/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240419.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, April 19, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 80

                            Headlines

AG OF EC: Prince Sues Over Service Technicians' Unpaid Overtime
AHS MANAGEMENT: Faces Epperson Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
AMBASSADOR THEATRE: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
APPLE INC: Moody et al. Sue Over Smartphone Market Monopolization
AT&T INC: Hearon et al. Sue over Inadequate Data Security Practices

AT&T INC: Mathews Sues Over Unsecured Private Information
AT&T INC: Rosario Seeks Damages & Relief for Massive Data Breach
ATLAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Barnes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
AVOCADERIA LLC: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y.
BAYER AG: Updates Technology Use Agreement With Class Action Waiver

BCAKENY LLC: Faces Colak Suit in E.D.N.Y. Over ADA Violation
BEACH GAS: Sanchez Seeks PAGA Penalties for Labor Law Breaches
BELFAST GASTRO: Hilbert Sues Over Bartenders' Unpaid Wages
BLUEBIRD BIO: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on May 28
BLUECREW INC: Menefee Files Labor Class Suit in Cal. Super.

BLUEWATER REALTY: Jaenz Sues Over Worker Misclassification
BUTERA’S FORNO: Medina Brings Claim for Labor Law Breaches
CG ROXANE: Dotson Sues Over Contract-Related Violation
CHECKPOINT THERAPEUTICS: Moore Seeks Damages for Securities Fraud
CITY OF HOPE: Rodriguez Sues Over Private Data Breach

CORNERSTONE TRADING: Richmond Warehouse Fire Suit Still Pending
DELTA DENTAL: Ben Zvi et al. Conspiracy Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
DINOSAUR RESTAURANTS: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y.
DISTRICT OF COLOMBIA: Gray Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Davis
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: NB Leave to File Supplement Tossed as Moot

EL QUETZALITO: Mendez Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ERICSSON INC: Faces Hammett Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Mass.
FIRE MOUNTAIN: Frost Suit Asserts ADA Breach
FLEMING NOLAN: Summary Judgement Bid in Data Breach Class Suit OK'd
FOOT AND ANKLE: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y.

GARDA WORLD: Haley Seeks Damages Over Alleged Data Breach
GARDAWORLD CASH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
GOOGLE INC: Faces New Incognito Mode Class Action After Settlement
HOME DEPOT: Bradford Files Suit in S.D. Tex. Over TCPA Violation
IMMACULATA UNIVERSITY: Delacruz Files Suit Over ADA Violation

INNOVIZ TECHNOLOGIES: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set May 14
J & K ROOFING: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Moreno Suit Claims
J & K ROOFING: Reyes Seeks Roofing Laborers' Unpaid Wages
JOMART CHOCOLATES: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y.
KELLER WILIAMS: Zebley Sues Over Alleged Breach of Contract

KENTUCKY STATE: Moore Brings Appeal to Kentucky Sup. Ct.
KINTARA THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With TuHURA
KOHLS INC: Gray Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Tex.
LAKESHORE RECYCLING: Faces Miller Suit Over Drivers' Unpaid Wages
LUNA INNOVATIONS: Faces Potential Securities Class Action Suit

L’OREAL USA: Faces O’Dea Suit Over Benzene in Acne Products
M&D CAPITAL: Dixon Files Suit in E.D.N.Y Over Contract Violation
MOREHEAD STATE: New Brings Appeal to Kentucky Sup. Ct.
NEW GREEN NUTRITION: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y.
NEW INDY: Court Hearing Over Plant Emissions Class Action Begins

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Settles Ohio Derailment Class Action for $600MM
OCUGEN INC: Class Suit Alleges Inadequate Proper Internal Controls
ONEMAIN FINANCIAL: Ramirez Seeks Damages for Predatory Lending
PFIZER CORP: Rothschild Sues Over Mislabeled Gabapentin Drug
PPG INDUSTRIES: Moreno Sues Over Assembly Workers' Unpaid Wages

PROGRESSIVE PIPELINE: Faces Lewis Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
PUROVITE INC: Pineyrua Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
QUEBEC MAJOR: Superior Court Authorizes Hazing Class-Action Suit
R1 RCM: Faces Hillbom Suit Over Alleged Private Data Breach
RANDOLPH COLLEGE: Delacruz Files Suit Over ADA Violation

RB HEALTH: O'Dea Sues Over Benzene Presence in Acne Products
RCI DINING: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum Wages, Matlock Claims
RESTAURANTE UNIVERSAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Guerra Alleges
RIVERDALE SNF: Gordons Sue Over Labor Law Violations
ROBERT FOX: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y.

S.J.B. CORP: Faces McDonald Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ala.
SABINA'S DREAM: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Maids, Hatcher Says
SANDOZ CANADA: Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Class Action Cert
SCOTTS CO: Perez Sues Over Insecticide Product's False Ads
SHEIN DISTRIBUTION: Faces Giana Digital Copyright Infringement Suit

SHEIN FASHION: Faces Digital Copyright Infringement Class Action
SMBC NIKKO: Appeals Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit
SOLSTICE MARKETING: Anderson Files Suit Over ADA Breach
SOUTHSTATE BANK: Faces Gore Suit Over Unprotected Sensitive Info
SUDDENLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Court Denies Arbitration in Suit

TEE JAYE'S: Engages in Illegal Tip Scheme, Knox Suit Says
TRUSPER INC: Ramirez Seeks Damages for Consumer Privacy Law Breach
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA: Settles Title IX Class-Action Suit
WALMART INC: Faces Faison Suit Over Mislabeled Bed Sheet Products
WEIRTON MEDICAL: Yano Files Suit Over Personal Property Damage

ZF TRW: Court Denies Certification in Product Liability Class Suit
[*] German Parliament to Debate Reform of Class Action Law
[*] Illinois Employers Faces Surge of GIPA Class Action Lawsuits
[*] New ERISA Class Actions Aim on Health Plan Fiduciary Obligation

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Has 800 Pending Exposure Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FG Group Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Faces Personal Injury Cases


                            *********

AG OF EC: Prince Sues Over Service Technicians' Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
BAILEY PRINCE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AG OF EC INC., a Florida Profit Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00839 (M.D. Fla., April 4, 2024) seeks
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages or pre-judgment interest,
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs from
Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida
common law.

The Plaintiff is a non-exempt current employee of Defendant who
works as a HVAC service technician. Allegedly, Plaintiff worked
more than 40 hours per week during most weeks of his employment
without being paid the federally mandated wage for overtime.
Instead, Plaintiff is paid certain amounts for certain types of
work in a piecework fashion, says the suit.

Headquartered in Tampa, FL, AG of EC Inc., d/b/a AND Services,
sells, maintains, services and installs HVAC systems within the
Northern and Middle Districts of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Robert S. Norell, Esq
         ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
         300 N.W. 70th Avenue Suite 305
         Plantation, FL 33317
         Telephone: (954) 617-6017
         Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
         E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com

AHS MANAGEMENT: Faces Epperson Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL EPPERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AHS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. dba ARDENT HEALTH
SERVICES, Case No. 3:24-cv-00396 (M.D. Tenn., April 5, 2024) seeks
relief and damages over Defendant's alleged failure to properly
secure and protect sensitive information of its clients' patients.

The Defendant is a healthcare entity that collects highly valuable
private information on its systems, including sensitive personal
information of its clients’ patients. On or about February 27,
2024, Defendant notified Plaintiff and Class members that their
private information was compromised and illegally accessed due to a
ransomware attack that was discovered by Defendant on November 23,
2023. The notice letter did not include key details about the data
breach, including the identity of the perpetrators, the root cause
of the data breach, and the remedial measures undertaken by
Defendant to prevent similar incidents from happening again.

The Plaintiff and Class members, as patients at Defendant's
clients, relied on Defendant's promise to provide confidentiality
and adequate security for their personal data. According to
Plaintiff, Defendant did not fulfill that promise as it failed to
use reasonable security procedures and practices to safeguard
Plaintiff and Class members’ sensitive information. Allegedly,
the data breach was a direct result of that failure. Plaintiff now
brings a claim for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
third-party beneficiary contract, and unjust enrichment, says the
suit.
   
Headquartered in Brentwood, TN, AHS Management Company is a leading
provider of healthcare services in communities across the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                 - and -
     
         John J. Nelson, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         280 S. Beverly Drive
         Beverly Hills, CA 90212
         Telephone: (858) 209-6941
         E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com

AMBASSADOR THEATRE: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Ambassador
Theatre Group US Holdings, Inc. The case is captioned as Derrick
Anderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
The Ambassador Theatre Group US Holdings, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-02370 (E.D.N.Y., March 29, 2024).

The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Ambassador Theatre Group US Holdings, Inc. operates as a
live-theatre company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st ave
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (917) 915-7415
          E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com

APPLE INC: Moody et al. Sue Over Smartphone Market Monopolization
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY MOODY, ALFREDO DE LA HOZ, and ENRIQUE FINKELSTEIN, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-04560 (D.N.J., April 4,
2024) arises from the Defendant's conduct of unlawfully maintaining
its monopoly power in the smartphone market in violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that Apple reduces competition in the markets
for performance smartphones and smartphones generally by delaying,
degrading, or outright blocking technologies that would increase
competition in the smartphone markets. Apple has used certain
mechanisms to suppress technologies that would provide a
high-quality user experience on any smartphone. These technologies
include super apps, cloud streaming game apps, messaging apps,
smartwatches, and digital wallets. Moreover, Apple suppresses such
innovation through a web of contractual restrictions that it
selectively enforces through its control of app distribution and
its "app review" process, as well as by denying access to key
points of connection between apps and the iPhone's operating
system, called Application Programming Interfaces, says the suit.

Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Class seek all remedies available
under the Clayton Act, including, injunctive and other equitable
relief pursuant to Clayton Act Section 16.

Headquartered in Cupertino, CA, Apple is a global technology
company with a market capitalization over $2.5 trillion. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
         Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
         Steven Sukert, Esq.
         KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
         One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 525-4100
         E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com
                 ostrow@kolawyers.com
                 sukert@kolawyers.com

                 - and -

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

                 - and -

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

AT&T INC: Hearon et al. Sue over Inadequate Data Security Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DAN HEARON, GERI SHERWOOD, and KYLIN SMITH, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AT&T, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00818-X (N.D. Tex., April 4, 2024)
arises from Defendant's failure to employ reasonable and
appropriate measures to protect against unauthorized access to
customers' personally identifiable information and assert claims
for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract,
unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, bailment, and for
violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

The Plaintiffs received AT&T's data breach notice on or around
March 30 and March 31, 2024, informing them that their PII was
compromised in the data breach. As a result of AT&T's data breach,
the Plaintiffs face a lifetime risk of identity theft, as it
includes sensitive information that cannot be changed, like their
Social Security numbers. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to remedy for
all the harms on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
and "impacted" individuals whose private Information was accessed
during the data breach.

Headquartered in Dallas, TX, AT&T is an American multinational
telecommunications company providing cellular, broadband internet,
and related services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

                 - and -

         Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
         Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
         COHEN & MALAD, LLP
         One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
         Indianapolis, IN 46204
         Telephone: (317) 636-6481
         E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
                 athomas@cohenandmalad.com

                 - and -

         J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
         Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
         Grayson Wells, Esq.
         STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
         The Freedom Center
         223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
         Nashville, TN 37203
         Telephone: (615) 254-8801
         Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
         E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
                 amize@stranchlaw.com
                 gwells@stranchlaw.com

AT&T INC: Mathews Sues Over Unsecured Private Information
---------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT MATHEWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00824-K (N.D. Tex., April 4, 2024) arises out of the recent
revelation of a cyberattack and data breach that was perpetuated
against AT&T and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiff received the Notice Letter, by email, directly from
Defendant, dated March 30, 2024. According to the Notice Letter,
the Plaintiff's private information was improperly accessed and
obtained by unauthorized third parties, including his full name,
date of birth, health information, and Social Security number. The
Plaintiff has suffered numerous, substantial injuries including,
but not limited to, invasion of privacy and theft of his private
information. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks remedies including
compensatory damages and injunctive relief, including improvements
to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and
adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant.

Headquartered in Dallas, TX, AT&T offers wireless communications,
data/broadband and internet services, local and long-distance
telephone services, telecommunications equipment, managed
networking, and wholesale services. AT&T also develops, produces,
and distributes feature films, television, gaming, and content in
physical and digital formats. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                  - and -

          Larry A. Golston, Jr., Esq.
          Leon Hampton, Esq.
          Jessi Haynes, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          Post Office Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: larry.golston@beasleyallen.com
                  leon.hampton@beasleyallen.com
                  jessi.haynes@beasleyallen.com

AT&T INC: Rosario Seeks Damages & Relief for Massive Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
AURORA ROSARIO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. AT&T, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00793-E (N.D. Tex., April
2, 2024) accuses the Defendant of failing to adequately protect its
customers' personally identifiable information which gave rise to a
massive data breach.

The Plaintiff's PII had been compromised in a data breach
experienced by Defendant in 2019. The Defendant only began
informing affected individuals of the data breach on or about March
30, 2024, approximately five years after the incident. The notice
letter lacks some crucial information regarding the data breach,
including how it occurred, what steps Defendant took following the
incident, or whether Plaintiff’s and Class members' PII remains
in the possession of criminals, says the suit.

The data breach was allegedly brought about by Defendant's failure
to properly secure and safeguard its customers' PII. As a result,
Plaintiff and Class members were, and continue to be, at
significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of
personal, social, and financial harm. The Plaintiff brings a claim
for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment,
breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing.

AT&T Inc. is an international telecommunications company
headquartered in Dallas, TX. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -
     
        Terence R. Coates, Esq.
        Justin C. Walker, Esq.
        Jonathan T. Deters, Esq.
        MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
        119 East Court Street, Suite 530  
        Cincinnati, OH 45202
        Telephone: (513) 651-3700
        Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
        E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
                jwalker@msdlegal.com
                jdeters@msdlegal.com

                - and -
     
        Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
        GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
        4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
        Cincinnati, OH 45242
        Telephone: (513) 345-8291
        E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

                - and -
     
        Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
        LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
        510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
        Philadelphia, PA 19106
        Telephone: (215) 592-1500
        E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

ATLAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Barnes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlas
Telecommunications LLC. The case is captioned as Robert Barnes,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Atlas Telecommunications LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-03018-TLB (W.D.
Ark., March 29, 2024).

The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged denial of overtime
compensation.

Atlas Telecommunications LLC is a telecommunication company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Burks, Esq.
          WH LAW, PLLC
          1 Riverfront Dr., Suite 745
          North Little Rock, AR 72114
          Telephone: (501) 255-7577
          Facsimile: (501) 222-3027
          E-mail: chris@wh.law

AVOCADERIA LLC: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avocaderia, LLC. The
case is captioned as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Avocaderia, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02308
(E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2024).

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Avocaderia, LLC is an eatery based in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BAYER AG: Updates Technology Use Agreement With Class Action Waiver
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Aimee Nielson, writing for Seed World, reports that Bayer recently
announced the inclusion of a class action waiver in its Technology
Use Agreement (TUG). The waiver requires customers to forego their
right to participate in class action lawsuits against Bayer, opting
instead for individual arbitration in case of disputes.

Bayer's stewardship lead Jacob Prather says Bayer communicated the
update to dealers and growers earlier this year. Bayer's Canadian
customers are unaffected, the company noted.

