/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240416.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, April 16, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 77

                            Headlines

AGILON HEALTH: Pension Fund Sues Over Securities Act Violations
ALL WAYS CARING: Barrios Suit Removed to C.D. California
ALLEN HOTEL: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Cert Bid Notice Terminated in Kronenberg
AMAZON SERVICES: Must File Non-Opposition Statement in Boone Suit

AMAZON.COM INC: Peterson Sues Over Deceptive Ad-Free Prime Video
ANAVEX LIFE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on May 13, 2024
AT&T INC: Faces Multiple Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
CANADA: Court Quashes Summonses on Injured Workers' Class Suit
CHECKPOINT THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit

COINBASE INC: Circuit Court Revives Illegal Contracts Class Action
COLUMBUS, IN: Judge Sets Hearing Date for Data Privacy Class Suit
EDISONLEARNING INC: Svoboda Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
EQUINIX INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Transmissions

FRAME AUTO: Faces Romero Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
HERITAGE PLACE: Singh Files Suit Over Late, Unpaid Wages
HIRERIGHT HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
HOME DEPOT: Faces Putative Class Action Over Spy Tracking Pixels
HOTEL FIGUEROA: Ibarra Sues Over Worker Retention Law Violations

J-M MANUFACTURING: Summary Judgment Reply in Cambridge Due May 23
J.M. SMUCKER: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due August 3
KOLD TRANS: Courts OKs Ex Parte Application to Stay Hamilton Action
L'OREAL USA: Acne Foam Cream Contains Carcinogen, Painter Says
LENOVO INC: Court Narrows Claims in Volinsky Class Suit

LEPRINO FOODS: Dominguez Suit Seeks To Certify Class Employees
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks to Suspend Class Certification Deadlines
LINCARE INC: Class Certification Bid in Morris Extended to May 6
LINCOLN LIFE: Bid for Summary Judgment vs Vida Partly OK'd
MAYO CLINIC: Faces Class Action Over Employee Health Plans

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Inflated Commission Rates' Suit Certified
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Brantmeier Sues Over Antitrust Class Action
NEW YORK, NY: To Pay $17.5MM to Settle "Hijab" Class Action Suit
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Court Certifies Privacy Class Action
NIKE INC: Judge Dismisses Greenwashing Class Action Lawsuit

NUSTAR ENERGY: Monteverde & Associates Probes Proposed Sale
PROCTER & GAMBLE: May Face Detergent Pod Recall Class Action Suit
PROCTER & GAMBLE: To Defend Suit Over Mislabeled Hair Care Products
S.C. JOHNSON: Voluntary Dismissal of Garvey Suit Disapproved
SCULPTOR CAPITAL: Agrees to Settle Stockholder Class Action

SELECT SOURCE: Faces Class Action Over FCRA and ICRAA Violations
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Circuit Court Affirms Class Suit Dismissal
SOUTHLAND TRANSIT: Vasquez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
STAR TRIBUNE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action for $2.9MM
TEVA CANADA: Court Denies Plaintiff's Appeal for Class Action Cert

TICKETMASTER CANADA: Court Approves Insurance Class Suit Settlement
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Court Rejects Appeal In Ticketbots Suit
TKO SHELBY: Trial Court Certifies False Advertising Class Action
TUSCANY 38: Salazar Sues Over Unpaid Wages
UNITED WHOLESALE: Faces Class Action Over RICO Act Violations

WALMART INC: Deadline to Submit Claims for Cash Payment Set June 5
YETI COOLERS: Disclosed Private, Personal Info, Smith Says
[*] Accounting-Related Securities Class Action Filings Rose in 2023

                            *********

AGILON HEALTH: Pension Fund Sues Over Securities Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
NEW ENGLAND TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AGILON HEALTH, INC.,
STEVEN J. SELL, TIMOTHY S. BENSLEY, PRISCILLA KASENCHAK, RONALD A.
WILLIAMS, SHARAD MANSUKANI, DIANA L. MCKENZIE, KAREN MCLOUGHLIN,
CLAY RICHARDS, RAVI SACHDEV, RICHARD J. SCHNALL, JEFFREY A.
SCHWANEKE, DEREK L. STRUM, WILLIAM WULF, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES
LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC., WELLS FARGO
SECURITIES, LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., COWEN AND COMPANY,
LLC, NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS,
LLC, LEERINK PARTNERS f/k/a SVB SECURITIES LLC, TRUIST SECURITIES,
INC., WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., ACADEMY SECURITIES, INC., R.
SEELAUS & CO., LLC, SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ & COMPANY, INC., SIEBERT
WILLIAMS SHANK & CO., LLC, WR SECURITIES, LLC, CLAYTON, DUBILIER &
RICE, LLC, CD&R VECTOR HOLDINGS, L.P., CD&R INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES
IX, LTD., and CD&R ASSOCIATES IX, L.P., Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00297 (W.D. Tex., March 19, 2024) is a federal securities
class action asserting both strict liability claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 and fraud-based claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 arising from Defendants' alleged materially
false and misleading statements and omissions to investors
concerning agilon's medical costs and profit margins.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period and in the
May 2023 secondary public offering Materials, the Defendants misled
investors about agilon's medical costs by: (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 Medicare Advantage 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.

Because of these materially false and misleading statements and
omissions, agilon stock traded at artificially high prices during
the Class Period as investors were conditioned to believe that the
Company's medical cost expenses were lower than represented. In May
2023, Defendants took advantage and profited enormously by selling
hundreds of millions worth of their agilon stock through the SPO at
the inflated price of $21.50 per share. As a result of these
disclosures, the prices of agilon common stock dropped
significantly causing substantial damages to the Company's
investors, the suit asserts.

Plaintiff New England Teamsters provides pension and other benefits
for union members. The Plaintiff purchased shares of agilon common
stock during the Class Period.

Founded in 2016, agilon's business is based on building
partnerships with private insurance companies who cover Medicare
Advantage patients, traditional Medicare payers, commercial managed
care payers, and primary care physician groups.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
          Guillaume Buell, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP   
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com
                  gbuell@labaton.com
                  fmcconville@labaton.com

ALL WAYS CARING: Barrios Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Carmen Barrios, and others similarly situated
v. ALL WAYS CARING HEALTH CARE; BRIGHT SPRING HEALTH SERVICES; RSCR
CALIFORNIA, INC., and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV05497
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on April 5, 2024, and assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-02774.

The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: "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 when employment ends; Failure to
pay wages owed every pay period; Failure to give rest breaks;
Failure to give meal breaks; Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA"); Failure to reimburse for business expenses; Retaliation
in violation of Labor Code; Wrongful termination in violation of
public policy; and Violation of California Business and Professions
Code."[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alex M. Barfield, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street
          Forty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
          Phone: 213.430.3400
          Fax: 213.430.3409
          Email: alex.barfield@tuckerellis.com


ALLEN HOTEL: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Allen Hotel, Inc.
The case is styled as Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, v. The Allen Hotel, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-02577 (E.D.N.Y., April 5, 2024).

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

Allen Hotel -- https://www.theallenhotel.com/ -- features 41 modern
guest rooms and luxurious suites.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Cert Bid Notice Terminated in Kronenberg
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kronenberg v. Allstate
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-06899 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Dec. 4, 2018), the Hon. Judge Hector Gonzalez entered an order
motion to certify class.

-- The notice of motion for class certification and proposed order

    are terminated.

-- The Court will consider the Plaintiff's motion for class
    certification, including any papers in support thereof.

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Personal Property Damage.[CC]

AMAZON SERVICES: Must File Non-Opposition Statement in Boone Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Boone, et al., v. Amazon
Services, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00241 (E.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 23,
2021), the Hon. Judge Kirk E. Sherriff entered an order that the
Defendant will file a statement of non-opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement.

Additionally, no later than April 19, 2024, the Plaintiffs shall
file an amended proposed notice of settlement and a supplemental
brief addressing the following:

   (1) designation of class representatives;

   (2) Rule 23 conditional class certification for settlement
       purposes;

   (3) procedures for class notice;

   (4) a summary or cursory lodestar for anticipated attorneys'
fees;

   (5) documentation of costs;

   (6) appointment of Rust Consulting as Settlement Administrator;
and

   (7) information supporting proposed enhancement payments to the

       class representatives.

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

AMAZON.COM INC: Peterson Sues Over Deceptive Ad-Free Prime Video
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY PETERSON, ASHLEY SCARBOROUGH, DALEENE FOX, PORSCHE HOLMES,
LAURA SMITH, SHARON CROSSWHITE, SARAH FRAZEE, KELLY SLOVENKAY,
OLIVER TSUYA, and KATRINA ERICKSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00364 (W.D. Wash., March 19, 2024) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiffs in connection with Amazon's
recent unilateral imposition of new fees for previously
commercial-free video streaming services that were unfairly foisted
upon existing Amazon Prime subscribers.

Amazon's service, called Prime Video, has, since 2011, provided
commercial-free video content, deriving its revenue primarily from
its subscription base, which as of 2022 numbered in excess of 200
million users. In January 2024, Amazon introduced advertisements to
its previously commercial-free content. In connection with that
change, subscribers were required to pay a fee of $2.99 per month
in order to avoid the commercials.

For those annual subscribers like Plaintiffs, the imposition of a
$2.99 monthly fee to enjoy a commercial-free viewing experience --
a benefit that they had already paid for in their annual
subscriptions -- not only constitutes a breach of contract by
Amazon, but also a violation of the Washington Consumer Protection
Act, RCW Chapter 19.86, as well as of the Unfair and Deceptive Acts
and Practices statutes of virtually every other state in the
country, says the suit.

Amazon.com, Inc. doing business as Amazon, is an American
multinational technology company, engaged in e-commerce, cloud
computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial
intelligence.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David B. Richardson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID B. RICHARDSON, P.S.
          3829 S. Edmunds St., Suite C.
          Seattle, WA 98118
          Telephone: (425) 646-9801
          E-mail: david@dbrlaw.com  

               - and -

          David J. DiSabato, Esq.
          Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
          Oren Faircloth, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Telephone: (212) 532-1091
          Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
          E-mail: lconsidine@sirillp.com
                  ddisabato@sirillp.com
                  ofaircloth@sirillp.com

ANAVEX LIFE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on May 13, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of
Anavex Life Sciences Corporation (NASDAQ: AVXL).

Shareholders who purchased shares of AVXL during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead
plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.

CONTACT US HERE:

https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/anavex-life-sciences-loss-submission-form/?id=74260&from=4


CLASS PERIOD: February 1, 2022 to January 1, 2024

ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that on December 2, 2022, AVXL
announced positive topline results from its Phase 2b/3
ANAVEX(R)2-73-AD-004 clinical trial of oral ANAVEX(R)2-73
(blarcamesine) for the treatment of mild cognitive impairment (MCI)
due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild AD (collectively known as
early AD). ANAVEX(R)2-73 met the primary endpoints ADAS-Cog1 and
ADCS-ADL2 and key secondary endpoint CDR-SB3 with statistically
significant results. An analyst questioned the Company's claim
noting "there are several key factors that point us to believe the
data is provocative, but not yet compelling, given the choice of
statistical analyses and other trial design/conduct
'complexifiers'." Additionally, a biotech journalist commented on
AVXL's findings stating "[w]hat sets Anavex apart from all the
other biotechs on my radar screen is its habit of shifting the
goalposts on clinical trials . . . Anavex announced "positive"
outcomes from studies of its drug called blarcamesine -- except the
results were derived from efficacy endpoints that were not part of
the original study designs." Following this news, AVXL's stock
price fell by $2.47 per share, or approximately 20% to close at
$9.58. Further on January 3, 2024, AVXL announced that results from
its Phase 2/3 EXCELLENCE clinical trial for its candidate
ANAVEX(R)2-73 in pediatric patients with Rett syndrome failed to
show statistical significance towards its primary endpoints.
Biotech analysts commented that "the negative study outcome was
never in doubt . . . Anavex is a serial dissembler of clinical
trial results." Following this news, AVXL's stock price fell by
$3.26 per share, or approximately 35%.

DEADLINE: May 13, 2024 Shareholders should not delay in registering
for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/anavex-life-sciences-loss-submission-form/?id=74260&from=4


NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of AVXL during the timeframe listed above, you
will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you
with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The
deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is May 13, 2024. There is
no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case.

WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is a nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:

     The Gross Law Firm
     15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
     New York, NY, 10018
     Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
     Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN]

AT&T INC: Faces Multiple Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
SC Media reprots that AT&T has been hit with a deluge of
class-action lawsuits following a series of denials the legitimacy
of data belonging to 73 million customers, including 7.6 million
current account holders, which was initially published by
ShinyHunters in 2021 before being exposed again by MajorNelson last
month, BleepingComputer reports.

One of the complaints led by Morgan & Morgan on behalf of Patricia
Dean and other plaintiffs claimed that AT&T's denials regarding the
massive data breach and its lack of security measures have resulted
in significant security risks for the telecommunications provider's
customers. AT&T has also been accused of violating implied contract
and negligence, which should be addressed with compensation,
injunctive relief, more robust audits, and improved data security
protocols.

"We allege AT&T knew about the vulnerability that allegedly led to
this breach, but allowed it to occur by failing to act. We're also
alleging AT&T exacerbated the problem by failing to acknowledge the
breach had occurred until March 30 of this year, allowing
customers' personal data to linger in criminal hands without their
knowledge for more than two-and-a-half years," said Morgan &
Morgan. [GN]

CANADA: Court Quashes Summonses on Injured Workers' Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino, writing for Law Times News, reports that the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice recently quashed two summonses to
government officials who were non-parties in a case involving
self-represented injured workers.

The workers are part of a proposed class action against entities
managing workers' compensation regimes in Canada, advocating for a
transition to a no-fault system. They asserted that the current
schemes are unconstitutional.

The Attorney General of Ontario, representing non-parties Monte
McNaughton, the former Ontario minister of labour, immigration,
training and skills development, and Margaret Townsend, the
director of the Office of the Worker Advisors (OWA), filed a motion
to quash the summonses. The plaintiffs contested this motion.

The plaintiffs, led by Paul Taylor, had issued summonses to
McNaughton and Townsend to bolster their case for mandating the OWA
to provide free legal representation. This action forms a
significant part of their broader legal challenge against Canada's
workers' compensation systems.

The Superior Court's decision focused on the applicability of rule
15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires legal
representation for parties in a representative capacity in class
actions. The core of the court's analysis was whether McNaughton
and Townsend possessed relevant evidence for the rule 15 motion and
whether their examination constituted an abuse of process.

