is brought on behalf of similarly
situated Flight Instructors and in similar job titles, and were
denied all wages including overtime compensation as required by
federal wage and hour laws. These employees are similarly situated
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Defendant's policy and practice is to deny earned wages
including hourly pay, and overtime pay to its Flight Instructors.
In particular, Defendant requires these employees to perform work
which includes work in excess of 40 hours per week, but fails to
pay them their hourly rates, and overtime compensation for all
hours worked. The Defendant's deliberate illegal treatment of its
Flight Instructors which denies them their hourly pay, and overtime
compensation results in Defendant violating the FLSA and North
Dakota wage laws. The Defendant's illegal wages practices are
systematic such that Defendant committed similar wage violations at
its Mesa, Arizona flight training facility, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly paid
Flight Instructor from October 2019 through November 2021.

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA is a public university located in Grand
Forks, North Dakota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
          ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
          8201 Mission Road, Suite 250
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Phone: (913) 766-5585
          Fax: (816) 875-5069
          Email: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com
          Web: www.rmlegalgroup.com


UTAH SELL NOW: James Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Utah Sell Now LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Chelsea James, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Utah Sell Now LLC doing business
as: Joe Homebuyer, Joe Home Buyer AZ LLC, Offer Arizona LLC doing
business as: Joe Homebuyer Arizona, JHB Gateway Holdings
Incorporated doing business as: Joe Homebuyer, Case No.
2:24-cv-00540-SPL (D. Ariz., March 14, 2024).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Utah Sell Now, LLC -- https://www.utahsellnow.com/ -- provide
win-win solutions to help homeowners who want to sell their homes
quickly.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander D. Kruzyk, Esq.
          Bryan A. Giribaldo, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: (512) 425-4036
          Email: akruzyk@pkglegal.com
                 bgiribaldo@pkglegal.com


UTAH: Hansen Files Class Action Over State's Parole Procedures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Spiewak, writing for kjzz.com, reports that David Hansen, a man
who has spent a substantial portion of his life behind bars in
Utah, is advocating to alter in the state's Board of Pardons and
Parole procedures.

Having recently had his sentence terminated, Hansen is at the
forefront of a class action lawsuit, challenging what he describes
as the state's "bait and switch" tactics to regain his freedom.

In the lawsuit filed this week in federal court, Hansen argues that
the conditions of an agreement, reached decades prior, and the laws
at the time of the plea deal, should remain binding, despite legal
amendments.

According to his attorney, Daniel Baczynski, Hansen's plea deal
dates back to the early 1980s when he pled guilty to second-degree
murder, under the premise that post-parole good behavior over three
years would end in the termination of his sentence., emphasizing
Hansen's reliance on the original agreement at the time of his
guilty plea.

However, in 2008, Baczynski said the law changed and Hansen faced
resistance from the parole board to terminate his sentence, despite
fulfilling his parole obligations.

"At that point, seven years after his release, they say no," said
Baczynski, highlighting the struggle that eventually led to the
termination of Hansen's sentence.

The outcome of this class action suit could set a precedent
impacting many.

Skye Lazaro, a criminal defense attorney not involved in the case
says, "If he prevails on behalf of this class, I can't imagine how
many people this is going to affect."

Lazaro points out the constitutional prohibition against imposing
harsher penalties post-sentencing.

A spokesperson for the Board of Pardons and Parole sent 2News the
following statement:

"The Board of Pardons and Parole is aware of the complaint that was
removed to federal court this week. We, however, do not comment on
pending litigation." [GN]

VAL GROUP INTERNATIONAL: Herrera Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Val Group
International Inc. The case is styled as Edery Herrera, on behalf
of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Val Group
International Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01815-LGS (S.D.N.Y., March 8,
2024).

