/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240514.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 14, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 97

                            Headlines

987 SUPERMARKET: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
ACCESS COMMUNITY: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, McKinney Says
AERO DIAMONDS: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AEROGROW INTERNATIONAL: Demaio Sues Over Caller ID Rules Violations
AGBA GROUP: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Triller Corp

ALDI INC: Bono Sues Over Mislabeled Diced Peaches Products
ALLAQUARIA LLC: Tamayo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Sivakova Suit Over Defective AEB Systems
AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Cooper Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
APL LOGISTICS: Padilla Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

APPLE INC: Aceto Sues Over Smartphone Price Monopoly
APPLE INC: Faces Marie Suit Over Monopoly of Smartphone Markets
AR KLEAN LLC: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ASC REGENITY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Anderson Says
AT&T INC: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Schaefer Suit Alleges

AT&T SERVICES: Fails to Pay Planner's Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
ATO FOODS: Woods Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
AUGUSTA NATIONAL: Disclose Data Without Consent, Labernik Says
AUTODESK INC: Barkasi Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
BANK OF AMERICA: Plans to Settle Hidden Fees Class-Action Lawsuit

BENJAMIN RESTAURANT: Berisha Sues Over Unpaid Wages
BGC GROUP INC: Faces Seigel Shareholder Suit in Delaware Court
BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Class Suit
BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Stockholder Suit in D. Del.
BNP MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kim Alleges

BOLT LAUNDRY SERVICE: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BOYNE USA: Boyne's Bid for Protective Order Partly OK'd
BRIDENT DENTAL: Court Enforces Unsigned Arbitration Agreement
BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: Consentino Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
BULGARI CORP: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says

BYTEDANCE INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 23
CABLE NEWS NETWORK: Lesh Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: M&A Investigates Merger With Aera Energy
CANVA US INC: Brown Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
CARGILL INC: Aaron Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

CARO HOME LLC: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CASA NOVA: Ochoa Suit Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Claim
CAUDALIE USA: Watson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Mobile App
CENTENNIAL BANK: Gomez Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
CENTENNIAL BANK: Hughes Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas

CENTENNIAL BANK: Whitlock Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
CEPHEID: Love Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CHAKLADER PROPERTIES: Faces Pardo Suit Over ADA Violations
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Pivot Point Sues Over Data Breach
CHARIX LLC: Riley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

CHEWY INC: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CHICAGO PUBLIC: Faces Class Suit Over Secret Religious Practices
CHICOS FAS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Dalton Suit Says
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Plaintiffs' Counsel Awarded $246K in Attys' Fees
CHUNG LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Li Suit Alleges

CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Judson Suit Removed to District of Utah
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Hybrid, Virtual Move Fends Off Class Suit
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Jewish Student Sues Over Campus Safety
COMERICA BANK: Sparkman Suit Removed to E.D. California
COMMUNITY FORWARD SF: Bruno Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

COMPASS MINERALS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
CORTEVA INC: Cockerill Seeks to Decertify Optional Retirement Class
COSY HOUSE: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CROSSROADS EQUIPMENT: Bolanos Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
CRUNCHYROLL LLC: MacPhee Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection

CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Lehr False Advertising Suit
CVS HEALTH: Controls Access to Prescription Drugs, Jones Claims
D'ERRICO'S PLATNIUM: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says
DAIKIN COMFORT: Placentia Suit Removed to S.D. California
DE BEERS JEWELLERS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

DENIS MCDONOUGH: Powers, et al., Win Class Certification Bid
DIDI GLOBAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in New York Court
DIDI GLOBAL: Faces Securities Suit in NY Court Over IPO
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Robertson Suit Seeks Class Certification
DOMINION ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arble Alleges

DON'T RUN OUT: Starks Suit Removed to C.D. California
DROPBOX INC: Coulter Sues Over Preventable Data Breach
DTE ELECTRIC: Hughes Suit Seeks Call Center Agents' Unpaid Overtime
EHANG HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
EHANG HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit

EL AZTECO INC: Scott ADA Suit Transferred to W.D. Michigan
EMBRY-RIDDLE: Garceau Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
EMPRESA DISTRIBUIDORA: Continues to Defend Payment Obligations Suit
EMPRESA DISTRIBUIDORA: Resolution of Consumidores Suit Pending
EQUINIX INC: Chan Sues Over Exchange Act Violation

EUCLID CHEMICAL: Birdsell Sues Over Concrete Additives Monopoly
EXSCIENTIA PLC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
FAMILY DOLLAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lindsey Alleges
FIRST ENERGY: Securities Class Suit Stayed
FITNESS EQUIPMENT: Mangone Sues Over Unlawful Pricing and Sales

FLORIDA: Faces Class Suit Over Medicaid Termination Notices
FOUR SEASONS: Hilbert Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
FOXTROT RETAIL: Moore Sues Over Failure to Provide Notice
FRONTIER CALIFORNIA: Duran Suit Removed to C.D. California
FULL SAIL LLC: Buxton Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida

FULL TRUCK: Settlement Deal Reached in Kohli Suit
GEICO CASUALTY: Perkins Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
GENERAL DYNAMICS: Sherman Act-Related Class Suit Dismissed
GENERAL MOTORS: Behm Sues Over Unlawful Sale of Drivers' Data
GENERAL MOTORS: Drews Sues Over Unlawful Selling of Data

GIVENCHY CORPORATION: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says
GOLDEN KEY: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Perazzoli Suit Alleges
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Barsuli Sues Over Drop in Share Price
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on June 21
GRAND CENTRAL: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

GRMC INC: Roane Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
HALLS CHOPHOUSE: Bogacz Sues Over Failure of Paying Proper Wages
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Reid Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
HSNI LLC: Lobello Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
HUMANA INC: Harrison Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Kentucky

I.D. JEWELRY INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
INK 477: Anastasopoulos Sues Over Improperly Retained Tips
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Allman Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
JUVIA'S PLACE: Eyeshadow Contains Unfit Additives, Suarez Alleges
JUVIA'S PLACE: Suarez Files Suit in E.D. California

KANSAS, MO: Court Extends Filing of Class Cert Reply to May 31
KARS4KIDS INC: Faces Dugger Suit Over Donation Scheme
KLOVER HOLDINGS INC: Pierce Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
LA ESTRELLA TACOS: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LENS.COM INC: Gonneville Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts

LG ELECTRONICS: Court Closes Hernandez Case
LIGHTFOOT FISHING: Martinez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces Meade Suit Over 33.2% Stock Price Drop
LOTTA DOUGH: Abboud Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
LOWE'S HOME: Carrillo Suit Removed to E.D. California

MARVELOUS MARK: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
MASTERCORP INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Suit Alleges
MDL 2992: Parties in Labor Class Suit Seek to Extend Case Schedule
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 31, 2025
MIDDLETOWN MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blumrath Alleges

MIKEL H. WILLIAMS: Assad Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
MITEK SYSTEMS: Court Dismisses Securities Suit w/o Prejudice
MOELIS & CO: Final Order on Stockholder Suit Still Not Issued
MORGANTOWN, WV: Rowand Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia
MR. COOPER: Continues to Defend Consolidated Cabezas Class Suit

MR. COOPER: Continues to Defend Randles Class Suit in Cal.
NATIONAL LIABILITY: Neal Files Suit in E.D. Texas
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Cassese Sues Over Injuries Caused to Borrowers
NEW YORK, NY: Elie Sues Over Due Process Rights Violations
NOBLE ENERGY INC: Boulter Files Suit in D. Colorado

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Plaintiffs Ask Court's Prelim OK of $600M Deal
NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Powell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NORTHGATE GONZALEZ: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arellano Alleges
NUOVO ARTISTIC: Dulei Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
NUVISION AUTO GLASS: Therrien Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona

NV5 INC: Pascual Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NVIDIA CORP: Court OK's Bid to Seal Certain Exhibits in Tobias Suit
NVIDIA CORP: Dubus Sues Over Unlawful Copying of Copyrighted Works
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Proposes to Settle Weiner Class Action Suit
OHANA MILITARY: Powell Suit Removed to D. Hawaii

OIL BAR LLC: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ON Q FINANCIAL: Connelly Sues Over Inadequate Data Security
ON THE GO LAUNDRY: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PARFIT LLC: Berman Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
PASSAGE HEALTH: Perman Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California

PAUL NAKASONE: Murbach Seeks Leave to File Class Certification Bid
PG&E CORP: Shareholders' Bid to Intervene in Class Suit Pending
PHARMAVITE LLC: Mackey Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: GMP Revives Respiratory Machine Class Action
PLEX INC: Disclose Personal Info to Third Parties, Lee Alleges

PRIMACY CAREERS: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PRIME NOW: Quintero Suit Removed to C.D. California
PRISCILLA A. MADRID: Suit Filed in C.D. California
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Mirshokri Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
RANGE CREDIT BUREAU: Holden Files FCRA Suit in D. Minnesota

RED LOBSTER HOSPITALITY: Neubauer Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
REGENT HOLDING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Demaio Claims
RISAS DENTAL: Beltran Files Suit in D. Arizona
RV SOLUTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flores Alleges
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY: Tague Files Suit in E.D. Missouri

SALLY BEAUTY SUPPLY: Rios Suit Removed to C.D. California
SHADAL LLC: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SIKA AG: 570 Concrete Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
SIKA AG: Keystone Concrete Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
SIKA AG: Lakewood Concrete Suit Transferred to S.D. New York

SIKA AG: M&D Peterson Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
SISTERS OF THE SORROWFUL: Filing of Conditional Cert Bid Extended
SOULCYCLE LLC: DiFalco Files Suit in S.D. New York
SOUTHERN TIRE MART: Ruiz Suit Removed to C.D. California
SOUTHSTATE BANK: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Counsel Seeks Class Action Certification
SPRECKELS SUGAR: Castro Suit Removed to S.D. California
STUDENTS FOR JUSTICE: May Face Class Suit Over RICO Violations
SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Hunter Sues Over Deceptive Lending Practices
TAILORED SHARED: Marshall Suit Removed to C.D. California

TARGET CORPORATION: Carbine Sues Over False & Misleading Packaging
TESLA MOTORS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Panossian Alleges
TESSENDERLO KERLEY: Richardson Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
TEXAS LUTHERAN: Delacruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
TGC PCSC: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Commercial Property

TORRANCE MEMORIAL MEDICAL: Mora Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TORY BURCH LLC: Ayala Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TQ LOGISTICS INC: Wicklund Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
UNITED PARCEL: Class Cert Oral Argument in Malone Set for June 13
UNITED SEATING: Ducrepin Sues Over Unauthorized Disclosure of PII

UNITED STATES: Court Modifies Class Cert Order in Lucas Suit
UNIVERSITY OF THE PEOPLE: Unlawfully Collects Debt, Lefevere Says
UR JADDOU: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in Martirosyan Suit
US AVIATION SERVICES: Rivas Suit Removed to C.D. California
VALLEY MOUNTAIN REGIONAL: Brett Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

VINCENT K. MCMAHON: PRGERS Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
VITALITY GROUP: Elias Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
W.K.S. FROSTY CORP: Serrano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WELLS FARGO: Dillon Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
WELLS FARGO: Haydn Files FCRA Suit in E.D. California

WELLSTAR HEALTH SYSTEM: Suit Filed in N.D. Georgia
WESTERN UNION: Continues to Defend Financial Privacy Act Class Suit
WESTROCK SERVICE: Acu Suit Removed to C.D. California
WILLIAM C. BAILEY: Berry Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
YARDI SYSTEMS: FCRA Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts

ZOETIS INC: Rosen Law Starts Securities Class Action Investigation

                            *********

987 SUPERMARKET: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
FULGENCIO TALAVERA, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. 987 SUPERMARKET INC. d/b/a LOS VECINOS MEAT MARKET &
SUPERMARKET, RAFAEL A. GUZMAN, and ROMAN RODRIGUEZ, Case No.
1:24-cv-03089 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 23, 2024) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime compensation,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff worked six (6) days per week (Sunday off), and his
work scheduled consisted of ten hours per day from 11 :00 a.m.
until 9:00 p.m.

Throughout the entirety of his employment, the Plaintiff was paid,
in cash, at the rate of $90 per day ($540 per week) straight time
for all hours worked. Work performed in excess of 40 hours per week
was not paid at the statutory rate of time and one-half as required
by state and federal law, the lawsuit asserts.

The Plaintiff also seeks to recover liquidated and statutory
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action individually and as
class representative on behalf of himself and all other current and
former non-exempt employees who have been or were employed by the
Defendants between April 23, 2021 through the date that the opt-in
period expires as ultimately set by the Court (the "Collective
Action Period"), and who were compensated at rates less than the
statutory overtime rate of time and one-half (the "Collective
Action Members").

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt stock
person, packer, and delivery person at the Market from Feb. 12,
2021, through Feb. 18, 2024.

987 Supermarket owns and operates a meat market/supermarket doing
business as "Los Vecinos Meat Market & Supermarket," located at 987
Amsterdam Avenue, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com

ACCESS COMMUNITY: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, McKinney Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAKEITA MCKINNEY, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown v. ACCESS COMMUNITY HEALTH
NETWORK, Case No. 1:24-cv-03270 (N.D. Ill., Apr. 23, 2024) sues the
Defendant for failing to pay overtime wages based on the correct
regular rate of pay to Plaintiff and other bonus-eligible hourly
employees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

During the Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff
bonuses, including retention and attendance bonuses, based on the
Defendant's Bonus Policy. The Defendant also paid the Plaintiff
birthday bonuses, hazard pay, and appreciation bonuses.

During the course of her employment by the Defendant, the Plaintiff
was directed by the Defendant to work over 40 hours in one or more
individual work weeks, the suit alleges.

The Defendant's failure to include all of the Plaintiff's earned
non-discretionary bonuses and incentive payments as part of her
gross compensation when calculating her regular rate of pay for
overtime purposes resulted in the Plaintiff being paid overtime
wages not based on her regular rate of pay, contends the suit.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from November, 2020 to
November, 2023.

The Defendant operates health centers throughout Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          FRADIN LAW
          8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: (847) 986-5889
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

                - and -

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          SIMON LAW CO.
          11 1/2 N. Franklin Street
          Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
          Telephone: (216) 816-8696
          E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com

AERO DIAMONDS: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aero Diamonds, LLC.
The case is styled as Charity Danso, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Aero Diamonds, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-03162 (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024).

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

Aero Diamonds, LLC offers dynamically luminous collection of
fashion jewelry handmade in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com


AEROGROW INTERNATIONAL: Demaio Sues Over Caller ID Rules Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Desiree Demaio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AEROGROW INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. CACE-24-005722
(Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., April 25, 2024), is
brought for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for
violations Of the Caller ID Rules Of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act ("FTSA").

The FTSA's Caller ID Rules apply to solicited and consented to
Telephonic Sales Calls, and as such, claims for Caller ID Rules
violations, which requires notice and an opportunity to cease
sending unwanted text message solicitations, before claims for
"text message solicitations the called party does not consent to
receive" can be brought. The FTSA's Caller ID Rules require that
persons making Telephonic Sales Calls transmit--to the consumer's
caller identification service--a telephone number that is capable
of receiving telephone calls.

In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many
callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central
part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally
transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that
are not capable of receiving telephone calls.