The court concluded that the requested evidence from McNaughton and
Townsend did not bear directly on the plaintiffs' challenge to rule
15. The court underscored that the determination of the OWA's
obligation to provide legal representation would be based on the
interpretation of its statutory mandate, particularly under the
Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

Additionally, the court found the plaintiffs had not convincingly
shown that McNaughton and Townsend were likely to have evidence
critical to the rule 15 motion. The judgment also noted Townsend's
statutory immunity from being compelled to testify or produce
documents under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The court also ruled that examining the non-parties constitutes an
abuse of process because much of the non-privileged government
documentation being sought is already available to the plaintiffs.
Accordingly, the court quashed the summonses. [GN]

CHECKPOINT THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc. ("Checkpoint" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: CKPT) and certain officers. The class action,
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, and docketed under 24-cv-02613, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired Checkpoint securities between
March 10, 2021 and December 15, 2023, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Checkpoint securities during the Class Period, you have until June
4, 2024 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle
Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Checkpoint is a clinical-stage immunotherapy and targeted oncology
company that focuses on the acquisition, development, and
commercialization of novel treatments for patients with solid tumor
cancers in the U.S. and internationally. The Company relies on
third-party contract manufacturers to, inter alia, conduct its
preclinical and clinical studies and trials, as well as to complete
commercial and pre-commercial manufacturing.

Checkpoint's lead antibody product candidate is cosibelimab for the
treatment of selected recurrent or metastatic cancers. In January
2023, Checkpoint submitted a Biologics License Application ("BLA")
to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for the approval
of cosibelimab as a treatment for patients with metastatic
cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma ("cSCC") or locally advanced cSCC
who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation (the
"cosibelimab BLA").

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Checkpoint had overstated its
oversight of, and/or its establishment of adequate manufacturing
standards and controls over, its third-party contract
manufacturers; (ii) accordingly, there were one or more issues with
the Company's third-party contract manufacturing organization
("CMO") for cosibelimab; (iii) all the foregoing reduced the
likelihood that the FDA would approve the cosibelimab BLA in its
present form; (iv) as a result, the manufacturing, regulatory, and
commercial prospects of cosibelimab were overstated; and (v) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On December 18, 2023, Checkpoint issued a press release disclosing
that the FDA had not approved the cosibelimab BLA as a treatment
for patients with metastatic or locally advanced cSCC who are not
candidates for curative surgery or radiation. In particular, the
Company announced "that the [FDA] has issued a complete response
letter ('CRL') for the cosibelimab [BLA] for the treatment of
patients with metastatic or locally advanced [cSCC] who are not
candidates for curative surgery or radiation." The Company stated
that "[t]he CRL . . . cites findings that arose during a
multi-sponsor inspection of Checkpoint's third-party [CMO] as
approvability issues to address in a resubmission."

On this news, Checkpoint's stock price fell $1.49 per share, or
44.88%, to close at $1.83 per share on December 18, 2023.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. More than 85 years later, Pomerantz
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in
damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:

     Danielle Peyton
     Pomerantz LLP
     600 3rd Ave
     New York, NY 10016
     dpeyton@pomlaw.com
     646-581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN]

COINBASE INC: Circuit Court Revives Illegal Contracts Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ekta Mourya of FXStreet reports that Coinbase is facing a class
action lawsuit brought against it by users seeking damages arising
from the sale or solicitation of 79 digital assets that they allege
amount to illegal contracts because the platform is not registered
with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

While the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals revived the lawsuit, and
this may look like a setback for Coinbase, it affirmed Judge Paul
A. Engelmayer's dismissal of claims raised under the US Securities
and Exchange Act.

Coinbase faces heat from class action lawsuit revival

A class action lawsuit against the exchange that was dismissed by a
Judge in 2021 has been revived by the 2nd US Circuit Court of
Appeals. While this may appear as a setback for the exchange
platform, Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal applauded the court for
confirming that exchange has no private liability for the secondary
trading of digital assets on its platform.

The consumers who filed the class action lawsuit failed to identify
specific contracts that meet the requirements for cancellation
under the law, according to the panel's ruling.

The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals said that the federal judge in
New York who dismissed the suit last year shouldn't have relied on
a December 2021 user agreement. The three-judge appeals panel sent
the case to the district court to help determine which user
agreement should be used to determine whether the class-action can
be dismissed.

The lawsuit, Louis Oberlander vs. Coinbase Global Inc. alleges that
Coinbase promoted the sale of the tokens by providing users with
descriptions and their purported value. The exchange allegedly
engaged in promotions, shared news and updates about crypto price
movements to users and shared web stories.

CLO Grewal's comments show how the exchange is prepared to tackle
the lawsuit, and believes in "contracts" that users enter in, while
using the exchange platform. [GN]

COLUMBUS, IN: Judge Sets Hearing Date for Data Privacy Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy East, writing for therepublic.com, reports that a Marion
County judge has set hearing dates in a proposed class-action
lawsuit against Columbus Regional Health over alleged data privacy
violations.

On April 5, 2024, Marion County Superior Court Judge Christina R.
Klineman scheduled a hearing on May 8 to consider a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit filed by CRH, according to court filings.

Klineman also set a March 26, 2025, deadline for the plaintiffs to
file a motion for class certification and a pretrial conference on
May 20, 2025.

The lawsuit, filed on the Indiana Commercial Court docket in Marion
Superior Court 1 in Indianapolis, claims that CRH embedded tracking
technology on its website that collects and shares information
about its patients with Meta, Google, Microsoft, Adobe Inc.,
DoubleClick, Marchex and "potentially others," according to an
amended complaint filed in January.

This allegedly includes the content that users searched for on
CRH's website, the buttons they clicked on, the forms they
submitted, the events they registered for, when they accessed the
patient portal and paid bills, the terms they searched for and the
doctors they sought, the lawsuit states.

The complaint further alleges that CRH's use of the technology
violates HIPAA, the federal patient privacy law, as well as Federal
Trade Commission standards and the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales
Act.

Columbus residents and CRH patients Brian and Annie Elkins are
listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Annie Elkins was identified in
the original complaint as a former CRH employee. The lawsuit
proposes a class made up of any Indiana resident whose private
information was disclosed by CRH through the tracking technology
without authorization.

"When plaintiffs and class members used defendant's website and
online platforms, they thought they were communicating exclusively
with their trusted healthcare provider," the amended complaint
states. "Unbeknownst to them, defendant embedded pixels from
Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Adobe, DoubleClick and Marchex on its
website and online platforms, surreptitiously forcing plaintiff and
class members to transmit intimate details about their medical
treatment to third parties without their consent."

Since being filed in May, the lawsuit has bounced between the state
and federal court systems. CRH has sought to move the lawsuit to
federal court, arguing, among other things, that the complaint
involves alleged violations of federal privacy standards, court
records show.

Attorneys representing CRH said in a court filing they planned to
argue in federal court that the hospital system did not violate
federal privacy standards, and the "specific information that is
purportedly ‘disclosed' are outside of the purview of protected
health information."

However, a federal judge sent the lawsuit back to Marion Superior
Court on Oct. 10, finding, among other things, that using alleged
violations of federal standards as evidence for civil liability
under state law does not, by default, confer jurisdiction to a
federal court.

In November, CRH appealed the order to remand the case to state
court. The hospital system also filed a motion to, among other
things, pause the order sending the case to state court until the
federal appeals court weighs in.

In February, a federal judge denied CRH's motion, determining,
among other things, that the hospital system "is unlikely to face
prejudice in state court" and that "delay here only benefits" CRH.

The appeal was still pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit as of April 5 morning.

"There is no harm to either party for the litigation to carry on in
state court while the remand order is reviewed on appeal. The same
things would be happening in either place; it does not matter
where," U.S. District Judge James R. Sweeney II states in an order
dated Feb. 21.

Last month, CRH filed a separate motion in state court seeking to
dismiss the lawsuit on procedural grounds, arguing that the
plaintiffs did not comply with state laws on bringing tort claims
against a local governmental entity.

More specifically, CRH argues that the plaintiffs did not file a
notice of a tort claim or give the hospital system 90 days as
required by law to investigate the claim before they filed the
lawsuit. A tort is an act or omission that results in injury or
damage that may entitle an affected party to seek damages, often in
the form of monetary compensation, according to the Cornell Law
School's Legal Information Institute.

The plaintiffs "did not wait 90 days to initiate a suit -- they
sued immediately, then amended their complaint 90 days later to
formally list their tort theories," the motion states. No decision
had been made on the motion as of morning of April 2.

CRH officials have declined to comment on the lawsuit, citing the
pending litigation.

"In order to protect the integrity of a pending case, Columbus
Regional Health refrains from comment on active litigation
matters," CRH spokeswoman Kelsey DeClue said previously in a
statement to The Republic. "However, our organization intends to
vigorously defend against these claims."

The allegations against CRH come as a growing number of hospitals
and health systems across the country face lawsuits that allege
they disclosed private patient data to tech giants through tracking
technology on their website and other online platforms.

The lawsuits largely involve the use of tracking technology called
tracking pixels, which are pieces of computer code embedded into a
website that can track and record a range of personal data on how a
user interacts with the website, including information that users
have typed in a form while on the website, according to the Federal
Trade Commission's Office of Technology.

Pixels can be hidden from view, and blocking third-party cookies
may not prevent pixels from collecting and sharing information.
Businesses commonly use them to track consumer behavior and target
them with advertisements based on their online activity.

Many of the lawsuits, including the one filed against CRH, mention
the use of the Meta Pixel, a tracking pixel developed by Facebook
parent company Meta.

Meta has described the Meta Pixel as "a snippet of JavaScript code
that loads a small library of functions" that can track Facebook
ad-driven visitor activity on a website and "match website visitors
to their respective Facebook user accounts."

Court filings have alleged that the Meta Pixel can track
information about a visitor's device, including IP address and the
pages viewed. It also can be configured to track search terms,
button clicks and form submissions.

However, it is unclear how CRH had configured those tools or if it
even used them at all. The original complaint and amended complaint
do not specify how the plaintiffs concluded that CRH uses the
tracking pixels, though the amended complaint provides alleged
examples of the tools being used.

The issue of tracking technologies in health care settings came to
light in June 2022 after a report by tech publication The Markup
found that the Meta Pixel was installed on 33 of Newsweek's top 100
hospitals in the country, including Johns Hopkins Hospital, UCLA
Reagan Medical Center and Duke University Hospital.

The publication said former regulators, health data security
experts and privacy advocates reviewed the report's findings and
found the hospitals' use of the tracking tool may have violated
HIPAA.

Since then, lawsuits have been filed against Cedars-Sinai Health
System in Los Angeles, Rush University System for Health in
Chicago, U of L Health in Louisville, LCMC Health in New Orleans,
among several others across the country.

By April 2023, at least 18 hospitals and health systems were facing
similar lawsuits, according to Becker's Health IT. [GN]

EDISONLEARNING INC: Svoboda Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH SVOBODA, on behalf of herself individually and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDISONLEARNING, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 0:24-cv-60433-AHS (S.D. Fla., March 19, 2024) arises from
the recent cyberattack and data breach that was perpetuated against
EdisonLearning wherein Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive
personal information was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to
inadequate data security practices.

The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' PII that it collected and maintained, and for
failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and
other Class Members that their information had been subject to the
unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what
specific type of information was accessed.

As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have
been exposed to a present and continuing risk of fraud and identity
theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future
closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity
theft, says the suit.

The Plaintiff and Class Members are current or former employees at
EdisonLearning.

EdisonLearning, Inc. is a company that provides digital learning
solutions for students grades 6-12.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mariya Weekes, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (786) 879-8200
          Facsimile: (786) 879-7520
          E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com

EQUINIX INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Equinix, Inc. (NASDAQ: EQIX) resulting from
allegations that Equinix may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Equinix 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=23498 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 March 20, 2024, before the market opened,
Hindenburg Research released a report entitled "Equinix Exposed:
Major Accounting Manipulation, Core Business Decay And Selling an
AI Pipe Dream As Insiders Cashed Out Hundreds of Millions." In
part, Hindenburg stated its "investigation, which included a review
of financial and litigation records and interviews with 37 former
Equinix employees, industry experts and competitors, revealed that
Equinix manipulates its accounting for AFFO ("adjusted funds from
operations"), the key profitability metric for REITs ["(Real Estate
Investment Trust")]. We estimate this metric was overstated by at
least 22% in 2023 alone."

On this news, Equinix's stock fell $19.70 per share, or 2.3%, to
close at $824.88 per share on March 20, 2024.

Then, on March 25, 2024, Equinix filed an 8-K with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, which contained a press release
in which Equinix announced that the Audit Committee of the
Company's Board of Directors had commenced an independent
investigation to review the matters referenced in the Hindenburg
report. Equinix also announced that it had received a subpoena from
the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California
shortly after the release of the Hindenburg report.

On this news, Equinix's stock fell on March 25, 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]

FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Transmissions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Action, reports that Ford class
action alleges Fusions, Escapes have defective transmissions.

Who: More than 100 plaintiffs have joined a Ford class action
lawsuit.

Why: The class action alleges the automaker knowingly sold certain
Ford Fusion and Ford Escape vehicles with a transmission defect
that can cause premature wear of the internal components and
potentially lead to catastrophic failures.

Where: The Ford class action lawsuit was filed in Michigan federal
court.

Ford Motor Company knowingly sold Ford Fusions and Ford Escapes
with defective transmissions, according to claims made in a
533-page Ford class action lawsuit filed March 20 in Michigan
federal court.

The Ford transmission defect allegedly affects model year 2010-2020
Ford Fusion and 2009-2021 Ford Escape vehicles.

"Ford repeatedly lied to consumers as to the reasons for the
problems consumers experienced," says the Ford class action
lawsuit, which has already been joined by more than 100 plaintiffs.
"As a result, consumers were and are stuck in unsafe Fusion and
Escape autos that have costly repairs and minimum resale value"
allegedly due to the Ford transmissions defect.

The automaker allegedly knew the Ford transmissions in its Fusions
and Escapes had a defective condition that could manifest in
violent jerking, delayed acceleration, difficulty stopping, hard
decelerations, premature wear of the internal components and
potential catastrophic failures.

The Ford transmission defect is the result of a "fundamental design
failure" in the interconnected array of software and hardware
systems that allow the transmission to operate, the Ford class
action lawsuit alleges.