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

Val Group International Inc. -- http://valgroupinternational.com/
-- are a company dedicated to provide personnel and human resources
throughout the United States in projects associated with
construction, demolition and other services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VALE SA: Faces Class Suit Over 2015 Mariana Dam Collapse in Brazil
------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Brief reports that proceedings against Vale SA and Samarco
Iron Ore Europe have been brought by law firms Pogust Goodhead and
Lemstra Van der Korst in the Netherlands, by almost 80,000
claimants over the 2015 Mariana dam collapse in Brazil.

The numbers: Pogust Goodhead said it would request compensation of
over US$3.8 billion ($5.82 billion) in the Dutch case for claimants
including 77,000 individuals, almost 1,000 businesses and seven
municipalities. The dam collapse killed 19 people and polluted
hundreds of kilometres of waterways in south-east Brazil.

The context: The Dutch claim was brought by a not-for-profit
foundation in the Netherlands, and was launched after lawyers
attached the shares that Vale holds in its Dutch subsidiary. The
asset attachment was made to ensure assets are ringfenced in the
event of a successful outcome.

The Mariana dam was operated by Samarco, a joint venture between
Vale of Brazil and BHP.

In 2018, Pogust Goodhead launched a class action in the UK
representing 700,000 claimants against Vale SA and its project
partner BHP over the collapse, which is due to start in October.

In January, Samarco, Vale and BHP were ordered to pay US$9.7
billion in compensation for the dam collapse by a Brazilian court,
both Vale and BHP have said they will consider appealing.

What they said: CEO and global managing partner of Pogust Goodhead,
Tom Goodhead, said: "More than eight years after the worst
environmental disaster in Brazil's history, it is appalling that
many victims have still not received adequate redress for the
damages caused to them.

"The claims being brought in the Netherlands against Vale and
Samarco Iron Ore Europe BV for their role in the disaster show that
delaying justice and making low value offers in Brazil will not
stop the victims from demanding justice. We are glad to be
instructed to hold Vale and Samarco's subsidiary to account for
their role in the disaster." [GN]

VALLEY FIBERS: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valley Fibers
Corporation. The case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Valley Fibers
Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-01799 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2024).

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

Valley Fiber Limited -- https://valleyfiber.ca/ -- is a locally
owned and operated technology firm based out of Winkler, MB,
providing next generation conscious fiber optic internet.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VALMED INC: Melgar de Melgar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valmed, Inc. The case
is styled as Marta T. Melgar de Melgar, Jose Luis Ruvalcaba,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Valmed, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0003326 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Joaquin Cty., March 15, 2024).

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

Valmed -- https://www.valmedsrl.com/en/ -- is a manufacturing
industry that specializes in the design, production, and sales
distribution of medical equipment devices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM
          9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: 949-379-6250
          Fax: (949) 379-6251
          Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com


VAXART INC: Class Cert Hearing in Himmelberg Continued to April 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Himmelberg v. Vaxart,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05949 (N.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 24,
2020), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order:

-- Continuing hearing on motion for class            April 4,
2024
    Certification to:

The nature of suit states Securities Fraud.

Vaxart is an American biotechnology company focused on the
discovery, development, and commercialization of oral recombinant
vaccines administered using temperature-stable tablets that can be
stored and shipped without refrigeration, eliminating the need for
needle injection.[CC]



VAXART INC: Seeks to Leave to File Sur-Reply in Himmelberg Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Himmelberg v. Vaxart, Inc.
et al. (VAXART, INC. SECURITIESLITIGATION), Case No.
3:20-cv-05949-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants move the Court for
leave to file a sur-reply in further support of their Opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

While sur-replies are not often permitted in this district,
exceptional circumstances necessitate the Armistice Defendants be
provided an opportunity to respond to a new issue Plaintiffs raised
after Armistice Defendants filed their Opposition.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs, in a joint discovery letter submitted
to Magistrate Judge Westmore on March 11, 2024, represented for the
first time in this litigation that individuals who purchased Vaxart
stock during the Class Period are not members of the class if they
"made a net profit on [their] Class Period Vaxart trades."