"As a company focused on agriculture, we understand that our
success depends on our customers' success," Prather says. "These
updates will help preserve the value of our technologies so that
growers can count on them for generations to come."

Prather said the class action waiver is only one of several updates
to the TUG.

"Similar to technology agreements growers may have with other trait
providers, the TSA, available in 2024, includes a class action
waiver in Section 4(f), where both the grower and Bayer agree not
to participate in class actions against the other and, in the case
of grower, against authorized seed sellers," he says. "To be clear,
the class action waiver does not prevent growers from bringing a
lawsuit against Bayer or authorized seed sellers."

The introduction of the class action waiver has sparked debate
among legal experts and consumer advocacy groups. Some argue that
it could restrict customers' ability to seek redress for legitimate
grievances, while others see it as a practical solution to
streamline dispute resolution.

Prather assures customers that they may still pursue individual
arbitration even if they have agreed to the class action waiver.
Growers should consult state agriculture laws or regulations to
understand any prerequisites to maintaining a legal action, such as
arbitration.

The complete terms of the agreement are available at AgCelerate.com
and tug.bayer.com. [GN]

BCAKENY LLC: Faces Colak Suit in E.D.N.Y. Over ADA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BCAKENY, LLC. The
case is captioned as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. BCAKENY, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02306
(E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2024).

The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

BCAKENY, LLC is cake shop based in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BEACH GAS: Sanchez Seeks PAGA Penalties for Labor Law Breaches
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS M. SANCHEZ, an individual v. BEACH GAS INC, a business entity
form unknown; HOOMAN NISSANI, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV08226 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 2, 2024) is a class action alleging the Defendants of
violating the California Labor Code, the California Business and
Professions Code, and the California Fair Employment and Housing
Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a cashier and
general laborer for approximately four to five years, until
approximately December 15, 2023. He asserts that throughout his
employment, Defendants willfully committed multiple labor law
violations, including, among others, failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failure to pay meal and rest period compensation,
failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay wages
upon discharge, and retaliation. The Plaintiff also accuses
Defendants of unfair competition under the Business and Professions
Code, as well as disability discrimination, failure to accommodate,
and failure to engage in good faith, interactive process under
FEHA.

The Plaintiff now seeks penalties under the Private Attorneys
General Act for Defendants' alleged Labor Code violations.

Beach Gash Inc is a gas station ownership and management company
based in Santa Monica, CA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq.
        SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC
        3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
        Los Angeles, CA 90010
        Telephone: (818) 473-5003
        Facsimile: (818) 476-5619
        Email: contact@slawla.com

BELFAST GASTRO: Hilbert Sues Over Bartenders' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Jacki Hilbert, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Belfast Gastro Pub Inc., David Crowe, an
individual, Robert Fortier, an individual, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-02515 (E.D.N.Y., April 4, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wage and overtime and other monies pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Hilbert was employed by the Defendants as a bartender
from on or about January 2022 through February 2023. He asserts
that he worked more than 40 hours in a week but was not paid for
proper minimum and overtime wages.

Headquartered in Lindenhurst, NY, Belfast Gastro Pub Inc. operates
a bar and restaurant located in Suffolk County, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Raymond Nardo, Esq.
         RAYMOND NARDO, P.C.
         129 Third St
         Mineola, NY 11501
         Telephone: (516) 248-2121
         E-mail: Nardo@Raynardo.com

BLUEBIRD BIO: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on May 28
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in bluebird bio, Inc.
("bluebird bio" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BLUE) of a class action
securities lawsuit.

CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of
bluebird bio investors who were adversely affected by alleged
securities fraud between April 24, 2023 and December 8, 2023.
Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a
member of our team:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/bluebird-bio-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=74897&wire=4

BLUE investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500.

CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, on December 8, 2023, Blue
announced that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved its
drug Lyfgenia (lovotibeglogene autotemcel), also known as lovo-cel
for the treatment of sickle cell disease in patients ages 12 and
older who have a history of vaso-occlusive events (VOEs). However,
the Lyfgenia approval came with a black box warning for
haematological malignancies after two patients developed AML during
the clinical trials. Analysts noted that they did not expect the
black box warning or the absence of a priority review voucher.
Following this news, Blue's stock price fell by $1.95 per share, or
approximately 40% to close at $2.86 per share.

WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in bluebird bio during the
relevant time frame, you have until May 28, 2024 to request that
the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in
any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
There is no cost or obligation to participate.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi &
Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases.
Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex
securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our
clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in
ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the
top securities litigation firms in the United States.

CONTACT:

     Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
     33 Whitehall St 17th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: +1 212-363-7500 [GN]

BLUECREW INC: Menefee Files Labor Class Suit in Cal. Super.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bluecrew, Inc., et
al. The case is captioned as Robert Dwayne Menefee, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bluecrew, Inc.
and Does 1-100, Case No. CGC24613459 (Cal. Super., San Francisco
Cty., March 28, 2024).

The case alleges Defendants' failure to provide compliant meal
periods, failure to provide compliant rest periods, failure to pay
for all hours worked, wage statement penalties, waiting time
penalties, and violations of Unfair Competition Law and Private
Attorneys General Act.

A case management conference is scheduled for August 28, 2024
before Judge Anne-Christine Massullo.

Bluecrew, Inc. provides software solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Ginzburg, Esq.
          13428 Maxella Ave, # 984
          Marina del Rey, CA 90292-5620

BLUEWATER REALTY: Jaenz Sues Over Worker Misclassification
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Maria Jaenz and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. Bluewater Realty Miami LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-21270 (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2024) seeks to recover monetary
damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant Bluewater Realty employed Plaintiff Rosa Maria Jaenz as a
housekeeper from approximately March 01, 2022, to March 03, 2024,
or 105 weeks. However, Bluewater Realty wrongly classified
Plaintiff as an independent contractor. As a result, Plaintiff did
not receive any additional payment for overtime hours even if she
worked regularly more than 40 hours weekly, says the suit.
  
Based in Broward County, Florida, Bluewater Realty is a property
management and vacation rental specialist. The company operates
AIRBNB and VRBO's vacation properties. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

BUTERA’S FORNO: Medina Brings Claim for Labor Law Breaches
------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS MEDINA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. BUTERA'S FORNO INC., MARTIN BUTERA, GARY BUTERA, and
NICHOLAS ZOGRAFOS, Case No. 2:24-cv-02604 (E.D.N.Y., April 6, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee
from in or about June 2022 to in or about February 2024. Plaintiff
also performed non-exempt duties for Defendants, including
preparing food and cooking. Throughout his employment with
Defendants, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a
workweek but he did not receive overtime compensation as Defendants
paid him a fixed salary in cash regardless of the actual number of
hours worked by Plaintiff each workweek. The Defendants allegedly
committed several other labor law violations, including failure to
pay spread-of-hours pay, failure to provide an accurate written
notice of pay rate, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements, says the suit.

Located in Bayshore, NY, Butera's Forno Inc. is engaged in the
restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Peter A. Romero, Esq.
         ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC     
         490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
         Hauppauge, NY 11788
         Telephone: (631) 257-5588
         E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com

CG ROXANE: Dotson Sues Over Contract-Related Violation
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CG Roxane LLC. The
case is captioned as Michael Dotson, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. CG Roxane LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-02567-JFW-MAR (C.D. Cal., March 28, 2024).

The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged contract-related
violation.

CG Roxane LLC is a privately held, family-owned and operated
enterprise and bottled water company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
          Todd M Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC
          21031 Ventura Boulevard Suite 340
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Samantha E. Fahr, Esq.
          Michael J. Duvall, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 623-9300
          Facsimile: (213) 623-9924
          E-mail: samantha.fahr@dentons.com
                  michael.duvall@dentons.com

CHECKPOINT THERAPEUTICS: Moore Seeks Damages for Securities Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHECKPOINT THERAPEUTICS, INC., JAMES F. OLIVIERO, and
GARRETT GRAY, Case No. 1:24-cv-02613 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2024)
seeks to recover damages for Defendants' alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Checkpoint securities
between March 10, 2021 and December 15, 2023. Throughout that
period, the Defendants allegedly made materially false and
misleading statements regarding Checkpoint's business, operations,
and compliance policies.

In particular, Checkpoint allegedly overstated the manufacturing,
regulatory, and commercial prospects of its lead antibody product
candidate, cosibelimab. When the truth emerged, Checkpoint's market
value declined, causing significant losses and damages to Plaintiff
and Class members, says the suit.
  
Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage immunotherapy and
targeted oncology company based in Waltham, MA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
        J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
        James M. LoPiano, Esq.
        POMERANTZ LLP     
        600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
        New York, NY 10016
        Telephone: (212) 661-1100
        Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
        E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                ahood@pomlaw.com
                jlopiano@pomlaw.com

CITY OF HOPE: Rodriguez Sues Over Private Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
GRACIELA RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a
CITY OF HOPE, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02761 (C.D. Cal., April
4, 2024) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly
sensitive data of its current and former patients and asserts
claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of
fiduciary duty, and for violations of the California Unfair
Competition Law, California Consumer Privacy Act, California
Customer Records Act, and the Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act.

For one-hundred days -- between July 7, 2023, and October 15, 2023
-- Defendant was hacked. But Defendant was unable to detect the
data breach until October 13, 2023. The Defendant waited over until
April 2, 2024, before it began notifying the class--a full 270 days
after the data breach began. As a result, Plaintiff and the class
were deprived of the opportunity to try and mitigate their injuries
in a timely manner, says the suit.

Headquartered in Duarte, CA, City of Hope National Medical Center
is a medical treatment and research organization with locations in
California, Arizona, Illinois, and Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew G. Gunem, Esq.
          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775
          Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
          E-mail: andrewg@turkestrauss.com
                  sam@turkestrauss.com

CORNERSTONE TRADING: Richmond Warehouse Fire Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed in response to the large warehouse
fire in Richmond is still pending one year after the fire.

April 11 marks one year since the massive fire that resulted in the
evacuation of more than 2,000 people in the Richmond community.

On April 20, 2023, Tushawn Craig, Marquetta Stokes, and Limitless
Pallets filed a class action lawsuit against the property owners,
Seth Smith and Cornerstone Trading Group.

They all own property that was part of the evacuation zone of the
April 2023 fire, records show.

As WRTV Investigates reported, the city cited Smith and Cornerstone
Trading following a 2019 inspection that found fire hazards.

The city has claimed Smith is responsible for the fire.

The lawsuit alleges Smith and Cornerstone Trading were negligent by
failing to address "ultra-hazardous conditions" within the
facility.

The class action lawsuit was originally filed in Wayne Superior
Court, but was transferred to federal court.

Trevor Crossen, attorney for the plaintiffs, said he's currently
waiting for a ruling on whether the case will stay in federal court
or get sent back to Wayne County.

Former Richmond Mayor Dave Snow and city attorney Andrew Sickman
were subpoenaed in connection to the lawsuit. [GN]

DELTA DENTAL: Ben Zvi et al. Conspiracy Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Justin Ben Zvi, DDS, Alina Lukashevsky, DDS, and
Adam Merriam, DDS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Delta Dental of New York Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-5628, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 2,
2024.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-02621 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the alleged conspiracy and illegal agreements
of Delta Dental Plan Association and its members and affiliates of
members to allocate territories of operation within the United
States and its territories--in violation the Sherman Act 3 and the
Donnelly Act.

Delta Dental of New York Inc. offers dental insurance plans in New
York. The insurance agency is part of the Delta Dental Plans
Association. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          William J. Foley, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019-6142
          Telephone: (212) 506-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 506-5151
          E-mail: wfoley@orrick.com

DINOSAUR RESTAURANTS: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dinosaur Restaurants,
LLC. The case is captioned as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dinosaur Restaurants,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02309 (E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2024).

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

Dinosaur Restaurants, LLC offers dining and restaurant
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

DISTRICT OF COLOMBIA: Gray Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Davis
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Karone Gray, David L. Hailes and Lorraine Kelly filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Ronda Davis, et
al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. District of Columbia Child and Family
Services Agency, et al., Defendant, Case No. 1:10-cv-01564-RC, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The initial Complaint in this matter was filed over 13 years ago,
alleging that the District of Columbia made personnel cuts that
discriminated against African American employees. This action has
already been through several rounds of summary judgment and an
appeal, and the Court's most recent opinion concluded that
Plaintiffs have established a prima facie case of racially
discriminatory disparate impact. Now, the District of Columbia
brings another motion for summary judgment, claiming that the
terminations were justified by business necessity and that no
dispute of any material fact remains.

On Feb. 23, 2024, Judge Rudolph Contreras entered a memorandum
opinion granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Judge Contreras held that Plaintiffs repeatedly argue that the
District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) "did
not validate or attempt to validate the process by which they
carried out the reduction-in-force (RIF)," but it is unclear to the
Court how an employer is supposed to "validate" its approach to
eliminating specific positions from its workforce during a RIF.

"The Court imagines that Plaintiffs would have perhaps preferred
some type of purely objective criteria for eliminating
personnel--but Plaintiffs do not say what that would be, how it
would have served CFSA's business needs, or how it would have
reduced the purported disparate impact. Accordingly, the Court will
grant summary judgment for the District on Plaintiffs' remaining
claim," Judge Contreras wrote in his 46-page Memorandum Opinion.

The appellate case is captioned Karone Gray, et al. v. DC, Case No.
24-7038, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit, filed on March 26, 2024. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants KARONE GRAY, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Donald Melvin Temple, Esq.
          TEMPLE LAW OFFICE
          1310 L. Street, NW, Suite 750
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 628-1101

Plaintiffs-Appellees RONDA L. DAVIS, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          David L. Rose, Esq.
          ROSE LEGAL ADVOCATES
          1726 M. Street, NW, Suite 203
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 331-8555

                  - and -

          Aderson Francois, Esq.
          GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER
          600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 661-6721

                  - and -

          Karla Mari McKanders, Esq.
          VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
          131 21st Avenue South, Suite 207
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 322-1529

                  - and -

          Donald Melvin Temple, Esq.
          TEMPLE LAW OFFICE
          1310 L. Street, NW, Suite 750
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 628-1101

Defendant-Appellee DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA is represented by:

          Richard P. Sobiecki, Esq.
          Office of the Attorney General
          District of Columbia
          400 6th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 805-7512

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: NB Leave to File Supplement Tossed as Moot
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NB et al v. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-01511 (D.D.C., Filed Sep 7,
2010), the Hon. Judge Richard J. Leon entered an order denying as
moot the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to supplement their second
renewed motion for class certification with four additional
declarations, in light of the court's denial of the class
certification motion without prejudice.

-- If the Court grants leave to amend and sets new deadlines for
    briefing on class certification, the plaintiffs will have the
    opportunity to submit the new declarations as part of the
updated
    briefing.

The nature of suit states Civil Rights.[CC]

EL QUETZALITO: Mendez Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL MEJIA MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. EL QUETZALITO CORP. (D/B/A LA CHAPINCITA - EL
QUETZALITO), CHAPILANDIA DELI CORP. (D/B/A EL QUETZALITO 2), ELIU
VELASQUEZ, and SAQUEO VELASQUEZ, Case No. 1:24-cv-02576 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 5, 2024) seeks unpaid wages, spread-of-hours pay, and damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a delivery worker from
approximately August 2022 until on or about September 6, 2023.
Despite his designation as a delivery worker, the Plaintiff was
also required to spend a considerable part of his workday
performing non-tipped duties. The Defendants allegedly employed the
policy and practice of disguising Plaintiff's actual duties in
payroll records by designating him as a delivery worker rather than
a non-tipped employee. This allowed Defendants to avoid paying
Plaintiff at the minimum wage rate. Additionally, the Defendants
required Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to work in
excess of 40 hours without paying them the required minimum wage
and overtime compensation, says the suit.
    