Had the plaintiffs known about the Ford transmission defect and the
potential for premature failure, they would not have purchased or
leased the affected vehicles, according to the Ford class action
lawsuit.

As a result of the undisclosed Ford transmission defect, the
plaintiffs claim they experienced financial losses, including but
not limited to out-of-pocket costs related to repairs, costs of
obtaining alternative transportation and decreased value of their
vehicles.

The plaintiffs also claim they suffered harm because their
vehicles' transmissions and related components "are substantially
certain to fail before their expected useful life has run," the
Ford class action lawsuit alleges.

Ford recently reached a $365 million settlement with the U.S.
Department of Justice over allegations it put a sham row of back
seats in cargo vans to avoid a 25% duty rate.

Jones is represented by Kenneth A. Stern of Stern Law PLLC, Amy L.
Wells of Wells Law Office Inc., Amy L. Marino of Marino Law PLLC
and William C. Ourand Jr. of Newsome Melton PA.

The Ford transmissions class action lawsuit is Gerkarrah Jones v.
Ford Motor Co., Case No. 2:24-cv-10721-MAG-CI, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. [GN]

FRAME AUTO: Faces Romero Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
JESUS ROMERO, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. FRAME AUTO COLLISION
INC. and JESUS PAGAN, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-01998 (E.D.N.Y., March 19, 2024) arises from the
Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a car detailer from on or
about April 1, 2022 through on or about April 7, 2023.
Specifically, Defendants routinely scheduled Plaintiff to work, and
Plaintiff did work, beyond 40 hours in a workweek, yet from the
beginning of his employment until on or about December 31, 2022,
Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat weekly salary that did not include
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his
regular rate for any hours that Plaintiff worked over 40 in a week,
and from January 1, 2023, until the end of his employment,
Defendants paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis for only his 40 hours
of work in a week and nothing for his hours worked in a week over
40.

The Defendants further violated the NYLL by failing to provide
Plaintiff with an accurate wage statement on each payday or with
any wage notice upon his hire, asserts the suit. The Defendants
also violated the FLSA, the NYLL, and New York common law by
retaining/converting for their own use all tips that customers
intended to give to Plaintiff for work that he performed on their
cars.

Frame Auto Collision Inc. is a New York corporation that operates a
Nassau County-based auto body shop.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian E. Nettle, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550
          Facsimile: (516) 248 6027

HERITAGE PLACE: Singh Files Suit Over Late, Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
RABINDRA SINGH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HERITAGE PLACE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02000 (E.D.N.Y., March 19, 2024) seeks redress for
systematic late and/or unpaid minimum and/or overtime wages against
Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

As part of its regular business practice, the Defendant
intentionally, willfully and repeatedly engaged in a pattern,
practice and/or policy of violating the FLSA and NYLL including but
not limited to: failing to pay promptly, timely and completely
Plaintiff and the others the minimum wage for all hours worked in
each discrete work week; and failing to pay promptly, timely and
completely Plaintiff and the others one and one half times their
regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week
in each discrete work week, says the suit.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a full-time building
superintendent from March 2019 until January 4, 2024.

Heritage Place, LLC is a provider of real property services and
housing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Wims, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WIMS
          1430 Pitkin Ave., 2nd Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11233
          Telephone: (646) 393-9550

HIRERIGHT HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against HireRight Holdings Corporation ("HireRight" or the
"Company") (NYSE:HRT) and certain officers. The class action, filed
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, and docketed under 24-cv-00371, is on behalf of all
those who purchased or otherwise acquired HireRight securities
pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents (defined below)
issued in connection with HireRight's October 2021 initial public
offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"). Plaintiff pursues claims
against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
HireRight securities during the Class Period, you have until May
28, 2024 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle
Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

HireRight provides technology-driven workforce risk management and
compliance solutions to a customer base characterized as a "diverse
set of organizations, from large-scale multinational businesses to
small and medium-sized businesses, across a broad range of
industries." The Company offers background screening, verification,
identification, monitoring, and drug and health screening services
for customers under the HireRight brand name and boasts a
purportedly "robust pipeline of opportunities developed by [its]
sales team to continue to attract new customers and take share in
the market."

On October 6, 2021, HireRight filed a registration statement on
Form S-1 with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") in connection with the IPO, which, after an amendment, was
declared effective by the SEC on October 28, 2021 (the
"Registration Statement").

On November 1, 2021, HireRight filed a prospectus on Form 424B4
with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and
formed part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and,
collectively with the Registration Statement, the "Offering
Documents").

That same day, pursuant to the Offering Documents, HireRight's
common stock began publicly trading on the New York Stock Exchange
under the ticker symbol HRT.

Pursuant to the Offering Documents, HireRight issued approximately
22. million shares of its common stock to the public at the
Offering price of $19.00 per share for proceeds to the Company of
approximately $399 million after applicable underwriting discounts
and commissions, and before expenses.

The Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result,
contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading
and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations
governing its preparation. Specifically, the Offering Documents
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that:

     (i) HireRight was exposed to customers with significant
employment and hiring risk and the Company derived greater revenue
growth from existing client hiring than from new client hiring;

    (ii) as a result, the Company's revenue growth was
unsustainable to the extent that it relied on the stability of its
current customers' hiring and/or the profitability of securing new
customers;

   (iii) accordingly, HireRight had overstated its post-IPO
business and/or prospects; and

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

On January 19, 2023, Stifel, a brokerage and investment banking
firm, downgraded HireRight's stock from a Hold to a Buy, prompting
several market analysts to issue publications discussing the
downgrade. For example, Seeking Alpha reported that Stifel found
HireRight to be exposed to large technology firms where there is
more acute employment and hiring risk, and that more of the
Company's growth comes from existing client hiring than from new.

On this news, HireRight's stock price fell $0.88 per share, or
7.5%, to close at $10.75 per share on January 19, 2023.

At the time of this Complaint, HireRight's common stock continue to
trade below the $19.00 per share IPO price.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of HireRight's securities,
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. More than 85 years later, Pomerantz
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in
damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]

HOME DEPOT: Faces Putative Class Action Over Spy Tracking Pixels
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany A. Andres, writing for National Law Review, reports that
it looks like Home Depot is caught in another privacy suit.

Home Depot, Inc. and Validity, Inc. are being sued in a putative
class action alleging violations of Arizona's Telephone, Utility
and Communication Service Records Act (A.R.S. Sec. 44-1376 et
seq.).

What is this Arizona act?

Arizona's Telephone, Utility and Communication Service Records Act
prohibits a person from knowingly obtaining a "communication
service record" of any Arizona resident i) without the
authorization of the person to whom the record pertains or ii) by
fraudulent, deceptive or false means. (A.R.S. Sec.
44-1376.01(A)(1).

A.R.S. Sec. 44-1376 (1) defines "communication service record" as
follows: "'Communication service record' includes subscriber
information, including name, billing or installation address,
length of service, payment method, telephone number, electronic
account identification and associated screen names, toll bills or
access logs, records of the path of an electronic communication
between the point of origin and the point of delivery and the
nature of the communication service provided, such as caller
identification, automatic number identification, voice mail,
electronic mail, paging or other service features. Communication
service records do not include the content of any stored oral, wire
or electronic communication or a telephone record."

What happened here?

Ivonne Carbajal alleges that Home Depot enabled spy tracking pixels
from Validity, Inc. in its marketing emails and tracked data which
she was never informed of and never provided her consent to.

The spy tracking pixels, she alleges, track all sorts of stuff --
the time and place where Plaintiff and other Arizona residents
opened the email, the average read time of an email, the amount of
times an email was opened, whether an email was printed, whether an
email was forwarded, and how long the recipient looked at the
email, the device the recipient used to look at the email and even
if and where you clicked within an email. Read the full complaint
here.

If this is really true, this is interesting stuff.

The purpose of such tracking was to create targeted advertising
campaigns for Home Depot and presumably other affiliate retailers
and service providers.

Carbajal seeks to represent a class defined as: All persons in the
State of Arizona who have opened a marketing email containing a
tracking pixel from Defendants.

Because this case was just filed it will be interesting to see how
this case progresses. More to come!

Carbajal v. Home Depot, Inc., et al., Case No.: 2:24-cv-00730-DGC
[GN]

HOTEL FIGUEROA: Ibarra Sues Over Worker Retention Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
morningstar.com reports that on April 3, 2024, a laid-off cook,
Maria Ibarra, filed a class action lawsuit alleging violations of
Los Angeles's Hotel Worker Retention Ordinance at the Hotel
Figueroa where more than a hundred workers have lost their jobs.

Located at the corner of Figueroa Street and Olympic Boulevard in
downtown Los Angeles, the Hotel Figueroa is an iconic 14-floor
building, which, in addition to guest rooms, features two
destination restaurants, Sparrow Italia and Cafe Fig, and several
other food and beverage outlets.

The hotel has been the site of controversy since, as reported in
the LA Times, the hotel's former food and beverage operator, Noble
33, abruptly terminated its operations and laid off its employees
in February.

The lawsuit alleges that the Hotel Figueroa's owner BGO (formerly
GreenOak Real Estate) and operators have violated a city ordinance
meant to protect workers' jobs when there are changes in management
by failing to retain them when the new operator took over.

The Hotel Worker Retention Ordinance was enacted to address the
problem of mass layoffs of hotel workers that have occurred
historically when corporate ownership or management of a hotel
changes. The ordinance requires that new owners or operators retain
the site's employees for a transitional period, ensuring employment
stabilization for community members and alleviating the demands for
social services for newly-unemployed workers.

The class action lawsuit alleges that, just days after Noble 33
ceased operations and laid off its employees, BGO and its primary
operator Highgate contracted with a new company, The Botanical
Group, to serve as the operator for the hotel's Cafe Fig and other
outlets. Cafe Fig and other food and beverage operations were
quickly reopened, but without their former non-management staff.

"We service workers are not disposable. We're not something to be
tossed aside when we're no longer convenient. I am filing this
lawsuit to make sure our rights are respected," said Maria Ibarra,
the lead plaintiff, a former cook at Hotel Figueroa.

The lawsuit accuses the BGO, Highgate, and Botanical Group of
unlawfully failing to retain veteran employees. The suit also
alleges that former operator Noble 33 failed to facilitate the
transition by timely providing all necessary information about the
workers to the other companies.

Ms. Ibarra and the putative class of affected Hotel Figueroa
workers are represented by Lauren Teukolsky of Teukolsky Law and
Jeremy Blasi in his individual capacity.

UNITE HERE Local 11 is a labor union representing more than 32,000
hospitality workers in Southern California and Arizona that work in
hotels, restaurants, universities, convention centers and airports.
[GN]

J-M MANUFACTURING: Summary Judgment Reply in Cambridge Due May 23
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMBRIDGE LANE, LLC, a
California limited liability company, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, v. J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., a
Delaware corporation d/b/a J-M PIPE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:10-cv-06638-GW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge George Wu entered an order granting the Plaintiff
Cambridge Lane, LLC's ex parte application for relief, and setting
the following briefing schedule:

         Brief                                  Filing Deadline

  Cambridge Lane's Reply in support of          April 25, 2024
  its Motion for Class Certification

  Cambridge Lane's Opposition to J-M's          April 25, 2024
  Motion for Summary Judgment

  Cambridge Lane's Opposition to J-M's          April 25, 2024
  Daubert Motions

  J-M's Reply in Support of its Motion          May 23, 2024
  for Summary Judgment

  J-M's Replies in Support of its Daubert       May 23, 2024
  motions

The Court will hear J-M's motion for summary judgment [546], and
J-M's
daubert motions on June 13, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. The Court will hear
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification on June 24, 2024 at
8:30 a.m.

J-M manufactures widest array of high grade, high performance
plastic pipe.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wlQubx at no extra
charge.[CC]

J.M. SMUCKER: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due August 3
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBIN HUMPHREY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY and POST CONSUMER BRANDS, LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-06913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Orrick,
having considered the Parties' Stipulation regarding the Litigation
Schedule, and good cause appearing therefore, orders as follows:

   1. The Plaintiff Robin Humphrey's suggestion of death will be
due
      by April 2, 2024.

   2. The Plaintiffs' Third amended complaint will be due by April
2,
      2024.

   3. The Parties' joint case management statement will remain due
by
      April 16, 2024.

   4. The Defendants' answer or response to the Plaintiffs' third
      amended Complaint will be due on or before April 18, 2024.

   5. The Case Management Conference will remain set for April 23,

      2024 at 2:00 p.m.

   6. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification will be due by

      Aug. 30, 2024.

   7. The Defendants' opposition will be due by Nov. 1, 2024.

   8. The Plaintiffs' reply will be due by Dec. 13, 2024.

   9. The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
will
      be reset to Jan. 8, 2025 at 2:00 p.m.

  10. Pretrial Conference will be set for Nov. 10, 2025 at 2:00
p.m.

  11. Trial will be set for December 8, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. by Jury.

On Nov. 4, 2022, the Plaintiff filed her Complaint.

J.M. Smucker is an American manufacturer of food and beverage
products.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QXqE8Q at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Emily A. Horne, Esq.
          Jonathan L. Wolloch
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  ehorne@bursor.com
                  jwolloch@bursor.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael J. Ruttinger, Esq.
          Ethan W. Weber, Esq.
          Bart L. Kessel, Esq.
          Anna-Sophie Tirre, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 592-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 592-5009
          E-mail: michael.ruttinger@tuckerellis.com
                  Ethan.weber@tuckerellis.com
                  bart.kessel@tuckerellis.com
                  Anna-sophie.tirre@tuckerellis.com

KOLD TRANS: Courts OKs Ex Parte Application to Stay Hamilton Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bennie Hamilton v. Kold
Trans, LLC et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-01859 (C.D. Cal., Filed Nov. 2,
2021), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpo entered an order
granting ex parte application to stay action.

Judge Frimpong said that the action is stayed pending the
resolution of the Martinez Action. The Stay shall automatically
lift upon the issuance of a final Order regarding the settlement of
the Martinez Action.
Plaintiffs must re-file their Motion for Class Certification, or
file a statement indicating that they stand on their previous
Motion, within 30 days of a final Order regarding the settlement of
the Martinez Action, the Judge said.

The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.[CC]

L'OREAL USA: Acne Foam Cream Contains Carcinogen, Painter Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELLEN PAINTER and ROBERT HIGHTOWER, individually, and on behalf of
all others, Plaintiffs v. L'OREAL USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:24-cv-03077-MDH (W.D. Mo., March 19, 2024) is a class action
lawsuit regarding Defendant's manufacturing, distribution,
advertising, marketing, and sale of CeraVe(R) Cream benzoyl
peroxide (BPO) products that contain dangerously high levels of
benzene, a carcinogen that has been linked to leukemia and other
blood cancers, in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices
Act.

