/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240425.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, April 25, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 84

                            Headlines

ACADIA LAPLACE: Ct. OKs Remote Appearance of Expert Witness in Hamm
AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Declaration
APEX HUMAN: Consideration on Bid for Class Status Stayed
ARTHUR GALLAGHER: Class Settlement in Hernandez Gets Initial Nod
BETTERHELP INC: Court Junks Bid to Stay C.M. Suit

BIOVENTUS INC: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Ciarciello
BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Trial Date for Swisscanto Suit Still Not Set
BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Trial on Parker Suit Set for June 2, 2025
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: SM Merger/Arbitrage Appeals Suit Dismissal
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Only Choice & Stewart Sue Over Data Breach

CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Twin Cities Sues Over Private Data Breach
GERSON LEHRMAN: Miller Sues Over Customers' Unprotected Info
HANMI FINANCIAL: Hearing for Class Action Settlement Set on Sep 16
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN:  Discovery Stayed Pending Disposition
JOHNS HOPKINS: Second Settlement Addendum Gets Initial Nod

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moultrie Sues Over Bandages' Deceptive Marketing
JSW STEEL: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Order Nixed as Moot
KAREN ST. GERMAIN: Seeks to Continue Response Deadline
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Hobbs Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
KOCHAVA INC: Greenley Suit Stayed Pending Mediation

LOBLAW COS: Franchise Owner Sues Over Unethical Corporate Practices
MEDICINE MAN: Wage Claim Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod
MEDRITE LLC: Faces Velez Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
MEMOS PLACE: Lucero Alleges Wage and Hour Law Violations
NEW YORK: Attorneys' Fees Ruling in Allen Suit Appealed

NORTH CAROLINA: Anderson Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir.
OREGON: J.N. Appeals ADA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
SALTIE GIRL: Hernandez Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
SHARPSPRING INC: Morse Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 11th Cir.
SN SERVICING: Koontz Files 4th Cir. Appeal in FDCPA Suit

STATE FARM: Appeals Class Cert Ruling in Chadwick Insurance Suit
SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Massel Suit
TARGET CORP: Face Class-Action Lawsuit Over BIPA Violations
TUG HILL: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Luna FLSA Suit
UNIVERSITY HEALTH: Manning Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

VIRGIN ATLANTIC: Tang Sues Over Unlawful Customer Call Recording
VISA INC: Supreme Court Declines Appeal in ATM Class Action
YSABEL LLC: Hernandez Seeks Civil Penalties Under Labor Code's PAGA
[^] Registration Ongoing for May 6 Class Action Conference

                            *********

ACADIA LAPLACE: Ct. OKs Remote Appearance of Expert Witness in Hamm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY HAMM, v.  ACADIA
LAPLACE HOLDINGS, LLC AND OCHSNER-ACADIA, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-01515-SM-DPC (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Susie Morgan
entered an order granting the Defendants' unopposed motion for
remote appearance of expert witness.

The Defendants' rebuttal expert witness, Dr. Joseph Krock, is
allowed to appear by video or telephonic conference at the April
24, 2024 hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.


A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YN0xKj at no extra
charge.[CC]

AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Declaration
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YASMINE MAHONE, an
individual, and BRANDON TOLE, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; AMAZON.COM DEDC, LLC; a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and AMAZON.COM KYDC LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-00594-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order to leave to file a short
supplemental declaration regarding Plaintiffs' pending motion for
class certification.

On March 27, 2024, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs' counsel, Gene
Stonebarger, to "sit for a deposition and answer questions as to
how he prepared the summation of data contained in his two
declarations" filed in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Pursuant to the Court's order, the Parties jointly filed the
transcript of Mr. Stonebarger's testimony. Amazon now seeks leave
to address, through a short supplemental declaration, attached as
Exhibit 1, two aspects of Mr. Stonebarger's testimony.

First, Mr. Stonebarger repeatedly testified that he did not delete
data. After reviewing Mr. Stonebarger's testimony, Amazon's expert,
Dr. Valentin Estevez, confirms that Mr. Stonebarger's description
of Microsoft Excel's functionality is "nonsensical," and that Mr.
Stonebarger's process did in fact delete 106,640 records.

Second, Amazon seeks to address, through Dr. Estevez's supplemental
declaration, the impact of Mr. Stonebarger's mass-deletion. As Dr.
Estevez explains, a recreation of Mr. Stonebarger's process shows
that Mr. Stonebarger's results are "completely invalid."

Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.

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

APEX HUMAN: Consideration on Bid for Class Status Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OYAKIMIGBIA OKOKURO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
APEX HUMAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02615-NIQA (E.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Nitza Quiñones Alejandro entered an order granting
the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to stay consideration of her
motion for conditional certification.

Accordingly, consideration of the Plaintiffs motion for conditional
class certification shall be stayed until further Order of the
Court.

The Defendant is a home health care agency in Delaware County
Pennsylvania.

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

ARTHUR GALLAGHER: Class Settlement in Hernandez Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ITXAMAR HERNANDEZ, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. ARTHUR J.
GALLAGHER SERVICE COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; PRONTO CALIFORNIA AGENCY LLC, a California limited
liability company; PRONTO CALIFORNIA GENERAL AGENCY, LLC, a
California limited liability company; and DOES 1-50, Case No.
3:22-cv-01910-H-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Marilyn Huff
entered an order:

-- granting the parties' joint motion to add a second addendum to

    their joint stipulation of class and representative action
    settlement and release;

-- granting Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement;

-- certifying the class for purposes of settlement;

-- preliminarily approving the proposed settlement;

-- appointing class representative and class counsel; and

-- approving the form and manner of the notice of the proposed
settlement to the settlement class members.

The Court also appoints ILYM Group Inc. as the settlement
administrator. Further, the Court schedules the final approval
hearing for Monday, August 26, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. Pacific Standard
Time. the Plaintiff must file a motion for final approval of the
settlement, and any motions for fee awards and incentive awards on
or before Monday, July 29, 2024.

The settlement agreement defines the settlement class as:
    "all individuals who are or were employed by the Gallagher
    Entities as non-exempt employees in California from Oct. 28,
2018
    until the date the Court grants Preliminary Approval."

Under the settlement agreement, the Defendant will pay a gross
settlement amount of $4,000,000.

On Feb. 29, 2024, Plaintiff Itxamar Hernandez filed an unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement.

On Apr. 8, 2024, the parties filed a joint motion to add a second
addendum to their joint stipulation of class and representative
action settlement and release.


The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' non-exempt California
employees experienced various violations of California's
wage-and-hour laws due to the Defendants' policies and practices.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in California as a non-exempt
sales agent from January 2020 through October 2023.

Arthur J. Gallagher is a global insurance brokerage and risk
management services firm operating throughout California,
with its headquarters in Illinois.

A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=24UGMS at no extra
charge.[CC]

BETTERHELP INC: Court Junks Bid to Stay C.M. Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.M. v. BetterHelp, Inc.
(BETTERHELP, INC. DATA DISCLOSURE CASES), Case No. 3:23-cv-01033-RS
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order
denying the motion to stay.

Briefing on BetterHelp's motion to dismiss, paused during pendency
of the stay motion, shall resume. Opposition is due April 25, 2024,
with reply due May 2, 2024. The hearing will be set for May 16,
2024, subject to any subsequent determination that the motion will
be submitted without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule
7-1(b), in which case notice to that effect will be provided.

The first of these consolidated actions was filed shortly after
Defendant BetterHelp, Inc. entered into a consent order with the
Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), providing for injunctive relief
and a $7.8 million consumer redress fund that the FTC will be
administering.

Invoking the primary jurisdiction doctrine and/or the court's
inherent docket management powers, BetterHelp moves to stay this
action until the FTC has completed administration of the redress
fund, or for at least six months.

BetterHelp is a mental health platform that provides direct online
counseling and therapy services via web or phone text
communication.

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

BIOVENTUS INC: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Ciarciello
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CIARCIELLO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BIOVENTUS INC., KENNETH M. REALI, MARK L. SINGLETON, GREGORY O.
ANGLUM, and SUSAN M. STALNECKER, Case No. 1:23-cv-00032-CCE-JEP
(M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Joi Elizabeth Peake entered an order
granting the Parties' consent motion to modify the scheduling
order.