El Quetzalito Corp is engaged in the deli business and is located
in Ave Corona, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Catalina Sojo, Esq.
         CSM LEGAL, P.C     
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 317-1200
         Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

ERICSSON INC: Faces Hammett Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY HAMMETT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ERICSSON, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-10882-NMG (D. Mass.,
April 5, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Massachusetts labor laws.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent all current and former hourly
Tower Technicians who worked for Defendant anywhere in the United
States at any time from April 5, 2021 through the final disposition
of this case. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant adopted an
illegal pay system wherein Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees were not properly paid for all hours worked, including
those in excess of 40 hours per workweek. They were also not
provided with meal breaks and were not compensated for all of their
time spent performing mandatory online training. The Plaintiff
further seeks to recover all unpaid wages and other damages under
the FLSA and the state laws of Massachusetts.

Headquartered in Boston, MA, Ericsson, Inc. operates as a provider
of telecommunications equipment and related services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Hillary Schwab, Esq.
        Brant Casavant, Esq.
        FAIR WORK P.C.     
        192 South Street, Suite 450
        Boston, MA 02111
        Telephone: (617) 607-3261
        Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
        E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
                brant@fairworklaw.com

                - and -
     
        Clif Alexander, Esq.
        Austin Anderson, Esq.
        Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
        ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
        101 N. Shoreline, Blvd, Suite 610  
        Corpus Christi, TX 78401
        Telephone: (361) 452-1279
        Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
        E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                austin@a2xlaw.com
                carter@a2xlaw.com

FIRE MOUNTAIN: Frost Suit Asserts ADA Breach
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fire Mountain Gems
and Beads Inc. The case is captioned as Clarence Frost and Tammy
Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Fire Mountain Gems and Beads Inc., Case No.
0:24-cv-01102-ECT-LIB (D. Minn., March 28, 2024).

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Fire Mountain Gems and Beads Inc. designs and supplies gems, as
well as beads.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason D Gustafson, Esq.
          THRONDSET & MICHENFELDER LAW OFFICE LLC
          One Central Avenue West, Suite 101
          St. Michael, MN 55376
          Telephone: (763) 515-6110
          E-mail: jason@throndsetlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER LAW OFFICE, LLC
          222 South Ninth Street, Ste 1600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (763) 515-6110
          Facsimile: (763) 226-2515
          E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com

FLEMING NOLAN: Summary Judgement Bid in Data Breach Class Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., writing for DuaneMorris.com, reports that
in Austin v. Fleming, Nolen & Jez, LLP, No. 4:23-CV-00901, 2024
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60696 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2024), Judge Andrew S.
Hanen of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment in a data breach
class action. The Court found that the time Plaintiff's allegations
about the time spent -- (i) researching the data breach, (ii)
exploring credit monitoring and identity theft options, (iii)
self-monitoring her accounts, and (iv) seeking legal counsel --
were not compensable damages and could not support her claims. This
case serves as an important reminder that named Plaintiffs in data
breach class actions must have suffered an actual, viable, concrete
injury to sustain their claims.

Case Background

On February 6, 2023, a cybercriminal breached Defendant's servers
and obtained some of its confidential client data. The
cybercriminal then demanded Defendant pay money to avoid the
publication of Defendant's confidential client data on the dark
web. After Defendant sent out data breach notice letters to their
potentially affected clientele, the named Plaintiff, a former
client of Defendant, filed a class action complaint against
Defendant asserting claims for negligence, breach of confidence,
breach of implied contract, and breach of implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing.

Defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff
had not, and could not, establish that she had suffered any damages
as a result of the data breach. In response, Plaintiff presented an
affidavit from a putative class member who had suffered monetary
damages due to identity theft.

The Court's Decision

The Court ruled that Plaintiff could not rely on a putative class
member's purported damages to support her claims prior to class
certification, and as such, any evidence supporting the claims of
other class members was "irrelevant." As a result, the Court only
considered Defendant's motion for summary judgment as it pertained
to Plaintiff's individual claim against the Defendant.

The Court held that none of the following allegations of harm were
sufficient for Plaintiff to maintain her claims -- "time spent
verifying the legitimacy and impact of the data breach, exploring
credit monitoring and identity theft insurance options,
self-monitoring her accounts and seeking legal counsel regarding
her options for remedying and/or mitigating the effects of the data
breach."

Accordingly, the Court found that because Plaintiff could not show
"that she was injured by the data breach" or that "she suffered any
damages," summary judgment was proper.

Implications For Companies

The Court's ruling in Austin v. Fleming underscores the importance
of damages and a viable injury-in-fact in data breach class
actions. The first line of defense in any data breach class action
challenging whether the named Plaintiff suffered an actual,
concrete injury. Used effectively, companies can parlay a
Plaintiff's claimed damages in data breach class actions as quick
off-ramp out of litigation. [GN]

FOOT AND ANKLE: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foot and Ankle Center
of Fort Lee, LLC. The case is captioned as Ali Colak, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Foot and Ankle Center
of Fort Lee, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02305 (E.D.N.Y., March 28,
2024).

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Foot and Ankle Center of Fort Lee, LLC is a medical group practice
located in Forest Hills, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GARDA WORLD: Haley Seeks Damages Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH TYLER HALEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GARDA WORLD SECURITY CORP., UNITED AMERICAN
SECURITY, LLC, AND GARDAWORLD CASH SERVICES, INC., Case No.
9:24-cv-80418 (S.D. Fla., April 5, 2024) accuses the Defendants of
inadequate data security which led to a data breach affecting tens
of thousands of individuals, including Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is a veteran of the United States Armed Forces and
was employed by Defendants in 2022. This action arises from
Defendants' alleged failure to adequately protect the highly
sensitive information of Plaintiff and similarly situated persons,
which resulted in a data breach. Due to Defendants' inadequate data
security procedures and non-compliance with Federal Trade
Commission guidelines, Plaintiff and Class members' personal
identifying information was exfiltrated by cybercriminals on
November 16, 2023. Affected individuals were only made aware of the
incident approximately four months later on March 22, 2024, says
the suit.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide timely
notice to the data breach victims, depriving them of the chance to
take prompt measures and mitigate harm. As a result, Plaintiff and
Class members now face a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiff seeks injunction, damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, and any further relief for Defendants' alleged
unlawful conduct.    

Garda World Security Corp provides security and patrolling services
and is headquartered in Montreal, Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
        Ronald Podolny, Esq.
        MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP     
        201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor
        Tampa, FL 33602
        Telephone: (813) 223-5505
        Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
        E-mail: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
                ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com

                - and -
     
        John G. Emerson, Esq.
        EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
        2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300
        Houston, TX 77042-2754
        Telephone: (800) 551-8649
        Facsimile: (501) 286-4659
        E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com
                jnixon@simonlawpc.com

GARDAWORLD CASH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that GardaWorld Cash
faces a proposed class action over a 2023 cyberattack that
compromised the private data of more than 39,000 individuals.

According to the 47-page GardaWorld Cash data breach lawsuit, an
unauthorized third party gained access to certain administrative
files stored in some of the company's facility systems in Florida
between October 30 and November 16, 2023. Per the suit, the
cyberattack exposed individuals' names, Social Security numbers,
dates of birth, driver's license numbers and insurance and
health-related information.

The case contends that GardaWorld Cash, a Florida-based company
that provides cash automation solutions for businesses, negligently
failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity protocols and monitor
its computer network for unauthorized activity. The complaint
argues that had the company properly encrypted the personal data in
its care and adequately monitored its systems, it could have
prevented the incident entirely or at least detected it sooner.

The filing claims that as a result of the defendant's negligence,
victims' private information is now "in the hands of data thieves,"
which greatly increases their chances of being targeted for
cybercrimes such as identity theft and fraud.

The data breach lawsuit adds that although GardaWorld Cash purports
to have discovered the incident in November 2023, the company did
not begin to notify impacted individuals until March 2024.

As the suit tells it, this delay reduced victims' ability to
mitigate the consequences of the unauthorized disclosure of their
sensitive information.

"Time is of the essence when trying to protect against identity
theft after a data breach, so early notification is critical,”
the case says.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States whose
private information was exposed to unauthorized third parties as a
result of the data breach discovered by GardaWorld Cash on or about
November 16, 2023. [GN]

GOOGLE INC: Faces New Incognito Mode Class Action After Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Baron of The Mercury News reports that Google's legal
troubles over whether the search giant duped users into believing
its "Incognito" browsing mode was truly private aren't over yet: A
week after settling a federal class-action suit, the Mountain View
company is facing an avalanche of new lawsuits in San Jose from
thousands of users who claim Incognito broke their trust by
snooping on their secrets.

The thousands of claims, seeking at least $10,000 each, could be
just the tip of the iceberg, according to experts. But proving they
were harmed and getting Google to pay up could require aggrieved
Incognito users to bare their browsing habits -- from personal
finance to porn.

Last week, the New York City-based law firm Boies Schiller Flexner
announced in a court filing it had reached a settlement with Google
on behalf of an estimated 136 million people in the U.S. who used
Incognito. The deal required Google to delete or redact billions of
records and change the language on the mode's opening page.
Google's public response to the settlement reflected the bitterness
of the bruising four-year court battle in Oakland U.S. District
Court: "The plaintiffs originally wanted $5 billion and are
receiving zero," a spokesman said.

Now the same law firm is rounding up plaintiffs by the thousands --
including hundreds in the Bay Area -- to sue Google on similar
claims in state court in San Jose.

"A lot of these companies have been in the news for the last few
years for capturing a lot more data than users thought they were,"
said plaintiff and Stanford University senior Eugene Lo. "I am used
to them doing misleading things. I still wanted them to have
consequences."

Boies Schiller Flexner has filed more than 90 lawsuits over the
past 12 days in Santa Clara County Superior Court in San Jose, each
with 50 plaintiffs, accusing Google of breaking state privacy and
computer-fraud laws.

Many more state court lawsuits are likely to follow, said Santa
Clara University School of Law professor Eric Goldman.

"This is like a perpetual motion machine if we're dealing with
hundreds of millions of potential plaintiffs," Goldman said.

The lawsuits repeat allegations from the federal-court action
launched in 2020, including that Google knows "the most intimate
and potentially embarrassing things you browse on the internet --
regardless of whether you follow Google's advice to keep your
activities 'private,'" and that "George Orwell could never have
dreamed it."

Plaintiffs may not be able to win their cases or establish damages
without revealing the way they used Incognito, Goldman said. For
example, a user who employed Incognito to limit exposure of their
banking information would not have a strong damages claim without
evidence their financial data was compromised.

Someone who used the mode to surf pornography and lost their job or
spouse because their surfing was somehow publicly revealed, he
said, may have a case for high damages. But if someone used
Incognito to watch porn with no negative personal outcome, the case
for compensation is undercut, Goldman said.

Information that Boies Schiller Flexner obtained via the federal
case features prominently in the new lawsuits to back the claim
that Google knew it was duping Incognito users into thinking the
company would not retain browsing information, while it secretly
grabbed and profited from the data.

Google called the new lawsuits "meritless" -- as it did regarding
the federal case after the settlement was announced -- and added,
"we will defend ourselves vigorously."

The lawsuits refer to a purported 2014 Google internal email
recommending changes to Incognito so "we don't deceive users,"
along with a 2015 internal email calling Incognito "a lie." A 2020
internal document allegedly said "common misconceptions" about
Incognito included belief that it "hides browsing activity from
Google."

The federal court judge who oversaw the recently settled lawsuit,
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, in an order last year agreed with the
plaintiffs in that case that anyone using Incognito on Google's
Chrome browser could reasonably deduce from the opening screen that
Google would not take their data.

As a result of the settlement and negotiations in the federal case,
Google has changed Incognito mode's opening page, replacing the
words "now you can browse privately" with "you can browse more
privately." The deal does not stop the company from gathering
Incognito data.

Google, the new lawsuits alleged, builds detailed,
"cradle-to-grave" profiles of individual internet users by tracking
internet, phone and app activity, and identifying devices. It also
receives users' data -- including that generated during Incognito
browsing -- from websites using Google advertising technology.
Through its algorithms and artificial intelligence, the company can
in many cases link Incognito mode browsing data to individual
profiles, the lawsuits claimed.

"Doing so improves the 'profiles' and allows Google to sell more
targeted ads at those users," the lawsuits alleged. "Because of
Google's pervasive presence on the internet, its unparalleled reach
and its uncanny ability to so target consumers, advertisers are
willing to pay a premium for Google's advertisement services."

Google, which made $238 billion in advertising revenue last year
according to its annual report, said this week, "We never associate
data with users when they use Incognito mode."

Boies Schiller Flexner argues that users should be compensated for
Google's collection of users' Incognito data for profit, allegedly
deceptively. Google will likely counter that plaintiffs suffered no
financial damages or other harms requiring payment, Goldman said.

Other law offices may piggy-back off the New York firm and recruit
plaintiffs to make similar claims against Google in state court,
leading to complex court battles as law firms angle for damages,
Goldman said.

"At that point," Goldman said, "chaos ensues." [GN]

HOME DEPOT: Bradford Files Suit in S.D. Tex. Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Home Depot USA,
Inc. The case is captioned as Radley Bradford, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Home Depot USA,
Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-01123 (S.D. Tex., March 28, 2024).

The lawsuit arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Home Depot USA, Inc. is an American multinational home
improvement retail corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD
          2500 S Highland Ave., Ste 200
          Lomgard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575-8181
          E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com

IMMACULATA UNIVERSITY: Delacruz Files Suit Over ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Immaculata
University. The case is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Immaculata
University, Case No. 1:24-cv-02369 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2024).

The case is brought over the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Immaculata University is a private Roman Catholic university in
East Whiteland Township, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com

INNOVIZ TECHNOLOGIES: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set May 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your Innoviz Technologies Ltd.
(NASDAQ:INVZ) investment and want to learn about a potential
recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below
for more information:

https://zlk.com/pslra-1/innoviz-technologies-ltd-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=75195&wire=1

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

THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against
Innoviz Technologies Ltd. that seeks to recover losses of
shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities
fraud between April 21, 2021 and February 28, 2023.

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Innoviz Technologies stock
during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares
- go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/innoviz-technologies-ltd-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=75195&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.

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

CONTACT:

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

J & K ROOFING: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Moreno Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERICK L. MORENO, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. J & K ROOFING INC, and JULIO C. RUBIO, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-60526 (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2024) seeks
to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages,
liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act .

The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt, full-time driver
from approximately September 01, 2023, to March 06, 2024, or 27
weeks. During his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff always
worked more than 40 hours weekly. However, Defendants did not
compensate Plaintiff for overtime hours, as required by law.
Additionally, Defendants deducted five hours of lunchtime weekly
despite Plaintiff not taking bonafide lunchtime hours, says the
suit.