The Plaintiffs and Class members reasonably relied on Defendant's
representations that the BPO Products were safe, unadulterated, and
free of any carcinogens that are not listed on the label. The BPO
Products are worthless because they contain benzene at levels which
render the BPO Products adulterated, misbranded, and illegal to
sell under federal and Missouri law, says the suit.

L'Oreal USA, Inc. manufactures and markets cosmetic products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
          Melody R. Dickson, Esq.
          WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
          4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 701-1100
          Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
          E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
                  mdickson@wcllp.com

LENOVO INC: Court Narrows Claims in Volinsky Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX VOLINSKY, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LENOVO (UNITED
STATES) INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-00250-KKM-NHA (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle entered an order as follows:

   1. Count II and Volinsky's claims for injunctive relief are
      dismissed without prejudice for lack of Article III standing.


   2. Counts I, III, V, VI, and VII are dismissed without prejudice

      for failure to state a claim.

   3. Count IV is dismissed without prejudice as an impermissible
      shotgun pleading and the Court sua sponte grants Volinsky
leave
      to amend Count IV to properly separate the three warranty
claims
      contained within into separate counts. Any amendment must be

      filed no later than April 10, 2024.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent two consumer classes—one from
Florida and one from a seemingly random collection of other
southern states—in an action claiming that Lenovo committed a
host of statutory violations and common law torts arising out of
the 14w's alleged "defective hinge mechanism."

Along with a Florida class, Volinsky seeks to represent a "Consumer
Fraud Multi-State Class" asserting Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Tennessee class members' claims under those
states' consumer fraud statutes.

The gist of Volinsky's suit is that the 14w did not live up to
Lenovo's billing. He claims that the hinge mechanism "was made of
low-quality [and] low-strength materials, which caused the hinges
to break and/or detach.

In 2019, Alex Volinsky bought a Lenovo 14w laptop from the
company’s website.

Lenovo operates as a software and hardware reseller.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cEUNAE at no extra
charge.[CC]

LEPRINO FOODS: Dominguez Suit Seeks To Certify Class Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER DOMINGUEZ, as
an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 1:22-cv-01018-KES-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated:

   1. Determining that a class action is proper as to the First,
      Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action contained in the
First
      Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages pursuant to
Federal
      Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on the grounds that: (1) the
Class
      is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
(2)
      there are questions of law and fact common to the Class; (3)

      Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the Class;
and
      (4) Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the
interests
      of the Class.

   2. Determining that class treatment is appropriate under Federal

      Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).

   3. Certifying the following classes:

      "All current and former non-exempt employees of the Leprino
      in the State of California who received the payment of
overtime
      and/or shift differential wages, at any time from June 28,
2021,
      to the present (the "Wage Statement Class" or "Wage Statement

      Class Members")";

      "All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant
who:
     (i) worked at Leprino’s non-union Lemoore West facility in
      Lemoore, California; and (ii) earned non-discretionary
incentive
      compensation and meal/rest period premiums during the same
      workweek, at any time from June 28, 2018 to Nov. 7, 2021 (the

      "Meal/Rest Period Class" or "Meal/Rest Period Class
Members")";
      and

      "All former non-exempt employees of Defendant who: (i) worked
at
      Leprino's non-union Lemoore West facility in Lemoore,
      California; (ii) received payment of non-discretionary
incentive
      compensation and sick pay during the same workweek during
the
      period of June 28, 2019 to May 2, 2021; and (iii) whose
      employment ended at any time from June 28, 2019, through the

      present (the "Sick Pay Class" or "Sick Pay Class Members").

   4. Finding the Plaintiff to be an adequate representative and
      certifying him as the class representative.

   5. Finding the Plaintiff's counsel, Larry W. Lee, Kristen M.
Agnew,
      Mai Tulyathan and Max Gavron of Diversity Law Group, P.C.,
and
      William L. Marder of Polaris Law Group, as adequate class
      counsel and certifying them as class counsel.

On June 28, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a wage and hour class action
against the Defendant in California Superior Court.

Since at least June 28, 2021, the Defendant's wage statements have
separated overtime hours into "overtime 1.0" and "overtime
premium." However, "the overtime 1.0 hours and overtime premium
hours constitute the same hours of work." As a result of this
practice, the wage statements presented to non-exempt employees
include redundant hours, which do not allow for the hours displayed
on the wage statement to be easily summed to obtain the total hours
worked.

Leprino is a manufacturer of mozzarella and lactose, and a producer
of whey protein.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K8wcr0 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          Max W. Gavron, Esq.
          Kwanporn "Mai" Tulyathan, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                  kagnew@diversitylaw.com
                  mgavron@diversitylaw.com
                  ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com

                - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
          E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks to Suspend Class Certification Deadlines
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA CORTINAS, ADELINE
CLARKE FOSS, TERESA MCINTYRE, KASANDRA VITACCA-MITCHELL,
CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, MARCUS ODUM, and CASSANDRA ODUM, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL
PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, SAFECO
INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIANA, Case No. 5:22-cv-00544-OLG-HJB (W.D.
Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting the
unopposed motion to suspend the class certification deadlines until
such time as the Court has heard and entered orders on the Pending
Motions which are set for in-person hearing on May 7, 2024.

On Nov. 16, 2022, the Court entered its initial Joint Scheduling
Order setting certain class certification briefing deadlines.

On Feb. 9, 2024, the Parties filed their joint motion for extension
of class certification deadlines, and the court entered the order
extending class certification deadlines which is the subject of the
current Motion.

Under the existing scheduling order, the parties would have to
complete class certification discovery by April 15, 2024, more than
two weeks before the hearing on the Pending Motions, and the
deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class
certification is May 15, 2024, just one week after the hearing on
the Pending Motions.

Liberty operates as an insurance company.

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          David T. Moran, Esq.
          Christopher A. Thompson, Esq.
          Maggie Burreson, Esq.
          Michael J. Murtha, Esq.
          JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.
          2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 953-6000
          Facsimile: (214) 953-5822
          E-mail: dmoran@jw.com
                  cthompson@jw.com
                  mburreson@jw.com
                  mmurtha@jw.com

                - and -

          Marilyn Brown, Esq.
          Michael Roberts, Esq.
          JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.
          100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1100
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 236-2000
          Facsimile: (512) 236-2002
          E-mail: mbrown@jw.com
                  mroberts@jw.com

LINCARE INC: Class Certification Bid in Morris Extended to May 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET MORRIS, v. LINCARE
INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02048-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Amanda Arnold Sansone entered an order granting Ms. Morris's motion
to extend the class certification deadline to May 6, 2024.

Ms. Morris also requests this court order Lincare to comply with a
prior order compelling production of robocall transmission logs.

Lincare responded that certain documents have since been produced.
It is unclear whether the issues raised in the motion to compel
have been resolved by this production.

Accordingly, the parties are ordered to confer and file a joint
notice by April 5, 2024 advising the court which issues, if any,
remain from Ms. Morris’s motion to .

Lincare is a supplier of respiratory-therapy products and services
for patients in the home.

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

LINCOLN LIFE: Bid for Summary Judgment vs Vida Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VIDA LONGEVITY FUND, LP,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. LINCOLN
LIFE & ANNUITY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:19-cv-06004-ALC-VF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew Carter, Jr. entered an order:

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

    summary judgment,

-- granting in part and denying in part the Parties' motions to
seal,
    and

-- denying the Defendant's motion for oral argument.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 143, 151,
165, 168, 169, 178, 182, and 187.

The Court finds that the majority of the Parties' motions to seal
should be granted because they reference or contain internal
pricing
methodologies, confidential internal communications, specific
features of proprietary insurance products, and various other
proprietary methodologies and because Defendant's proposed
redactions are narrowly tailored to serve their cognizable
interests.

The Plaintiff, a beneficial owner of two life insurance policies
issued by LLANY, claims that the Defendant LLANY breached its
contractual obligations to a class of its universal life insurance
policyholders by charging them higher "Cost of Insurance" ("COI")
fees than contractually permissible.

The Plaintiffs initiated this action on June 27, 2019. In their
Complaint, the Plaintiffs requested Class Action certification
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).

Lincoln offers annuities, life insurance, and retirement planning
services.

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



MAYO CLINIC: Faces Class Action Over Employee Health Plans
----------------------------------------------------------
Max Nesterak, writing for minnesotareformer.com, reports that a
worker at Mayo Clinic's Arizona hospital filed a proposed class
action lawsuit against the health system and insurer Medica in
federal court April 2, 2024, alleging they were saddled with
enormous health care bills after their claims were "systemically
underpaid."

The legal filing echoes some of the complaints the Reformer first
reported last fall from Mayo Clinic workers, who said their poor
health insurance forced them to see expensive out-of-network
providers for essential care.

Mayo Clinic employees said they racked up more than $10,000 in
health care costs a year while others said they avoided going to
the doctor for fear of what it would cost, all while working for
one of the world's most prestigious health care organizations.

The worker, who is unnamed in the lawsuit, is seeking reimbursement
for the money they allege they overpaid for care that should have
been reimbursed -- as well as for the thousands of other Mayo
Clinic employees and Medica customers they believe are similarly
situated and paid more than they should have for care.

The lawsuit alleges Medica, which administers Mayo Clinic's
self-insured plan, uses "deceptive, misleading, arbitrary" pricing
methods that leave plan members in the dark about health costs and
allow for inconsistent reimbursement rates, in violation of federal
law and Medica's fiduciary responsibilities.

One significant problem for Mayo workers is Medica's provider
portal, which is supposed to direct workers to in-network doctors
and other health care professionals. According to the lawsuit,
Medica provided false and misleading information about providers in
its member portal.

The plaintiff, who is represented by the McCune Law Group, found
zero in-network providers when using the Medica portal, leading
them to believe they could have care covered for out-of-network
health care. Even though the providers were licensed and accredited
professionals, Mayo and Medica only covered a fraction of the
bill.

Medica also lacks transparency in its explanation of benefits, so
members don't have enough information to understand or appeal
Medica's coverage determinations. Even when asked for their pricing
methods, Medica and Mayo refused to provide the relevant
information, according to the lawsuit.

A spokesperson for Medica said the company doesn't comment on
pending litigation.

A Mayo spokeswoman shared a statement saying Mayo was reviewing the
claims and declined to comment further.

Mayo's facilities are in-network for all employees, and those who
are near one of the major campuses in Minnesota, Florida or Arizona
told the Reformer last year they receive great care -- when they're
able to get appointments.

But Mayo also employs many remote workers who must find providers
that are part of a third-party network to receive the most
affordable care. Workers described what experts call a "phantom
network": the insurer claims to have dozens or even hundreds of
in-network doctors and other providers, but they aren't taking new
patients, no longer accept the insurance or have retired.

While nurses, software developers, researchers and thousands of
other Mayo Clinic workers may struggle to find affordable care,
Mayo doctors and executives are given an annual allowance of up to
$10,000 a year to cover the difference between out-of-network and
in-network coinsurance costs as well as dental and orthodontic
expenses.[GN]

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Inflated Commission Rates' Suit Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
CPI reports that on Wednesday federal judge ruled that home sellers
accusing the National Association of Realtors and a group of real
estate brokerages of conspiring to inflate commission rates can
move forward as a class action.

US District Judge Andrea Wood's decision grants class-action status
to past home sellers seeking more than $13 billion in damages and
creates a separate class of current and future sellers who want a
court injunction that bars subsequent violations of U.S. antitrust
law.

The plaintiffs are seven home sellers. The judge's order said
membership in each class "can be expected to number in the
thousands, at minimum."

Designation as a class means the plaintiffs' can pursue large-scale
claims against the National Association of Realtors, RE/MAX LLC,
Long & Foster Inc and other corporate defendants as opposed to
filing individual claims for monetary damages. [GN]


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Brantmeier Sues Over Antitrust Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that University of North Carolina women's tennis
standout Reese Brantmeier has filed a class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
alleging that the NCAA imposed "arbitrary and anticompetitive prize
restrictions" that "prohibit student-athletes . . . from accepting
cash awards, bonuses, and other monetary prizes . . . awarded
through non-NCAA competitions." The complaint takes a strident
tone, seeking to "lift the veil of hypocrisy" on the NCAA for its
disparate treatment of student-athletes in non-revenue individual
sports like tennis and student-athletes in cash cow sports like
football and men's basketball.

Currently, NCAA regulations permit student-athletes to enter
non-NCAA competitions against or with professional athletes but
prohibit them from receiving prize money exceeding actual expenses.
One notable exception to this rule is the Olympics under the
Operation Gold Program. While current NCAA rules allow
student-athletes to accept money for competing in the Olympics,
Brantmeier alleges that the NCAA has been inconsistent in the
application of this rule. According to the complaint, the NCAA's
application of the prize money rule is arbitrarily applied and
often "turns on the specific competition at issue or the certain
governing body's terminology for monies awarded based on athletic
performance in non-NCAA competition." Brantmeier contends that the
NCAA's application of this rule lacks consistency and fairness,
particularly considering NCAA rules allowing student-athletes to
profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL). Brantmeier
asserts that the NCAA lacks "any coherent economic explanation" for
this disparity in treatment.

As to the antitrust injury specifically, Brantmeier alleges that
the NCAA's restrictions have deprived student-athletes of
compensation earned for their athletic performance, which
"unlawfully suppress[es] the earning ability of student-athletes
competing in individual sports." Among other anticompetitive harms,
the NCAA "unreasonably restrain[s] trade by prohibiting
student-athletes from obtaining more than a fixed amount of
compensation . . . for their services," including, as relevant
here, "by specifically prohibiting the earning of prize money and
awards for non-NCAA competitions beyond the NCAA-approved expenses
incurred in participating in the non-NCAA events."

The crux of the alleged antitrust violation is that "the NCAA's
anticompetitive, horizontal agreements (as implemented as rules and
accepted and binding on NCAA member institutions) fix and severely
limit the amount of compensation that college athletes may receive
for their athletic services." The plaintiff proposes sweeping
relevant markets, identifying "the nationwide markets for the labor
of NCAA Division I college athletes in the Individual Sports in
which they compete." The plaintiff reasons that, "[a]s monopsony
buyers in the relevant labor markets, the NCAA and its members have
the market power to control prices and exclude competition." The
proposed class includes those who "competed in athletic events that
awarded Prize Money based on place finish or performance in those
sports defined by the NCAA as Individual Sports" or "currently
participate in NCAA Division I Individual Sports and intend to
compete" in such events.