The Defendants shall file and serve their opposition to Lead
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of Class
Representative and Class Counsel by April 16, 2024; Lead Plaintiff
shall file and serve its reply by May 7, 2024; and all other dates
and deadlines remain in place as previously et.

Bioventus is an orthobiologics company that develops medical device
products for bone healing, bone graft and osteoarthritis.

A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oV6MOy at no extra
charge.[CC]

BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Trial Date for Swisscanto Suit Still Not Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending February 29, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 4, 2024 that the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice hasn't set trial date for Swisscanto class suit.

On July 23, 2014, the plaintiff in the putative Ontario class
action (Swisscanto Fondsleitung AG v. BlackBerry Limited, et al.)
filed a motion for class certification and for leave to pursue
statutory misrepresentation claims.

On November 17, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued
an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a
statutory claim for misrepresentation.

On December 2, 2015, the Company filed a notice of motion seeking
leave to appeal this ruling.

On November 15, 2018, the Court denied the Company's motion for
leave to appeal the order granting the plaintiffs leave to file a
statutory claim for misrepresentation.

On February 5, 2019, the Court entered an order certifying a class
comprised persons (a) who purchased BlackBerry common shares
between March 28, 2013, and September 20, 2013, and still held at
least some of those shares as of September 20, 2013, and (b) who
acquired those shares on a Canadian stock exchange or acquired
those shares on any other stock exchange and were a resident of
Canada when the shares were acquired.

Notice of class certification was published on March 6, 2019.

The Company filed its Statement of Defence on April 1, 2019.

Discovery is proceeding and the Court has not set a trial date.

BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments based in Canada.






BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Trial on Parker Suit Set for June 2, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending February 29, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 4, 2024 that the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice has set trial date for Parker employment class
suit on June 2, 2025.

On March 17, 2017, a putative employment class action was filed
against the Company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
(Parker v. BlackBerry Limited).

The Statement of Claim alleges that actions the Company took when
certain of its employees decided to accept offers of employment
from Ford Motor Company of Canada amounted to a wrongful
termination of the employees' employment with the Company.

The claim seeks (i) an unspecified quantum of statutory,
contractual, or common law termination entitlements; (ii) punitive
or breach of duty of good faith damages of CAD$20 million, or such
other amount as the Court finds appropriate, (iii) pre- and post-
judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) such
other relief as the Court deems just.

The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class
action on May 27, 2019.

The Company commenced a motion for leave to appeal the
certification order on June 11, 2019.

The Court denied the motion for leave to appeal on September 17,
2019.

The Company filed its Statement of Defence on December 19, 2019.

The parties participated in a mediation on November 9, 2022, which
did not result in an agreement.

The Court has set a trial date of June 2, 2025, and scheduled a
pre-trial conference on December 4, 2024.

Discovery is proceeding.

BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments based in Canada.

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: SM Merger/Arbitrage Appeals Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs SM Merger/Arbitrage, L.P, et al., filed an appeal from
the District Court's Opinion and Order, and Judgment dated February
29, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled as SM Merger/Arbitrage,
L.P., SM Investors, L.P. and SM Investors II, L.P., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, GIOVANNI CAFORIO, VICKI L. SATO,
PETER J. ARDUINI, ROBERT BERTOLINI, MATTHEW W. EMMENS, MICHAEL
GROBSTEIN, ALAN J. LACY, DINESH C. PALIWAL, THEODORE R. SAMUELS,
GERALD L. STORCH and KAREN H. VOUSDEN, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-08255, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

This class action is brought on behalf of all former Celgene
shareholders that received Contingent Value Rights in exchange for
their Celgene shares pursuant to Bristol's $74 billion acquisition
of Celgene on November 20, 2019, and who were damaged thereby.  The
claims asserted are based on materially false and misleading
statements and omissions of material facts in the Joint Proxy, made
in violation of Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

In a prior Opinion and Order, familiarity with which is presumed,
the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint on March 1, 2023, finding that -- among other issues --
Plaintiffs had failed to plead scienter. With leave of Court,
Plaintiffs thereafter filed the operative Second Amended Complaint
(SAC) on April 17, 2023, adding allegations in an effort to address
that defect. Although the SAC includes all of the claims and most
of the Defendants from the prior pleading, Plaintiffs confirm that
the only claims they are still pressing are those against BMS, Dr.
Giovanni Caforio, and Dr. Samit Hirawat under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a),
and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

On May 12, 2023, the Defendants moved, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss those claims,
arguing that, among other things, Plaintiffs still do not plausibly
allege scienter.

On February 29, 2024, the Court entered an Opinion and Order
granting Defendants' motion and dismissing Plaintiffs' SAC.
Judgment was entered in favor of Defendants; accordingly, the case
was closed.

The appellate case is captioned as SM Merger/Arbitrage, L.P. v.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Case No. 24-826, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 1,
2024.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD., et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005

Defendants-Appellees BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, et al., are
represented by:

          John Joseph Clarke, Jr., Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020

CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Only Choice & Stewart Sue Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
ONLY CHOICE URGENT CARE & MED SPA and STEWART SCHARFMAN PHYSICAL
THERAPY, PC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED,
UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC., OPTUM, INC., and CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-01271-JRT-TNL (D. Minn., April 10,
2024) arises from Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard their systems from foreseeable cyberattacks that impacted
Plaintiffs' business operations and Plaintiffs' and Class members'
personally identifiable information and financial account
information stored within Defendants' information network.

On or about February 21, 2024, Change experienced a data breach
event through which Plaintiff's and Class members’ private
information in possession of Change and/or Defendants was obtained
by an unauthorized party. According to publicly available
information, including statements by Defendants, Change's systems
were accessed by cybercriminals. The Defendants did not detect the
breach until it was too late. The cyberattack was a ransomware
attack that incapacitated Defendants' systems for weeks, disrupting
the claims process and causing delays in the processing and payment
of insurance claims, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs assert claims for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of implied contract, bailment, and unjust enrichment.

Change provides revenue and payment cycle management that connects
payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare
system.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

                  - and -

          William M. Audet, Esq.
          Ling Y. Kuang, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102-3275
          Telephone:(415) 568-2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
          E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com
                  lkuang@audetlaw.com

CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Twin Cities Sues Over Private Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
TWIN CITIES COUNSELING LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-01254-NEB-JFD (D. Minn., April 10,
2024) asserts claims for negligence, breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory judgment in connection with the
Defendant's failure to maintain data security measures adequate to
protect patients' personal health information.

The complaint alleges that a ransomware group claims to have
accessed Change's servers and seized 6 terabytes of critical
confidential and highly sensitive information, resulting in network
outages that have already impacted millions of patients and
physicians across the country. On February 21, 2024, Change
disclosed that it was the subject of this massive data breach
whereby hackers known as "ALPHV/Blackcat," the suit says.

Headquartered in Nashville, TN, Change Healthcare is a healthcare
technology company that provides clinical, financial,
administrative, and patient management solutions to healthcare
providers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          David W. Asp, Esq.
          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          Emma Ritter Gordon, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Ave S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone : (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
                  dwasp@locklaw.com

GERSON LEHRMAN: Miller Sues Over Customers' Unprotected Info
------------------------------------------------------------
OLIVER MILLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GERSON LEHRMAN GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-02725 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive
information of its customers.

On or about March 12, 2024, the Defendant began sending Plaintiff
and other data breach victims a Notice of Data Security Incident
letter, informing them that GLG has experienced a ransomware
incident in which an unauthorized third party accessed data from
GLG's computer system. However, the Defendant failed to provide,
the date that Defendant detected the data breach, the identity of
the cybercriminals who perpetrated this 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, says the suit.