Based in Hollywood, Broward County, Florida, J & K Roofing Inc. is
a general construction contractor specializing in new roofing
construction, roofing replacement, and roofing restorations for
residential, commercial, and industrial properties. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

J & K ROOFING: Reyes Seeks Roofing Laborers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
ENDER P. REYES, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. J & K ROOFING INC, and JULIO C. RUBIO, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 0:24-cv-60523-AHS (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2024) seeks to
recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a roofing laborer from
approximately December 04, 2023, to March 05, 2024, April 29, 2023,
or 13 weeks. During his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff
always worked more than 40 hours weekly. However, he was only paid
for all his working hours at his regular rate. The Defendants
willfully failed to pay Plaintiff, and other similarly situated
employees, overtime hours at the rate of time and a half his
regular rate, in violation of the FLSA, the suit alleges.

Based in Hollywood, Broward County, Florida, J & K Roofing Inc. is
a general construction contractor specializing in new roofing
construction, roofing replacement, and roofing restorations for
residential, commercial, and industrial properties. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

JOMART CHOCOLATES: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jomart Chocolates
Corp. The case is captioned as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Jomart Chocolates Corp., Case No.
2:24-cv-02307 (E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2024).

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Jomart Chocolates Corp. is family-owned and operated chocolate
factory.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

KELLER WILIAMS: Zebley Sues Over Alleged Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keller Wiliams
Realty, Inc. The case is captioned as David "Beau" Zebley, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Keller
Wiliams Realty, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00400-MN (D. Del., March 28,
2024).

The suit arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract.

The case is assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika.

Keller Wiliams Realty, Inc. is an American technology and
international real estate franchise with headquarters in Austin,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Kevin Astin, Esq.
          CIARDI CIARDI & ASTIN
          1204 N. King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 654-7444
          E-mail: dastin@ciardilaw.com

KENTUCKY STATE: Moore Brings Appeal to Kentucky Sup. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
TERRANCE MOORE has filed an appeal on March 26, 2024, in the
Kentucky Supreme Court.

The appellate case is captioned Terrance Moore, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kentucky State
University, Case No. 2024-SC-0122.

The case type is stated as transfer request-party.[BN]

Plaintiff-Movant TERRANCE MOORE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Andre Fereole Regard, Esq.
            Ivey Lorraine Workman, Esq.
            REGARD LAW GROUP PLLC
            Lexington, KY 40511

Defendant-Respondent KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY is represented by:

            Joshua Michael Salsburey, Esq.
            Kevin Gudgel Henry, Esq.
            STURGILL, TURNER, BARKER & MOLONEY PLLC
            Lexington, KY 40507

KINTARA THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With TuHURA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has
recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm
in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We
are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and
is investigating Kintara Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: KTRA),
relating to its proposed merger with TuHURA Biosciences, Inc.

Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask:

     1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?

     2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?

     3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?

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]

KOHLS INC: Gray Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Tex.
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kohls, Inc., et al.
The case is captioned as Melissa A. Gray, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kohls, Inc. and John
Does 1-10, Case No. 1:24-cv-00327 (W.D. Tex., March 28, 2024).

The case is brought over the Defendants' alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Kohls, Inc. is an American department store retail chain, operated
by Kohl's Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nayeem N. Mohammed, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NAYEEM N. MOHAMMED
          539 W. Commerce St., Ste 1899
          Dallas, TX 75208
          Telephone: (972) 767-9099
          E-mail: nayeem@nnmpc.com

               - and -

          Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Ave, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575-8180
          Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
          E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com

LAKESHORE RECYCLING: Faces Miller Suit Over Drivers' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY MILLER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LAKESHORE RECYCLING SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-02635 (N.D. Ill., April 2, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid
wages, including overtime wages, and liquidated damages pursuant to
the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.


The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately 2019
until July of 2023 as a non-exempt driver responsible for the
collection, transportation, and disposal of residential and
commercial waste on behalf of Defendant's customers. The Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to pay him
and similarly situated employees for all hours worked, including
hours worked in excess of 40 hours each workweek.

Lakeshore Recycling Systems, LLC is a full-service solid waste
company located in Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
        James B. Zouras, Esq.
        Anna M. Ceragioli, Esq.
        STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC
        222 West Adams Street, Suite 2020
        Chicago, Ill 60606
        Telephone: (312)233-1550
        Facsimile: (312)233-1560
        E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                aceragioli@stephanzouras.com

                - and -
     
        Clif Alexander, Esq.
        Austin Anderson, Esq.
        Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
        ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
        101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610
        Corpus Christi, TX 78401
        Telephone: (361) 452-1279        
        Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
        E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                austin@a2xlaw.com
                carter@a2xlaw.com

LUNA INNOVATIONS: Faces Potential Securities Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tad Dickens, writing for Cardinal News, reports that a lawsuit
filed in a California federal court alleges that Roanoke-based Luna
Innovations Inc., its former chief executive and others violated
federal securities laws with false and misleading statements to
investors about company transactions.

Meanwhile, multiple law firms have announced that they are looking
for clients to join the proposed class action that plaintiff Eyad
Karzoun brought through his Los Angeles-based attorney.

The case adds to the multiple issues that Luna is facing after it
announced on March 12 that it was indefinitely delaying its fourth
quarter and annual reports, having discovered transaction
discrepancies that render its second- and third-quarter reports
unreliable. The company's president and CEO, Scott Graeff, retired
12 days later.

Luna, a fiber-optic sensing and monitoring company trading on the
Nasdaq Stock Market, announced this week that Nasdaq had informed
the company that it is out of compliance with its reporting rules
and that it could be delisted later this year.

Graeff was a 21-year Luna employee who spent the last seven as
president and CEO. The suit also identifies two chief financial
officers -- former CFO Eugene J. Nestro and current CFO George
Gomez-Quintero -- as defendants.

A woman answering the phone at the Rosen Law Firm, which is
representing Karzoun, said the firm would not comment. A message
sent to a personal email of Graeff's was not returned. A Luna
Innovations spokeswoman said the company cannot comment on legal
matters, nor could it comment on the Nasdaq letter.

In a case filed April 1 in the Central District of California,
Karzoun alleges that he acquired publicly traded Luna securities
between Aug. 11, 2023, and March 25, 2024.

According to the lawsuit:

The company on Aug. 10, 2023, filed its second quarter report, and
on Nov. 14, 2023, filed its third quarter report. Both Graeff and
Nestro signed federally required certifications vouching for their
accuracy, along with disclosures about changes to Luna's internal
control over financial reporting, and fraud disclosure.

In both reports, the CEO and CFO "concluded that . . .  our
disclosure controls and procedures were effective," according to
the suit.

Both statements, however, were "materially false and misleading at
the time [they were] made because the Company lacked effective
internal controls, as a result of improper revenue recognition,"
the suit alleges.

In a March 12 filing with the federal Securities and Exchange
Commission, Luna reported that an audit committee from its board of
directors found that those statements were unreliable, and that it
had found "material weaknesses in its internal control over
financial reporting." In a separate filing, it informed the SEC of
its fourth quarter and annual report delays.

Karzoun's suit alleges that Graeff, Nestro and Gomez-Quintero
were:

-- directly or indirectly involved in oversight or implementation
of Luna's internal controls;

-- aware of or "recklessly disregarded" the false and misleading
statements issued about the company, and/or

-- approved or ratified those statements, violating federal
securities laws.

The company itself was responsible for the three officers' actions,
the lawsuit states.

The defendants "had actual knowledge of the material omissions
and/or the falsity of the material statements set forth above, and
intended to deceive . . .  or, in the alternative, acted with
reckless disregard for the truth when they failed to ascertain and
disclose the true facts in the statements made by them or any other
of [Luna's] personnel to members of the investing public," the suit
states.

The result was "artificially inflated" Luna share prices, the suit
alleges.

The stock was trading at $7.73 a share on Aug. 11, and between $6
and $8 this year. It was at $6.44 a share on March 11 and dropped
to $4.02 the next day, with a steady downward trend since. It
traded at $2.81 a share at close of business.

Karzoun's suit asks for damages to be determined later. The
plaintiff, through his lawyer, said he "believes that there are
hundreds, if not thousands" of potential class members.

Luna on March 25 selected Richard Roedel, its board chairman since
2010, as interim executive chairman and interim president. [GN]

L’OREAL USA: Faces O’Dea Suit Over Benzene in Acne Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUCINDA O'DEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. L'OREAL, USA, Case No.1:24-cv-02762 (N.D. Ill., April
5, 2024) accuses the Defendant of deceptive advertising over its
failure to disclose the presence of benzene in its acne products.

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of consumer fraud, arising from
Defendant's manufacturing, distribution, advertising, marketing,
and sale of acne treatment products that contain benzene, a
carcinogenic impurity that has been linked to leukemia and other
cancers. According to Plaintiff, Defendant concealed the presence
of benzene in its acne treatment products by not including the
chemical on the products' ingredients list or packaging. The
Plaintiff and Class members reasonably relied on Defendant's
representations and went on to purchase the products in the belief
that they were safe, unadulterated, and free of any carcinogens.  

Headquartered in New York, NY, L'Oreal USA is the largest
subsidiary of the L’Oreal Groupe, the world's largest cosmetics
company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -
     
        Nick Suciu III, Esq.
        MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
        6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
        Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
        Telephone: (313) 303-3472
        Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
        E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com

                - and -
     
        J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
        MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
        405 E 50th Street
        New York, NY 10022
        Telephone: (630) 796-0903
        E-mail: hbryson@milberg.com

               - and -
     
        Luis Cardona, Esq.
        MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
        1311 Ponce de Leon Avenue
        San Juan, PR 00907
        Telephone: (516) 862-0194 Ext 5861
        E-mail: lcardona@milberg.com

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

M&D CAPITAL: Dixon Files Suit in E.D.N.Y Over Contract Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M&D Capital Premier
Billing, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Ashley Dixon,
individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. M&D
Capital Premier Billing, LLC and Island Ambulatory Surgery Center,
LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02317 (E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2024).

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged contract violation.

M&D Capital Premier Billing, LLC is a medical billing company based
in Richmond Hill, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
          14 N.E. 1st Ave, Ste. 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

MOREHEAD STATE: New Brings Appeal to Kentucky Sup. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
JOHN NEW, et al. has filed an appeal on March 26, 2024, in the
Kentucky Supreme Court.

The appellate case is captioned John New, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. Morehead State
University, Case No. 2024-SC-0124.

The case type is stated as transfer request-party.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Movants JOHN NEW, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Andre Fereole Regard, Esq.
            Ivey Lorraine Workman, Esq.
            REGARD LAW GROUP PLLC
            Lexington, KY 40511

Defendant-Respondent MOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY is represented by:

            Joshua Michael Salsburey, Esq.
            Kevin Gudgel Henry, Esq.
            STURGILL, TURNER, BARKER & MOLONEY PLLC
            Lexington, KY 40507

NEW GREEN NUTRITION: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Green Nutrition,
Inc. The case is captioned as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. New Green Nutrition, Inc., Case
No. 2:24-cv-02304 (E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2024).

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

New Green Nutrition, Inc. is a New York-based food, nutrition &
herbal supplements company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NEW INDY: Court Hearing Over Plant Emissions Class Action Begins
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Ullman of QCNews reports that two days of hearings regarding
the New Indy lawsuit over smelly, and some argue dangerous,
emissions coming from a nearby paper plant are set to take place on
April 11 and 12, 2024 in Columbia.

Medical experts have stated that environmental contamination and
health issues have been connected to the emissions coming from the
New Indy Paper Mill in Catawba County.

Those behind the lawsuit state that approximately one million
residents in the Carolinas have been and continue to be exposed to
the potential illness-causing contamination by breathing and
general exposure to contaminated water.

A previous EPA Clean Air Act Emergency Order against the New Indy
containerboard plant outlined evidence that the mill's operations
'are emitting hydrogen sulfide into the air.'

It also states that if owners were allowed to continue the same
operations, they would present "an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health and the environment."

Attorneys for the class action lawsuits against the New Indy claim
that's not enough from the EPA to keep them safe. They claim that
despite the issued Clean Air Act emergency order -- and New Indy's
acceptance of the order -- plant operators have continually
violated the agreement. [GN]

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Settles Ohio Derailment Class Action for $600MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation (NYSE: NSC) announced Tuesday that it
has reached a $600 million agreement in principle to resolve a
consolidated class action lawsuit relating to the East Palestine
derailment. If approved by the court, the agreement will resolve
all class action claims within a 20-mile radius from the derailment
and, for those residents who choose to participate, personal injury
claims within a 10-mile radius from the derailment.

This is another promise kept by Norfolk Southern to make it right
for the people of East Palestine and the surrounding communities.
In March 2023, the company made commitments to address three
long-term concerns of residents: drinking water, home values, and
healthcare. Already, the company has announced programs for
drinking water and home value assurance. The company is going
further through this comprehensive settlement -- providing
additional, significant monetary relief to individuals, including
for healthcare, and to help qualifying local businesses continue to
rebuild and grow.

The agreement is designed to provide finality and flexibility for
settlement class members. Individuals and businesses will be able
to use compensation from the settlement in any manner they see fit
to address potential adverse impacts from the derailment. This
could include healthcare needs and medical monitoring, property
restoration and diminution, and compensation for any net business
loss. In addition, individuals within 10-miles of the derailment
may, at their discretion, choose to receive additional compensation
for any past, current, or future personal injury from the
derailment.

This settlement furthers the work Norfolk Southern has done to make
it right in East Palestine and the surrounding communities. In
addition to this settlement, Norfolk Southern has made
contributions including:

  -- $104 million in community assistance to East Palestine and the
surrounding areas in Ohio and Pennsylvania, including $25 million
for a regional safety training center, $25 million in planned
improvements to East Palestine's city park, $21 million in direct
payments to residents, and $9 million to local first responders;

  -- $4.3 million to support upgrades to drinking water
infrastructure;

  -- $2 million for community-directed projects;

  -- $500,000 grant for economic development; and

  -- Ongoing support to the community through the Family Assistance
Center and programs such as the Interim Value Assurance Program.

To learn more about Norfolk Southern's commitment and ongoing
remediation efforts, visit NSMakingItRight.com.

This agreement does not include or constitute any admission of
liability, wrongdoing, or fault. It was reached through extensive
negotiations with court-appointed class counsel and with the expert
assistance of former federal district judge Layn Phillips, a
nationally renowned neutral mediator. It is expected to be
submitted for preliminary approval to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio later in April 2024. Subject to final
court approval, payments to class members under the settlement
could begin by the end of this year. The actual allocations and
payments to households, businesses, and individuals will be
determined by court-appointed class counsel. Class members will
soon receive additional details about the settlement, including the
contact information for a Settlement Administrator to whom they can
direct any questions and information regarding a Claims Assistance
Center in East Palestine.

About Norfolk Southern

Since 1827, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NYSE: NSC) and its
predecessor companies have safely moved the goods and materials
that drive the U.S. economy. Today, it operates a customer-centric
and operations-driven freight transportation network. Committed to
furthering sustainability, Norfolk Southern helps its customers
avoid approximately 15 million tons of yearly carbon emissions by
shipping via rail. Its dedicated team members deliver more than 7
million carloads annually, from agriculture to consumer goods, and
Norfolk Southern originates more automotive traffic than any other
Class I Railroad. Norfolk Southern also has the most extensive
intermodal network in the eastern U.S. It serves a majority of the
country's population and manufacturing base, with connections to
every major container port on the Atlantic coast as well as major
ports in the Gulf of Mexico and Great Lakes. Learn more by visiting
www.NorfolkSouthern.com. [GN]

OCUGEN INC: Class Suit Alleges Inadequate Proper Internal Controls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ: OCGN) securities between
May 8, 2020 and April 1, 2024. Ocugen, Inc., a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company, develops gene therapies to cure
blindness diseases.