As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant
violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number
that was not capable of receiving phone when it made Telephonic
Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales Calls").
Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted
Clean Skin Club ("AeroGarden Text Message Sales Calls") and
violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients'
caller identification services a telephone number that was not
capable of receiving telephone calls, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number
that receives the Defendant's telephonic sales calls.

Aerogrow international, inc. is registered as a Florida Limited
Liability Company, which sells various goods to persons throughout
the country through its online store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          974 Howard Ave.
          Dunedin, FL 34698
          Phone: (202) 709-5744
          Fax: (866) 893-0416
          Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
                 shawn@sjlawcollective.com


AGBA GROUP: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Triller Corp
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has
recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm
in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We
are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and
is investigating AGBA Group Holding Limited (NASDAQ: AGBA),
relating to its proposed merger with Triller Corp. Under the terms
of the agreement, Triller shareholders will own 80% of the
post-Merger Group, and AGBA shareholders will own 20% of the
post-Merger Group.

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

     1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
     2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
     3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?

About Monteverde & Associates PC

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

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

Contact:

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

ALDI INC: Bono Sues Over Mislabeled Diced Peaches Products
----------------------------------------------------------
NANCY BONO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALDI INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-03026
(E.D.N.Y., April 23, 2024) alleges that the Defendant mislabeled
its "Yellow Cling Diced Peaches In 100% Fruit Juice," in
single-serving transparent cups ("Product").

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, to appeal to the
growing number of consumers seeking foods that "use 'real'
ingredients, which is to say,  those that are recognizable" and
"naturally occurring," consisting of components entirely of those
ingredients, instead of lesser valued substitutes and manufactured
chemical compounds, the Defendant sells the Product visibly filled
with peaches and what appears to be "100% Fruit Juice," next to a
freshly picked peach with its stem intact, as if it were recently
plucked from a tree, and freshly cut peach slices.

The Product is "adulterated" and misleads consumers because a
"valuable constituent has been [] in part omitted or abstracted,"
since the amount and/or quantity of peaches and 100% fruit juice is
less than it otherwise would be in the absence of the added water,
juice concentrates, flavorings, such as captured and/or restored
volatile compounds and essential oils, seasonings, and
preservatives.

As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately $2.09 for four 4
oz cups, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products,
represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be
sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, says
the suit.

ALDI INC. operates as a supermarket. The Company offers groceries,
meat, fresh produce, wine, beer, beverages, and other home
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
          Great Neck NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

ALLAQUARIA LLC: Tamayo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allaquaria LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Anthony Tamayo, an individual, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated v. Allaquaria LLC d/b/a
Quality Marine, All Aquaria, Case No. 24STCV10467 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., April 25, 2024).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."

Allaquaria LLC doing business as Quality Marine --
https://www.qualitymarine.com/ -- is the pioneer and leader of the
trade—best collectors, holding facilities, animal care, and
marinelife.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amanda L. Fazio, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC
          8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
          Phone: 310-438-5555
          Email: amanda@tomorrowlaw.com

               - and -

          Roman Shkodnik, Esq.
          D.LAW, INC.
          880 E. Broadway
          Glendale, CA 91205-1218
          Phone: 818-962-6465
          Fax: 818-962-6469
          Email: r.shkodnik@d.law


AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Sivakova Suit Over Defective AEB Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA SIVAKOVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-03354 (C.D. Cal., Apr. 23, 2024) alleges that the Automatic
emergency braking (AEB) systems of all 2019-2022 MY Honda Insight
and Honda Passport vehicles have a defect that causes them to
falsely engage randomly, causing sudden, unintended braking.

The Plaintiff contends that the Sudden Unintended Braking Defect
causes the Class Vehicles to detect non-existent obstacles, which
then automatically triggers the brakes and causing the Class
Vehicles to abruptly slow down or come to a complete stop,
sometimes in the middle of traffic. Simply put, as a result of the
Sudden Unintended Braking Defect, Honda's AEB systems are a safety
hazard, not a safety feature.

The causes of the Sudden Unintended Braking Defect are the same for
all of the Class Vehicles: namely, Honda's CMBS system is
technologically underdeveloped and relies on cheap components that
are unable to reliably perform the one job they are intended to do:
namely, adequately differentiate common road features with true
obstacles that warrant braking activation, the suit claims.

Honda is currently investigating the Sudden Unintended Braking
Defect in the Class Vehicles and treats it as a collective problem
with a common root. Honda also knows that the Sudden Unintended
Braking Defect poses serious safety risks. When earlier Honda
models were plagued by similar problems, Honda admitted that the
problem endangered drivers and recalled the vehicles. With the
current Class Vehicles, Honda has issued no recall, even though it
is aware that the problems are substantially similar to those that
prompted the earlier recalls, added the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf all people the following
classes and subclasses:  

     Nationwide class:

     "all people in the United States who purchased or leased a
     Class Vehicle from a Honda-authorized dealership."

     Massachusetts class:

     "all people who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle from a
     Honda-authorized dealership in Massachusetts."

Plaintiff Sivakova owns a 2021 Passport Sport equipped with Honda's
AEB system, which she purchased in Massachusetts.

American Honda develops and manufactures automobiles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PLLC
          166 Geary Street, Ste. 1500-1507
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 839-7000
          E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com
                  joel@skclassactions.com

AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Cooper Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Nicholas Cooper, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., AMC
Entertainment Holdings, Inc. doing business as: AMC Theaters, Case
No. 2:23-cv-02434 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on April 26, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11127-ADB to the
proceeding.

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

American Multi-Cinema, Inc. -- https://www.amctheatres.com/ --
provides entertainment services. The Company owns and operates
movie theatres.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lucy McShane, Esq.
          Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
          MCSHANE & BRADY LLC
          1656 Washington Street Suite 140
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 888-8010
          Email: lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com
                 mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anna A. Gadberry, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP - KC/GRAND
          2555 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
          Phone: (816) 474-6550
          Email: agadberry@shb.com

               - and -

          Matthew C. Wolfe, Esq.
          Tara D. Kennedy, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          111 S. Wacker Drive, Ste. 4700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 704-7777
          Email: mwolfe@shb.com
                 tkennedy@shb.com



APL LOGISTICS: Padilla Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against APL Logistics
Americas Ltd., et al. The case is styled as Anthony Padilla,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. APL Logistics Americas Ltd., APL Logistics
Group., APL Logistics Ltd., APL Logistics Warehouse Management
Services Inc., Carmichael International Service, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2024-0005009 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April
25, 2024).

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

APL Logistics -- https://www.apllogistics.com/ -- seeks to be a
premier, profitable provider of global supply-chain services to
help enable sustainable trade and commerce in key markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arby Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Ave., Ste. 203
          Glendale, CA 91203-4007
          Phone: 818-265-1020
          Fax: 818-265-1021
          Email: arby@calljustice.com


APPLE INC: Aceto Sues Over Smartphone Price Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------
BARBARA ACETO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-05663 (D.N.J., April 26, 2024) alleges violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Apple is engaged in a
scheme to monopolize the market for the sale of Smartphones in the
United States from at least as early as March 21, 2020, through the
date by which the anticompetitive effects of its violations of law
shall have ceased, but in any case no earlier than the present (the
"Class Period").

Rather than respond to competitive threats by offering lower
Smartphone prices to consumers or better monetization for
developers, Apple would meet competitive threats by imposing a
series of shapeshifting rules and restrictions in its App Store
guidelines and developer agreements that would allow Apple to
extract higher fees, thwart innovation, offer a less secure or
degraded user experience, and throttle competitive alternatives. It
has deployed this playbook across many technologies, products, and
services, including super apps, text messaging, smartwatches, and
digital wallets, among many others.

Apple's alleged anticompetitive conduct not only limits competition
in the Smartphone market, but also reverberates through the
industries affected by these restrictions, including financial
services, fitness, gaming, social media, news media, entertainment,
and more. Unless Apple's anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct
is stopped, it will likely extend and entrench its iPhone monopoly
to other markets and parts of the economy.