Notably, the complaint acknowledges that this suit does not come in
a vacuum: "[I]t is no secret that the NCAA has come under fire for
its unyielding stance against student-athlete rights and
compensation. . . As widely reported, a number of student-athletes
have filed class action antitrust lawsuits seeking redress for the
harm caused by the NCAA's anticompetitive and illegal rules."

As Bradley wrote earlier this year, the NCAA is currently embroiled
in a barrage of antitrust legal challenges, posing a persistent
threat to its operations as the governing entity of collegiate
athletics. This particular lawsuit aims to obtain an injunction
restraining the NCAA from enforcing "unlawful and anticompetitive
rules that restrict the ability of student-athletes, before or
during their collegiate careers, to accept prize money in
connection with non-NCAA competitions." Although the plaintiff is
not seeking monetary damages, the case adds to the mounting legal
pressure against the NCAA's amateurism regulations. The outcome of
this legal battle, and others, could potentially reshape the
landscape of college sports operations, ushering in significant
changes to the current framework and regulations governing
collegiate athletics. [GN]

NEW YORK, NY: To Pay $17.5MM to Settle "Hijab" Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Tabachnickm, writing for cbsnew.com, reports that New York
City will pay $17.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit over
forcing women to remove hijabs for mug shots, their lawyers and
advocates said in a statement on April 5, 2024.

More than 3,600 in the class action lawsuit will be eligible for
payments of approximately $7,000 to $13,000 nearly four years after
the police agreed to change their policy on religious head
coverings.

The settlement needs to be approved by the federal judge overseeing
the case.

"This is a milestone for New Yorkers' privacy and religious
rights," said Albert Fox Cahn, executive director of the advocacy
organization, Surveillance Technology Oversight Project. "The NYPD
should never have stripped these religious New Yorkers of their
head coverings and dignity. This wasn't just an assault on their
rights but on everything our city claims to believe in."

On March 16, 2018, Jamilla Clark and Arwa Aziz filed a complaint
against the city alleging police made them remove their hijabs for
mug shots. The two women became the named plaintiffs in the class
action lawsuit, which covers arrests that happened between March
16, 2014, and August 23, 2021, in the city. Clark had been arrested
for filing a bogus protective order against her abusive husband,
court documents said. She said the NYPD had threatened to prosecute
her if she didn't remove her hijab. Court documents said an NYPD
officer took a photo of Clark while she wept and begged to put the
coverings back on.

"When they forced me to take off my hijab, I felt as if I were
naked, I'm not sure if words can capture how exposed and violated I
felt," Clark said in a statement. "I'm so proud to have played a
part in getting justice for thousands of New Yorkers. This
settlement proves I was right all those years ago when I said it
was wrong to remove my hijab for a mugshot. I hope no New Yorker
ever has to experience what I went through."

"We send our appreciation to the Muslim women who bravely persisted
with this litigation, prompting policy change that benefit many
with similar religious garb requirement," CAIR-NY Executive
Director Afaf Nasher said in a statement.

The NYPD changed its policy in 2020 allowing all arrestees to
retain their religious head covering unless they fall within
limited exceptions, court documents said. [GN]

NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Court Certifies Privacy Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
blg.com reports that court certifies class action against health
authority arising from employee snooping into medical records.

Introduction

Over the last several years, a number of privacy class action
certification decisions have been favourable to defendants.
However, in Welshman v Central Regional Health Authority, 2024 NLSC
35, the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court rejected all of the
defendant's arguments at the preliminary stage of certification,
leaving them to be decided by the trial judge.

Background

In two separate but similar incidents, one or more rogue employees
of the defendant Health Authority wrongfully accessed the private
medical information of 260 individuals. The plaintiffs allege to
have suffered from, inter alia, distress, humiliation, anger,
upset, mental anguish, shock and fear of identity theft. The
plaintiffs advance claims under Newfoundland and Labrador's Privacy
Act, intrusion upon seclusion, negligence and breach of contract.

Decision

The court certified the class action, considering itself bound by a
2014 decision of the NLSC in a similar case, Hynes v Western
Regional Health Authority.

Statutory privacy tort and intrusion upon seclusion

Like in Hynes, the court certified the statutory privacy tort on
the basis that it is not plain and obvious that this claim would
fail. The court held that whether the Health Authority itself could
be found to have acted "wilfully" and "without colour of right" as
provided under the province's Privacy Act -- and therefore
potentially attract direct liability--should not be decided at the
certification stage but is rather an issue to be determined at
trial. Similarly, the court found that whether the Health Authority
could be vicariously liable for the actions of its employee for
breach of the Privacy Act should be decided at trial.

The court also certified the claim based on the tort of intrusion
upon seclusion, noting that Newfoundland and Labrador's Privacy Act
specifically states that the statutory privacy tort does not
derogate from any other right or remedy available at common law --
an issue that remains under debate in other provinces with
differing legislation.

It is hard to reconcile the Welshman decision on the issue of
direct liability with the findings of the Court of Appeal for
Ontario in Owsianik v Equifax Canada Co. That decision found that a
data custodian cannot be held directly liable for intentional
privacy torts committed by a third party, although a data custodian
could still be sued under negligence for failure to take reasonable
steps to protect the data.

Negligence

The court found that the private information at issue is more
sensitive than the information in a number of other privacy class
actions considered by Canadian courts, and consequently, that it
could be possible at trial for some class members to prove the type
of serious and prolonged psychological harms that meet the
threshold for compensable damages. As such, the court found that
the issue of damages should be determined at trial.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiffs
must prove at certification that aggregate damages are appropriate,
instead finding that aggregate damages are not required for
certification. Rather, the assessment and appropriateness of
aggregate damages can be left to the trial judge.

Breach of contract

The court certified the breach of contract claim, departing from
Ontario's jurisprudence on this point in the healthcare context. In
the Broutzas v Rouge Valley Health System decision, the Ontario
Superior Court held that it was "plain and obvious" that the
relationship between patients and hospitals is not contractual in
nature. In that case, the court held that it would be an "artifice"
to accept the argument that hospital privacy policies or patient
admission forms could form the basis of an implied contract with
implied terms between the hospital and its patients with respect to
the protection of personal health information.

In Welshman, the court held that it was bound by the principles of
judicial comity and stare decisis to follow the 2014 Hynes decision
from Newfoundland and Labrador, which recognized the possibility
that a hospital could be liable in contact for breach of privacy.
While establishing an implied or good faith contract claim may
ultimately prove unsuccessful, the court found that the case law in
Newfoundland and Labrador does not wholly preclude it.

Takeaways

-- In the context of a privacy breach, the sensitivity of the
information at issue can impact how courts apply the "plain and
obvious" analysis for the first criterion of the class action
certification test.

-- The law regarding whether it is "plain and obvious" that a
hospital or health authority cannot be sued for breach of contract
in the context of a privacy breach may differ from province to
province and may attract the attention of appellate courts.

-- While many decisions arising out of privacy breach class
actions have recently favoured defendants, the certification
threshold is low, and some plaintiffs will be able to satisfy it.
[GN]

NIKE INC: Judge Dismisses Greenwashing Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Hall, writing for yahoo.com, reports that the athletic wear
giant faced accusations over greenwashing in Missouri's Eastern
District Court, filed by lead plaintiff Maria Guadalupe Ellis in
May 2023. The complaint alleged that the Beaverton, Ore.-based
company had violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act
(MMPA) by deceiving consumers, misrepresenting products and more.

The MMPA was designed to protect consumers from misleading and
unfair business practices.

Ellis, who noted she purchased three items from Nike's
sustainability line, alleged that the company "falsely and
misleadingly markets the products as 'sustainable,' made with
'sustainable materials,' and environmentally friendly."

The complaint, which accuses the company of greenwashing, notes
that Nike labels some of its products with phrases like "'made with
recycled fibers' which 'reduces our waste and carbon footprint,'"
and others bear a circular symbol that "means that the products are
made with 'sustainable' and environmentally friendly materials."

However, Ellis alleged that Nike's sustainability emblazoned
products, in actuality, had no environmental benefits.

"They are not made with 'sustainable' and environmentally friendly
materials because the products are not sustainable, and are not
made from sustainable and environmentally friendly materials that
are less harmful to the environment," the complaint read. "The
marketing and labeling deceives consumers into believing that they
are receiving products that are 'sustainable' . . . but Nike's
products do not live up to these claims."

Ellis contended that she -- and other class participants -- "would
not have purchased the products if she had known that they were not
sustainable."

One of the main cruxes of Ellis' argument proved to be around
Nike's use of recycled materials.

She alleged that "Of the 2,452 Nike 'Sustainability' Collection
products identified [in the lawsuit], only 239 products are
actually made with recycled materials. Thus, more than 90 percent
of the Nike 'Sustainability' Collection products are not 'made with
recycled fibers.'"

The complaint also took aim at Nike for using recycled polyester
and nylon, both of which are plastic-based synthetics. The
plaintiff alleged that neither of those materials are sustainable
and cause palpable harm to the environment because of the shedding
of microplastics and the limited lives of recycled fibers.

Ultimately, though, Ellis' arguments failed to persuade Judge
Matthew Schelp that the case should see trial.

In the memorandum and order to dismiss the case, Schlep wrote the
following in reference to Ellis' claims around recycled fibers:
"How does she know this to be true? She does not say…She makes no
mention of any testing or analysis. She says nothing about how
their look or feel might indicate their makeup. She puts forth no
allegations surrounding the supplier of defendants' materials. She
claims nothing about the manufacturing process. She details no
inside knowledge from, say, a whistleblower, for example, who has
come forward on this alleged massive corporate lie."

He went on to conclude that an exhibit the plaintiff submitted to
the court detailing the material makeups of certain products "is
silent on whether the products contain or do not contain recycled
material or organic material. That is, it does not say that the
polyester [or materials] in these products was or was not virgin or
was or was not recycled."

Schelp concludes that the allegations are conclusory and that Ellis
also failed to adequately describe the nature of the
advertisements, labels and marketing from Nike that allegedly
convinced her to purchase the products.

Nike isn't the only company that has recently skirted legal trouble
over greenwashing claims.

Greenwashing cases against major brands have seemingly had a tough
time making it to trial. In December, plaintiffs voluntarily
dropped a class-action greenwashing suit against H&M. In May of
last year, the Swedish company also won dismissal of a separate
greenwashing case against it.

Nike did not return Sourcing Journal's request for comment. [GN]

NUSTAR ENERGY: Monteverde & Associates Probes Proposed Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC provides update on: NuStar Energy L.P.
(NYSE: NS) relating to its proposed sale to Sunoco LP. Under the
terms of the agreement, NS shareholders are expected to receive 0.4
shares of Sunoco per share they own. Click here for more
information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/nustar-energy-lp.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

-- Catalent, Inc. (NYSE: CTLT ), relating to its proposed sale to
Novo Holdings. Under the terms of the agreement, CTLT shareholders
will receive $63.50 in cash per share they own. Click here for more
information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/catalent-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

-- The L.S. Starrett Company (NYSE: SCX ), relating to its
proposed sale to an affiliate of MiddleGround Capital. Under the
terms of the agreement, SCX shareholders are expected to receive
$16.19 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/ls-starrett-company. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

-- Everbridge, Inc. (Nasdaq: EVBG ), relating to its proposed sale
to Thoma Bravo. Under the terms of the agreement, EVBG shareholders
will receive $28.60 in cash per share they own. Click here for more
information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/everbridge-inc. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

About Monteverde & Associates PC

Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.

No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:

   Juan Monteverde, Esq.
   MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
   The Empire State Building
   350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
   New York, NY 10118
   United States of America
   jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
   Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]

PROCTER & GAMBLE: May Face Detergent Pod Recall Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
settlementresearch.com reports that Procter & Gamble issued a
recall for more than 8.2 million laundry detergent packets,
including Tide, Gain, Ace and Ariel, because the packets can split
open below the zipper track, making them no longer childproof.

Procter & Gamble has received multiple reports of children in the
United States accessing the laundry packets with three ingesting
them but does not know if the packets were from the recalled lots.

The recall includes 8.2 million packages in the United States and
56,741 in Canada. The recall includes bags with 12 to 39 laundry
detergent packets manufactured between September 2023 and February
2024.

Take advantage of our free claim filing service today, as you may
qualify for up to $780 in compensation. No proof of purchase is
necessary to file a claim. Payments may be increased or decreased
on a pro rata basis. [GN]


PROCTER & GAMBLE: To Defend Suit Over Mislabeled Hair Care Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
K&L Gates LLP, writing for JDSupra, reports that a recent rise in
class-action complaints against beauty industry leaders, targeting
the use of "clean" or "natural" descriptions in cosmetics, further
highlights the tightrope brands must walk when marketing to
consumers.

In recent years, the beauty industry -- consumers, manufacturers,
and everyone in between -- has unquestionably placed greater
emphasis on "clean" and "natural" ingredients and end-products. But
what do these claims actually mean to consumers? Sustainable?
Non-toxic? Cruelty-free? Vegan? Free of harmful ingredients? The
FDA does not define these terms for the cosmetics industry, and the
FTC is expected to update its Green Guides sometime in 2024.

Taking matters into their own hands, class-action plaintiffs
recently targeted Sephora and The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G)
for alleged misleading use of these hot claims.

Sephora's Win Leaves Door Open on Meaning of "Clean"

On 15 March 2024, Sephora overcame a proposed class action in New
York federal court, alleging its use of the label "Clean at
Sephora" on certain beauty products, which contained synthetic or
otherwise harmful ingredients, was deceptively misleading to
consumers. The plaintiff claimed the "Clean at Sephora" program
took advantage of vague regulations enforced in the cosmetics
industry.

District Judge David N. Hurd disagreed. The court dismissed the
complaint, finding that the plaintiff failed to "plausibly allege .
. . that [Sephora] materially 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 court concluded that the plaintiff's complaint left the court
guessing as to how reasonable consumers would mistake "Clean at
Sephora" to mean that the products contained "no synthetic or
harmful ingredients whatsoever." In fact, Sephora states that
"Clean at Sephora" means: "Brands formulated without phthalates,
formaldehyde or formaldehyde releasers, oxybenzone and octinoxate,
and more," not free from any and all synthetic ingredients. Thus,
Sephora's clear statement on Sephora's definition of "clean"
notified consumers as to the reasonable interpretation of the
claim.