For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.

The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating the Allegations that
Ocugen, Inc. (OCGN) Lacked Proper Internal Controls Over Financial
Reporting

According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose that Ocugen's financial statements from May 8,
2020 to the present were materially misstated and Ocugen did not
have adequate internal controls.

Plaintiff alleges that on April 1, 2024, Ocugen announced that "the
Audit Committee of the Board of Directors (the "Audit Committee"),
based on the recommendation of management and after consultation
with EY, concluded that the Company's previously-issued audited
consolidated financial statements for each fiscal year beginning
January 1, 2020 and its previously-issued unaudited interim
condensed consolidated financial statements for each of the first
three quarters in such years, as well as the associated earnings
releases and investor presentations or other communications
describing such financial statements, were materially misstated
and, accordingly, should no longer be relied upon.

The Company intends to restate its consolidated financial
statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2022, in
connection with the filing of its 2023 Form 10-K. Similarly, the
Company will include restated unaudited financial information for
each of the first three quarters of 2023 and 2022 in its 2023 Form
10-K (each such annual and quarterly period to be restated, a
"Restated Period")."

On this news, Ocugen's stock price fell $0.16 per share, or over
10%, to close at $1.38 per share on April 2, 2024, damaging
investors.

What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Ocugen, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class must file their papers with the court by
June 10, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You
do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a
recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent
class member. For more information, click here.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.

About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.

To be notified if a class action against Ocugen, Inc. Luna
Innovations Incorporated settles or to receive free alerts when
corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch
today.

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

Contact:

     Aaron Dumas, Jr.
     Robbins LLP
     5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
     San Diego, CA 92122
     adumas@robbinsllp.com
     (800) 350-6003
     www.robbinsllp.com [GN]

ONEMAIN FINANCIAL: Ramirez Seeks Damages for Predatory Lending
--------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL RAMIREZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00054
(E.D. Va., April 2, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the
Military Lending Act.

The Plaintiff, an active-duty service member and a covered
borrower, brings this Class action over Defendant's alleged illegal
installment loans made to thousands of soldiers in the United
States. According to him, Defendant's business practices violate
the MLA which was enacted to protect active-duty service members
and their dependents from predatory lending. As a covered borrower,
he is subject to the protections and limitations of the MLA. He
further claims that Defendant's loans to covered borrowers are
unlawful and void from inception due to MLA violations.

Headquartered in Baltimore, MD, OneMain Financial Group LLC is a
personal loan lender exclusively owned by OneMain Financial
Holdings Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Drew D. Sarrett, Esq.
        CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.     
        626 E. Broad Street, Suite 300
        Richmond, VA 23219
        Telephone: (804) 905-9900
        Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
        E-mail: drew@clalegal.com

                - and -
     
        Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
        Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
        Mark C. Leffler, Esq.
        John Justin Maravalli, Esq.
        Adam Short, Esq.
        CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
        763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
        Newport News, VA 23601
        Telephone: (757) 930-3660
        Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
        E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                craig@clalegal.com
                mark@clalegal.com
                john@clalegal.com
                adam@clalegal.com

                - and -
     
        Brian Warwick, Esq.
        Janet Varnell, Esq.
        Christopher J. Brochu, Esq.
        VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
        400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900
        Tampa, FL 33602
        Telephone: (352) 753-8600
        E-mail: bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
               jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
               cbrochu@vandwlaw.com

PFIZER CORP: Rothschild Sues Over Mislabeled Gabapentin Drug
------------------------------------------------------------
Mayer Amschel Rothschild and to all others similarly situated v.
Pfizer Corporation, Ealon Joelson, and Palo Alto Medical
Foundation, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-CV-00301-SPC-KCD (M.D. Fla.,
April 4, 2024) alleges that Pfizer's Gabapentin was defective in
design, manufacturing, or labeling.

Plaintiff Rothschild alleges that Pfizer failed to provide adequate
warnings or instructions regarding the potential risks and side
effects associated with Gabapentin, an adjunctive therapy in the
treatment of partial onset seizures. The Plaintiff asserts that
Neurologist Ealon Joelson breached the standard of care in
prescribing and monitoring during the Gabapentin treatment to make
sure the safe levels are maintained and as not to cause harm.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff demands $400,000,000.00 for damages and
any and all subsequent treatments.

Pfizer Corporation is a biopharmaceutical company that develops and
produces vaccines and medicines including Gabapentin. [BN]

The Plaintiff, of Fort Myers FL, appears pro se.

PPG INDUSTRIES: Moreno Sues Over Assembly Workers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MORENO, an individual, on behalf of himself, and all aggrieved
employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys
General v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation,
SIERRACIN/SYLMAR CORPORATION, a California corporation, and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV08289 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., April 2, 2024) accuses the Defendants of multiple violations
of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff has worked for Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt
assembly worker from 2018 until his suspension in September 2023.
He alleges that Defendants have had a consistent policy and/or
practice of failing to include earnings in the regular rate of pay
to calculate overtime, sick pay, and premium wages, failing to pay
sick leave wages, failing to pay all wages owed twice per month,
failing to pay wages due upon termination, and failing to provide
accurate itemized wage statements. He seeks civil penalties
pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act and the California
Labor Code.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA, PPG Industries, Inc. is a global
supplier of paints, coatings, and specialty materials. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -
     
        Sahag Majarian, Esq.
        Garen Majarian, Esq,Esq.
        MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC
        18250 Ventura Blvd.  
        Tarzana, CA 91356
        Telephone: (818) 609-0807
        Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
        E-mail: sahagii@aol.com
                garen@majarianlawgroup.com

PROGRESSIVE PIPELINE: Faces Lewis Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
MONGAMELI LEWIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. PROGRESSIVE PIPELINE MANAGEMENT, LLC and KYLE PATTS,
Case No. 1:24-cv-02567 (E.D.N.Y., April 5, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for Corporate Defendant, Progressive Pipeline
Management, LLC, as an environmental clean-up worker from
approximately April 5, 2022 until on or about March 15, 2023.
Corporate Defendant has a contract with the MTA New York City
Transit of which Plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary. The
Plaintiff brings this action over Defendants' alleged failure to
pay prevailing wages, supplemental benefits, holiday pay and sick
pay, and Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
wages on a timely basis, and failure to provide notices and
accurate wage statements, in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL.

Progressive Pipeline Management, LLC is a construction company
based in Wenonah, NJ. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         William K. Oates, Esq.
         PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC     
         45 Broadway, Suite 430
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 248-7431
         Facsimile: (212) 901-2107
         E-mail: woates@tpglaws.com

PUROVITE INC: Pineyrua Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Pineyrua, and other similarly situated  individuals,
Plaintiff v. Purovite Inc., and Tariff Gaffar, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-21261 (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2024) seeks
to recover from Defendants overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt, full-time
employee from approximately March 16, 2022, to March 01, 2024, or
102 weeks. During the relevant period of employment, the Plaintiff
had duties as a production employee, warehouse worker, and
technician cleaning and fixing vitamin machines. Allegedly, the
Defendants deducted from Plaintiff's working hours as lunchtime,
although Plaintiff could not take bonafide lunchtime periods. In
addition, Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours weekly but was not
paid for all his overtime hours, as required by law, the suit
alleges.

With facilities located in Miami, FL, Purovite is a nutraceutical
contract manufacturer/laboratory specializing in nutraceutical
products for human and animal consumption. Purovite develops its
products for domestic and international markets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

QUEBEC MAJOR: Superior Court Authorizes Hazing Class-Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quebec Superior Court has authorized a class-action lawsuit against
the Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League and its teams over
alleged hazing abuse.

Justice Jacques G. Bouchard gave the class action the green light
in a decision published Wednesday, after hearing arguments last
month in Quebec City.

The case can now be heard on its merits, something that could still
be years away.

The lawsuit of more than $15 million was filed last year by Carl
Latulippe, a former Quebec minor hockey star who went public with
alleged abuse suffered while playing for two teams in the
mid-1990s.

It targets the league, its member franchises and its umbrella
organization -- the Canadian Hockey League -- and seeks $650,000
for the plaintiff in damages, including pain, suffering and
humiliation, as well as lost productivity and therapy costs.

Another $15 million would be shared among other alleged victims.

Latulippe played for three teams in the Quebec-based major junior
league between 1994 and 1996 and is represented by Montreal law
firm Kugler Kandestin.

One of his lawyers, David Stolow, said in an interview that
Latulippe was very happy when informed about Wednesday's ruling.

"It was very, very important and I think quite emotional both for
him and for me as well, it was very welcome news to receive,"
Stolow said.

Those covered in the class action are "all hockey players who have
experienced abuse while they were minors and playing in the Quebec
Major Junior Hockey League" since July 1, 1969.

Bouchard noted in his judgment the process for authorizing a class
action doesn't involve delving into the merits, but rather to
filter applications that are frivolous.

"The court recognizes that the request for authorization is
formulated in a broad and ambitious manner," Bouchard wrote about
what could be a significant class size.

"But it is only by examining the merits of all the allegations of
fact that it will be possible to detect or not the existence of
such joint liability with regard to all or only certain teams."

Latulippe, now 46, first made public the alleged abuse he faced in
an interview with Montreal La Presse last year.

A first-round of the Chicoutimi Sagueneens in the 1994 QMJHL draft,
Latulippe alleged that during training camp he was forced by
veteran players to undress and masturbate in front of teammates on
a team bus, with full knowledge of the coaches. He also alleges
that team veterans assaulted rookies with soap wrapped in towels.

Latulippe left the team briefly after the bus incident and later
returned at the behest of the coach, but when he discussed the
abuse he was allegedly told by the coach that the hazing would only
last a year and help build character.

He played six regular-season games with the Sagueneens before
joining the Drummondville Voltigeurs, where he alleges he faced
more abuse. He said Voltigeurs rookies covered themselves in
shampoo to make it difficult for veterans to grab and assault them
in the shower.

In the documents, Latulippe also describes being forced to binge
drink at a team initiation event in Drummondville, Que.

After the Voltigeurs, the plaintiff played for the Beauport
Harfangs -- who have since become the Quebec City Remparts. He said
no hazing incidents occurred while he was on that team.

Latulippe's lawsuit argued that the defendants, "when they had an
obligation to protect the members of the class and to look after
their well-being, witnessed the abuse, encouraged it, neglected,
tolerated, covered up or ignored it."

The league had argued against having all teams named as defendants,
but Bouchard ruled it was too early to rule out any clubs.

"The statements of fault by omission or negligence aimed at all of
the defendants, if confirmed by probative evidence, could possibly
lead to the conclusions sought," Bouchard wrote. "It would
therefore be premature to address these delicate questions now and
especially taking into account the very undemanding threshold
required (for authorization)."

The league's lawyers had argued that a class action was not the
proper way to proceed and also raised a case filed in Ontario,
where a Superior Court judge in February 2023 denied authorization
for a class action in that province involving players in Canada's
three major junior hockey leagues -- including the QMJHL -- dating
back to 1975.

The Ontario judge who heard the application accepted the evidence
that players suffered "horrific and despicable and unquestionably
criminal acts" at the hands of teammates and staff during
initiations and hazing rituals, but that plaintiffs failed to
present a workable plan to litigate.

The players have appealed and the Ontario Court of Appeal will hear
that case on June 11.

Stolow said the Quebec filing will exclude anyone who participates
in any individual lawsuits in Ontario, and class members in Quebec
will have certain period of time to opt out of the Quebec case.

Bouchard also ruled that other victims could use pseudonyms during
the case.

Stolow said others have come forward without revealing names or
numbers. He said it's typical for people to come forward at
different stages.

"For us it's really important to convey the message that if someone
wants to reach out and picks up the phone and calls me, there is a
guarantee of confidentiality," Stolow said.

The league and other defendants will have 30 days from the notice
of judgment to seek permission to appeal the ruling. [GN]

R1 RCM: Faces Hillbom Suit Over Alleged Private Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER HILLBOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. R1 RCM, INC.; and DIGNITY HEALTH d/b/a DIGNITY HEALTH -
ST. ROSE DOMINICAN HOSPITAL, ROSE DE LIMA CAMPUS, Case No.
2:24-cv-00664 (D. Nev., April 5, 2024) accuses the Defendants of
failing to secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members'
personally identifying information and personal health information.


Between January 30, 2023 and November 17, 2023, Defendant R1, a
third-party vendor of technology-based revenue cycle management
services for hospitals, including co-defendant Dignity Health, and
other entities in the healthcare industry, experienced a data
breach during which Plaintiff and Class members' PII and PHI were
compromised.

The Plaintiff claims that the data breach was a direct result of
Defendants' failure to implement and maintain reasonable and
adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard
Plaintiff's and Class members' PII and PHI against illegal access
and exfiltration by unauthorized third parties. This action seeks
to remedy Defendants' failings and their consequences, with
Plaintiff asserting claims for negligence, breach of implied
contract, and unjust enrichment.

Headquartered in Murray, UT, R1 RCM, Inc. is an American revenue
cycle management company servicing the healthcare industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Gustavo Ponce, Esq.
         Mona Amini, Esq.
         KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC     
         6787 W. Tropicana Avenue, Suite 250
         Las Vegas, NV 89103
         Telephone: (800) 400-6808
         Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
         E-mail: mona@kazlg.com

RANDOLPH COLLEGE: Delacruz Files Suit Over ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Randolph College,
Incorporated. The case is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf
of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Randolph
College, Incorporated, Case No. 1:24-cv-02378 (S.D.N.Y., March 28,
2024).

The case is brought over the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Randolph College, Incorporated was founded in 1891. It is a private
liberal arts and sciences college located in Lynchburg,
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com

RB HEALTH: O'Dea Sues Over Benzene Presence in Acne Products
------------------------------------------------------------
LUCINDA O'DEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RB HEALTH (US) LLC, Case No.1:24-cv-02757 (N.D. Ill.,
April 5, 2024) accuses the Defendant of consumer fraud over its
failure to disclose the presence of benzene in its acne treatment
products.

The Plaintiff brings this action over Defendant's manufacturing,
distribution, marketing, and sale of acne treatment products that
contain the active ingredient benzoyl peroxide ("BPO"). BPO
degrades over time into benzene, a known carcinogen that has been
linked to leukemia and other cancers. The Defendant allegedly
misrepresents that the products do not contain benzene as the
harmful chemical is not included on the products' ingredients list.
The presence of benzene in the products renders them adulterated
and misbranded, and therefore illegal to sell under both federal
and state law, says the suit.

The Plaintiff claims that she and others who purchased the products
were harmed as a result of Defendant's failure to disclose that the
products contain benzene. The Plaintiff seeks damages and other
relief for Defendant's alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, unjust enrichment, and
violation of State Consumer Fraud Acts.