Headquartered in New York, NY, Gerson Lehrman Group, Inc. provides
services to its clients in the business and legal fields, including
connecting its clients with experts in specific topics, businesses,
or industries through calls, private meetings, placements, or
expert witness services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
           MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
           100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
           Garden City, NY 11530
           Telephone: (212) 594-5300
           E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com

HANMI FINANCIAL: Hearing for Class Action Settlement Set on Sep 16
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States District
Court for the Central District of California has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers Hanmi Financial Corporation
publicly-traded common stock (NASDAQ: HAFC):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY-TRADED
COMMON STOCK OF HANMI FINANCIAL CORPORATION ("HANMI") FROM AUGUST
9, 2018 THROUGH APRIL 30, 2020, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, that a
hearing will be held on September 6, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. before the
Honorable Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, United States District Judge of
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, First Street U.S. Courthouse, 350 W. First Street,
Courtroom 6B, Los Angeles, CA 90012, or by telephonic or
videoconference means as directed by the Court, for the purpose of
determining:

     (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the
above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of
$3,000,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate;

     (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement
proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate;

     (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees of up one-third of the Settlement Fund,
reimbursement of expenses of not more than $80,000, and an award of
no more than $10,000 to Plaintiff, should be approved; and

     (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as
set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated June 23, 2023
("Stipulation").

If you purchased publicly-traded Hanmi common stock during the
period from August 9, 2018 and April 30, 2020, both dates inclusive
("Settlement Class Period"), your rights may be affected by this
Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you
may possess relating to your ownership interest in Hanmi common
stock. The Settlement is not an admission or concession by Hanmi,
its counsel, or any of the Defendants of the truth of any of the
allegations in the Action, or of any liability, fault, or
wrongdoing of any kind, nor is it a concession that any Settlement
Class Member directly or indirectly suffered any damages, harm, or
loss.

If you have not received a postcard providing instructions for
receiving a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action ("Long Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release Form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies by writing
to or calling the Claims Administrator at: Hanmi Financial
Corporation Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services,
600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel)
(866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net, or
going to the website, www.strategicclaims.net/Hanmi. If you are a
member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a properly
completed Proof of Claim electronically or postmarked no later than
August 7, 2024 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you
are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion
request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action
whether or not you make a claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion in the manner and form explained in
the Long Notice to the Claims Administrator so that it is received
no later than August 16, 2024. All members of the Settlement Class
who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Action.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses and an award to Plaintiff must be in the manner and
form explained in the Long Notice and received no later than August
16, 2024, by each of the following:

     Clerk of the Court
     United States District Court
     Central District of California
     First Street U.S. Courthouse
     350 W. First Street, Suite 4311
     Los Angeles, CA 90012

LEAD COUNSEL:

     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     Daniel Tyre-Karp
     275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
     New York, NY 10016

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:

     MANATT, PHELPS &
     PHILLIPS, LLP Naeun Rim
     2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700
     Los Angeles, CA 90067

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel:

     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     Daniel Tyre-Karp
     275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 686-1060

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated: March 19, 2024

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [GN]

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN:  Discovery Stayed Pending Disposition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN DODD, et al., v.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, ILA LOCAL 1475, Case No.
4:23-cv-00327-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Christopher Ray
entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to stay discovery
pending disposition of its motion to dismiss.

International Longshoremen is a union of maritime workers in North
America.

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

JOHNS HOPKINS: Second Settlement Addendum Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELENA BOTTS, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. JOHNS HOPKINS
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01335-JRR (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge
Julie Rubin entered an order preliminarily approving second
settlement addendum and directing notice to second group of
additional class members.

   1. The terms of this Court's Dec. 20, 2022, Order preliminarily

      approving settlement and directing notice to Settlement Class

      remain in effect.

   2. The terms of this Court's April 20, 2023 Order finally
approving
      the settlement and granting Class Counsel's motion for an
award
      of Attorneys' fees and litigation costs and for a service
award
      remain in effect.

   3. The terms of this Court's Aug. 8, 2023 Order preliminarily
      approving settlement addendum and directing notice to
additional
      class Members remain in effect.

   4. The terms of this Court's Dec. 13, 2023 Orders finally
approving
      the settlement and granting Class Counsel's motion for an
award
      of Attorneys' fees and litigation costs and for a service
award
      remain in effect.

   5. The Settlement Class, defined as "all people who paid the
      Defendant tuition and/or fees for the Spring Semester 2020,
      which tuition and fees have not been refunded," appropriately

      encompasses the Second Group of Additional Students who may
      assert the claims alleged in Counts I and II of Named
Plaintiff
      Elena Botts's Amended Complaint against the Defendant.

   6. The Court finds that the Second Addendum concerns 2,607
members
      of the Settlement Class, the Second Group of Additional
      Students.
   7. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing pursuant to FED.
R.
      CIV. P. 23(e) at 2:00 p.m. on July 31, 2024, in Courtroom 3A
of
      the United States District Courthouse located at 101 West
      Lombard Street, Baltimore, Maryland.

The Defendant is a private research university in Baltimore,
Maryland.

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moultrie Sues Over Bandages' Deceptive Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHARNAY MOULTRIE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and KENVUE INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04757 (D.N.J., April 10, 2024) is a
class action asserting claims for breach of warranties, fraud,
state consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment in connection
with the Defendants' deceptive marketing of adhesive bandages.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' adhesive bandages are
marketed under the trademarked name "Band-Aid," and serve millions
of people daily for the treatment of cuts, scrapes, and burns.
Their packaging claims the bandages are made from "stretchable,
comfortable fabric" and are designed to wick away fluids and keep
one's wound clean. However, unbeknownst to consumers, these
products are unfit for their intended purpose because they contain
PFAS, "forever chemicals," which are dangerous to human health,
says the suit.

Headquartered in New Brunswick, NJ, Johnson & Johnson develops,
manufactures, distributes, and sells pharmaceutical products and
medical devices. [BN]

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

            Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
            Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
            Caroline C. Donovan, Esq.
            1330 Avenue of the Americas, Fl 32
            New York, NY 10019
            Telephone: (646) 837-7150
            Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
            E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
                    jarisohn@bursor.com
                    cdonovan@bursor.com

JSW STEEL: Bid to Reconsider Class Cert Order Nixed as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON POLEN, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. JSW STEEL USA OHIO,
INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00085-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Algenon Marbley entered an order denying as moot the Defendant's
motion for reconsideration, without prejudice to Defendant's
ability to raise issues related to the Plaintiff Polen's testimony
again during the course of litigation.

The Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration on the Court's
order partially granting plaintiff's bid for conditional
certification.

The Defendant is an electric arc furnace steel plant.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AFER2y at no extra
charge.[CC]

KAREN ST. GERMAIN: Seeks to Continue Response Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as S.M., by Next Friend MARIO
MENDOZA, ET AL., V. KAREN G. ST. GERMAIN, ET AL. Case No.
3:23-cv-01499-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order staying further action on Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and/or continuing Defendants' deadline for
responding to same pending a ruling on the Defendants’ Rule 12(b)
motion to dismiss.

The Defendants suggest that considerations of judicial economy for
the Court and all parties militate in favor of staying the class
action aspect of the litigation and/or continuing the Defendants’
deadline for filing an opposition to the Plaintiffs' class
certification motion until such time as their pending Rule 12(b)
motion to dismiss has been adjudicated, since a grant of said
motion would obviate any need for the Court to take up the issue of
class certification or for the Defendants to file an opposition to
same.

Counsel for Plaintiffs, Matthew S. Vogel, has been consulted
regarding the filing of this motion and he has indicated that the
Plaintiffs have no opposition to same.

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Dennis J. Phayer, Esq.
          Gregory C. Fahrenholt, Esq.
          BURGLASS TANKERSLEY GAUDIN PHAYER
          5213 Airline Drive
          Metairie, LA 70001-5602
          Telephone: (504) 836-0408
          Facsimile: (504) 287-0448
          E-mail: dphayer@burglass.com
                  gfahrenholt@burglass.com

KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Hobbs Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAVARES HOBBS, RICARDO
BELL, and ROBERT SHAW, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION HOLDINGS, INC.,
and SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC., Case No.
1:21-cv-01421-JLR-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying the following Classes under Rules 23(a)
and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

    Class A:

    "All current and former truck drivers who have been employed by

    the Defendants while being based out of the Walmart dedicated
    location in Johnstown, New York and/or the target dedicated
    location in Amsterdam, New York, at any time from Feb. 17, 2015

    until the date of class notice."