Vaxart is an American biotechnology company focused on the
discovery, development, and commercialization of oral recombinant
vaccines.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9Lh5hS at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Neal R. Marder, Esq.
          Joshua A. Rubin, Esq.
          Sina Safvati, Esq.
          Lillian Rand, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          E-mail: nmarder@akingump.com
                  rubinj@akingump.com
                  ssafvati@akingump.com
                  lrand@akingump.com 


VEEVA SYSTEMS: Tidyman Sues Over Age Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------
Chance Tidyman, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated v. VEEVA SYSTEMS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; AND DOES
1-50, Case No. 3:24-cv-01583 (N.D. Cal., March 14, 2024), is
brought seeks a declaration under the Declaratory Judgment Act that
the purported General Release of All Claims ("Release") signed by
most terminated employees is invalid and unenforceable as to their
claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), as
amended by the Older Worker Benefit Protection Act ("OWBPA").

Since at least 2015, Defendant Veeva Systems, Inc. ("Veeva") has
engaged in a pattern and practice of personnel actions designed to
elevate younger employees into the Company's leadership and to
marginalize and remove older employees using a top-down,
confidential stack ranking system unmonitored by its Human
Resources employees to identify older and more costly employees for
elimination through a process involving position transfers,
supervisor and job duty reassignments, exaggerated performance
issues to create unsubstantiated negative performance evaluations
inconsistent with their peers, denying them promotions, awarding
them smaller pay increases and fewer stock options than their
younger peers, and disproportionately terminating their employment
or inducing them to voluntarily resign. To try to shield itself
from liability for its age discrimination, Veeva has caused
departing employees to sign general releases that misrepresent
their rights under the ADEA and fail to give them the statutorily
required amount of time to consult counsel and decide whether they
have been the victims of age discrimination, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a United States citizen and has been 40 years old
or older at all pertinent times referenced herein.

VEEVA is a cloud computing company focusing, providing cloud-based
software for the life sciences industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shane K. Anderies, Esq.
          ANDERIES & GOMES LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, 11th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 217-8802
          Facsimile: (415) 217-8803
          Email: sanderies@andgolaw.com


VITA COFFEE: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vita Coffee, LLC. The
case is styled as Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, v. Vita Coffee, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-01787-HG (E.D.N.Y., March 11, 2024).

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

Vita Coffee -- https://www.caffevita.com/ -- is an independent,
locally-owned company Roasting coffee in Seattle since 1995.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


VRC COMPANIES: Licon Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mirella Licon, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. VRC COMPANIES, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; VITAL HOLDINGS, LLC, a Tennessee limited
liability company; and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV03262 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on March 8, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01925.

The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges nine causes of action for:
Failure to Pay All Wages; Failure to Provide All Meal Periods;
Failure to Authorize and Permit all Paid rest Periods; Failure to
Fully Reimburse Business Work Expenses; Independent Failure to
Timely Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Derivative
Failure to Timely Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements;
Derivative Violations of Labor Code; Independent Violations of
Labor Code; Unfair Business Practices.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Deborah F. Birndorf, Esq.
          Phillip Di Tullio, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          555 South Flower Street
          Forty-First Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 892-9200
          Facsimile: (213) 892-9494
          Email: debbie.birndorf@nortonrosefulbright.com
                 phillip.ditullio@nortonrosefulbright.com


VULCAN SPORTING: Herrera Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vulcan Sporting Goods
Co. The case is styled as Edery Herrera, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Vulcan Sporting Goods Co.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01816 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2024).