Pending: P&G to Defend Label on Hair Care Products

On 9 February 2024, two proposed class-action plaintiffs sued P&G
in California federal court for P&G's phrasing of "X%
natural-origin/naturally derived ingredients" on its Herbal
Essences and Pantene shampoos and conditioners. Plaintiffs
specifically allege these hair care products do not contain the
identified percentages of natural-origin or naturally derived
ingredients because, even if certain ingredients (e.g., citric
acid) are available in nature, these ingredients "are not generally
available from natural sources on the scale required for use in
mass-produced products and" are "instead created through industrial
processes for use in the [identified] products."

Plaintiffs also claim that P&G's labeling is based on the British
Standard Institute's (BSI) ISO 16128 -- an alleged "Byzantine
method" to calculate "natural origin" and "% natural-origin."
Plaintiff understands certain BSI publications to warn that brands
should not rely upon ISO 16128 when drafting claims and labeling.
The cited publication reads: "Neither ISO 16128-1 nor this document
[i.e., ISO 16128-2] addresses product communication (e.g. claims
and labelling),. . . characteristics of packaging materials or
regulatory requirements applicable for cosmetics."

It has yet to be determined whether the court also interprets BSI's
failure to address product communications as a warning against
brands using this standard to create their product claims and
labels.

Takeaways

As the old adage correctly notes, the only constant is change. We
are certainly on the precipice of changing conceptions of these
terms, rooted in evolving consumer understanding and expectations.

Where does this leave brands seeking to make these claims? The
above actions remind brands of the importance of clear consumer
communications, robust substantiation, and constant revisiting of
claims against the evolving legal and consumer landscape. [GN]

S.C. JOHNSON: Voluntary Dismissal of Garvey Suit Disapproved
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGARET PEGGI LOUISE
GARVEY, v. S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-01518-JSW
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered an order
disapproving the stipulation to dismiss with prejudice.

The parties may resubmit a stipulation of dismissal voluntarily
dismissing the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice and the class
claims without prejudice, said the Court.

Alternatively, the parties may submit a proposed class dismissal
for court approval in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(e).

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated a slew of
consumer
protection laws relating to the Defendant's representations that
its Ziploc (TM) brand products are "recyclable."

The Plaintiff filed the action not only on behalf of herself, but
on behalf of a putative class of California purchasers.

S. C. Johnson is a privately held manufacturer of household
cleaning supplies and other consumer chemicals.

A copy of the Court's order dated Mar. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vT7kdV at no extra
charge.[CC]

SCULPTOR CAPITAL: Agrees to Settle Stockholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN RE SCULPTOR CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC.
STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION CONSOLIDATED
C.A. No. 2023-0921-SG

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

TO: All record holders and beneficial owners of Sculptor Capital
Management, Inc. ("Sculptor") common stock whose shares Rithm
Capital Corp. ("Rithm") acquired at the closing of the Merger.

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

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that plaintiff Gilles Beauchemin
("Plaintiff"), on behalf of himself and the Class (defined below)
and defendants Daniel S. Och, Harold A. Kelly, Jr., Richard Lyon,
James O'Connor, Zoltan Varga, Marcy Engel, Bharath Srikrishnan,
Charmel Maynard, David Bonanno, James Levin, Wayne Cohen, Rithm
Capital Corp., Calder Sub, Inc., Calder Sub I, LP, Calder Sub II,
LP, Calder Sub III, LP, Sculptor Capital Management, Inc. (the
"Company"), Sculptor Capital LP, Sculptor Capital Advisors LP,
Sculptor Capital Advisors II LP, (the "Defendants") have reached a
proposed settlement for $6,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). In
addition to a fee not to exceed 25% of the Settlement Fund plus
expenses, Plaintiff's Counsel will request an award for causing
certain transaction price increases and supplemental disclosures,
not to exceed $6,000,000, which will be paid solely by the Company,
the Company's successor, Defendants' insurers, or other third
parties (not the Settlement Fund). The terms of the Settlement are
stated in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise
and Release between Plaintiff and the Defendants, dated January 22,
2024 (the "Stipulation"), a copy of which is available at
www.SculptorStockholderLitigation.com. The proposed Settlement, if
approved, will resolve all claims in the Action and result in the
dismissal of the Action with prejudice.

A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on May 20, 2024
at 10:00 a.m., before The Honorable Sam Glasscock III, Vice
Chancellor, in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, Sussex County, Court of Chancery Courthouse, 34 The
Circle, Georgetown, Delaware 19947, to, among other things: (i)
determine whether the Action may be finally maintained as a
non-opt-out class action and whether the Class should be finally
certified, for purposes of the Settlement, pursuant to Court of
Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (ii) determine
whether Plaintiff may be finally appointed as representative for
the Class and Plaintiff's Counsel, Christensen & Dougherty LLP;
Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC; Kaskela Law LLC; Labaton Keller
Sucharow LLP; and Saxena White P.A., may be finally appointed as
counsel for the Class, and whether Plaintiff and Plaintiff's
Counsel have adequately represented the interests of the Class in
the Action; (iii) determine whether the proposed Settlement on the
terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and should be approved by
the Court; (iv) determine whether a Judgment, substantially in the
form attached as Exhibit D to the Stipulation, should be entered
dismissing the Action with prejudice; (v) determine whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and
reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (vi) determine
whether the application by Plaintiff's Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses should be approved; (vii)
determine whether the application by Plaintiff for an incentive
award should be approved; (viii) hear and rule on any objections to
the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or to the
application by Plaintiff's Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses; and (ix) consider any other matters that may properly
be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Any
updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to
the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or
remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement
website, www.SculptorStockholderLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the
Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the
Settlement Administrator at 877-883-8091 or
info@SculptorStockholderLitigation.com. A copy of the Notice can
also be downloaded from the Settlement website,
www.SculptorStockholderLitigation.com.

If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to "Eligible Class Members" in accordance with the proposed
Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of
allocation as is approved by the Court. Under the proposed Plan of
Allocation, "Eligible Class Members" will consist of all Class
Members who held or beneficially owned shares of Sculptor common
stock at the closing of the Merger on November 17, 2023 (the
"Closing") and received, or were entitled to receive, the Public
Merger Consideration for their "Eligible Shares." "Eligible Shares"
will be the number of shares of Sculptor common stock held or
beneficially owned by Eligible Class Members at the Closing and for
which Eligible Class Members received, or were entitled to receive,
the Public Merger Consideration. As explained in further detail in
the Notice, pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, payments from the
Net Settlement Fund to Eligible Class Members will be made in the
same manner in which Eligible Class Members received the Public
Merger Consideration. Eligible Class Members do not have to submit
a claim form to receive a payment from the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Plaintiff's Counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with the Settlement must
be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiff's Counsel and
Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than May
3, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice.

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

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

    A.B Data Ltd.
    Email: info@SculptorStockholderLitigation.com
    Tel: 877-883-8091

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

     Ned Weinberger
     Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP
     222 Delaware Ave., Suite 1510
     Wilmington, Delaware 19801
     Tel: 866-640-7254
     Email: delawaresettlements@labaton.com

Dated: April 5, 2024

BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF
CHANCERY OF THE STATE
DELAWARE

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

View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240402301953/en/

CONTACT:

     Ned Weinberger
     Tel: 866-640-7254
     Email: delawaresettlements@labaton.com [GN]

SELECT SOURCE: Faces Class Action Over FCRA and ICRAA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
morningstar.com reports that Potter Handy, renowned for its
expertise in employment law and class action lawsuits, has filed a
class action lawsuit against Select Source International (Select
Source) on behalf of Plaintiffs Eugene Howard, Robert Williams, and
other affected individuals. The suit alleges that Select Source
willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the
Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA), and Labor
Code Section 432.7 for using expunged cases in employment
decisions.

The complaint, filed in the Superior Court of California, states
that Select Source, a staffing agency based in San Diego, conducted
background checks on potential employees without following the
procedures required by the FCRA and ICRAA.

Further, the Plaintiffs allege that the consumer reporting agency
unlawfully reported convictions which had been expunged in
violation of both the FCRA and ICRAA.

Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that Select Source failed to
provide proper disclosures and obtain written consent from job
applicants before conducting background checks, and relying on
expunged crimes to make employment decisions.

In both instances, the Plaintiffs allege that they were denied
significant employment opportunities based on background checks
that included information that should never have been included in a
lawful background check and should never have been considered by
Select Source. The laws in question exist to allow individuals who
have gone through the process of expungement to move on with their
lives and continue to be productive members of society.

As stated in the complaint, Select Source's actions violate federal
and state laws that are put in place to protect job applicants from
unfair hiring practices. The FCRA mandates employers to take
specific steps before using consumer reports for employment
purposes, including obtaining written consent from the applicant.
Similarly, ICRAA requires employers to disclose their use of
consumer reports and obtain authorization from the applicant before
conducting background checks. And Labor Code §432.7 exists to
protect individuals who, while they had criminal issues in the
past, have gone through the process of expunging these crimes from
their records. By failing to comply with these laws, Select Source
has put individuals like Plaintiffs Howard and Williams at a
disadvantage in the job market.

Potter Handy Law Firm is determined to hold Select Source
accountable for its willful violation of these laws. The firm
believes that background checks should be conducted fairly and in
accordance with regulations to prevent discrimination against
individuals with dismissed cases on their record. This lawsuit
seeks to not only provide justice for Plaintiffs Howard and
Williams but also for other affected individuals who have faced
similar discriminatory practices.

"We are committed to protecting the rights of employees and
ensuring that employers follow the law when conducting background
checks," said Mark Potter, lead attorney at Potter Handy Law Firm.
"We will not stand by as companies such as Select Source continue
to disregard the rights of job applicants and violate crucial laws
put in place to protect them."

Potter Handy Law Firm urges anyone who has been denied employment
by Select Source or any other company based on a dismissed case to
come forward and join the class action lawsuit. For more
information, please contact Potter Handy Law Firm at (415) 534-1911
or visit their website at www.potterhandy.com.

About Potter Handy Law Firm:

Potter Handy, LLP is a leading law firm due to its extraordinary
record of precedent-setting cases. While Potter Handy’s advocacy
has resulted in hundreds of published opinions, there are a score
of such cases that wield tremendous influence. These cases -- many
of first impression -- have shaped constitutional standing issues,
damages analysis, the proper construction and interpretation of
civil rights statutes and a variety of other hot-topic issues, and
have been cited to by trial and appellate courts on more than
10,000 occasions. Potter Handy takes cases to judgment on average
more than once a month.

  Mark Potter
  Jim Treglio
  (415) 534-1911
  mark@potterhandy.com
  jimt@potterhandy.com [GN]

SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Circuit Court Affirms Class Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP at JDSupra reports that on March 25, 2024,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
unanimously affirmed a trial court decision dismissing a putative
securities class action brought by investors against a
biopharmaceutical company ("Company") and certain of its officers
and executives, alleging violations Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5. In re Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No.
22-55641 (9th Cir. Mar. 25, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that
defendants made false statements about developments regarding the
Company's new COVID-19 antibody treatment, which allegedly misled
investors and the public to believe that the Company had discovered
a "cure" for the virus in order to boost the Company's stock prices
to improve its allegedly "dire financial situation." Judge Anthony
J. Battaglia of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California dismissed plaintiff's claims without
prejudice, holding that plaintiff had not plausibly pleaded falsity
or scienter. The trial court entered judgment after plaintiff
failed to file an amended pleading. The Plaintiff appealed and the
Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that (1) the allegedly misleading
statements were inactionable puffery and (2) standing alone, the
Company's allegedly poor financial position was not sufficient to
warrant an inference of scienter.

The Company, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, allegedly
announced on May 15, 2020, that it had identified an antibody that
demonstrated "100% inhibition" against the COVID-19 virus "in an in
vitro virus infection experiment." The press release allegedly
disclosed contemporaneously that the antibody was still in
preclinical stages and had not received FDA approval. That same
day, in interviews with several media outlets, the individual
defendants allegedly made statements touting the Company's findings
that the new antibody had demonstrated the ability to "100%
completely prevent infection" and that, if approved, the antibody
could end the need to socially distance. The Company's stock price
allegedly "rose precipitously" on May 15. However, when, on May 20,
2020, several other media outlets published stories questioning the
importance of the Company's development, the Company's stock price
dropped.

Plaintiff filed the operative complaint on November 30, 2021, which
pressed claims against defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
and Rule 10-b(5). The gravamen of the complaint alleged that the
Company falsely claimed to have developed a cure for COVID-19,
purposefully misleading investors to invest in the Company so that
it could raise capital it allegedly needed to stay afloat. The
district court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, finding
plaintiff failed to plausibly allege falsity because the Company
contemporaneously disclosed that its antibody was in the early
stages of development and testing and because the allegedly
misleading statements about the antibody's efficacy and potential
at most amounted to inactionable "corporate optimism." It further
found that the Company's need to raise funds did not give rise to a
strong inference of scienter and that plaintiffs' failure to allege
falsity further cut against an inference of scienter. The district
court also dismissed the Section 20(a) claim for plaintiff's
failure to state a predicate violation under Section 10(b).

Reviewing the district court order de novo, the Ninth Circuit
affirmed dismissal on both grounds. With respect to falsity, the
Ninth Circuit concluded that, although defendants' "enthusiasm" for
the new antibody "might have been overblown," taken within the
context of the Company's surrounding disclosures, "their statements
were not materially misleading." The Ninth Circuit found it
particularly significant that both the Company's press release and
statements by the individual defendants during interviews on May
15, 2020, allegedly expressed that the antibody still was in the
early stages of development and testing. Hence, when read within
their broader context, the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiff failed
to show a reasonable person would construe the allegedly false
statements to mean that the Company was representing that their
antibody "without further testing, was an immediate cure for
COVID-19."

With respect to scienter, the Ninth Circuit rejected plaintiff's
argument that the combination of (1) the individual defendants'
alleged roles and access to testing data, (2) the allegedly
"blatant falsity" of defendants' statements concerning the efficacy
and potential of the antibody, and (3) the Company's allegedly
"dire financial situation," taken together, sufficed to raise the
requisite strong inference of scienter. First, the Court held that
plaintiffs failed to allege that the individual defendants had
access to any information about the antibody that was not disclosed
by the Company in its press release. Second, the Court reiterated
that plaintiff failed to show any of the defendants' alleged
misstatements were objectively false and, thus, could not support a
finding of scienter. Finally, the Court found that, although
plaintiffs had alleged the Company "was clearly helped by the
market's response to the announcement" about its antibody,
plaintiff failed to identify "any particular improper or inflated
sales." The Ninth Circuit reasoned that, without these
complementary allegations, plaintiff could not plead a strong
inference that the Company sought to improperly manipulate its
stock price. [GN]

SOUTHLAND TRANSIT: Vasquez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
SAUL VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
former and current aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. SOUTHLAND
TRANSIT, INC., and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV06877
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 19, 2024) arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the
California Labor Code and the Business and Professions Code.