    Subclass 1:

    "all members of Class A who have been away from their assigned

    base for 24 hours or more after being dispatched on a load
    assignment, and who have logged at least some time as "Sleeper

    berth" or "Off duty" on DOT driver logs within New York State
    during such 24-hour period."

    Class B:

    "All current and former truck drivers who have been employed by

    The Defendants while being based out of Defendants' Syracuse,
New
    York location, at any time from Feb. 17, 2015 until the date of

    class notice. Membership in Class B is limited to time logged
as
    "sleeper berth" or "off duty" in New York State."

    Subclass 2:

    "all members of Class B who have been away from their assigned

    base for 24 hours or more after being dispatched on a load
    assignment, and who have logged at least some time as "Sleeper

    berth" or "Off duty" on DOT driver logs within New York State
    during such 24-hour period."

    Class C:

    "All current and former truck drivers who have been employed by

    The Defendants while being based out of a work location outside
of
    New York State, but who have made at least one pickup and/or
    delivery in New York State and logged sleeper berth time in New

    York State, at any time from Feb. 17, 2015 until the date of
class
    notice. Membership in Class C is limited to time logged as
    "sleeper berth" or "off duty" in New York state."

    Subclass 3:

    "all members of Class C who have been away from their assigned

    base for 24 hours or more after being dispatched on a load
    assignment, and who have logged at least some time as "Sleeper

    berth" or "Off duty" on DOT driver logs within New York State
    during such 24-hour period."

The Classes exclude Drivers who are paid hourly, typically
operating a "day cab" truck without a sleeper berth, and who return
home every night; as well as "slip seat" Drivers who are assigned
short routes
that allow them to return home every night.

The Plaintiffs further move the Court to appoint the Plaintiffs
Ricardo Bell, Robert Shaw, and Tavares Hobbs as Class
representatives under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); and Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP to serve as Class Counsel under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1) & (4).

The Plaintiffs further request that the Court permit them to submit
a proposed form of notice to the Class and a notice plan to the
Court if the motion is granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(c)(2).

Knight-Swift is a publicly traded, American motor carrier holding
company.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kGK0vd at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher M. McNerney, Esq.
          Daniel S. Stromberg, Esq.
          Jarron McAllister, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
          E-mail: cmcnerney@outtengolden.com
                  dstromberg@outtengolden.com
                  jmcallister@outtengolden.com

                - and -

          Joshua Konecky, Esq.
          Nathan Piller, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE
          COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: jkonecky@schnedierwallace.com
                  npiller@schneiderwallace.com

KOCHAVA INC: Greenley Suit Stayed Pending Mediation
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID GREENLEY, v.
KOCHAVA, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01327-BAS-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Cynthia Bashant entered an order granting the parties' joint
motion to temporarily stay the proceedings in light of impending
mediation.

The parties shall have leave to file motions to amend the pleadings
on or before Oct. 11, 2024. Class discovery is to be completed by
Jan. 10, 2025. The Plaintiff must file a motion for class
certification by Feb. 14, 2025. Additionally, the parties are
ordered to file a joint
status report notifying the Court of the status of the case
following mediation no later than June 17, 2024.

On Mar. 14, 2024, the Court set an updated scheduling order. Under
the scheduling order, motions to amend the pleadings are due on or
before April 12, 2024; fact and class discovery must be completed
on or before July 1, 2024; and motions for class certification must
be filed on or before Aug. 9, 2024.

The parties aver that they have scheduled an in-person mediation
for June 3, 2024 and that an extension will aid in facilitating a
meaningful settlement because the ongoing costs of litigation will
reduce whatever settlement amount may be available to the parties.

The parties note they will cancel the upcoming mediation if the
Court does not grant a stay in the proceedings.

Kochava provides online advertising services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hh7knk at no extra
charge.[CC]

LOBLAW COS: Franchise Owner Sues Over Unethical Corporate Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Brockbank and Angelina King of CBC News reports that a
former Shoppers Drug Mart franchise owner has filed a proposed
class action lawsuit against the Canadian retail pharmacy chain,
and its parent company Loblaw, alleging the companies imposed
"unsafe and unethical" corporate practices on franchise owner
pharmacists to increase profits.

The claim was filed in Ontario Superior Court last week and intends
to cover both franchise owners whose agreements have been
terminated since 2014 and current franchise owners in Ontario.

It has not yet been certified or tested in court.

The crux of the lawsuit concerns how corporate practices like
imposing targets on the volume of medication reviews, cutting back
support staff hours, and other mandates to increase revenue, have
allegedly put Shoppers Drug Mart franchise owners, who are also
pharmacists, in an "irredeemable conflict of interest."

"When you put policies on the associate owner that require [them]
to breach their professional obligations at the risk of losing
their franchise . . . you place them in a conflict of interest
between their obligations to patients and their obligations to the
business," said lawyer Aly Haji, from Ricketts Harris law firm,
which filed the proposed class action.

The consequences of that conflict could include a pharmacist having
their licence suspended or revoked, according to the lawsuit.

'Case has no merit': Loblaw

Loblaw and Shoppers Drug Mart have not yet filed statements of
defence in the case. But in an email statement, Loblaw spokesperson
Dave Bauer told CBC News "this case has no merit whatsoever, and we
intend to vigorously defend it."

The lawsuit was filed in the wake of a CBC News investigation,
which revealed how some former Shoppers Drug Mart pharmacy
employees believe the company is taking advantage of Ontario's
medication reviews program, MedsCheck, by pushing staff to bill the
government for consultations patients don't necessarily need.

And how despite the chain's president denying the existence of
targets for those services, dozens of internal records from
frustrated pharmacists showed the chain has targets for those
professional services and corporate management pressured owners to
meet those numbers.

The Ontario College of Pharmacists has since said it's working with
a legal team to explore its options after thousands of pharmacy
employees came forward to share "deeply troubling" stories about
corporate pressure to perform those billable services.

Former owner 'distraught' when franchise was revoked

In the case of former franchise owners like the lead plaintiff,
Sivajanan Sivapalan, the claim alleges he and others had their
franchises revoked, or not renewed, for criticizing the allegedly
unethical practices.

According to the court filing, Shoppers informed Sivapalan that his
franchise in Beamsville, Ont. had been terminated in January 2023.
Shoppers did not provide Sivapalan any reasons for its decision.

"He was distraught when this happened. It was a very difficult time
in his life," said Haji about his client.

"[Sivapalan] just wanted to seek justice and see redress for the
pain and the kind of difficulties that many associates are going
through."

For the proposed class of current franchise owners, the lawsuit
alleges corporate practices, like medication review targets,
interfere with their ability to use their professional judgment as
pharmacists and to care for patients safely and effectively.

"Shoppers Drug Mart has taken no action to address the clear risks
posed by the Corporate Practices to patient safety, the resulting
breach of Franchisees' professional and ethical obligations, and
the consequent risk of regulatory scrutiny and sanction by the
Ontario College of Pharmacists," reads the claim.

"Instead, Shoppers Drug Mart has more aggressively implemented the
Corporate Practices to maximize profits."

A Shoppers Drug Mart spokesperson previously told CBC News the
decision to deliver a professional service, like a medication
review, must be made by a pharmacist using their judgment.

"Our role is to assist associate owners and their pharmacy teams to
deliver these services. That includes working with the associates
on a yearly plan that is specific to the pharmacy's unique
situation and patient needs in the community," said the previous
statement from spokesperson Catherine Thomas.

In practice, the lawsuit alleges the pharmacy chain is acting in a
way that defeats the purpose of its franchise agreements because if
a pharmacy owner faces sanctions from the provincial regulator, as
a result of corporate practices, it would give Shoppers grounds to
terminate its franchise agreement with that franchise owner.