RB Health US LLC is a manufacturer of drugs and pharmaceuticals
based in Parsippany, NJ. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                 - and -
     
         Nick Suciu III, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
         Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
         Telephone: (313) 303-3472
         Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
         E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com

                 - and -
     
         J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         405 E 50th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (630) 796-0903
         E-mail: hbryson@milberg.com

                 - and -
     
         Luis Cardona, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         1311 Ponce de Leon Avenue
         San Juan, PR 00907
         Telephone: (516) 862-0194 Ext 5861
         E-mail: lcardona@milberg.com

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

RCI DINING: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum Wages, Matlock Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
HOLLY MATLOCK, and DETYSCHA PICKNEY, Plaintiff v. RCI DINING
SERVICES (SULPHUR), INC. D/B/A SCARLETT’S CABARET, CORDERO
PENNINGTON, and TRAVIS R. REESE, individuals, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-00456 (W.D. La., April 4, 2024) is a class action seeking
for damages from Defendants' conduct of evading the mandatory
minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and
illegally absconding with Plaintiffs' tips.

Plaintiffs Matlock Pickney were employed by the Defendants from
approximately 2018 through December 18, 2023 and from approximately
October 2022 through May 2023, respectively. Throughout their
employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiffs assert that hey had
been denied minimum wage payments as part of Defendants' scheme to
classify them and other dancers/entertainers as "independent
contractors."

Based in West Sulphur, LA, RCI Dining Services owns and operates a
strip club named Scarlett's. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David H. Hanchey, Esq.
          THE TOWNSLEY LAW FIRM
          3102 Enterprise Boulevard
          Lake Charles, LA 70601
          Telephone: (337) 478-1400
          Facsimile: (337) 478-1577
          E-mail: david@townsleylawfirm.com

                  - and -

           Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
           Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
           ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
           1105 Milford Street
           Houston, TX 77066
           Telephone: (713) 554-2377
           Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
           E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
                   leigh@ellzeylaw.com

RESTAURANTE UNIVERSAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Guerra Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
INGRID P. GUERRA, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. RESTAURANTE UNIVERSAL MARIA’S, CORP., MARIA C.
MARADIAGA, and EDGARD M. VASQUEZ, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 1:24-cv-21271-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2024) seeks to recover
monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff Guerra as a non-exempt,
full-time, hourly-paid waitress/cafeteria attendant. While employed
by Defendants, the Plaintiff worked a regular schedule of five days
per week, 48 hours every week. The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40
hours weekly, but she was not paid for overtime hours as required
by law, the suit says.

Restaurante Universal is a Latin café/restaurant located at 1417
Opa-Locka Blvd, Miami, FL. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
           ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
           9100 S. Dadeland Blvd.  Suite 1500
           Miami, FL 33156
           Telephone: (305) 446-1500
           Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
           E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

RIVERDALE SNF: Gordons Sue Over Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------
PERNELL GORDON and LATOYA GORDON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. RIVERDALE SNF, LLC D/B/A SCHERVIER
REHABILITATION AND NURSING CARE CENTER, TL MANAGEMENT, LLC, TL
MANAGEMENT CO., LLC, TL HEALTHCARE LEASING, LLC, and TL HEALTHCARE
HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02612 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other
hourly employees with various job titles who work or have worked at
Schervier nursing care center in New York which is operated by
Defendant Riverdale SNF, LLC. Defendant Riverdale allegedly
committed multiple labor law violations, including failure to pay
minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and failure to pay timely wages.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and statutory penalties under the
FLSA and the NYLL.

Riverdale SNF, LLC is a for-profit nursing facility located in
Bronx, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

        Molly A. Brooks, Esq.
        OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP     
        685 Third Ave., 25th Floor
        New York, NY 10017
        Telephone: (212) 245-1000
        E-mail: mb@outtengolden.com

                - and -
     
        Molly J. Frandsen, Esq.
        OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
        One California Street, 12th Floor
        San Francisco, CA 94111
        Telephone: (415) 638-8800
        Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
        E-mail: mfrandsen@outtengolden.com

ROBERT FOX: Colak Sues Over ADA Violation in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robert Fox, Inc. The
case is captioned as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Robert Fox, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-02311
(E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2024).

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Robert Fox, Inc. retails women's clothing. The Company offers
apparel, coats, bags, shoes, jewelry, and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

S.J.B. CORP: Faces McDonald Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ala.
-----------------------------------------------------------
KELLEY MCDONALD and TAYLOR SMITH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. S.J.B. CORPORATION dba SAMMY'S, an
Alabama Corporation; PATRICIA CANTAVESPRE, an individual; SAMMY
RUSSO, an individual; DOE MANAGERS 1 through 3; and DOES 4 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-00436-SGC (N.D. Ala., April 7,
2024), seeks damages for Defendants' alleged failure to pay minimum
wages and unlawful taking of tips and/or kickback.

The Plaintiffs worked as exotic dancers at Defendants' club Sammy's
located at 342 Valley Avenue, Birmingham, Alabama. Allegedly,
throughout their employment with Defendants, Plaintiffs and Class
members were not paid the mandatory minimum wage and were denied
overtime payments as part of Defendants' scheme to classify
Plaintiffs and other dancers/entertainers as independent
contractors. Additionally, Defendants allegedly engaged in illegal
practices relating to employees' tips.

S.J.B. Corporation is engaged in the adult entertainment business
and operates Sammy's Gentlemen's Club in Birmingham, AL. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jason P. Tortorici, Esq.
         SCHILLECI & TORTORICI, P.C. 100
         Centerview Drive, Suite 205
         Birmingham, AL 35233
         Telephone: (205) 978-4211
         E-mail: jpt@schillecitortoricilaw.com

                 - and -
     
         John P. Kristensen, Esq.
         KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP
         120 Santa Barbara Street, Suite C9
         Santa Barbara, CA 93101
         Telephone: (805) 837-2000
         E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com

SABINA'S DREAM: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Maids, Hatcher Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Tamara R. Hatcher, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. Sabina's Dream, LLC, d/b/a Royal Maid Service
Rockledge, and Sabina Huseynova, individually, Defendants, Case No.
6:24-cv-00655 (M.D. Fla., April 4, 2024) accuses the Defendants of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff Hatcher from approximately
January 1, 2024, through March 13, 2024, or 10 weeks. The Plaintiff
was a non-exempt, full-time maid who cleaned and maintained
clients' private homes. During her employment with Defendants, the
Plaintiff worked 70 hours weekly. However, Plaintiff was not paid
for overtime hours, as required by law, says the suit.

Based in Sanford, Seminole County, Florida, Royal Maid Service is a
residential and commercial cleaning company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

SANDOZ CANADA: Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Class Action Cert
----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 27, 2024, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its
decision in Palmer v. Teva Canada Limited et al, 2024 ONCA 220,
dismissing the plaintiffs' appeal from a denial of certification in
a proposed pharmaceutical product liability class action against
Sandoz Canada Inc. ("Sandoz"), seeking C$250M in damages.

The plaintiffs' proposed class action involved allegations
regarding the presence of certain alleged carcinogens in a high
blood pressure medication. In the motion underlying this appeal,
Sandoz achieved complete success, with the motion judge concluding
that the plaintiffs had failed every element of the test for
certification of a class action.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, and again
Sandoz achieved complete success. The Ontario Court of Appeal
rejected the plaintiffs' arguments with respect to the many forms
of causes of action pleaded. Importantly, the Court of Appeal
agreed with Sandoz's position that the plaintiffs' claims were
ill-fated as a result of the failure to plead any compensable loss,
and to present any evidence of any actual harm to the proposed
class.

Fasken represented the defendant Sandoz Canada Inc. in securing the
result, with a team led by Peter Pliszka and including Zohaib
Maladwala and Robin Roddey. [GN]

SCOTTS CO: Perez Sues Over Insecticide Product's False Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA PEREZ, and MICHAEL GREGORIO v. THE SCOTTS COMPANY, LLC, and
WALMART INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-60516-AHS (S.D. Fla., April 2, 2024)
is a class action alleging the Defendants of fraudulent business
practices in relation to the advertising, marketing, labeling and
sale of an insecticide product.

According to the complaint, Defendant Scott Company engaged in
unlawful, fraudulent, unfair, misleading and/or deceptive
advertising to encourage consumers, including Plaintiffs, to
purchase its Orthene Fire Ant Killer1 product. In particular, the
company made false representations on the product's label, leading
consumers to believe that the product "treats up to 162 mounds" and
"kills the queen". Expert testing unveils that such claims are not
true.

Plaintiffs Perez and Gregorio purchased the product separately on
February 2, 2023 and February 3, 2024 in Florida. They allege that
Defendant Walmart tolerated and had actual knowledge of Scotts’
illegal practice as it continued to market and distribute the
product at issue despite receiving notice from Plaintiffs about the
alleged fraudulent representations.

The Plaintiffs seek damages for Defendants' alleged violation of
the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
  
Located in Marysville OH, The Scotts Company, LLC is one of the
largest manufacturers of lawn care products worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

        Lydia S. Zbrzeznj, Esq.
        Nicholas T. Zbrzeznj, Esq.
        SOUTHERN ATLANTIC LAW GROUP, PLLC     
        290 1st Street S  
        Winter Haven, FL 33880
        Telephone: (863)656-6672
        Facsimile: (863)301-4500
        E-mail: lydia@southernatlanticlaw.com
                nick@southernatlanticlaw.com
                kara@southernatlanticlaw.com
                mark@southernatlanticlaw.com

SHEIN DISTRIBUTION: Faces Giana Digital Copyright Infringement Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN GIANA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. SHEIN DISTRIBUTION CORP.; ROADGET BUSINESS PTE., LTD. d/b/a
SHEIN; SHEIN TECHNOLOGY LLC; and SHEIN US SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-02599 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2024) seeks damages and
injunctive relief over Defendants' alleged industrial-scale scheme
of systematic, digital copyright infringement of the work of small
artists and designers.  

The Plaintiff, an artist and designer, who for more than 30 years,
has earned a living by creating and licensing artwork, alleges that
Defendant Shein has systematically infringed and continue to
infringe copyrights owned by Plaintiff and other designers and
artists across the United States. According to Plaintiff, Defendant
is using a sophisticated, for-profit surveillance and copying
system that enables it to copy and infringe the designs of others,
even after the actual designers have notified the company that it
is selling stolen works. The Defendant allegedly has a history of
generating exact copies of other designers' works, including
copyrighted material owned by Plaintiff and Class members.      

Shein Distribution Corporation operates an e-commerce business and
is based in Los Angeles, CA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Wesley M. Mullen, Esq.
        Vincent R. FitzPatrick III, Esq.
        MULLEN P.C     
        745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
        New York, NY 10151
        Telephone: (646) 632-3718
        E-mail: wmullen@mullenpc.com
                vfitzpatrick@mullenpc.com

                - and -
     
        Justin S. Nematzadeh, Esq.
        NEMATZADEH PLLC
        101 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 909
        New York, NY 10013
        Telephone: (646) 799-6729
        E-mail: jsn@nematlawyers.com

SHEIN FASHION: Faces Digital Copyright Infringement Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laurel Deppen, writing for Retail Dive, reports that a class action
lawsuit alleges that Shein has copyright infringement 'baked into'
its business model.

Dive Brief:

  -- Shein is facing a class action lawsuit that alleges the
fast-fashion company uses an "industrial-scale scheme of
systematic, digital copyright infringement" against small designers
and artists, according to court documents last week.

  -- Attorneys for the group of plaintiffs say that Shein "uses
sophisticated electronic systems that algorithmically scour the
internet for popular works created by artists" and "misappropriates
those works to manufacture and sell" them as Shein products without
attribution to the creators.

  -- The complaint is the latest in a series of copyright
infringement lawsuits filed against the fast-fashion giant,
including an ongoing one from last year that claimed violation of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act.

Dive Insight:

The latest case, filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, points to Shein's ultra fast
business model that involves rapid mass production and generating
thousands of new products each day.

Attorneys allege that to distribute these items "at such a fever
pitch," Shein's algorithm-based design system outputs designs to
Shein's factories for production "with no human intermediary or
compliance function taking care that the algorithm's designs are
not the property of others."

"But Shein does not create many of its products; it certainly does
not design thousands daily," the complaint reads. " . . . Shein
uses algorithms, artificial intelligence, and related computerized
monitoring systems to identify trending and 'viral' images and
designs on social media, apps, and websites."

The complaint further claimed that the fast-fashion company
combines its data-mining system with research and surveillance of
its competitors, and attorneys say that "widespread copyright
infringement is baked into the [Shein] business."

A Shein spokesperson declined to comment. In Fashion Dive's
previous reporting, the company has said it takes all claims of
infringement seriously.

Though the bulk of the copyright infringement complaints against
Shein have, like this one, been filed by independent designers,
larger fashion brands and retailers have sued Shein as well,
including Victoria's Secret-backed For Love and Lemons, Uniqlo and
H&M.

Beyond the courts, Shein's business model has also been questioned
by Congress. Last year, a group of lawmakers wrote a letter to the
top executive of Shein, asking the company to detail its compliance
with the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, a 2021 law that bans
products from Xinjiang region in China. Another group of congress
members similarly asked the SEC to halt a potential Shein IPO until
it confirmed it didn't use forced labor in its supply chain.

Temu, one of Shein's competitors, was also part of the
congressional investigation. Temu sued Shein in December 2023,
accusing it of anticompetitive behavior.

Temu is facing two ongoing class action lawsuits which accuse it of
intentionally loading dangerous malware and spyware onto users'
devices and failing to comply with security standards, among other
claims. [GN]

SMBC NIKKO: Appeals Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willkie successfully secured the dismissal on appeal of claims
against SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc. in a securities class
action arising out of ViacomCBS's $3 billion secondary public
offering in March 2021. SMBC Nikko served as one of multiple
underwriters in a syndicate for the offering.  

A panel of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First
Judicial Department, reversed the trial court's denial of SMBC
Nikko's motion to dismiss, holding that SMBC Nikko could not be
held liable for failure to disclose information that it did not
know regarding the alleged trading activities of other banks in the
syndicate. This is a rare instance where some but not all of the
underwriter banks in a syndicate are dismissed from a securities
class action at the motion to dismiss stage.

Plaintiffs filed suit in New York Supreme Court, Commercial
Division, alleging that, prior to the offering, certain underwriter
banks -- not SMBC Nikko -- held total-return swap positions
referencing ViacomCBS stock with the now defunct family hedge fund
Archegos Capital Management. Plaintiffs allege that those
underwriter banks sold large blocks of ViacomCBS stock that they
had purchased to hedge the swap positions. The block sales
purportedly caused the price of ViacomCBS stock to fall shortly
after the offerings, prompting plaintiffs to file suit under the
Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiffs allege that the offering
documents were false and misleading because they allegedly failed
to warn investors about these potential sales.

In February 2023, the trial court denied all of the underwriter
defendants' motions to dismiss, but granted the issuer ViacomCBS's
motion to dismiss. For SMBC Nikko, Willkie argued that the
allegedly omitted information was not "known or knowable" to SMBC
Nikko at the time of the offering, because plaintiffs did not
allege that SMBC Nikko could have known about the other banks'
potential trading. Nevertheless, the trial court determined that
SMBC Nikko and other so-called "non-trading underwriters" had an
affirmative obligation under the '33 Act to perform some level of
due diligence on all of the other underwriters in the syndicate and
ascertain whether any of them had conflicts of interest.