As a result of its anticompetitive conduct, Apple sells iPhone
brand Smartphones at supracompetitive monopoly prices to consumers,
says the suit.

APPLE INC. designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal
computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety
of related accessories. The Company also offers payment, digital
content, cloud and advertising services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq.
          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Raymond P. Girnys, Esq.
          Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
          Peter Demato, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          Email: pstphillip@lowey.com
                 vbriganti@lowey.com
                 rgirnys@lowey.com
                 pbarile@lowey.com
                 pdemato@lowey.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
          Melanie Porter, Esq.
          BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
          23 Forest St.
          Medford, MA 02155
          Telephone: (781) 350-0000
          Facsimile: (702) 983-8673
          Email: rbonsignore@classactions.us
                 melanie@classactions.us

APPLE INC: Faces Marie Suit Over Monopoly of Smartphone Markets
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN MARIE, SHARLA HILBURN, and NANCY COX, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-05541 (D.N.J., April 23, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of various state
antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws in the
U.S.

According to the complaint, Apple imposes a series of shapeshifting
rules and restrictions in its App Store guidelines and developer
agreements that allowed it to extract higher fees, thwart
innovation, offer a less secure or degraded user experience, and
throttle competitive alternatives. As Apple's power grew, its
leverage over third parties reinforced its tight control over how
third parties innovate and monetize on and off the smartphone in
ways that were anticompetitive and exclusionary. As a result of
Apple's anticompetitive and monopolistic practices, the Plaintiffs
and similarly situated consumers suffered overcharge damages, says
the suit.

Apple Inc. is a technology company in California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
         McOMBER McOMBER & LUBER, P.C.
         50 Lake Center Drive, Suite 400
         Marlton, NJ 08053
         Telephone: (856) 985-9800
         Facsimile: (856) 263-2450
         Email: cjk@njlegal.com

                 - and -

         Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
         Jessica N. Servais, Esq.
         Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
         LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
         100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55401
         Telephone: (612) 339-6900
         Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
         Email: hmsilton@locklaw.com
                jnservais@locklaw.com
                jcbourne@locklaw.com

AR KLEAN LLC: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AR Klean, LLC. The
case is styled as Charity Danso, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. AR Klean, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03158
(S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024).

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

AR Kleen lens cleaner is a multi-purpose formulation that is
excellent for anti-reflective, glass, and plastic lenses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com


ASC REGENITY: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Anderson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASC REGENITY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-03134 (E.D.N.Y., April 26, 2024) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.augustinusbader.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

ASC REGENITY, INC. retails cosmetics and personal care products.
The Company offers face creams, moisturizers, hair care, and other
cosmetics. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
          100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
          Hicksville, NY 11801
          Telephone: +1 929-324-0717
          Facsimile: +1 929-333-7774
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com

AT&T INC: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Schaefer Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN SCHAEFER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AT&T, INC. and AT&T MOBILITY LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-01752-VMC (N.D. Ga., Apr. 23, 2024) alleges that the
Defendants failed to properly secure and safeguard sensitive
information of their customers.

In March 2024, 73 million former and current AT&T customers had
their Personally identifiable information (PII) leaked online,
including full names, email addresses, mailing addresses, phone
numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, AT&T account
numbers, and passcodes.

As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
face a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft.
The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely
monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft,
the lawsuit asserts.

The Plaintiff and Class Members may also incur out of pocket costs,
e.g., for purchasing credit monitoring services, credit freezes,
credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect
identity theft, the lawsuit adds.

The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf all those
similarly situated to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' PII that they collected and maintained, and for
failing to timely and adequately notify the Plaintiff and other
Class Members that (1) their information had been subject to the
unauthorized access by an unknown third party, or (2) precisely
what specific type of information was accessed.

Plaintiff Brian Schaefer is a citizen and resident of Ohio whose
PII was compromised by the Defendants in the Data Breach.

AT&T is a wireless carrier and internet provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
          Minneapolis, MN 55413
          Telephone: (612) 594-5933
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net

AT&T SERVICES: Fails to Pay Planner's Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK SWANCEY V. AT&T SERVICES, INC., Case No. CACE-24-005616
(Fla. Cir., Apr. 23, 2024) is a class action seeking to recover
from the Defendant unpaid minimum wage and/or overtime
compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated
damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff worked 50 hours a week while working for the
Defendant. However, the Plaintiff was not paid overtime by the
Defendant for any hours worked in excess of 40 weekly, the suit
contends.

The Defendant had other similarly situated inventory control
planners working for the Defendant not paid overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant on 1999 through July
6,2023 as a non-exempt employee working as an inventory control
planner with a main duty of verifying purchase orders.

AT&T Inc. is an American multinational telecommunications holding
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Remer, Esq.
          REMER, GEORGES-PIERRE,
          & HOOGERWOERD, PLLC
          2745 Ponce De Leon Blvd
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          E-mail: jremer@rgph.law

ATO FOODS: Woods Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Natia Woods, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated persons v. ATO FOODS, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01311 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on April 25, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01001-X to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

ATO Foods -- http://atofoods.com/-- is in the food and beverage
manufacturing industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jolie N. Pavlos, Esq.
          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Phone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401

The Defendants are represented by:

          David Robert Schlottman, Esq.
          JACKSON WALKER LLP
          2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 953-6068
          Fax: (214) 661-6896
          Email: dschlottman@jw.com


AUGUSTA NATIONAL: Disclose Data Without Consent, Labernik Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM LABERNIK; and SHANE DOYLE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUGUSTA NATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03058 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2024)
alleges violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs subscribed to
https://masters.com/ (the "Website") operated by the Defendant. The
Website provides users with access to video content related to The
Masters golf tournament, including pre-recorded video clips,
interviews, sports analysts, and more.

The Defendant does not disclose on the Website that Subscribers'
personally identifying information would be captured by the Meta
Pixel utilized by Defendant (the "Pixel"), and then shared with
Meta, thereby exposing the Subscribers' PII to any person of
ordinary technical skill who received that data.

The Defendant purposefully implemented and utilized the Pixel,
which tracks user activity on the Website and discloses that
information to Facebook to gather valuable marketing data. The
Pixel cannot be placed on a Website without steps taken directly by
Defendant or on behalf of Defendant (e.g., by a website manager).
The Pixel cannot be placed on the Website by Facebook without the
knowledge and cooperation of Defendant.

The Defendant does not seek, and has not obtained, consent from
users or Subscribers to utilize the Pixel to track, share, and
exchange their PII with Facebook, says the suit.

AUGUSTA NATIONAL, INC. doing business as Masters Golf Tournament,
operates as a golf club. The Company conducts golf tournaments.
Masters Golf Tournament provides automated teller machines,
parking, telephones, and first aid facilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Gary I. Ishimoto, Esq.
          Colin A. Brown, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          33 Whitehall Street, 17 th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          Email: mreich@zlk.com
                 gishimoto@zlk.com
                 cbrown@zlk.com

AUTODESK INC: Barkasi Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BARKASI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AUTODESK, INC.; ANDREW ANAGNOST; and DEBORAH
L. CLIFFORD, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-02431 (N.D. Cal., April
24, 2024) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Autodesk securities
between June 1, 2023 and April 16, 2024, inclusive, Plaintiff seeks
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that during the Class
Period, the Defendants, individually and in concert, directly or
indirectly, disseminated or approved the false statements in the
SEC reports, which they knew or deliberately disregarded were
misleading in that they contained misrepresentations and failed to
disclose material facts necessary in order to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading.