As a result, the proposed class action is looking for the court to
determine that Shoppers breached its franchise agreements with the
class and to award damages for those alleged breaches. [GN]

MEDICINE MAN: Wage Claim Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that the New Mexico federal court preliminarily
approved a class action settlement for $525,000 in a wage claim
asserted by a group of hourly employees from two cannabis
dispensary chains, Medicine Man Technologies, Inc. (which does
business in New Mexico as Schwazze) and R. Greenleaf Organics,
Inc.

The "budtenders," as the employees are classified, typically earn
more than $30 per month in tips in addition to an hourly rate of
$15.75. The lawsuit alleges that it is company-wide policy for cash
tips to be pooled and distributed to employees at the end of each
workday in proportion to the total hours worked by each employee
that day. On the other hand, debit tips -- tips left by a customer
paying with a debit card through the store's electronic payment
system -- are pooled and divided in the same manner but distributed
biweekly through the employees' paychecks.

The budtenders' complaint alleges that the stores supervisors, who
make $3 per hour more, receive larger portions of the tips than the
budtenders despite the latter performing more customer-related
work. The class action lawsuit claims that the dispensaries
violated Federal and New Mexico wage laws by not paying the
budtenders all the tips paid to them by customers.

Following mediation, the parties agreed to settle the claims for
$525,000, of which $322,813.67 will be allocated for the defined
class of 250 budtenders with the named Plaintiff receiving $10,000.
The remaining amount will be divided between administration costs
and litigation expenses, with the bulk going to the budtenders'
attorneys' fees. An additional amount will be added to the
settlement fund to cover the employees' payroll taxes. Per the
federal rule governing class actions, the New Mexico court
preliminarily approved the settlement on April 1, 2024. [GN]

MEDRITE LLC: Faces Velez Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL VELEZ, and GILBERT VELEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MEDRITE, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-02707 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2024) seeks to recover
underpayment caused by failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, agreed upon wages, untimely wage payments, and other
damages for Plaintiffs and similarly situated non-exempt hourly
positions including but not limited to generalists who work or have
worked for MedRite, LLC.

The Plaintiffs alleges that the Defendant failed to provide them
any compensation for the final weeks they worked, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act's and New York Labor Law's
requirements to pay proper minimum wages and overtime.

Gabriel Velez was employed by MedRite as an hourly worker from in
or around August 2023 to November 2023 while Gilbert Velez was
employed by MedRite as an hourly worker from in or around August
2023 to January 2024. During their employment, Plaintiffs did not
receive proper and timely wage payments. In addition, they did not
get accurate wage statements with each payment of wages as required
by the NYLL, says the suit.

Headquartered in New York, NY, MedRite LLC provides urgent care
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
         Hunter G Benharris, Esq.
         FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
         28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 300-0375

MEMOS PLACE: Lucero Alleges Wage and Hour Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
RENE LUCERO, on behalf of himself, individually, and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEMO’S PLACE LLC and
JARAS MEMO, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-04762  (D.N.J., April 10,
2024), seeks for damages and equitable relief based upon willful
violations that the Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights
guaranteed to him by: the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act; the overtime provisions of the New Jersey Wage and
Hour Law; the minimum wage provisions of the NJWHL; and the full
payment provision of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a food prep, cook, and general
laborer from on or about September 11, 2014 through September 6,
2023. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, Defendants
required Plaintiff to work between 56 and 91 hours each week.
However, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at the overtime rate of
pay of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay, or the
minimum wage rate for any hours that he worked in excess of 40 each
week. Additionally, Defendants routinely paid Plaintiff at a
straight-time hourly rate of pay that often fell below the minimum
wage rate required by the NJWHL and NJWPL, says the suit.

Memo's Place LLC was and is a limited liability corporation that
owns and operates a restaurant business located at 235 State Route
31 South, Washington, NJ. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
         ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
         490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
         Hauppauge, NY 11788
         Telephone: (631) 257-5588
         E-mail: mfarnworth@romerolawny.com

NEW YORK: Attorneys' Fees Ruling in Allen Suit Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------
DR. CAROL MOORES is taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled Peter Allen, et al., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-8173, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The case type is stated as Prisoner, State, Civil Rights.

The Plaintiff in the case filed a motion for attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988, which the Court ruled in
favor of Plaintiff Class counsel, Law Office of Amy Jane Agnew,
P.C., for $3,796, 902.82 in full satisfaction of the Plaintiff
Class' motion for attorney fees and costs. The Order was entered by
Judge Loretta A. Preska on Mar. 1, 2024.

On Mar. 22, 2024, the Clerk's judgment was entered as stated in the
Court's Order dated March 1, 2024. Judgment was entered in favor of
Plaintiff Class counsel, Law Office of Amy Jane Agnew, P.C.

The appellate case is captioned Allen v. New York State Department
of Corrections and Community Supervision, Case No. 24-785, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on
March 28, 2024. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees PETER ALLEN, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Amy Jane Agnew, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF AMY JANE AGNEW, P.C.
          24 5th Avenue, Suite 1701
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (973) 600-1724

Defendants-Appellants DR. CAROL MOORES, et al. are represented by:

          Oriana L. Kiley, Esq.
          WHITEMAN OSTERMAN & HANNA LLP
          One Commerce Plaza
          Albany, NY 12260

NORTH CAROLINA: Anderson Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff ANDREW D. ANDERSON filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated March 18, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled as
ANDREW D. ANDERSON, Plaintiff v. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, THE
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA, ROY COOPER, III, THE
OFFICE OF THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE, CHERI
BEASLEY, PAUL NEWBY, NORTH CAROLINA SUPERIOR COURT DISTRICT 30,
BRADLEY B. LETTS, NORTH CAROLINA DISTRICT COURT, ROY T.
WIJEWICKRAMA, KRISTINA L. EARWOOD, KALEB D. WINGATE, DONA F. FORGA,
JOHN J. PAVEY, JR., JARED R. DAVIS, THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, JOSHUA STEIN, THE 43RD  PROSECUTORIAL
DISTRICT, THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ASHLEY H. WELCH,
CHRISTINA B. MATHESON, ANDREW C. BUCKNER, JACOB P. PHELPS, JENNACA
D. HUGHS, SUMER L. ALLEN, JACKSON COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA, JACKSON
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, THE OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF, CHIP L.
HALL, CAN SURETY, HEATHER BAKER, SHANNON H. QUEEN, ANN D. MELTON,
THE OFFICE OF THE JACKSON COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT, THE
OFFICE OF THE JACKSON COUNTY MAGISTRATE, JEFFERY W. POWELL, SAMUEL
K. BOWERS, TYLER B. BRYSON, DEREK A. ROBINSON, MEGAN L. RHINEHART,
KATHLEEN D. BREEDLOVE, SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE, LYNN P.
DANN, CHERYL L. CONTINO-CONNER, BARBARA B. PUTMAN, THOMAS R.
BROOKS, JOHN DOES 1-99, and JANE DOES 1-99, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00034-MR-WCM, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina.

On February 2, 2024, the pro se Plaintiff Andrew D. Anderson
brought numerous federal and state law claims against the
Defendants, including federal constitutional claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1983, and 1985 for violations of his First,
Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth
Amendment rights; claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, state law constitutional claims under the North
Carolina Constitution, as well as state law claims for intentional
torts, negligence, "breaches of public trust," and promissory
estoppel.

One alleged incident arose from the Plaintiff's participation in an
ethics course at Southwestern Community College, where his
professor, Defendant Dann, removed a post that the Plaintiff made
on the class online forum because Dann considered it disrespectful.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Dann gave him poor grades in
his class in retaliation for him exercising his free speech rights,
and that Defendants Dann, Contino-Connor, Putman, and Brooks
violated his First Amendment rights by censoring him.

In a separate incident, the Plaintiff was charged with trespass,
failure to appear on misdemeanor, resisting a public officer, and
violation of a court order. These charges apparently arose from the
Plaintiff refusing to wear a face mask, and instead wearing a toy
football helmet, when visiting the Jackson County Courthouse.

On March 18, 2024, Chief Judge Martin Reidinger signed an Order
dismissing the case without prejudice. The Plaintiff's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis was also denied.