SMBC Nikko and the other underwriter defendants appealed the trial
court's decision. On April 4, 2024, a panel of the First Department
reversed the ruling as to SMBC Nikko, the other non-trading
underwriters, and certain other underwriters. The appeals court
held that SMBC Nikko could not be held liable for failure to
disclose information that it "did not know" and could not know
about, including trading activities of the other underwriters.

The Willkie litigation team was led by partners Todd Cosenza and
Brady Sullivan and included associates Madeleine Tayer and Samuel
Hurst-MacDonald. [GN]

SOLSTICE MARKETING: Anderson Files Suit Over ADA Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solstice Marketing
Concepts, LLC. The case is captioned as Derrick Anderson, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Solstice Marketing
Concepts, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02359-MKB-JAM (E.D.N.Y., March 29,
2024).

The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Solstice Marketing Concepts, LLC retail eyewear products. The
Company offers designer, contemporary, and sport sunglasses and
contact lenses for women, men, and children with locations in
outlet centers, malls, and online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st ave
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (917) 915-7415
          E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com

SOUTHSTATE BANK: Faces Gore Suit Over Unprotected Sensitive Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
LATONYA GORE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHSTATE BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
8:24-cv-00838-MSS-TGW (M.D. Fla., April 4, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive
information of its customers.

On or about March 29, 2024, the Defendant began sending Plaintiff
and other data breach victims a notice letter regarding the data
breach incident. However, the letter allegedly failed to include
the identity of the cybercriminals who perpetrated this data
breach, the date Defendant detected the data breach, the details of
the root cause of the data breach, the vulnerabilities exploited,
and the remedial measures undertaken to ensure such a breach does
not occur again.

Plaintiff Gore brings this class action lawsuit on behalf all those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class members' private information that it collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to her 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.

Headquartered in Winter Haven, FL, SouthState Bank operates more
than 240 convenient branches and ATMs in Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia. [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

SUDDENLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Court Denies Arbitration in Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Arkansas Court of Appeals has denied arbitration in a
class-action lawsuit that Arkansas cities filed against Suddenlink
Communications.

The lawsuit was filed by the City of Gurdon on behalf of 59
Arkansas cities, including Arkadelphia and Caddo Valley, which have
franchise ordinances governing the cable television, telephone and
internet services Suddenlink provides to city residents.

On April 3, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Clark County Circuit
Court's ruling that the cities were not required to individually
arbitrate their claims against Suddenlink. The Court of Appeals
also affirmed the lower court's ruling that the case could proceed
as a class action.

The ruling means that Suddenlink, which now does business as
Optimum, will not be able to avoid the claims of the Arkansas
cities where it provides services through franchise agreements.

Gurdon and the other cities allege that Suddenlink failed to make
proper payments to them for its franchise rights and that the
company failed to meet the minimum customer standards imposed by
law and by the respective franchise ordinances.

Among other things, Gurdon and Arkadelphia's respective franchise
ordinances prohibit the cable television provider from increasing
its rates for services unless it first provides public notice of
any increase, conducts a public hearing and secures approval from
the City Council. Gurdon and other cities allege that Suddenlink
consistently failed to comply with those requirements.

In 2020, Suddenlink closed most of its offices in Arkansas, but
Arkadelphia's ordinance requires the city's franchise cable
television provider to maintain a local office.

In 2020, hundreds of Suddenlink customers lodged complaints about
the company's prices and services and several customers followed
through with lawsuits. In 2023, the Arkansas Court of Appeals
issued a series of decisions which prevented individual customers
from seeking legal relief against Suddenlink in court because of an
arbitration provision that appeared on a Suddenlink website. Those
rulings required customers to individually submit any claims to a
private arbitrator.

"We are disappointed that Suddenlink was able to use a website
arbitration clause to shield itself from lawsuits by individual
customers, but we are pleased that Suddenlink was not able to
prevent Arkansas cities from pursuing these claims on behalf of
themselves and their citizens," said Todd Turner, who was one of
the attorneys who represents the cities. "We would encourage anyone
who has complaints about Suddenlink or Optimum to continue to
contact the Arkansas Attorney General's office and their local city
representatives." [GN]

TEE JAYE'S: Engages in Illegal Tip Scheme, Knox Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
TANDY J. KNOX, MEGAN DRAKE, MACIE R. JENKINS, and LESLIE R. DECKER,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TEE
JAYE'S COUNTRY PLACE, INC. dba TEE JAYE'S COUNTRY PLACE, Case No.
2:24-cv-01593-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, April 5, 2024) seeks to recover
compensation, damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio
labor laws.

The Plaintiffs are employed as non-exempt servers at Defendant's
Whitehall and Zanesville locations. Defendant allegedly engaged in
a policy and practice of paying Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees the tipped minimum wage even when they're
performing non-tip producing work, which is in violation of the
FLSA and the Ohio Wage Act. As a result of Defendant's illegal tip
scheme, the Plaintiffs and Class members were not compensated
appropriately at the constitutionally mandated minimum wage. The
Defendant has continued to implement the illegal tip credit scheme
despite being previously sued over the unlawful practice, say the
Plaintiffs.

Based in Ohio, Tee Jaye's Country Place, Inc operates home-style
cooking restaurants at multiple locations in Columbus, Ohio and the
surrounding area. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
         BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP     
         4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
         Columbus, OH 43219
         Telephone: (614) 221-4221
         Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
         E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com

TRUSPER INC: Ramirez Seeks Damages for Consumer Privacy Law Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELIA RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRUSPER, INC. d/b/a MUSELY, Case No. 5:24-cv-02012
(N.D. Cal., April 2, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating
California's consumer privacy laws by disclosing to Meta
confidential information belonging to users and visitors of
Defendant's website.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant assists and conspires with
Meta to intercept communications sent and received by Plaintiff and
other consumers who accessed and used Defendant's website,
www.musely.com. She accessed Defendant's website in or around
August 2023 to purchase a treatment for dark brown spots on the
skin. As part of the purchase process, she answered a series of
questions regarding her skin condition so she could get a medical
prescription for the product she purchased. After placing her order
via the Musely website, she began receiving targeted advertisements
from Musely and other related skincare advertisements on Facebook,
says the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff further claims that Defendant assisted Meta with
intercepting her communications, including those that contained
personally identifiable information, protection health information,
and related confidential information, without her knowledge,
consent, or express written authorization. The Defendant's conduct
is allegedly in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act
and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the
Plaintiff added.

Headquartered in Santa Clara, CA, Trusper Inc., doing business as
Musely, offers prescription skincare products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
        Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
        Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
        BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.     
        1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
        Walnut Creek, CA 94596
        Telephone: (925) 300-4455
        Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
        E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                bscott@bursor.com
                jwilner@bursor.com

UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA: Settles Title IX Class-Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Onstot of Koco New 5 reports that the University of Central
Oklahoma has reached a proposed settlement in a Title IX
class-action lawsuit.

In 2022, athletes on the UCO women's track and cross-country team
filed a lawsuit claiming the university violated their Title IX
rights by not giving them the same benefits or rights as men's
teams.

he lawsuit was filed on behalf of athletes on the women's cross
country and track teams. Attorneys representing them said in 2022
that they filed this against UCO for "treating its female
student-athletes much worse than the male athletes -- and
retaliating against them for seeking equal treatment."

The suit claimed the women's cross country and track teams have no
locker room, no competitive facility and they're forced to practice
at a local middle school.

Attorney Arthur Bryant, who represents the athletes, said schools
usually realize they are in violation of Title IX and make
necessary changes, but UCO didn't.

"It took two years, but our clients are getting exactly what they
wanted from the start. The school has committed to get fully
compliant with Title IX throughout its athletic program and give
equal treatment and benefits to female student athletes and male
student athletes. That's what the law requires," Bryant said.

Bryant said UCO has now agreed to right these wrongs in what he
called a hug win for all women at the university. The school has
agreed to make immediate changes to their women's track and cross
country teams, and it will hire a gender equity specialist who will
conduct thorough reviews, Bryant said.

The agreement also said the school will file Title IX reports for
years to come, as well as be responsible for hundreds of thousands
of dollars in the athletes' legal fees, according to Bryant.

The settlement is not official, and a judge will have to approve it
this summer. Until then, every female student at the school has a
chance to give their opinion on the settlement. [GN]

WALMART INC: Faces Faison Suit Over Mislabeled Bed Sheet Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VERNITA FAISON, individually and as a representative of all others
similarly situated v. WALMART INC. and WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case
No. 2:24-cv-01024-DJC-CSK (E.D. Cal., April 5, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of false advertising over misrepresentations made on
their bed sheet product.

Defendant Walmart manufactures, distributes, advertises, and sells
bed sheet sets under its exclusively owned brand name "Hotel Style"
at Walmart locations throughout the country. The Hotel Style bed
sheets are being advertised as "800 THREAD COUNT," as indicated on
their packaging and labeling, regardless of their size, color, or
pattern. Walmart's thread count claim on its Hotel Style sheets is
a misleading representation, as expert testing has found that the
thread count of Walmart's Hotel Style Sheets is less than half of
the represented and warranted thread count, says the suit.

The thread count serves as a primary indicator for consumers in
determining the quality, durability, and longevity of sheet sets
and fabrics. Walmart's false and misleading representation deceives
consumers into believing they are purchasing a product of a higher
quality.

The Plaintiff purchased Hotel Style sheets from a Walmart store in
Sacramento, CA at a higher price believing that the bed sheets
contain an 800 thread count. The Plaintiff brings this suit against
Walmart of violating multiple state laws and seeks damages for the
alleged violations.

Headquartered in Bentonville, AR, Walmart is a retailer, operating
approximately 10,500 stores and clubs in 24 countries across the
globe. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
        TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP     
        1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
        Oakland, CA 94612
        Telephone: (510) 254-6808
        Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
        E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com

                - and -
     
        Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
        Leora N. Friedman, Esq.
        TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
        2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010  
        Washington, D.C. 20006
        Telephone: (202) 973-0900
        Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
        E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com
                lfriedman@tzlegal.com

                - and -
     
        Frank Bartela, Esq.
        Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
        DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN
        60 South Park Place
        Painesville, OH 44077
        Telephone: (440) 352-3391
        E-mail: fbartela@dworkenlaw.com
                nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com

WEIRTON MEDICAL: Yano Files Suit Over Personal Property Damage
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weirton Medical
Center, Inc. The case is captioned as Trish Yano, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Weirton Medical
Center, Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-00061-JPB (N.D. W.Va., March 28,
2024).

The suit arises from the Defendant's misconduct resulting to
Plaintiff's personal property damage.

The case is assigned to Judge John Preston Bailey.

Weirton Medical Center, Inc. provides healthcare services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan T. Deters, Esq.
          Terence R. Coates, Esq.     
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          119 E. Court Street, Ste. 530
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          E-mail: jdeters@msdlegal.com
                  tcoates@msdlegal.com  

               - and -

          Jonathan Zak Ritchie, Esq.
          Ryan McCune Donovan, Esq.
          HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE PLLC
          P.O. Box 3983
          Charleston, WV 25339
          Telephone: (681) 265-3802
          Facsimile: (304) 982-8056
          E-mail: zritchie@hfdrlaw.com   
                  rdonovan@hfdrlaw.com  

ZF TRW: Court Denies Certification in Product Liability Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Fleming and Ara Basmadjian of Dentons report that in Larsen
v. ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., 2023 BCSC 1471 ("Larsen"), the
Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the plaintiff's
application to certify a proposed product liability class action on
the grounds the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that there was
"some basis in fact" for the alleged defect at issue and that it
was common to the proposed class.

The decision in Larsen is significant because it confirms that
product liability claims are not always amenable to class actions
where there are differences in the features of the alleged defect
at issue amongst multiple manufacturer defendants. Larsen also
demonstrates that an effective and timely recall campaign can serve
to undermine the certification of potential class actions in the
automotive industry.

In Larsen, the plaintiff claimed that airbag control units ("ACUs")
designed and manufactured by certain defendants and installed in
vehicles manufactured, distributed, and sold by other defendants
were defective. At its core, the plaintiff's claim was for pure
economic loss for negligent design and manufacturing. There were no
allegations that the proposed class members had suffered any
physical injuries as a result of the defective ACUs.

Certain defendants issued recalls of some of the vehicle models
that included the allegedly defective ACU while other models with
the ACU were not recalled by the same manufacturers. Certain
defendants did not recall any vehicles that included the ACU that
was the subject of the claim. The evidence at the certification
application disclosed that there were various design features of
the several different vehicle models of the proposed class members
that could impact whether the alleged defect would manifest
itself.

In considering the certification application, the Court noted that
although the existence of a recall is some acknowledgment that a
defect may exist, in order to be certified as a class action, the
plaintiff was required to provide some basis in fact that the ACUs
continued to be defective in the vehicles that were recalled and
that were repaired. She failed to do so. The evidence before the
court established that all individuals affected by the recalls had
been made whole through free repair. The court held that "the
existing recall campaign was the more fair, efficient and
manageable procedure."

The court also determined that there were significant differences
amongst the various vehicle models in respect of sensor placement,
wire routing, and other design features. In other words, there were
several different factors that could materially impact the
existence of the alleged defect at issue. Accordingly, the court
was not in a position to generalize or extrapolate from one class
member's vehicle to another. There was no basis in fact for the
existence of a defect that was common to the class and the
plaintiff's application was dismissed as a result. [GN]

[*] German Parliament to Debate Reform of Class Action Law
----------------------------------------------------------
Luigi Serenelli of IPE reports that the German Parliament
(Bundestag) will start discussing on April 11, 2024, the reform of
the Kapitalanleger-Musterverfahrensgesetz (KapMuG), a law
regulating a form of class action to claim damages for false or
misleading capital market information.

The government has put forward a draft bill to reform the existing
law, which will expire on 31 August.

With the reform, the cabinet wants to strengthen the role of the
higher regional courts in class action proceedings.

According to the draft law, the higher regional courts should have
the power in the future to formulate legal questions inherent to
the proceedings, to ultimately provide answers dealing with claims
for damages.

This puts the Higher Regional Court in a position to determine the
matter of the proceeding relevant for the cases, and in such a way
that it is possible to conduct the proceeding efficiently while at
the same time bundling proceeding as much as possible, according to
the draft.

'Urgent'

The KapMuG, which entered into force in 2005 and was last amended
in 2020, lays the legal basis to bundle proceedings running in
parallel.

Moreover, the new rules are intended to shorten the period
necessary to bring a case from the regional court to the higher
regional court, it added.

The government is also aiming also to digitise proceedings,
expanding the scope of the law to cover crypto asset trading, it
said.

The bill to reform the existing rules is urgent to avoid halting
cases brought before the higher regional courts, Chancellor Olaf
Scholz wrote in the document presenting the law to the present of
the Bundesrat, the chamber representing the states.

Last year, the highest regional court in Bavaria paved the way for
the start of class action proceedings according to KapMuG law
against Wirecard, based on the case of the private investor Kurt
Ebert.

Law firm TILP represents 182 institutional investors in the
proceeding against EY for its role in examining Wirecard's balance
sheets, mainly from Europe, the US and Asia, it said.

TILP has criticised the government's draft bill, saying that it
suffers from numerous shortcomings, which are likely to lead to
significant problems in practice.