The price of Autodesk stock fell $13.32 per share, or 5.83 percent,
to close at $214.92 on April 17, 2024. The next day, it fell a
further $4.29 per share, or 1.99 percent, to close at $210.63 on
April 18, 2024.

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

AUTODESK, INC. supplies PC software and multimedia tools. The
Company's two-dimensional and three-dimensional products are used
across industries and in the home for architectural design,
mechanical design, geographic information systems and mapping, and
visualization applications. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Plans to Settle Hidden Fees Class-Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Jordan, writing for Yahoo!Finance, reports that Bank of
America is planning to settle a class-action lawsuit accusing the
financial giant of charging hidden fees for wire transfers,
according to court filings by lawyers involved in the North
Carolina federal court case.

Plaintiffs claimed they were unaware of a $15 fee to have money
sent to their accounts through the Charlotte-based bank.

Lawyers for the account holders and the bank filed a pending joint
notice for a settlement and stipulation with the U.S. District
Court of Western North Carolina on April 11. A judge told the
parties to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
by May 24.

The details of the proposed settlement were not detailed in public
court filings yet.

The complaint was originally filed in Mecklenburg County Superior
Court in March 2023 by California resident Aaron Aseltine before it
was transferred to federal court in April 2023 for jurisdiction
reasons.

About the case

Lawyers working for Aseltine and other plaintiffs said Bank of
America misled customers and hid charges for incoming wire
transfers for personal account holders by tacking on "junk" fees,
which were unavoidable.

Account holders like Aseltine were surprised to see hefty fees for
money wired into their accounts, the attorneys claim. They also
said the plaintiffs did not have a chance to review and avoid the
fee.

The complaint also cited that account documents said "fee varies"
for incoming or outgoing wire transfers and that it may change at
any time. But a customer contract document does not list the $15
for incoming wire transfer fees, according to the attorneys.

Lawyers also said Bank of America is an outlier in the industry for
the complaint. A disclosure document from Wells Fargo was used an
example of a bank letting customers know about the exact fees for
wire transfer.

The complaint said the fees are also problems because an account
holder does not take action or request a service for an inbound
wire. "That is why many financial institutions refuse to charge
such fees at all, at least for domestic transfers," the lawyers
said in the complaint. Some of those financial companies are Ally
Bank, Capital One, Discover, Fidelity and Village Bank.

Bank of America submitted an answer last year to the court and
denied unfair, deceptive and unlawful practice of misleading
customers. The bank's attorneys said the bank did not breach
account agreements with consumers.

The bank declined to comment to The Charlotte Observer, but
referred to recent court filings regarding its position in the
case.

Bank of America has more than 19,000 employees in the Charlotte
region, part of 213,000 workers companywide. As of June, it had
$2.4 trillion in assets, and was the second-largest bank in the
United States. [GN]

BENJAMIN RESTAURANT: Berisha Sues Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Adriatik Berisha, and Walter Mendez, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. BENJAMIN RESTAURANT GROUP LLC, B & B
RESTAURANT GROUP LLC d/b/a BENJAMIN PRIME, A & B RESTAURANT GROUP
LLC d/b/a BENJAMIN STEAKHOUSE 41ST STREET, SSAP LLC d/b/a BENJAMIN
STEAKHOUSE WESTCHESTER, AP & SS RESTAURANT GROUP LLC d/b/a SEA FIRE
GRILL, BENJAMIN'S AT HOME LLC, ALBAN PRELVUKAJ a/k/a BENJAMIN
PRELVUKAJ, SHABAN SINANAJ a/k/a BENJAMIN SINANAJ, and ABNESHE
SINANAJ, Case No. 1:24-cv-03202 (S.D.N.Y., April 26, 2024), is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the
New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), seeking from the Defendants: unpaid
minimum wage due to invalid tip credit, unpaid overtime wages due
to off-the-clock work, unpaid regular and overtime wages due to
time-shaving, unpaid spread-of-hours pay, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Throughout their employment with Defendants, Plaintiffs and all
other non-managerial employees at the Benjamin Restaurants,
including all front-of-the-house and back-of- the-house workers,
worked similar hours regularly exceeding 40 hours per week, i.e.,
between 42 and 60 hours per week, every week. Throughout their
employment with Defendants, Plaintiffs and all other non-managerial
employees at the Benjamin Restaurants, including all
front-of-the-house and back-of-the-house workers, were paid on an
hourly basis. Moreover, throughout their employment with
Defendants, when Plaintiffs received their paycheck and paystubs
each pay period, Plaintiffs noticed that the work hours on the
paystubs were substantially less than the time they worked while on
the clock. The Defendants' company-wide policies regarding
off-the-clock work and time-shaving resulted in Plaintiffs and all
other hourly workers at the Benjamin Restaurants not getting paid
any overtime wages or being paid significantly less overtime wages
than due every week, despite actually working well beyond 40 hours
per week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants.

The Defendants founded, owned and operated an enterprise under the
name "Benjamin Restaurant Group," including 4 restaurants in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Angela Kwon, Esq.
          BROWN KWON & LAM LLP
          521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10175
          Phone: (212) 295-5828
          Fax: (718) 795-1642
          Email: akwon@bkllawyers.com


BGC GROUP INC: Faces Seigel Shareholder Suit in Delaware Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
BGC Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in April 26, 2024, that an alleged company
shareholder, Martin J. Siegel, filed a putative class action
lawsuit against Cantor Fitzgerald, LP and Howard W. Lutnick in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, asserting that the Corporate Conversion
was unfair to Class A shareholders of BGC Partners, Inc. because it
increased percentage voting control of stockholder Cantor
Fitzgerald, L.P. over the company. The suit is captioned "Martin J.
Siegel v. Cantor Fitzgerald, LP, C.A., 2024-0146-LWW."

BGC Group, Inc., holding company for and successor to BGC Partners,
Inc., its wholly owned subsidiary, and operates a global brokerage
and financial technology company servicing the global financial
markets through brands including BGC(R), Fenics(R), GFI(R), Sunrise
Brokers(TM), Poten & Partners(R) and RP Martin(R), among others.
The company's businesses specialize in the brokerage of a broad
range of products, including fixed income such as government bonds,
corporate bonds, and other debt instruments, as well as related
interest rate derivatives and credit derivatives. Additionally, the
company provides brokerage products across FX, equities, energy and
commodities, shipping, and futures and options.


BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2024, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in  April 26, 2024, that the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of a purported securities class action
lawsuit.

On October 22, 2021, said case was filed against the company, its
prior Chief Executive Officer, its current and prior Chief
Financial Officers, and President of its Worldwide Research &
Development in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, alleging violations under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that the company made materially false or
misleading statements regarding the drug "BMN 307" by purportedly
failing to disclose information about its safety profile, and by
purportedly overstating BMN 307's clinical and commercial
prospects. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, expert
fees, and other costs. The court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel on January 10, 2022. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on March 25, 2022.

BioMarin filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 25,
2022. On January 19, 2023, the court granted its motion to dismiss
the complaint without prejudice. On February 21, 2023, the court
dismissed the complaint with prejudice at plaintiffs' request.
Plaintiffs appealed the court's January 19, 2023 order to the
United State Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and filed their
opening brief on June 23, 2023. The company filed its answering
brief on August 23, 2023 while plaintiffs filed their reply brief
on October 13, 2023.

BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. is a global biotechnology company that
develops and commercializes targeted therapies that address the
root cause of genetic conditions. Its commercial portfolio includes
ROCTAVIAN, which was granted marketing approval in the United
States on June 29, 2023 and conditional marketing approval in the
European Union on August 24, 2022.


BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Stockholder Suit in D. Del.
----------------------------------------------------------
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2024, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in  April 26, 2024, that a
purported stockholder class action was filed against the company
and its Board of Directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

The complaint also named as defendants Elliott Investment
Management L.P., Elliott Associates, L.P., and Elliott
International, L.P., which are parties to the Cooperation Agreement
with the company. The complaint asserted a claim for declaratory
judgment, seeking an order that certain provisions of the
Cooperation Agreement are invalid, and, on April 4, 2024, the
plaintiff moved for expedited proceedings as to the claim for
declaratory judgment. In addition, the complaint asserted a claim
for breach of fiduciary duty against certain directors in
connection with approval of a "Cooperation Agreement," as well as a
claim against the Elliott parties for aiding and abetting the
directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

On April 11, 2024, the Elliott parties executed a waiver of the
challenged provisions in the Cooperation Agreement. In light of
that waiver, on April 16, 2024, the plaintiff filed a stipulation
and proposed order to dismiss the action as moot, with the court to
retain jurisdiction to determine plaintiff's counsel’s
application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Also on
April 16, 2024, the court granted the order, dismissing all claims
with prejudice, as to the named plaintiff only.

BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. is a global biotechnology company that
develops and commercializes targeted therapies that address the
root cause of genetic conditions. Its commercial portfolio includes
ROCTAVIAN, which was granted marketing approval in the United
States on June 29, 2023 and conditional marketing approval in the
European Union on August 24, 2022.


BNP MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kim Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
YEON HEE KIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BNP MANAGEMENT LLC dba WOORI MART; and JASON
PARK, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05443 (D.N.J., April 22, 2024)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Kim was employed by the Defendants as a kitchen worker.

BNP MANAGEMENT LLC dba WOORI MART is engaged in the Korean Grocery
Store in New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
          Ryan Kim Law, P.C.
          222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490
          Fort Lee, NJ 07024
          Tel: (201) 897-8787
          Email: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com

BOLT LAUNDRY SERVICE: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bolt Laundry Service,
LLC. The case is styled as Charity Danso, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Bolt Laundry Service, LLC, Case
No. 1:24-cv-03157-JPC (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024).

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

Bolt Laundry Service -- https://boltlaundry.com/ -- was founded to
create an alternative to typical laundry and dry cleaning
experience.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com


BOYNE USA: Boyne's Bid for Protective Order Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE ANDERSON, as
trustee for the LAWRENCE T. ANDERSON AND SUZANNE M. ANDERSON JOINT
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST; ROBERT AND NORA ERHART; and TJARDA CLAGETT,
v. BOYNE USA, INC.; BOYNE PROPERTIES, INC.; and SUMMIT HOTEL, LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00095-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris
entered an order granting in part, and denying in part Boyne's
motion for a Protective Order as follows:

   1. The Court grants Boyne's request for a protective order as to

      Topic 1 in the Plaintiffs' 30(b)(6) notice except that the
      Plaintiffs may inquire as to subtopics "c" and "f" of Topic
1.

   2. The Court grants Boyne's request for a protective order as to

      all of Topic 7 and all of Topic 10 in the Plaintiffs'
30(b)(6)
      notice.

   3. The Court denies Boyne's request for a protective order as to

      the remaining topics set forth in the Plaintiffs' 30(b)(6)
      notice.

   4. The Plaintiffs' supplemental 30(b)(6) deposition shall last
no
      longer than eight (8) hours in duration.

   5. Boyne's request to reopen the depositions of the Plaintiffs
is
      denied.

The Court finds that good cause exists to grant a protective order
as to part of Topic 1, all of Topic 7, and all of Topic 10 of
Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) notice.

The Plaintiffs may otherwise commence a deposition on the topics
set forth in the Plaintiffs' notice. This deposition shall be
limited to eight hours in length. The Court will not permit Boyne
to reopen the depositions of Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs and Boyne have been in a long-standing discovery
dispute. The Plaintiffs took issue with Boyne's disclosure of its
point-of-sale (POS) data. The Court attempted to resolve this
dispute informally with a telephone conference on October 11,
2023.

Boyne owns and operates Big Sky Resort, as well as three
condominium-hotels at the base of Big Sky known as the Summit,
Shoshone, and Village Center.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JiA83u at no extra
charge.[CC]



BRIDENT DENTAL: Court Enforces Unsigned Arbitration Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, writing for National Law Review, reports that
TCPA defendants looking to enforce arbitration provisions have been
on a roll as of late.

Not long ago cases like Gamble and Berman left companies wondering
if TCPA claims were subject to arbitration and whether online forms
could get it done, but the last few courts to look at the issue
have enforced arbitration agreements straightaway.

In the latest case the Defendant didn't even sign the agreement and
the court enforced it anyway!

In Bradford v. Briden, 2024 WL 1839458 (S.D. Tex. April 26, 2024)
the Defendant moved to compel arbitration arguing an arbitration
clause in a dental services agreement required Plaintiff to pursue
his TCPA claim in arbitration.

Lots of interesting issues with the case -- which included a
physical arbitration provision in a new patient package -- but the
most interesting issue is that while the Plaintiff signed the
agreement, Briden dental did not. Nonetheless the Court found the
agreement enforceable:

Under Texas law, when a party's signature is missing, that party's
conduct reflecting action in accord with the contract's terms
evidences assent. It is undisputed that Brident prepared the
Arbitration Agreement on its letterhead, and presented it to
Bradford for him to sign voluntarily, as it does for every patient
visiting a Brident dental office for the first time or for the
first time in over a year. Brident kept Bradford's signed agreement
in his file, and then sought to enforce the agreement against
Bradford upon the filing of this suit. Texas courts have found that
these actions evidence a business' intent to be bound even when the
business has not signed an arbitration agreement.

Because there is no language in the Arbitration Agreement from
which the court can conclude that the parties intended to require
signatures of both parties to create a binding contract, and
because Bradford fails to offer evidence that the parties intended
the arbitration agreement to be binding only after both parties had
signed it, the court concludes that there was a valid arbitration
agreement between Bradford and Brident.

So there you go.

Arbitration compelled and TCPA class action dismissed even where
agreement wasn't signed by the business. Pretty interesting, no?

Obviously this could have gone the other way -- real highwire act
here by the dental folks, wouldn't advise handling your contracts
this way. SIGN THEM! (free tip. hahahah) [GN]

BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: Consentino Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Elisa Consentino, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BRIDGESTONE RETAIL OPERATIONS, LLC
d/b/a FIRESTONE COMPLETE AUTO CARE, Case No. 2024-003753-Div.9 was
removed from the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and
for Broward County, Florida, to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida on April 26, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-60703-DSL.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of individuals consisting
of "All persons in the State of Florida who purchased one or more
tires from Defendant who were charged for 'Road Hazard Protection'
and the other items identified above".[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lee Teichner, Esq.
          Sydney Alexander, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305.374.8500
          Fax: 305.789.7799
          Email: Lee.teichner@hklaw.com
                 sydney.alexander@hklaw.com

               - and -

          Philip E. Rothschild, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          515 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-525-1000
          Email: Phil.rothschild@hklaw.com


BULGARI CORP: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
SILVIA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BULGARI CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-03106-JAM (E.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.bulgari.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

BULGARI CORPORATION OF AMERICA retails jewelry. The Company offers
custom made jewelry, leather goods, gifts, rings, necklaces,
bracelets, gemstones, diamonds, and other accessories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

BYTEDANCE INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Sept. 23
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REECE YOUNG, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BYTEDANCE INC.
and TIKTOK INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01883-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order extending case schedule as
modified:

               Event                    Current         Parties'
                                        Deadlines       Proposed
                                                        Modified
                                                        Deadlines

  Deadline to complete fact          April 30, 2024    July 29,
2024
  Discovery:  

  Deadline for Plaintiff's expert    June 24, 2024     Sept. 23,
2024
  Reports:

  Motion for Class Certification:    June 24, 2024     Sept. 23,
2024

  Opposition to Motion for Class     July 29, 2024     Oct. 28,
2024
  Certification (including any
  Daubert motion to Plaintiffs'
  experts offered in support of
  class certification)3

  Deadline to complete expert        Aug. 19, 2024     Nov. 18,
2024
  Discovery:

  Defendants' opposition to          Aug. 27, 2024     Nov. 25,
2024
  any Daubert motion filed by
  Plaintiff

  Hearing on Motion for Class        Sep. 5, 2024, or  Dec. 19,
2024
  Certification:                     such later time
                                     as may be
                                     convenient for
                                     the Court

  Further Case Management            Sept. 27, 2024,   Jan. 10,
2025,
  Conference:                        or three weeks    or three
weeks
                                     following the     following
the  
                                     hearing on any    hearing on
any
                                     motion for        motion for
                                     class             class
                                     certification    
certification

On April 3, 2024, the Parties met and conferred and agreed that
good cause exists to continue the deadline to complete fact
discovery and all deadlines thereafter by 90 days to allow the
Parties time to complete document production and related
depositions, and complete additional non-party discovery, and to
complete their meet-and-confers in the hopes of either resolving
their disagreements or if necessary, raising these issues to the
Court at the appropriate time.

ByteDance is a technology company operating a range of content
platforms.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v13eJV at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          STEVEN WILLIAMS LAW, P.C.
          201 Spear Street Suite 110
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 697-1509

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jesse A. Cripps, Esq.
          Lauren M. Blas, Esq.
          Leonora Cohen, Esq.
          Viola H. Li, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
          E-mail: JCripps@gibsondunn.com
                  LBlas@gibsondunn.com
                  LCohen@gibsondunn.com
                  VHLi@gibsondunn.com

CABLE NEWS NETWORK: Lesh Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Carol Lesh, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Cable News Network, Inc. (CNN), Case
No. 3:24-cv-01320 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on April 24, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-03132-VM to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Cable News Network (CNN) -- https://edition.cnn.com/ -- is a
multinational news channel and website headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Emily Ayres Horne, Esq.
          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
          1990 N California Blvd., Ste 900
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Email: ehorne@bursor.com
                 ltfisher@bursor.com

               - and -

          Alec Mitchell Leslie, Esq.
          Max Stuart Roberts, Esq.
          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
          1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Email: aleslie@bursor.com
                 mroberts@bursor.com
                 ykopel@bursor.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David R. Singh, Esq.
          Amy Tu Quyen Le, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          201 Redwood Shores Parkway, 6th Floor
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1134
          Phone: (650) 802-3000
          Facsimile: (650) 802-3100
          Email: david.singh@weil.com
                 amy.le@weil.com

               - and -

          David L. Yohai, Esq.
          Blake J. Steinberg, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Phone: (212) 310-8000
          Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
          Email: david.yohai@weil.com
                 blake.steinberg@weil.com


CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: M&A Investigates Merger With Aera Energy
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Malaysian Reserve reports that Monteverde & Associates PC (the
"M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered money for shareholders and
is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities
Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire
State Building in New York City and is investigating California
Resources Corporation (NYSE: CRC), relating to its proposed merger
with Aera Energy, LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, CRC will
issue 21.2 million shares of its common stock to the equity owners
of Aera, and refinance Aera's outstanding debt, with CRC
shareholders owning approximately 77.1% of the combined company.

Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/california-resources-corporation/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

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

     1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
     2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
     3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?

About Monteverde & Associates PC

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

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

Contact:

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

CANVA US INC: Brown Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CANVA US INC. case is
styled as Radames Brown, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. CANVA US INC, Case No. 2024-11440-CIDL (Fla.
Cir. Ct., Volusia Cty., April 26, 2024).

The case type is stated as "Other Negligence - Civil."

Canva -- https://www.canva.com/ -- is a free-to-use online graphic
design tool.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
          110 SE 6th Street
          Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301


CARGILL INC: Aaron Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cargill, Inc. The
case is styled as Keenan Aaron, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Cargill, Inc. doing business as Cargill
Animal Nutrition, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0004918 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 23, 2024).

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

Cargill, Incorporated -- https://www.cargill.com/ -- is an American
global food corporation based in Minnetonka, Minnesota, and
incorporated in Wilmington, Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92318
          Phone: (949) 387-7200
          Fax: (949) 387-6676
          Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com


CARO HOME LLC: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caro Home, LLC. The
case is styled as Charity Danso, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Caro Home, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-03164-ALC (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024).

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

Caro Home -- https://www.carohome.com/ -- is dealing with lifestyle
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com


CASA NOVA: Ochoa Suit Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS OCHOA, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CASA NOVA LED LLC,
d/b/a CASA NOVA GRILL, BRAZILIAN BARBECUE CASA NOVA III INC. d/b/a
CASA NOVA ADAMS, SPAIN INN INC. d/b/a SPAIN INN II, and JOSE
MOREIRA, individually, Case No. 2:24-cv-01062-CCC-CLW (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiff moves the Court for the following relief in this Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collection action:

   1. Conditional certification of the FLSA claim as a
representative
      collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);

   2. Court-facilitated notice of this FLSA action to covered
      employees; including a consent form (or opt-in form) as
      authorized by the FLSA;

   3. Approval of the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the
      consent form;

   4. Production of names, last known mailing address, alternate
      address, telephone and dates of employment of all covered
      employees; and

   5. Posting of the Notice, along with consent forms, in
conspicuous
      locations of Casa Nova Grill, Casa Nova Adams and Spain Inn
II.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 3, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D6mJmT at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          250 Broadway, Suite 600
          New York, NY 10007
          E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com

CAUDALIE USA: Watson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Mobile App
------------------------------------------------------------
James Watson, and other similarly situated individuals v. CAUDALIE
USA, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-21622-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 26, 2024),
is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses and costs, under Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") for blind-inaccessible mobile
app.

The Plaintiff uses the internet and a mobile device to help him
navigate a world of goods, products and services like the sighted.
The internet, websites and mobile applications provide him with a
window into the world that he would not otherwise have. He sues
Defendant for offering and maintaining a mobile website (software
that is intended to run on mobile devices such as phones or tablet
computers) that is not fully accessible and independently usable by
visually impaired consumers, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is legally blind, and substantially limited in
performing one or more major life activities, including, but not
limited to, seeing, accurately visualizing his world, and
adequately traversing obstacles.

Caudalie USA, Inc, is the owner and operator of a chain of retail
stores and spas under the brand name "Caudalie."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.
          J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC.
          8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201
          Miami, FL 33156
          Phone: 305-351-2014
          Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com
                 legal@cunninghampllc.com


CENTENNIAL BANK: Gomez Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
---------------------------------------------------------
Obed Gomez, Jr., Moses A. Gallens, and Jeannie Melillo, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Centennial Bank
d/b/a Happy State Bank, Case No. 4:24-cv-00358-BRW (E.D. Ark.,
April 23, 2024), is brought arising out of the recent data breach
("Data Breach") involving the Defendant including checking
accounts, savings accounts, home loans, and personal loans and is
brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected
and maintained as part of its regular business practices.

Former and current Happy State customers are required to entrust
Defendant with sensitive, non-public PII, without which Defendant
could not perform their regular business activities, in order to
obtain financial services at Happy State. Defendant retains this
information for at least many years and even after the consumer
relationship has ended.

By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion. In April 2024,
Defendant began sending Plaintiffs and Class Members notice letters
informing them that Defendant suffered a Data Breach that exposed
their personally identifiable information in approximately April
2023. The Defendant's failure to secure the PII of its current and
former customers is particularly egregious as Defendant had only
recently experienced a data breach in July of 2022 about which it
informed the over 17,000 victims of the breach that their personal
information had been compromised in March Of 2023.