The appellate case is captioned as Andrew Anderson v. State of
North Carolina, Case No. 24-1277, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 2, 2024.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ANDREW D. ANDERSON, an individual, an American,
and Disabled Veteran of Sylva, NC; We the People; All similarly
situated free Americans, of Sylva, North Carolina, appears pro se.

OREGON: J.N. Appeals ADA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs J. N., et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's
Opinion and Order, and Judgment dated February 29, 2024 entered in
the lawsuit styled as J.N., et al. v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, et al., Case No. 6:19-cv-00096-AA, in the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon.

In the putative class action filed in January 2019, four Oregon
public school children with disabilities and the Council of Parent
Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. ("COPAA") assert claims under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act ("Title II"), and Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act against the Oregon Department of
Education ("ODE"), ODE Director and Assistant Superintendent of
Public Instruction Colt Gill, and Oregon Governor and
Superintendent of Public Instruction Katherine Brown.  

Plaintiffs E.O., J.V., B.M., J.N., and COPAA bring the action on
behalf of themselves and similarly-situated Oregon students who are
eligible under the IDEA, Title II, and Section 504 for special
education and related services and are currently being subjected to
a shortened school day or are at substantial risk of being
subjected to a shortened school day due to their disability related
behaviors.

The Plaintiffs bring claims under the IDEA, Title II of the ADA,
and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act alleging a systemic
failure of policies and procedures that deny them a free
appropriate public education ("FAPE") and that result in
discrimination. Specifically, they allege that the state of Oregon
has known for years that many Oregon public schools have
unnecessarily and unlawfully shortened the school day for children
with disability-related behaviors. They allege that the State has
an affirmative statutory duty to monitor and assist the school
districts and enforce the IDEA, Title II, and Section 504
provisions, and that the State has failed to fulfill its statutory
duty under these statutes due to several systemic deficiencies. The
Plaintiffs further allege that these deficiencies have resulted in
a FAPE denial and discrimination to the named Plaintiffs and others
like them. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

In September 2020, the Court denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
for lack of standing.

In February 2021, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

In August 2021, the parties entered into an Interim Settlement
Agreement that required them to jointly select a neutral expert to
examine the use of shortened school days and to formulate remedies
to ensure that Oregon students with disabilities receive a FAPE in
the LRE, free from discrimination.

On October 27, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction which the Court granted on February 29, 2024
through an Order entered by Judge Ann Aiken under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The Court also denied as moot the pending
motions for summary judgment and related motions.

The appellate case is captioned as J.N., et al. v. Oregon
Department of Education, et al., Case No. 24-2080, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 3,
2024.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Mediation Questionnaire for Appellant was due April 8, 2024;

   -- Appeal Transcript Order for Appellant was due April 12,
2024;

   -- Appeal Transcript for Appellant is due on May 13, 2024;

   -- Appeal Opening Brief for Appellant is due on June 21, 2024;

   -- Appeal Answering Brief for Appellee is due on July 22, 2024;

   -- All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to Federal Rule
of Appellate Procedure 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the
petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing schedule
will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN]

SALTIE GIRL: Hernandez Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
---------------------------------------------------
GILBERTO SANTIAGO HERNANDEZ, as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf
of himself and other similarly situated "aggrieved employees" under
the Labor Code Private Attorneys Act of 2004, Plaintiff v. SALTIE
GIRL LA LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 to
25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV09088 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., April 10, 2024) alleges Defendants' violations of the
California Labor Code and seeks civil penalties under the Labor
Code's Private Attorneys General Act of  2004.

Defendant Saltie Girl first began to employ Plaintiff as dishwasher
in or around June 2023 to work at its restaurant. Plaintiff's
employment ended in or around July 2023. Throughout his employment,
Plaintiff did not receive properly-calculated overtime wages and
his incentive payments and/or bonus payments were not factored into
the employees' regular rate of pay for purposes of deciphering the
correct overtime rate of pay. Among other things, the Defendants
also failed to provide all compliant meal periods and authorize and
permit all compliant rest periods to which Plaintiff was entitled,
says the suit.

Saltie Girl LA is a limited liability company that owns and
operates a restaurant located at 8615 Sunset Blvd, West Hollywood,
CA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Maralle Messrelian, Esq.
         MM LAW, APC
         500 N. Brand Blvd., Ste 2000
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 810-7747
         Facsimile: (818) 230-9018
         E-mail: maralle@mmlawapc.com

SHARPSPRING INC: Morse Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 11th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRADFORD MORSE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
his lawsuit entitled Bradford Morse, individually and on behalf of
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SHARPSPRING, INC.,
and RICHARD CARLSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00209-RH-HTC, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated former public stockholders of SharpSpring, Inc., against
SharpSpring and the former members of the Company's board of
directors for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's claims arise from the
all-cash sale of SharpSpring to Constant Contact, Inc., an online
marketing tech company owned by private equity sponsors Clearlake
Capital Group, L.P. and Siris Capital Group, LLC for $17.10 per
share.

On Sept. 12, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, which the Court granted through an Order
entered by Judge Robert L. Hinkle on Feb. 28, 2024. The Plaintiff's
claims against all Defendants were dismissed with prejudice for
failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

The appellate case is captioned Bradford Morse v. SharpSpring,
Inc., and Richard Carlson, Case No. 24-10945, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on March 28, 2024.
[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant BRADFORD MORSE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Richard D. Rivera, Esq.
          Alan S. Wachs, Esq.
          SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
          50 N. Laura Street, Suite 2600
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 598-6110
          Facsimile: (904) 598-6210
          Email: rrivera@sgrlaw.com
                 awachs@sgrlaw.com

SN SERVICING: Koontz Files 4th Cir. Appeal in FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
JOHN KOONTZ is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit
entitled John Koontz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SN Servicing Corporation, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00363-JPB, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Circuit Court of Marshall County, West
Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia on Dec. 19, 2023, was brought against the Defendants
for alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The appellate case is captioned John Koontz v. SN Servicing
Corporation, Case No. 24-1261, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on March 28, 2024. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN KOONTZ, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jason Edward Causey, Esq.
          BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC
          1358 National Road
          Wheeling, WV 26003
          Telephone: (304) 242-8410

                 - and -

          Denali Skye Hedrick, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 940-9809
                     (304) 345-6555

Defendants-Appellees SN SERVICING CORPORATION, et al. are
represented by:

          Blake N. Humphrey, Esq.
          Alex J. Zurbuch, Esq.
          FROST BROWN TODD
          500 Virginia Street, East
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 348-2413
                     (304) 348-2419

                 - and -

          Tai Shadrick Kluemper, Esq.
          Nicholas Patrick Mooney, II, Esq.
          SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC
          Spilman Center
          300 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          P.O. Box 273
          Charleston, WV 25321
          Telephone: (304) 340-3860

STATE FARM: Appeals Class Cert Ruling in Chadwick Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company filed an appeal from
the District Court's Order dated March 18, 2024 entered in the
lawsuit styled ROSE CHADWICK, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 4:21-cv-01161-DPM, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas-Central.

The case was filed on November 29, 2021, over the Defendant's
breach of its insurance contracts with the Plaintiff and similarly
situated insureds in Arkansas by improperly reducing the actual
cash value of insureds' loss vehicles when adjusting total loss
claims. The Defendant used typical negotiation adjustments instead
of using the fair market price in determining the actual cash value
of loss vehicles. These adjustments are based on the factually
erroneous assumption that insureds would be able to negotiate a
reduction in the list price of comparable used automobiles, which
would be highly atypical and contrary to the modern used car
industry's market pricing and inventory management practices. As a
result of the Defendant's alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff and
Class members received an amount less than the actual cash value
required by State Farm's insurance contracts.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
D.P. Marshall Jr. entered an order on March 18, 2024:

-- Granting Chadwick's motion for class certification;

-- Partly granting and partly denying State Farm's motion for
summary judgment; and

-- Denying motions to exclude expert testimonies.

The Court certified the class as defined to pursue Chadwick's
breach claim. The Court directed the parties to do some targeted
discovery to provide the Court a firmer number on class size. The
Court also directed the parties to confer and make a proposal about
the form, substance, and method of notice. Joint report on class
size and notice issues are due by April 30, 2024.