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

Vulcan Sporting Goods Co. -- https://vulcansportinggoods.com/ -- is
an American brand.[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


WALGREENS BOOTS: Navarro Sues Over Unsafe Levels of Benzene
-----------------------------------------------------------
Grace Navarro and Chatham Mullins, on behalf of themselves, and all
others similarly situated, and the general public v. WALGREENS
BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC. and DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive, Case No.
1:24-cv-00290-SKO (E.D. Cal., March 8, 2024), is brought to redress
the economic harms caused by the Defendant's sale of benzoyl
peroxide acne treatment drug products ("BPO Products" or
"Products") without warning consumers the BPO Products had unsafe
levels of the potent human carcinogen benzene, and that the BPO
Products were at risk of degrading further into benzene under
normal use, handling, and storage conditions.

The BPO Products are "drugs" used to treat acne vulgaris ("acne"),
formulated with a chemical called benzoyl peroxide ("BPO"), along
with other inactive ingredients, to make acne treatment creams,
washes, scrubs, and bars. Before being sold to the public, the
Products must be made in conformity with current good manufacturing
practices and must conform to quality, safety, and purity
specifications. Defendant's BPO Products did not.

Although the BPO Products have been found to have benzene,
Defendant never listed benzene among the its Products' ingredients,
or anywhere on the Products' labels, containers, advertising or on
Defendant's websites. The Defendant never warned anyone the
Products had benzene or were at risk of benzene contamination. The
Defendant knew or should have known its BPO Products contain and/or
degraded into benzene when exposed to expected consumer use,
handling, and storage conditions.

The Defendant misled the Plaintiffs, the putative Classes, and the
public by representing its BPO Products only had the ingredients
listed on the labels, packaging, containers, and on its website.
Defendant misled the Plaintiffs, the putative Classes, and the
public by representing the BPO Products were safe while concealing
material health and safety information known to them, e.g., that
the BPO Products degraded to benzene, or were contaminated with
benzene. Defendant misled Plaintiffs, the putative Classes, and the
public by giving the BPO Products long expiration dates of 2-3
years, leading consumers to believe the Products were safe for use
for years when Defendant knew or should have known the Products
degraded into benzene much sooner and were likely already
contaminated by the time the Products were first used by the
consumer.

The Defendant's statements and omissions of material health and
safety information are prohibited deceptive trade practices and
false and deceptive advertising. Defendant's statements about the
Products were false, misleading, unsubstantiated, untruthful, and
blatantly deceptive. Even more egregious was Defendant unreasonably
placed Plaintiffs, the California Class, and the public at risk of
exposure to benzene, and at increased risk of cancer, without their
knowledge and consent, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Defendant's BPO Products.

Walgreens dominates the drug and consumer health care products'
markets year after year and is among America's top Fortune 50
publicly traded companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Brent Wisner, Esq,
          Stephanie B. Sherman, Esq.
          WISNER BAUM, L.L.P
          11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1750
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: (310) 207-3233
          Facsimile: (310) 820-7444
          Email: rbwisner@wisnerbaum.com
                 ssherman@wisnerbaum.com


WALMART INC: Navarro Sues Over Benzene in Acne Treatment Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GRACE NAVARRO and CHATHAM MULLINS, on behalf of themselves, and all
others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs v.
WALMART, INC. and DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00288-JLT-BAM (E.D. Cal., March 8, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for false advertising and deceptive trade
practices under various state statutes, breach of express warranty,
breach of implied express warranty, unjust enrichment, and for
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.

This is a consumer fraud class action to redress the economic harms
caused by Defendant's sale of benzoyl peroxide acne treatment drug
products without warning consumers the Products had unsafe levels
of the potent human carcinogen benzene, and that the Products were
at risk of degrading further into benzene under normal use,
handling, and storage conditions.

The Products are "drugs" used to treat acne vulgaris, formulated
with a chemical called benzoyl peroxide, along with other inactive
ingredients, to make acne treatment creams, washes, scrubs, and
bars. Before being sold to the public, the Products must be made in
conformity with current good manufacturing practices and must
conform to quality, safety, and purity specifications. But
Defendant's Products did not, says the suit.

Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Brent Wisner, Esq,
          Stephanie B. Sherman, Esq.
          WISNER BAUM, L.L.P.
          11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1750
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-3233
          Facsimile: (310) 820-7444  
          E-mail: rbwisner@wisnerbaum.com
                  ssherman@wisnerbaum.com

WESTERN UNION: Faces Data Privacy Suit in California Court
----------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 21, 2024, that in December 2022, a
purported class action complaint was filed against several money
transfer business defendants, including the company, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleging that these defendants violated the federal Right to
Financial Privacy Act and California's Financial Information
Privacy Act.

The United States Department of Homeland Security and Immigration
and Customs Enforcement are also named as defendants. The operative
complaint alleges that the defendants violated plaintiffs'
financial privacy rights by sharing private financial information
with law enforcement agencies through a program coordinated by the
Transaction Record Analysis Center.

On January 24, 2023, an amended complaint was filed naming the
company's subsidiary Western Union Financial Services, Inc. as a
defendant in place of The Western Union Company.

The Western Union Company is into cross-border, cross-currency
money movement, payments, and digital financial services,
empowering consumers, businesses, financial institutions, and
governments.


WESTLAKE CORP: Settlement in Securities Suit for Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------
Westlake Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in February 21, 2024, that multiple purported
class action civil lawsuits filed since March 2019 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York. On October 16,
2023, the company entered into a settlement agreement whereby the
Company agreed, subject to the terms and conditions of the
settlement agreement, to pay $19 to the direct purchaser
plaintiffs. Preliminary court approval of the settlement, which
remains subject to certification of the class, has been requested
and is pending.

The lawsuits allege the defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain control, and stabilize the price of caustic soda, divide
and allocate markets, sales, customers and territories, fix,
maintain, control, prevent, restrict, lessen or eliminate
production and supply of caustic soda, and agree to idle capacity
of production and/or refrain from increasing their production
capacity. Plaintiffs seek damages, including punitive damages.

Westlake is a vertically-integrated global manufacturer and
marketer of performance and essential materials and housing and
infrastructure products for diverse consumer and industrial
markets, including residential construction, flexible and rigid
packaging, automotive products, healthcare products, water
treatment, wind turbines, coatings as well as other durable and
non-durable goods.


WHALECO INC: Rejects Bid to Compel Arbitration in OTSA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, writing for National Law Review, reports that
TEMU invites folks to "shop like a billionaire" but it just took a
massive hit in a case that may make a group of Plaintiff's lawyers
millionaires -- again.

So the biggest TCPA news of 2023 wasn't TCPA-related at all, it was
the spread of state level mini-TCPA statutes.

Probably the most dangerous state TCPA statute in the country is in
Oklahoma, of all places the Oklahoma Telephone Solicitation Act
(OTSA). Okla. Stat. tit. 15, Sec. 775C.1 et seq.

OTSA provides for steep penalties for violating various rules
limiting outreach technology, call timing and the use of numbers
that cannot be called back.

One of the first ever OTSA cases was filed against popular online
retailer TEMU (official name Whaleco)

Well the Court in this case just rejected TEMU's bid to compel
arbitration and it is really bad news for the company.

In Eakins v. Whaleco, Inc. 2024 WL 1190766 (W.D. Ok. March 5, 2024)
the Court found Temu's terms and conditions simply were not
accepted by the consumer based on the improper set up of its
website. And given the volume of transactions on the popular
website this ruling could be a massive deal.

Here are the problems with the Temu website in the court's view:

-- The terms of use agreement appears in relatively small font at
the bottom of the screen -- spatially decoupled from the
attention-grabbing orange "Continue" button that users click to
create their account;

-- Given the placement of the button "One could argue it is
initially unclear whether the terms of use agreement even pertains
to the creation of an account using email or phone number"; and

-- Temu failed to distinguish the "Terms of Use" hyperlink from
its surrounding text -- it used dark gray for hyperlinks and light
gray for the rest of the text.