The draft law must be reviewed and improved before is passed, the
law firm said in a statement. [GN]

[*] Illinois Employers Faces Surge of GIPA Class Action Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saul Ewing LLP, writing for JDSupra, reports that over the last
decade, Illinois employers have been faced with a rash of class
action lawsuits under the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA),
causing many employers to pay hefty sums and alter their biometric
timekeeping procedures. Now, a different statute may be gaining
steam as the new lawsuit "du jour."

Illinois' Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA) governs the
collection and use of genetic information. 410 ILCS 513/1, et. seq.
Despite having been in effect for over two decades, in the last
year, there has been an uptick in class action lawsuits filed
against employers for GIPA violations. This upward trend is likely
the result of recent success by class action plaintiffs under BIPA,
which has yielded multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements
against employers who unknowingly run afoul of its provisions. GIPA
may be heading in the same direction.

Enacted in 1998, GIPA prohibits companies from using genetic
testing and information to make employment decisions. Specifically,
it states that an employer may not directly or indirectly do any of
the following:

  -- Request genetic testing or information from a person or their
family members as a condition of employment;

  -- Affect the terms, conditions, or status of employment based on
an individual or their family members' genetic testing or
information;

  -- Adversely affect an individual's employment status due to the
individual or their family members' genetic testing or information;
and

  -- Retaliate against an individual alleging a violation of the
Act.

The Act also provides that employers may not share any genetic
information collected without first obtaining the individual's
written consent. Protected genetic information includes the
following:

  -- An individual's genetic tests;

  -- The genetic tests of the individual's family members (which
include first-, second-, third-, and fourth-degree relatives);

  -- The manifestation of a disease or disorder in the individual's
family members;

  -- Any request for, or receipt of, genetic services, or
participation in clinical research that includes genetic services,
by the individual or any family members; and

  -- Information concerning a fetus carried by, or an embryo
legally held by, the individual or any family member.

Genetic information does not include information about an
individual's sex or age.

In a typical GIPA case, plaintiffs allege that their employer or
prospective employer violated the law by requiring them to undergo
a pre-employment physical, during which the health professional
conducting the physical asked questions about the plaintiff's
family medical history. Thus, because the job was contingent on the
physical, the employer indirectly required the disclosure of
protected genetic information.

For example, in Berry et al. v. Chicago Transit Authority, No.
2023-CH-07795 (Cook Ctny, Aug. 28, 2023), the plaintiffs alleged
they were required to submit to a pre-employment physical, during
which an outside medical provider asked them to provide their
family medical history. Notably, the complaint did not allege that
the employer instructed the medical provider to collect any genetic
information or was even aware that the information was collected.
Nonetheless, the plaintiffs claimed the employer violated GIPA
because the plaintiffs' hiring was conditioned upon successful
competition of the physical, in which they were asked to provide
genetic information to the healthcare provider.

Similar to BIPA, GIPA authorizes statutory penalties for each
violation and includes a fee-shifting provision, making GIPA
lawsuits a lucrative pursuit for plaintiffs' attorneys. Notably,
the penalties are even higher than those set forth in BIPA. If
successful, GIPA plaintiffs may recover $2,500 for each negligent
violation and $15,000 for each reckless or intentional violation,
in addition to their reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

Illinois employers will likely continue to see a surge in GIPA
class actions due to the significant statutory damages available to
successful plaintiffs and the recent success of BIPA claims. In
light of the growing number of lawsuits filed under GIPA, if your
business requires pre-employment physicals or otherwise collects,
uses, or handles genetic information, it is critical to ensure
compliance with the law. [GN]

[*] New ERISA Class Actions Aim on Health Plan Fiduciary Obligation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher Phillips reports that ERISA class action lawsuits against
retirement plan fiduciaries have become commonplace over the last
few decades, usually alleging that imprudent processes and lack of
oversight led to excessive fees for investment options,
recordkeeping services, and investment management services. Now,
thanks to new disclosure requirements and transparency laws, health
plan fiduciaries are starting to face similar class actions. What
can employers do to shield themselves from such claims? Here's an
overview of what you need to know, key takeaways from a recently
filed lawsuit, and 10 best practices for group health plan
fiduciaries.

A New Wave of ERISA Excessive Fee Litigation

Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), plan
fiduciaries have a legal obligation to act prudently and solely in
the best interests of plan participants. This includes paying
reasonable and necessary fees for services provided to the plan.
This duty applies to both retirement and health plan fiduciaries.

Historically, excessive fee lawsuits involved participants alleging
that the retirement plan's fiduciaries breached their ERISA duties
by failing to pay reasonable management and investment fees. As a
result, these unreasonably high fees negatively impact the plan's
performance and the participants' accounts.

ERISA excessive fee litigation has become more common in recent
years as participants have become more aware of the fees charged to
their retirement plans. Between 2016 and 2023, plaintiffs' lawyers
filed just over 460 excessive fee lawsuits, with approximately 200
still pending.

In 2023 alone, there were just over 40 excess fee lawsuit
settlements, with settlements ranging from $200,000 to $124.6
million. Settlements have continued to increase year over year.

Now, plaintiffs' attorneys are turning their eyes to group health
plan fiduciaries in light of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2021 (CAA-21), which has ushered in a new wave of ERISA excessive
fee litigation.

New Health Plan Fee Disclosure and Pricing Transparency Laws

The CAA-21 and the Transparency in Coverage (TiC) Rule comprise the
most comprehensive health plan legislation and reforms since the
Affordable Care Act. They place new obligations on group health
plans and health insurance companies for plan fee disclosures and
pricing transparency. Notably, these laws may contribute to new
class action lawsuits against health plan fiduciaries.

Mandatory Fee Disclosures

CAA-21 was signed into law in December 2020, becoming effective for
plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2021. This law requires
service providers to give fee disclosures to group health plan
fiduciaries, pursuant to ERISA (similar to those required for
retirement plans that have been in effect since 2012).

Under ERISA Section 408(b)(2), any contract related to a group
health plan is not reasonable (meaning it's a prohibited
transaction) unless the direct and/or indirect compensation
received by a health plan service provider (which equals $1,000 or
more) is disclosed in writing to the plan fiduciary ahead of
entering into the contract or extending the contract. For this
purpose, covered "service providers" are brokers and consultants.

These required disclosures are designed to provide group health
plan fiduciaries with sufficient information to help determine
whether the fees are reasonable, as required by ERISA's fiduciary
rules. Additionally, this law has enhanced cost awareness among
health plan participants.

You should note that plaintiffs' attorneys are likely seeking
information in these disclosures -- or claiming these disclosures
were not provided or received – to support participant claims
against ERISA health plan fiduciaries and their service providers.

New Transparency Rules

The federal government also issued the TiC final rule in 2020, with
rolling effective dates from 2022 through 2024. This rule requires
group health plans to disclosure machine-readable data describing
payment rates for in-network healthcare items and services,
out-of-network allowable amounts, and prescription drug costs.
These data files are intended to make healthcare pricing
information accessible to participants, helping them know the cost
of a covered item or service before receiving care.

The CAA-21 expanded upon this TiC rule by requiring group health
plans to provide more expansive prescription drug and medical cost
reporting. With many large, self-insured plans, these costs lie
with third-party providers, like pharmacy benefit managers. Like
the fee disclosures, this TiC data is also helpful in determining
whether plan fees are reasonable under ERISA's fiduciary rules,
potentially supporting excessive claims litigation.

Lawsuit Serves as Reminder to Employers

A recently filed lawsuit targets group health plan fiduciary
obligations under ERISA and focuses on the "duty of prudence" when
selecting and monitoring health plan vendors. The lawsuit alleges
that the plan participants and beneficiaries were harmed by paying
increased plan costs because of these fiduciary breaches. Although
this case is pending, it's a reminder to employers sponsoring group
health plans – especially self-insured health plans – to review
their ERISA fiduciary obligations while maintaining robust
processes and procedures.

In the February 5 complaint, participants alleged that group health
plan fiduciaries at Johnson & Johnson breached their fiduciary
duties under ERISA by allowing the plan and its participants to pay
"extraordinary" costs for prescription drugs as compared to other
market options, resulting in millions of dollars in unnecessary
costs to the plan.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the health plan fiduciaries
mismanaged the plan's prescription drug benefits. That allegedly
cost the plan and its employees "millions of dollars in the form of
higher payments for prescription drugs, higher premiums, higher
deductibles, higher coinsurance, higher copays, and lower wages or
limited wage growth."

The participants alleged the plan's fiduciaries failed to:

  -- Pay the lowest possible costs for the offered drugs;

  -- Obtain competitive bids from other prescription drug service
providers;

  -- Monitor plan expenses;

  -- Negotiate the prescription drug contract with its pharmacy
benefit manager (PBM), especially given its bargaining power as a
Fortune 50 employer;

  -- Fully inform participants about the mail-order program, where
drug prices were routinely higher than options at retail
pharmacies; or

  -- Protect the health plan's assets.

The complaint gave specific examples of these "extraordinary"
costs. For instance, the plaintiffs claimed that the PBM charged
the plan over $10,000 for a 90-day supply of a generic drug used to
treat multiple sclerosis. This same drug was allegedly available
without using insurance at various online and retail pharmacies for
well under $100.

The plan participants are asking for various remedies while also
seeking to hold the fiduciaries personally liable under ERISA for
their actions and inactions.

The Johnson & Johnson lawsuit is one of the first of its kind,
stemming from the disclosure and transparency in coverage
requirements -- but it mirrors the retirement plan excessive fee
lawsuits that have come before it.

10 Best Practices for Group Health Plan Fiduciaries

In light of the Johnson & Johnson case and other health plan
litigation, group health plan fiduciaries may want to evaluate
their current governance structure. This includes any policies and
procedures, especially regarding selecting and monitoring plan
providers and determining the reasonableness of plan costs and
fees. Here are 10 best practices health plan fiduciaries should
consider:

     1. Establish a health plan fiduciary committee and adopt a
committee charter setting forth its responsibilities. Be sure to
hold committee meetings regularly.

     2. Review your existing group health plan service provider
agreements to determine whether a broker or consultant should
disclose fees to you under the CAA-21. Once received, ensure that
you carefully review the disclosure, fully understanding what the
plan and your employees are being charged.

     3. Ensure that your third-party agreements are detailed enough
to allow you to determine, understand, and monitor any plan fees or
costs.

     4. Establish a process to review and monitor your group health
plan fees, ensuring they are reasonable based on the services
you're receiving and in relation to industry standards (for
example, you may want to perform a benchmark analysis on your
vendors).

     5. Periodically run your group health plan vendors through a
"request for proposal" process, helping you determine whether
you're receiving the best services at reasonable costs.

     6. Consider amending your service provider agreements to
incorporate any contractual obligations related to fee disclosure
requirements or health plan transparency.

     7. Implement ongoing training for plan fiduciaries so they
fully understand their responsibilities under ERISA.

     8. Acquire fiduciary liability insurance, protecting plan
fiduciaries from breach liabilities.

     9. Document your policies and procedures, as well as your
decision-making processes when hiring or monitoring a plan vendor.
Documenting your procedural process is critical to ensuring
compliance with ERISA.

    10. Work with counsel experienced in handling ERISA matters,
which can help you understand and comply with all the nuances of
group health plan compliance.

Conclusion

If you have questions about group health plan compliance, feel free
to reach out to your Fisher Phillips attorney, the author of this
Insight, or any attorney in our Employee Benefits and Tax Practice
Group. We will continue to provide tips, guidance, and updates on
employee benefits and other workplace law topics, so make sure you
are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most
up-to-date information directly to your inbox. [GN]

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Has 800 Pending Exposure Suits at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company, at December 31, 2023 and 2022, had
approximately 800 and 900 lawsuits pending against former parent
company E. I. du Pont de Nemours (EID) alleging personal injury
from exposure to asbestos, respectively, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "These cases are pending in state and federal
court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually
set for trial. A small number of cases are pending outside of the
U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at
sites between the 1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases
involve similar allegations by EID employees or household members
of contractors or EID employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege
personal injury as a result of exposure to EID products.

"At December 31, 2023 and 2022, Chemours had accruals of $39
million and $35 million related to these matters, respectively."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KDK3xa

ASBESTOS UPDATE: FG Group Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
FG Group Holdings, Inc. is named as a defendant in personal injury
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "A majority of the cases involve product
liability claims based principally on allegations of past
distribution of commercial lighting products containing wiring that
may have contained asbestos. Each case names dozens of corporate
defendants in addition to FG Group Holdings. In FG Group Holdings'
experience, a large percentage of these types of claims have never
been substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. FG Group
Holdings has not suffered any adverse verdict in a trial court
proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to continue to
defend these lawsuits. Under the FG Group Holdings Asset Purchase
Agreement, the Company agreed to indemnify FG Group Holdings for
future losses, if any related to current product liability or
personal injury claims arising out of products sold or distributed
in the U.S. by the operations of the businesses being transferred
to the Company in the Separation, in an aggregate amount not to
exceed $250,000 per year, as well as to indemnify FG Group Holdings
for all expenses (including legal fees) related to the defense of
such claims. As of December 31, 2023, the Company has a loss
contingency reserve of approximately $0.3 million, of which $0.1
million represents future payments on a settled case and the
remaining $0.2 million represents the Company's estimate of its
potential losses related to the settlement of open cases. When
appropriate, FG Group Holdings may settle additional claims in the
future. The Company does not expect the resolution of these cases
to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VcOQQw


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in
which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing
asbestos manufactured more than 35 years ago, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company states, "The plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits
against multiple defendants and seek damages (both actual and
punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases, plaintiffs are
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable
injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result of exposure
to products manufactured by us. We are typically dismissed as a
defendant in such cases without payment. If the plaintiff presents
evidence indicating that compensable injury occurred as a result of
exposure to our products, the case is generally settled for an
amount that reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length,
intensity and character of exposure to products containing
asbestos, the number and solvency of other defendants in the case,
and the jurisdiction in which the case has been brought.

"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.

"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide coverage
for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs. Historically,
insurers have paid a significant portion of our defense costs and
settlements in asbestos-related litigation. However, certain of our
insurers are insolvent. We have entered into cost-sharing
agreements with our insurers that provide for the allocation of
defense costs and settlements and judgments in asbestos-related
lawsuits. These agreements require, among other things, that we
fund a share of settlements and judgments allocable to years in
which the responsible insurer is insolvent."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dzTf4w


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Faces Personal Injury Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC, as successor by merger to other entities, and
D/C Distribution Corporation have been named as defendants in
personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "While there are relatively few cases that name
Kaanapali Land, there were a substantial number of cases that were
pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California).
Cases against Kaanapali Land (hereafter, "Kaanapali Land asbestos
cases") are allegedly based on its prior business operations in
Hawaii and cases against D/C were allegedly based on sale of
asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business
operations primarily in California. Certain asbestos-related proofs
of claims in the bankruptcy case have been withdrawn in connection
with closing the bankruptcy. Each entity defending these cases
believes that it has meritorious defenses against these actions,
but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of these
cases. The defense of these cases had a material adverse effect on
the financial condition of D/C as it was forced to file a voluntary
petition for liquidation. Such bankruptcy case was closed on June
14, 2023. Kaanapali Land does not presently believe that the cases
in which it is named will result in any material liability to
Kaanapali Land; however, there can be no assurance in that
regard."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AqiEE8



                            *********

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 ***