The appellate case is captioned as Rose Chadwick v. State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 24-8004, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on
April 1, 2024.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
is represented by:

          Peter W. Herzog, III, Esq.
          WHEELER & TRIGG
          One Metropolitan Square; Suite 2825
          211 N. Broadway
          Saint Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (303) 244-0117

               - and -

          Eric L. Robertson, Esq.
          WHEELER & TRIGG
          370 17th Street, Suite 4500
          Denver, CO 80202-0000
          Telephone: (303) 244-1800

               - and -

          Richard Shane Strabala, Esq.
          MUNSON & ROWLETT
          One Allied Drive, Suite 1600
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 374-6535

SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Massel Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUCCESSFULMATCH.COM, doing business as Millionaire Match, is taking
an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel
arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Michael Massel, individually
and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Successfulmatch.com, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-02389-PCP, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against the
Defendant for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

On Oct. 3, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which the Court denied through an Order entered by
Judge P. Casey Pitts on Feb. 27, 2024.

The Court concluded that the Defendant has not shown that Mr.
Massel assented to its Service Agreement. Its motion to compel
arbitration under that agreement is, therefore, denied.

The appellate case is captioned Massel v. Successfulmatch.com, Case
No. 24-1870, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on March 28, 2024.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 2,
2024;

   -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on May 7, 2024; and

   -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on June 6, 2024.
[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee MICHAEL MASSEL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Leah Beligan, Esq.
          BELIGAN LAW GROUP, LLP
          19800 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 300
          Newport Beach, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 224-3881

TARGET CORP: Face Class-Action Lawsuit Over BIPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
NBC Chicago reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed
against Target, accusing the Minnesota-based retailer of violating
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, a law meant to
prevent companies in Illinois from collecting "biometric" data like
facial recognition from consumers without written consent.

The lawsuit, filed March 11 in a Cook County Court, alleges
Target's surveillance systems "surreptitiously" collects biometric
data on customers without them knowing.

"Target does not notify customers of this fact prior to store
entry, nor does it obtain consent prior to collecting its
customers’ Biometric Data," the lawsuit says, adding at the
retailer is outfitted with "top of the line" facial recognition
throughout its stores as part of anti-theft efforts.

BIPA, passed in 2008, says companies in Illinois are not allowed to
collect, store or give out "biometric data," which includes things
like face or fingerprint scans, without first giving notice and
obtaining personal consent. The act also requires companies to
specify how the information would be retained, and when it would be
destroyed.

According to the suit, Target's "advanced system of electronic
surveillance" includes operating 14 investigation centers as well
as two forensic labs to "enhance video footage and analyze finger
prints." While intending to detect shoplifters, the system also
captures customers faces every time they enter or leave the
property, the suit alleges.

"There are numerous instances of former Target employees detailing
its facial recognition system circulation on the internet as well,"
the lawsuit said, referencing a TikTok page dedicated to customers
and ex-employees discussing concerns about the system.

The suit intends to seek $5,000 for "each and every intentional
reckless violation" of the law, or statuary damages of $1,000 for
any violation found to have been committed negligently. It also
intends to collect attorneys fees and other litigation expenses.

The suit concludes by demanding the matter be tried before a jury.

The suit is similar to other recent class-action lawsuits against
large companies alleging they violated BIPA. In 2022, a
class-action settlement alleged Facebook violated the law,
resulting in a $650 million settlement. More than a million
Illinois Facebook users received checks for nearly $400 each as
part of the case.

Class-action lawsuits claiming the violation of Illinois' BIPA law
were also field against Google, Snapchat and TikTok.

Target did not immediately respond to NBC Chicago's request for
comment. [GN]

TUG HILL: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Luna FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Tug Hill Operating, LLC filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 20, 2024 entered in the
lawsuit styled RANDY LUNA, individually and for others similarly
situated v. TUG HILL OPERATING, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-00361-JPB, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of West
Virginia at Wheeling.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is a
collective action brought by the Plaintiff on December 19, 2023 to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Tug Hill
Operating under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Luna and the other day rate workers
regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. But Tug Hill did not
pay Luna and its other day rate workers overtime. Instead, Tug Hill
misclassified them as independent contractors and paid them a flat
amount for each day worked, regardless of the total number of hours
they worked in a workweek, says the suit.

On February 20, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to transfer or,
in the alternative, to compel arbitration and dismiss Plaintiff's
complaint.

On March 20, Judge John Preston Bailey entered an Order denying the
Defendant's motion.

The appellate case is captioned as Tug Hill Operating, LLC v. Randy
Luna, Case No. 24-1281, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 3, 2024.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix is due on May 13, 2024; and

   -- Response Brief is due on June 12, 2024.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant TUG HILL OPERATING, LLC is represented by:

          Erin J. McLaughlin, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          Union Trust Building
          501 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-4413
          Telephone: (412) 392-2090

Plaintiff-Appellee RANDY LUNA, individually and for others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Richard Jennings Burch, Esq.
          RICHARD BURCH
          11 Greenway Plaza
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788

               - and -

          Anthony J. Majestro, Esq.
          POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC
          405 Capitol Street
          P. O. Box 3081
          Charleston, WV 25331-0000
          Telephone: (304) 346-2889

UNIVERSITY HEALTH: Manning Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
GREG MANNING, Individually, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v.
UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., a Tennessee Nonprofit Corporation,
a/k/a The University of Tennessee Medical Center, Defendant, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00164 (E.D. Tenn., April 10, 2024) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff
and potential plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a flight nurse along
with other crew members such as paramedics and nurses. He asserts
that Defendant had a common plan and practice of denying him one
and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay for all hours
he worked over 40 per week within weekly pay periods.

Based in Knoxville, TN, University Health System owns and operates
an emergency air medical critical care transportation service
called UT Lifestar. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
         J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
         JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
         262 German Oak Drive
         Memphis, TN 38018
         Telephone: (901) 754-8001
         Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
         E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com

VIRGIN ATLANTIC: Tang Sues Over Unlawful Customer Call Recording
----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH TANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VIRGIN ATLANTIC AIRWAYS LTD., Defendant,
Case No. 5:24-cv-02158-SVK (N.D. Cal., April 10, 2024) arises from
Defendant's conduct of monitoring and recording the telephonic
communications between consumers and its customer service
representatives without first providing notice or obtaining the
customer's consent.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to disclose to
consumers that it is recording telephonic communications at the
outset of the call, in violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act.

Headquartered in West Sussex, England, Virgin Atlantic is a British
airline carrier that operates in the United States. Its routes
include flights out of Los Angeles and San Francisco. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
         L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
         Brittany S. Scott, 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

VISA INC: Supreme Court Declines Appeal in ATM Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court on April 15, 2024 declined to hear an appeal from Visa (V.N),
opens new tab and Mastercard (MA.N), opens new tab over a decision
allowing consumers and ATM operators to band together in class
actions seeking billions of dollars in damages over access fees.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled against the
credit card companies last year when it upheld, opens new tab a
trial judge's decision granting the cases class action status.

Visa and Mastercard argued that the judge failed to conduct a
"rigorous analysis" before certifying three class-actions featuring
potentially hundreds of millions of members.

Visa and Mastercard did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.

Steve Berman, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said they were
"confident that the D.C. Circuit would be upheld and are pleased
with this victory."

Consumers and operators of independent, non-bank ATMs in 2011 sued
Visa, Mastercard and a group of banks for alleged violations of
U.S. antitrust law. Several big banks settled claims for tens of
millions of dollars.

The plaintiffs argue that the rules for ATM access fees have caused
them to pay artificially higher amounts for using machines that are
not affiliated with their bank.

Three class actions, which include two groups of consumers and
about 3,400 non-bank ATM operators, seek damages of more than $9
billion.

Visa and Mastercard have denied the allegations. In their petition
to the Supreme Court, they argued that allowing the cases to
proceed as class actions would contribute to "rampant confusion"
and "disarray" about the legal standards that should apply to class
certification.