As a result the court refused to enforce the terms and refused to
compel the suit to arbitration. Not good. [GN]

WINGSTOP INC: Sued for Violating Illinois Biometrics Privacy Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Record reports that a class action lawsuit has accused
fast food chain Wingstop of allowing a virtual ordering assistant
to improperly record customer voices during phone orders, allegedly
violating Illinois' biometrics privacy law.

The lawsuit was filed March 20 in Chicago federal court against
Wingstop and tech vendor ConverseNow Technologies Inc., alleging
violations of the Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act
(BIPA).

Named plaintiff, Myankhai Batchuluun, of Arlington Heights, claims
that the companies improperly recorded customer voices during phone
orders without their knowledge or consent.

Batchuluun argues that the companies have been using artificial
intelligence-assisted voice technology to collect unique
"voiceprints" of thousands of individuals in Illinois.

The lawsuit further alleges that Wingstop and ConverseNow do not
have publicly available retention or destruction schedules relating
to biometric identifiers or information, potentially retaining this
data beyond the time limits set by BIPA.

The lawsuit is one of thousands filed in Illinois and elsewhere
under the stringent BIPA law.

The lawsuit could potentially carry a massive price tag.

The law permits plaintiffs to demand damages of $1,000-$5,000 per
violation. The Illinois Supreme Court has interpreted the BIPA law
to define individual violations as each time a user's biometrics
are scanned over a period of five years.

The plaintiffs believe the lawsuit could include "many thousands"
of additional plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys J. Ryan Lopatka, Kim E.
Miller, Lewis S. Kahn and Melissa H. Harris, of Kahn Swick & Fioti,
of Chicago, New York and New Orleans; and Don Bivens and Teresita
Mercado, of Don Bivens PLLC, of Scottsdale, Arizona. [GN]

WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to Oct. 3
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENE A. SORTO, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WORLDWIDE FLIGHT
SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:23-cv-08481-DSF-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale Fischer
entered an order granting joint stipulation to stay discovery and
continue the class certification deadline as follows:

    1. All formal discovery is stayed until June 6, 2024.

    2. The class certification hearing is continued from Aug. 19,
2024
       to Nov. 25, 2024.

   3. The class certification motion filing deadline is continued
       from July 1, 2024 to Oct. 3, 2024.

    4. The opposition to class certification filing deadline is
       continued from July 19, 2024 to Oct. 21, 2024.

    5. The reply to the opposition deadline is continued from July
29,
       2024 to Oct. 31, 2024.

No further continuances will be granted, the Court says.

Worldwide Flight is a global air cargo, passenger & ground handling
organisation.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yXgdmO at no extra
charge.[CC]

YOU DESIGN WE CREATE: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against You Design We Create,
Inc. The case is styled as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. You Design We Create, Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-01732 (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2024).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ZOOM TECHNOLOGIES: Court Narrows Claims in Wysocki Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER WYSOCKI, v. ZOOM
TECHNOLOGIES INC et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-05453-DGE (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge David G. Estudillo entered an order:

-- Granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to

    strike class allegations;

-- granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to

    Dismiss;

-- Granting the Defendants' renewed motion to dismiss for lack of

    standing;

-- Granting the Plaintiffs' motion to seal; and

-- Dismissing the Plaintiffs' Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11,
    12, 13, and 14 of the Second Amended Complaint.

The class action alleges violations of the Wiretap, the Stored
Communications Act, and various consumer fraud and privacy
laws in Washington, California, Florida, New York, Illinois,
Connecticut, and Georgia.

The dispute arises from the alleged unauthorized obtaining of the
Plaintiffs' personal and professional contact information.

Zoom is an IT company providing professional IT support and
services for small to medium sized businesses.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 15, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NDCpdp at no extra
charge.[CC]


                            *********

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

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

Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***