The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime,
failure to pay minimum wages, meal and rest period violations,
failure to pay vested vacation benefits, sick and COVID
period/benefits violations, failure to maintain employee records,
unreimbursed business expenses, release of claims for wage
violations, reporting time violations, untimely payment of wages,
failure to timely pay wages at separation, wage statements
violations, misclassification, failure to pay regular rate of pay,
and unfair business practices.

Plaintiff Vasquez was hired by the Defendants to work as a
non-exempt, hourly wage employee from October 2013 to April 2023.
He performed various job duties, which included driving a bus,
helping and assisting customers to and from wheelchairs.

Southland Transit, Inc. is a community transit company that serves
Southern California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zorik Mooradian, Esq.
          Andrina G. Hanson, Esq.
          Nanor C. Kamberian, Esq.
          MOORADIAN LAW, APC
          24007 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210  
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 487-1998
          Facsimile: (888) 783-1030
          E-mail: zorik@mooradianlaw.com
                  andrina@mooradianlaw.com
                  nanor@mooradianlaw.com

STAR TRIBUNE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action for $2.9MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Star Tribune Media Co. has agreed to
a $2.9 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit
claiming the newspaper illegally shared data related to
subscribers' video-watching habits with Facebook.

The settlement class consists of anyone in the United States who
has or had a Facebook account and has or had a digital subscription
or a home delivery subscription that includes digital access to the
Star Tribune and who viewed videos on the Star Tribune's website
between July 7, 2020, and Feb. 5, 2024.

Plaintiffs allege that Star Tribune disclosed its digital
subscriber's personally identifiable information to Facebook
without permission, violating the Video Privacy Protection Act. The
newspaper allegedly embedded a Meta Pixel tracker on its website,
sending Facebook details of users' video viewing history.

Star Tribune Media Co. is a locally owned media company serving
Minnesota and the upper Midwest. It is the fifth-largest newspaper
in the United States.

While Star Tribune Media denies any allegations of wrongdoing, it
has agreed to establish a settlement fund of $2.9 million to
resolve the claims.

Eligible class members can submit a claim form to receive a
proportionate share of the settlement fund; the payout per claimant
will depend on how many class members submit approved claims.

The deadline to opt out of or object to the settlement is May 6,
2024.

A final approval hearing in the Star Tribune settlement will take
place May 20, 2024.

Who's Eligible

Anyone in the United States who has or had a Facebook account and
has or had a digital subscription or a home delivery subscription
that includes digital access to the Star Tribune, and who viewed
videos on the Star Tribune's website between July 7, 2020, and Feb.
5, 2024

Potential Award

TBD

Proof of Purchase

N/A

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

07/05/2024

Case Name

Kyle Feldman v. Star Tribune Media Co. LLC, Case No.
0:22-cv-01731-ECT-TNL, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota

Final Hearing

05/20/24

Settlement Website

StarTribuneVPPASettlement.com

Claims Administrator

     Feldman v. Star Tribune Media Co. LLC
     c/o Kroll Settlement Administration
     PO Box 5324
     New York, NY 10150-5324
     Tel: 833-462-3508

Class Counsel

     Nicholas A Coulson
     LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON PC
      975 E Jefferson Ave
     Detroit, MI 48207
     Phone: +1 313-392-0015

Defense Counsel

     Jeffrey P Justman
     FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE AND REATH LLP
     1470 Walnut Street, Suite 300
     Boulder, CO 80302
     Tel:+1 303 447 7700 [GN]

TEVA CANADA: Court Denies Plaintiff's Appeal for Class Action Cert
------------------------------------------------------------------
torys.com reports that in Palmer v. Teva Canada Limited,1 the
Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal from the
lower court's decision denying certification of a proposed product
liability class action that claimed damages for a potential
increased risk of being diagnosed with cancer in the future. The
Court's decision confirms that this type of alleged harm is not
compensable, and also that proposed common issues must have a
minimal evidentiary foundation to clear certification.

What you need to know

-- No compensation for risk "in the air". In order for a proposed
class action in negligence to be viable, actual harm (compensable
damage) must be alleged. Exposure to an increased risk of future
harm is not compensable and, therefore, cannot ground a cause of
action for a class action.

-- Minimal evidentiary foundation for commonality. At
certification, plaintiffs must provide some minimal evidentiary
foundation to satisfy the common issue criterion. There must be
some basis in fact that a proposed common issue actually exists for
each member of the class before courts in Ontario will certify the
claim.

Background: the Palmer class action

The plaintiffs sought to certify a proposed class action against
the defendant pharmaceutical companies in respect of valsartan, a
medication used to treat high blood pressure. In 2018, the
defendants recalled certain lots of valsartan after discovering
that the active pharmaceutical ingredient, which was supplied by a
third party, had been contaminated with N-nitrosodimethylamine
(NDMA) and N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA). The plaintiffs alleged
that these compounds are toxic carcinogens and commenced a class
action on behalf of people who were prescribed and ingested
valsartan.

While the plaintiffs advanced several causes of action, their
principal claim was for negligent manufacture. The plaintiffs
claimed damages for the potential increased risk of developing
cancer or other adverse health effects in the future, as well as
for mental distress over the fear of potentially suffering future
adverse health effects. The plaintiffs also sought damages for the
costs of medical screening and monitoring for early detection of
adverse health effects, the costs of drugs thrown away after the
recall and refunds for contaminated drugs consumed. At first
instance, the motion judge denied certification, holding that the
plaintiffs failed to satisfy the cause of action, commonality and
preferability criteria.

No negligence "in the air"

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the
plaintiffs failed to plead a viable cause of action in negligence
as required by section 5(1)(a) of Ontario's Class Proceedings Act.2
The Court explained that actual damage is a necessary component of
a claim in negligence: "there is no liability 'in the air' and no
right to be free from the prospect of damage".3 Here, the
plaintiffs were not alleging that they had actually been diagnosed
with cancer or had actually experienced adverse health effects.
Rather, the plaintiffs claimed there was an increased risk of this
potentially happening in the future. The Court of Appeal applied
the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Babstock v. Atlantic
Lottery, holding that exposure to an increased risk of injury or
harm is not compensable in negligence.

The plaintiffs' claim for damages based on mental distress was also
not viable. While psychological injury over the fear of future harm
could be compensable, such injury must rise above ordinary
annoyances and be "serious and prolonged". The injury must also be
reasonably foreseeable in a person of ordinary fortitude. Here, the
plaintiffs failed to plead material facts demonstrating that the
alleged mental distress rose above ordinary anxieties and fears.
However, even if they had, the Court held that any such injury
would not be foreseeable in a person of ordinary fortitude. The
Health Canada recall notices announcing the contaminated valsartan
acknowledged that there theoretically was a potential increased
risk of developing cancer, but that this was between 0.0011% and
0.0086%. The recall notices advised that the baseline lifetime risk
of developing cancer is already 50%. They also told individuals to
continue taking their medication unless advised otherwise by a
doctor. On these facts, the Court held that the recalls would not
cause a person of reasonable fortitude to suffer a compensable
level of psychological injury.

Finally, the Court agreed with the motion judge that the
plaintiffs' claim for costs of medical monitoring, costs of drugs
thrown away after the recall and refunds for drugs consumed was
likewise not viable. Damages for pure economic loss in negligence
(i.e., in cases without bodily injury) are recoverable in only
limited circumstances. When dealing with an alleged shoddy good,
only expenditures for avoiding injury from a product that presents
an imminent risk of physical harm can be claimed. The plaintiffs'
pleading did not establish that the valsartan was imminently
dangerous, and the damages the plaintiffs claimed were not for
avoiding or repairing the alleged defect in the product. Indeed,
the plaintiffs admitted discarding the contaminated valsartan. They
therefore had no basis for recovery.

No commonality

The Court of Appeal also upheld the motion judge's conclusion that
the plaintiffs did not satisfy the common issue criterion under
section 5(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act. In so doing, the
Court affirmed the motion judge's analysis, which applied the
two-step evidentiary framework for determining whether the
plaintiffs' evidence meets the commonality requirement for
certification. As we previously reported, the two-step framework
requires plaintiffs to demonstrate a minimal evidentiary foundation
for the proposed common issues. Plaintiffs must show that there is
"some basis in fact" that (1) the proposed common issues actually
exist, and (2) they are common across the class.

Here, while there was some basis in fact that NDMA and NDEA cause
an increased risk of developing cancer, there was no basis in fact
that the alleged psychological injury from being notified of this
increased risk was a common issue. In reviewing the evidence, the
Court assessed both whether this issue existed (step 1) and whether
it was common across the class (step 2):

-- There was no basis in fact that this issue existed for all
proposed class members. At most, the evidence demonstrated only a
minority of the proposed class suffered mental distress that might
be compensable. Indeed, the plaintiffs' own expert found that all
proposed representative plaintiffs who were assessed had either
recovered from any alleged psychological harm or did not suffer
this harm at all.

-- The Court also observed that claims for psychological damage
are often inherently individualized. The Court affirmed the motion
judge's conclusion that "the hard work remains for individual
issues trials and the common issues trial is of marginal
utility".4

In light of the analysis on the cause of action and commonality
criteria, the Court declined to address preferability.

Implications

The Court of Appeal's decision draws a clear distinction between
negligence cases dealing with actual harm and those dealing with
the mere risk of harm. Proposed product liability class actions
that claim damages based only on an increased risk of future harm
will likely be difficult to certify.

The Court of Appeal's decision also confirms that plaintiffs will
need to show some minimal evidentiary foundation in order to
satisfy the commonality criterion at certification. The existence
of a proposed common issue will not be assumed on the basis of the
plaintiffs' pleadings in Ontario. There must be some basis in fact
that the issue actually exists for each member of the proposed
class. This conclusion is consistent with emerging case law from
other appellate courts, as we have discussed in a previous
publication.

FOOTNOTES

1. 2024 ONCA 220.

2. Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6.

3. Palmer, para. 47.

4. Palmer, para. 115.[GN]

TICKETMASTER CANADA: Court Approves Insurance Class Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that The Quebec
Superior Court has approved the settlement agreement reached in a
class action lawsuit against Ticketmaster Canada LP and associated
entities, along with CUMIS General Insurance Company, AZGA
Insurance Agency Canada Ltd., and AZGA Service Canada Inc.

The approved settlement resolves allegations that during the class
period, the defendants sold "Event Ticket Protector" insurance in a
misleading and deceitful manner, thus violating Quebec's Consumer
Protection Act and the Competition Act. The class action was
authorized for settlement purposes, with Mathieu Trudelle appointed
as the representative plaintiff. The class encompasses individuals
who purchased the disputed insurance using a billing address in
Quebec between August 2, 2019, and March 31, 2023.

In its ruling, the court approved a preliminary payment of $500,000
plus applicable taxes and disbursements for class counsel fees,
postponing the final determination of the fees' reasonableness
until the settlement administrator is prepared to distribute the
settlement fund to the class members.

The Superior Court noted that the social objectives of the class
action procedure must always be considered when approving a
settlement or class counsel fees: to facilitate access to justice,
modify harmful conduct, and conserve judicial resources.

The settlement agreement, valued at $3.3 million, covers class
counsel fees, settlement expenses, and approved claims. Any
remaining amount will be equally divided between two charities, as
identified by the parties, ensuring no part of the settlement
amount reverts to the defendants.

Additionally, the agreement simplified the claims process for class
members, allowing for refunds of the insurance price paid,
including taxes, with the potential for receiving between 30
percent to 100 percent of the amount paid, subject to the number of
claims approved.

The court's decision came after the court evaluated the proposed
settlement against established criteria to ensure its fairness and
adequacy for the class members. The criteria include the likelihood
of the action's success, the nature of the evidence, the
settlement's terms, and the absence of objections to the agreement,
among other considerations. [GN]

TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Court Rejects Appeal In Ticketbots Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press, writing for saobserver.net, reports that the
Supreme Court of Canada has declined to hear an appeal by
Ticketmaster and Live Nation, which face class-action lawsuits in
multiple provinces for allegedly profiting from third-party ticket
reselling.

The case stems from allegations Ticketmaster facilitated mass
ticket scalping in breach of its own terms of use and policy,
allowing resellers to use automated "ticket bots" to scoop up event
tickets beyond limits it imposes on individual buyers.

The class-action lawsuit filed in B.C. was one of five launched
against the companies in 2018 after media reports about
Ticketmaster's activity in the secondary ticket market.

The Toronto Star and the CBC published stories about an undercover
investigation of Ticketmaster's pitch to so-called "ticket
resellers" at a convention in Las Vegas in the summer of 2018.

In a 2023 ruling from the B.C. Court of Appeal, the panel of judges
laid out the background of what spurred the lawsuits in B.C.,
Ontario, Saskatchewan and Quebec.

At the centre of the ensuing controversy was Ticketmaster's pitch
to professional scalpers on the use of Tradedesk, an inventory
software product used by resellers to "validate and manage" tickets
they sell on the company's website.

The media reports "suggested" that the company was touting the
software to ticket resellers as a means of facilitating "mass
scalping," which appeared to violate the Ticketmaster website's
terms of use.

In B.C., lead plaintiff David Gomel claims he paid about US$437 for
tickets to a Bruno Mars concert in Vancouver scheduled for July
2017.

Gomel bought the tickets from StubHub, a secondary seller of event
tickets that competes with Ticketmaster.

The lawsuits hinge, in part, on claims of a "general inflationary
effect" on the secondary market for tickets, forcing people to pay
more than face value, in violation of consumer protection
legislation and the Competition Act.

The class in British Columbia claims Ticketmaster wrongfully
profited by facilitating ticket reselling, while falsely claiming
that members of the public would have a "fair opportunity" to buy
tickets at their face value rather than at inflated markups.

In its submissions to the Supreme Court of Canada, Ticketmaster
argued that its purchase policy and terms of use were agreements
with individuals who used the company's website to buy tickets,
rather than "representations" to the public at-large.