Attorneys for the consumers and ATM operators countered that the
D.C. Circuit "fully considered defendants' criticism of the
district court's evaluation of the evidence and found it utterly
unmeritorious."

Visa and Mastercard face other antitrust allegations over card
fees.

In Brooklyn federal court, the two companies are immersed in a
long-running legal proceeding over claims that they overcharged
merchants and others in transactions involving debit and credit
cards.

A federal appeals court last year upheld a $5.6 billion settlement
with a class of merchants as part of the Brooklyn case.

The case is Visa Inc et al v. National ATM Council et al, U.S.
Supreme Court, No. 23-814. [GN]

YSABEL LLC: Hernandez Seeks Civil Penalties Under Labor Code's PAGA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GILBER SANTIAGO LOPEZ HERNANDEZ (aka Jilber Hernandes), as an
"aggrieved employee," on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private
Attorney General Act of 2004), Plaintiff v. YSABEL LLC, a
California limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
Case No. 24STCV09090 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 10,
2024), arises under the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004.

Defendant Ysabel first began to employ Plaintiff in or around
November 2022 to work at its restaurant. Plaintiff's employment
ended on or around January 20, 2024. Ysabel has failed to pay
Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees for all time worked or
subject to its control. It required Plaintiff and aggrieved
employees to perform necessary work duties prior to clocking in for
the start of their shifts and after clocking out at the end of
their shifts but it failed to compensate them for this time, says
the suit.

Ysabel is a California limited liability company that operates a
restaurant located at 945 N. Fairfax Ave, West Hollywood, CA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Maralle Messrelian, Esq.
         MM LAW, APC
         500 N. Brand Blvd., Ste 2000
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 810-7747
         Facsimile: (818) 230-9018

[^] Registration Ongoing for May 6 Class Action Conference
----------------------------------------------------------
Registration is now open for the 8th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference to be held next month in Manhattan.  This year's
event is led by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Partner, Duane Morris LLP;
and Jennifer A. Riley, Partner, Duane Morris LLP, as conference
chairs.

The agenda for CAME 2024 are:

     (A) State of the Industry: Class Action Review

         Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley of Duane
         Morris will present key findings from their inaugural
         Duane Morris-Class Action Review 2024. Their one-of-a-
         kind publication provides an analysis of class action
         trends impacting Corporate America, including, Class
         Action Fairness Act, mass appeals, consumer fraud, data
         breaches and more.

     (B) The Ethics of Wiretapping and Data Privacy Class Actions

         David Bertoni (Moderator), Partner, Brann & Isaacson;
         Kelly Iverson, Partner, Lynch Carpenter; Terence "Terry"
         Coates, Managing Partner, Markovits, Stock & DeMarco;
         David Lietz, Senior Partner, Milberg; and Max Bernstein,
         Associate, Cooley, will delve into the moral intricacies
         of wiretapping and data privacy class actions; explore
         legal, ethical, and technological dimensions, weighing
         individual rights against security needs; and navigate
         through case studies, ethical dilemmas, and corporate
         responsibilities, while scrutinizing the global
         landscape of privacy regulations.

     (C) Maximizing Financial Strategy: Exploring Qualified
         Settlement Funds

         Nicholas Sanchez (Moderator), Partner, Miller Kaplan;
         Eric Gladbach, Partner, King & Spalding; Justin Parks,
         Vice President, AB Data; Amy Gernon, Founder, Gernon
         Law; and Michael O'Connor, Senior Vice President,
         Western Alliance Bank, will discuss the complexities of
         Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) and tax implications
         in class actions; analyze strategies for maximizing
         benefits, minimizing tax liabilities, and ensuring
         compliance; and navigate through legal nuances,
         financial considerations, and practical insights for
         attorneys, plaintiffs, and stakeholders.

     (D) The Double-Edged Sword: TCPA and Email Restrictions in
         Case Notifications

         Christopher Longley (Moderator), Co-Founder & CEO,
         Atticus Administration; Christopher Roberts, Partner,
         Butsch Roberts & Associates; Jessica Ranucci, Attorney,
         New York Legal Assistance Group; and Bryn Bridley,
         Director of Project Management at Atticus, will examine
         the intricate balance between TCPA regulations and email
         restrictions in case notifications; navigate through
         legal pitfalls, compliance challenges, and best
         practices for effective communication; and explore
         strategies for optimizing outreach while mitigating
         risks and respecting recipients' privacy rights.

     (E) Luncheon Roundtable Discussion: Resolution of Mass Tort
         Claims in Bankruptcy

         Join esteemed judges -- Hon. Michael Kaplan, Chief United
         States Bankruptcy Judge, District of New Jersey; the Hon.
         Shelley Chapman (Ret.), Senior Counsel, Willkie Farr &
         Gallagher LLP; and the Hon. Melanie L. Cyganowski (Ret.),
         Partner, Otterbourg P.C. -- for an intimate roundtable
         on resolving mass tort claims in bankruptcy as they
         delve into legal intricacies, precedents, and ethical
         considerations shaping outcomes; and explore strategies
         for balancing creditor rights, public interests, and
         equitable distribution, fostering dialogue and insights
         over a luncheon setting.  Chad Husnick, Partner, Kirkland
         & Ellis, moderates.

     (F) Comparative Class Action Funding: a Multi-Jurisdictional
         Examination

         Dai Wai Chin Freman (Moderator), Managing Director,
         Parabellum Capital; Kyle Taylor, Partner, Orr Taylor;
         Luke Streatfeild, Partner, Hausfeld; Michael Dell'Angelo,
         Executive Shareholder, Berger Montague; and Manuel "John"
         Dominguez, Partner, Cohen Milstein, discuss different
         class actions funding models, exploring the benefits and
         drawbacks of various models, as well as explore whether
         the US model is ripe for disruption.

     (G) Fraud in Class Actions

         Ross Weiner (Moderator), Legal Director, Certum Group;
         Rebecca Gilliland, Principal, Beasley Allen; Kyle Mason,
         Director, EisnerAmper; Franco Corrado, Partner, Morgan
         Lewis; Jeff Wilkerson, Partner, Winston & Strawn; and
         Etia Rottman Frand, Head of Sales, Darrow, tackle the
         complexities of detecting and addressing fraud in class
         actions; explore case studies, legal precedents, and
         emerging trends; discuss strategies for safeguarding
         integrity, ensuring fair outcomes, and upholding justice
         within class action litigation; and delve into ethical
         considerations and practical measures for combating
         fraudulent practices.

     (H) ESG Litigation From A Securities Perspective

         Eric Zagar (Moderator), Partner, Kessler Topaz; Lauren
         Wagner, Counsel, O'Melveny; and Minor Myers, Professor
         of Law, UConn Law School, dive into the intersection of
         Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors with
         securities litigation; explore evolving regulations,
         shareholder activism, and fiduciary duties; and dissect
         recent cases, analyze market trends, and propose
         strategies for navigating ESG-related risks and
         opportunities within the securities landscape.

     (I) The Revolution of Lead Generation in Mass Tort With
         Cutting Edge AI and Marketing Tools

         Erin Mulvaney (Moderator), Reporter, The Wall Street
         Journal; Brendan Kane, Founder, Hook Point; Rustin
         Silverstein, President and Founder, X Ante; and
         Christopher Ege, Partner, Gordon, Rees, Scully,
         Mansukhani, explore the transformative impact of AI
         and marketing tools on mass tort lead generation;
         discuss data-driven strategies, predictive analytics
         and ethical considerations; and how innovative
         technologies are reshaping legal marketing, enhancing
         client acquisition, and revolutionizing mass tort
         litigation.

CAME 2024 will be held in-person at The Harmonie Club on May 6th.
To register, visit https://www.classactionconference.com/

Join top professionals and thought leaders in the class action
industry for this one-day event.

Conference agenda is subject to change. Additional panels and
speakers will be added leading up to the conference. Check back
frequently for updates!

For sponsorship or speaking opportunities, please contact:

     Will Etchison
     Tel: 305-707-7493
     E-mail: will@beardgroup.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***