The company claimed the B.C. Court of Appeal got it wrong when it
allowed the class-action to move forward by turning a "consumer
contract into a promise to a market at-large."

Ticketmaster claimed in its Supreme Court of Canada submissions
that the lawsuits it faces "have the potential to impact every
business operating an e-commerce platform in Canada by vastly
enlarging the kinds of claims they may face."

The company claimed that hearing its appeal would give the high
court "an opportunity to provide guidance on whether website terms
of use are a sufficient factual basis for claims of
misrepresentation to the public."

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the company's request to hear
the appeal, upholding the B.C. Court of Appeal's July 2023 ruling.

The company's lawyer, the B.C. law firm representing the class and
lead plaintiff David Gomel did not immediately respond to requests
for comment. [GN]

TKO SHELBY: Trial Court Certifies False Advertising Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff reports that the trial court's
class certification order was internally inconsistent.

We vacated and remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs brought this class action lawsuit after receiving a
promotional flyer from a car dealership. They alleged that the
flyer was deceptive and misled them into believing they won a free
car or $20,000 cash. Instead, they received a $2 prize. Plaintiffs
alleged that they and nearly 1,000 other people were harmed by the
deceptive promotion.

The trial court certified plaintiffs' case as a class action in a
detailed written order, and defendants appealed. At oral argument,
the parties acknowledged that the trial court's certification order
is internally inconsistent. Specifically, the trial court's order
used one class definition to analyze the certification criteria,
then changed the definition when actually certifying the class.

This inconsistency required us to vacate the order and remand for
further proceedings. We could not engage in meaningful appellate
review of a trial court order, particularly one that includes a
discretionary component, when the order suffers from this type of
internal contradiction.

Because we vacated the order on this basis, we did not need to
address all of defendants' arguments in this appeal, many of which
may be mooted by entry of a new order. We limited our analysis to a
few issues, such as conflicts of interest and efficiency concerns,
that are likely to persist on remand even after the inconsistency
is corrected.

On remand, the trial court should examine whether the proposed
class creates conflicts of interest and, if so, take appropriate
steps to remedy the conflict, such as dividing the class into
subclasses with separate counsel, or denying class certification of
this proposed class altogether. On remand, the trial court should
also examine the potential recovery available for each of
plaintiffs' claims and assess whether some or all of those claims
present the problem identified by Maffei, where the costs of
litigating that claim so greatly exceeds class members' potential
damages that it renders class certification prohibitively
inefficient. If so, the court should consider whether, in its
discretion, some or all of plaintiffs' claims are inappropriate for
class certification.

Reversed and remanded.

Surgeon v. TKO Shelby LLC (Lawyers' Weekly No. 010-058-24, 16 pp.)
(Richard Dietz, J.) Appealed from Superior Court, Gaston County
(Forrest D. Bridges, J.) Higgins Benjamin, PLLC, by John F. Bloss
and Frederick L. Berry, for plaintiff-appellees; Gray, Layton,
Kersh, Solomon, Furr & Smith, P.A., by Michael L. Carpenter and D.
Scott Hester, Jr.; Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, by
Jeremy A. Stephenson; and Barnes, Alford, Stork & Johnson, LLP, by
Curtis W. Dowling and Matthew G. Gerrald, for defendant-appellants.
North Carolina Supreme Court [GN]

TUSCANY 38: Salazar Sues Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------
GLENN SALAZAR, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class v. TUSCANY 38, INC. d/b/a IL MONELLO, NY BESS CORP.
d/b/a TUSCANY STEAKHOUSE, 244 RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a IL TINELLO EAST,
SXB RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a IL TINELLO WEST, STEVE HAXHIAJ, and BEN
CELAJ, Case No. 1:24-cv-02068 (S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2024) seeks to
recover from Defendants unpaid statutory minimum wage due to
invalid tip credit, unpaid spread of hours premium, unlawfully
retained gratuities, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants as a busboy from December
2022 until his termination in December 2023.

Tuscany 38, Inc. is a New York-based Italian restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 W. 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1180
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

UNITED WHOLESALE: Faces Class Action Over RICO Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Jensen, writing for National Mortgage Professional, reports
that borrowers filed a class action lawsuit against United
Wholesale Mortgage (UWM) and CEO Mat Ishbia, alleging the lender
violated the RICO Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(RESPA), civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment among other claims.


The lawsuit was filed on April 2 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and the summons was
issued April 3. The plaintiffs Therisa D. Escue, Billy Escue, Kim
Schelbe, and Brian P. Weatherill, filed on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated.

The lawsuit claims UWM should be held accountable "for
orchestrating and executing a deliberate scheme, in coordination
with a host of corrupted mortgage brokers, to cheat hundreds of
thousands of borrowers out of billions of dollars in excess fees
and costs that they paid to finance their homes."

The plaintiffs state in the filing that independent mortgage
brokers are meant to be independent, unlike a loan officer at a
retail lender.

"An 'independent' mortgage broker owes loyalty to the borrower, not
the bank. And because the broker is not tied to any particular
lending institution, the broker can collect and present options
from many different lenders to ensure the borrower receives the
most competitively priced options in their best financial
interest," the lawsuit states.

In 2021, UWM issued an ultimatum to all of its broker partners
stating they can either choose to do business with UWM or their
rivals, Rocket Pro TPO and Fairway Independent Mortgage, but cannot
continue to do business with both. Since the ultimatum was issued,
a number of lawsuits have been filed between brokers and UWM for
allegedly violating the ultimatum. Broker partners who breach the
ultimatum are required to pay liquidated damages in the amount of
$5,000 per loan closed with UWM, or $50,000, whichever is greater.


The lawsuit quotes Ishbia saying that UWM's broker partners are
"completely independent" and that brokers have the ability to shop
around among their choice of wholesale lenders.

However, the complaint alleges that nearly half of all UWM
mortgages are originated by brokers who refer 75% or more of their
business to UWM.

"Over the past three years, UWM has issued nearly $39 billion in
mortgages through 'independent' brokers who refer 99% of their
business to UWM. And during last year alone, more than 8,000
so-called 'independent' brokers funneled 99% or more of their
mortgages to UWM, worth at least $11.7 billion," the lawsuit read.


The lawsuit was filed the same day a new media firm, Hunterbrook,
published an investigative article on UWM that contains similar
allegations as those mentioned in the lawsuit.

"Accountability requires action. That's why the Hunterbrook
Foundation shared research with Boies Schiller Flexner -- and we
hope homeowners have a path to restitution for what our data
analysis indicates could be substantial damages," said Hunterbrook
Media Publisher Sam Koppelman.

The plaintiffs allege that the consequences of UWM's alleged
misconduct have been "devastating," claiming that UWM rarely
offered the best available pricing throughout the past four years
and routinely charged fees that substantially exceeded their
competitors' offerings to the tune of billions of dollars.

UWM shared a statement with NMP in an email that read "The lawsuit
filed is a sham. Although the real party behind it is a hedge fund
named Hunterbrook, the lawyers concealed the hedge fund's
involvement. Hunterbrook's business model is to sensationalize
public information to manipulate the stock market, thereby
enriching their wealthy funders at the expense of regular
investors, many of whom are hard-working UWM employees. UWM will
defend these allegations to the fullest extent permitted by law and
stands with the thousands of independent mortgage brokers who serve
the unique needs of borrowers across the country."

The plaintiffs are seeking damages in an amount to be determined at
trial. [GN]

WALMART INC: Deadline to Submit Claims for Cash Payment Set June 5
------------------------------------------------------------------
apnews.com reports that if you purchased some weighted groceries or
bagged fruit at Walmart in recent years, you may be eligible for a
cash payment from a class action settlement with the retailer.

The class action lawsuit, first filed in October 2022, alleges that
Walmart shoppers across the U.S. and Puerto Rico who purchased
certain sold-by-weight meat and seafood as well as select citrus
sold in bulk bags paid more than the lowest price advertised in
stores.

Walmart has denied any wrongdoing -- but agreed to pay $45 million
to settle the litigation. That means that impacted consumers can
now submit claims for cash payments.

"We will continue providing our customers everyday low prices to
help them save money on the products they want and need," a
spokesperson for the Bentonville, Arkansas, company stated. "We
still deny the allegations, however we believe a settlement is in
the best interest of both parties."

Consumers can learn more about submitting a claim and the products
that are covered on the settlement administrator's website. Cash
payments are available for anyone who purchased these certain
weighted meat, seafood and bagged citrus products -- which includes
select oranges, grapefruit and tangerines -- at Walmart in the U.S.
and Puerto Rico between October 19, 2018 and January 19, 2024.

Payments will range in amount depending on each claim. It's
possible to get some money even if you don't have a purchase
receipt anymore.

Consumers without a proof of purchase can receive between $10 and
$25, depending on how many eligible products they attest to buying
during the settlement class period. Meanwhile, those with receipts
or other documentation could be entitled to get 2% of the total
cost for each product they purchased -- at up to $500.

Approved claimants will receive their payments electronically
through Venmo, Zelle, ACH or a virtual pre-paid MasterCard -- but
paper checks can also be requested those unable to receive payments
electronically.

The deadline to submit a claim is June 5, with a final approval
hearing set for June 12. Objections and other comments to the
settlement can be made through May 22. [GN]

YETI COOLERS: Disclosed Private, Personal Info, Smith Says
----------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YETI COOLERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-01703-RMI (N.D. Cal., March 19, 2024) seeks damages and
other legal and equitable remedies resulting from Defendant's
alleged violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

Plaintiff Smith purchased a Navy Rambler 36oz Water Bottle with
Chug Cap from Defendant's website, www.yeti.com, on June 14, 2023.
When purchasing the product on the website, the Plaintiff entered
her personally identifiable information and credit card information
to complete the transaction. When entering her PII and credit card
information on the website, she reasonably expected that Defendant
would keep this information private and not disclose it to third
parties. However, Defendant disclosed such information to a third
party, Adyen, without her knowledge or consent. The Plaintiff would
not have completed a transaction on Defendant's website if she knew
Yeti was disclosing her sensitive information to a third party,
says the suit.

Yeti Coolers, LLC develops, owns, and operates the website that
sells coolers, bags, and drinkware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 330-5512
          E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com
                  sbeck@bursor.com

[*] Accounting-Related Securities Class Action Filings Rose in 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A new report released April 3, 2024 by Cornerstone Research shows
an increase of nearly 10% in the number of securities class action
filings involving accounting allegations in 2023 compared to 2022.
This growth occurred even though cases took longer to be filed,
with the median filing lag reaching 43 days, the longest in a
decade. The report, Accounting Class Action Filings and Settlements
-- 2023 Review and Analysis, also found that the total value of
settlements increased 11% year-over-year despite a decrease in the
number of settlements.

Accounting Case Filings

The number of accounting-related securities class action filings
grew to 56 in 2023. Despite three years of consecutive increases,
the number of cases filed remained below the historical average of
62.

For defendant companies named in accounting case filings, the DDL
Index, the dollar-value change in the defendant firm's market
capitalization, more than doubled in 2023 to $76.9 billion. This
was the second largest for accounting cases in the last 10 years
and came amidst a 44% decline in total DDL for all federal
securities class action filings in 2023. The increase was largely
due to filings with a DDL of at least $5 billion, accounting for
approximately half of the total accounting DDL.

"While the DDL substantially increased in 2023 compared to 2022,
the trend of plaintiffs filing accounting cases against smaller
issuer defendants continued," said Frank Mascari, a report coauthor
and a principal at Cornerstone Research. "At $719 million, the
issuer defendant's median market capitalization in 2023 accounting
case filings was 46% less than the 2014-2022 average and was the
lowest in the last 10 years."

Additional Filing Trends:

-- Revenue recognition continued to be the most common GAAP
violation alleged in 2023.

-- The first-year dismissal rate of 2023 accounting case filings
was 36% lower than the average first-year dismissal rate over the
last 10 years.

-- Accounting case filings in the Financial sector doubled in
2023, returning to historical levels.

-- Accounting case filings involving financial statement
restatements continued to rebound after a 10-year low in 2021, and
they were the second highest in the last 10 years.

Accounting Case Settlements

The total value of accounting-related securities class action
settlements increased slightly from $1.4 billion in 2022 to $1.6
billion in 2023. The increase was led, in part, by the presence of
four mega settlements (equal to or greater than $100 million),
which represented 65% of the total value of all accounting case
settlements and resulted in the average settlement amount
increasing from $33.3 million in 2022 to $45.7 million in 2023. In
contrast, the median settlement amount declined from $16.1 million
in 2022 to $15.0 million in 2023.

Almost 90% of the total value of all accounting cases settled was
attributable to settlements involving institutional lead
plaintiffs.

Despite the increase in value, there were just 35 accounting case
settlements in 2023, an almost 19% decrease from 2022 and the third
fewest observed over the last 20 years.

"As discussed in our recent Securities Class Action Settlements --
2023 Review and Analysis, securities class actions as a whole have
recently settled at more advanced stages of litigation,
contributing to a drop in the number of settlements," said Laura
Simmons, a report coauthor and a Cornerstone Research senior
advisor. "This is especially true for accounting class actions,
which have progressed even further before settling than
non-accounting cases. In particular, only 37% of accounting cases
were settled before the motion for class certification was filed,
compared to 54% of non-accounting cases."

Additional Settlement Trends:

-- In 2023, accounting case settlements with alleged GAAP
violations but no internal control weaknesses hit a five-year
peak.

-- The size of issuer defendants in accounting cases settled in
2023, as measured by total median assets, decreased by 70%.

-- In 2023, the number of settled accounting cases involving
restatements fell to the lowest level since 1998. The number of
accounting case settlements alleging internal control weaknesses
declined to the lowest level in 10 years.

-- Median "simplified tiered damages" in 2023 were lower for
settlements involving accounting allegations than non-accounting
cases.

About Cornerstone Research

Cornerstone Research provides economic and financial consulting and
expert testimony in all phases of complex disputes and regulatory
investigations. The firm works with an extensive network of
prominent academics and industry practitioners to identify the
best-qualified expert for each assignment. Cornerstone Research has
earned a reputation for consistently high quality and effectiveness
by delivering rigorous, state-of-the-art analysis since 1989. The
firm has over 900 staff in nine offices across the United States
and Europe.

Media Contact

Liz Sobe, Cornerstone Research, 617.927-3176,
liz.sobe@cornerstone.com, https://www.cornerstone.com/ [GN]


                            *********

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 ***