Despite the foreseeability of another cyber-attack, Defendant
failed to adequately protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members
PIT—and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive
information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due
to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and
their utter failure to protect customers' sensitive data. Hackers
targeted and obtained Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII because of
its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiffs
and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of
the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are current and former Happy State customers.

Centennial Bank doing business as Happy State Bank is a bank that
offers financial services to its customers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          JENNINGS PLLC
          PO Box 25972
          Little Rock, AR 72221
          Phone: 501-247-6267
          Email: chris@jenningspllc.com

               - and -

          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Phone: (916) 239-4778
          Fax: (916) 924-1829
          Email: aberry@iustice4you com
                 gharoutunian@iustice4you com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe St., Ste. 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com


CENTENNIAL BANK: Hughes Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centennial Bank. The
case is styled as Karen Hughes, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Centennial Bank doing business as:
Happy State Bank, Case No. 4:24-cv-00392-JM (E.D. Ark., May 2,
2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Declaratory
Judgement.

Centennial Bank is a customer focused bank that provides a broad
range of commercial and retail banking and related financial
services to businesses, investors, individuals and
municipalities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          JENNINGS PLLC
          Post Office Box 25972
          Little Rock, AR 72221
          Phone: (501) 247-6267
          Email: chris@jenningspllc.com

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, Fl 33301
          Phone: (954) 525-4100


CENTENNIAL BANK: Whitlock Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centennial Bank. The
case is styled as Sharon Whitlock, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Centennial Bank doing business as:
Happy State Bank, Case No. 4:24-cv-00369-BRW (E.D. Ark., April 26,
2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Declaratory
Judgement.

Centennial Bank is a customer focused bank that provides a broad
range of commercial and retail banking and related financial
services to businesses, investors, individuals and
municipalities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-7300
          Fax: (612) 336-2940
          Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
                 pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          JENNINGS PLLC
          Post Office Box 25972
          Little Rock, AR 72221
          Phone: (501) 247-6267
          Email: chris@jenningspllc.com


CEPHEID: Love Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cepheid. The case is
styled as Sandra Love, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Cepheid,
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0005118 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin
Cty., April 26, 2024).

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

Cepheid -- https://www.cepheid.com/en-US.html -- is an American
molecular diagnostics company that is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Danaher Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Otkupman, Esq.
          OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC
          28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015
          Phone: (818) 293-5623
          Fax: (888) 850-1310
          Email: roman@OLFLA.com


CHAKLADER PROPERTIES: Faces Pardo Suit Over ADA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHAKLADER PROPERTIES, INC.;
and CHAKLADER FAMILY INC d/b/a QUIK WAY, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-21575-JB (S.D. Fla., April 24, 2024) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' commercial property at
Homestead, Florida, is not accessible to mobility-impaired
individuals, in violation of ADA.

CHAKLADER PROPERTIES, INC., owns, operates, and oversees the
commercial properties in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beverly Virues, Esq.
          Armando Mejias, Esq.
          GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
          350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
          Coral Gables, Fl 33134
          Telephone: (305) 553-3464
          Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
                 amejias@lawgmp.com

               - and -

          Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
          5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
          Miami, FL, 33155
          Telephone: (305) 350-3103
          Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com

CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Pivot Point Sues Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Pivot Point Counseling, LLC, on behalf of itsself and all others
similarly situated v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., UNITEDHEALTH GROUP
INCORPORATED, UNITEDHEALTHCARE INC., and OPTUM, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-01204 (D. Md., April 24, 2024), is brought on behalf of
businesses who have suffered tremendous disruptions to their core
operations as a result of Defendants' network being offline and for
violations of negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
contract, breach of implied contract, and unjust
enrichment/quasi-contract.

The Defendants' insurance and payment processing network was taken
offline in response to a major hacking attack by ALPHV/Blackcat on
February 21, 2024 (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach has affected
countless millions of individuals across the country, and hundreds
of thousands of businesses. At this time, it is unknown how many
individuals' data has been compromised. Issues related to the Data
Breach are ongoing.

The Plaintiff relies upon Defendants' processing network for core
business functions. As a result of the outage, Plaintiff has been
unable to receive insurance reimbursements, has suffered employee
resignations, and has spent dozens of hours attempting to alleviate
the situation. Change Healthcare Inc. and associated entities, as
medical industry experts, knew and should have known how to prevent
a common cyberattack. If Plaintiff knew Defendants' network was
unreliable and open to cyberattacks, Plaintiff would have
contracted with other companies for these services, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a counseling and mental health practice.

Change Healthcare Inc. provides revenue and payment management
services for the healthcare industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO AND RATHOD LLP
          412 H. St. NE, Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Phone: (202) 470-3520
          Fax: (202) 800-2730
          Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                 jrathod@classlawdc.com

               - and –

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          Joseph E. Nelson, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 333-8844
          Fax: (612) 339-6622
          Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                 dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
                 jnelson@gustafsongluek.com


CHARIX LLC: Riley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------
Amanie Riley, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, v. Charix, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03437 (S.D.N.Y., May 3,
2024), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons.

The Defendant is denying blind and visually unpaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Charix provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.charixshoes.com (hereinafter "Charixshoes.com" or "the
website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered,
and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(the "ADA').

Charixshoes.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Charix. Yet,
Charixshoes.com contains significant access barriers that make it
difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it
for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a
transaction on the website. Thus, Charix excludes the blind and
visually-impaired from the frill and equal participation in the
growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of
the common marketplace and daily living. In the wave of
technological advances m recent years, assistive conV11ter
technology is becoming an increasingly prominent of everyday life,
allowing blind and visually-impaired persons to fully and
independently access a variety of services, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.

The Defendant operates the Aire online retail store as well as the
Aire website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of
New York and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
          Hicksville, NY 11801
          Phone: +1 929-324-0717
          Fax: +1 929-333-7774
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


CHEWY INC: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------
Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Chewy Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-01490 (D. Minn.,
April 23, 2024), is brought arising because the Defendant's Website
(www.chewy.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who
are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general
non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and
auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and the Minnesota Human Rights Act
("MHRA").

The Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class are blind and
low-vision individuals and are reliant upon screen reader
technology to navigate the Internet. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiffs
found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that
deny screen-reader users like Plaintiffs full and equal access to
important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its
sighted Website users. For example: The Website does not provide
sufficient screen reader accessible text equivalent for important
non-text image(s); Defendant's Website fails to alert screen
readers to pop-up window content. Instead, screen readers remain
focused on the content of the Website's underlying page. As a
result, pop-up content Defendant deems sufficiently important to
convey to its sighted Website visitors is completely unavailable to
screen reader users; and Defendant's Website fails to provide
information in a logical, sequential order.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others who are
similarly situated, seek relief including an injunction requiring
Defendant to make its Website accessible to Plaintiffs and the
putative class; and requiring Defendant to adopt sufficient
policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that Defendant's
Website remains accessible in the future. Plaintiffs also seek an
award of statutory attorney's fees and costs, damages, a damages
multiplier, a civil penalty, and such other relief as the Court
deems just, equitable, and appropriate, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are and have been legally blind and are therefore
disabled under the ADA.

The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          Jason Gustafson, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
          80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (763) 515-6110
          Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
                 jason@throndsetlaw.com


CHICAGO PUBLIC: Faces Class Suit Over Secret Religious Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dylan Sharkey of Illinois Policy reports that Chicago Public
Schools is facing a class-action lawsuit from former students about
allegedly being pressured into meditation and "Hindu practices"
they were told to keep secret from parents.

Kayla Hudgins, a former CPS student, is one of the plaintiffs
alleging her constitutional rights were violated. Hudgins said her
teachers pressured her to participate in transcendental meditation
as part of a "quiet time" curriculum. Hudgins on one occasion said
she didn't want to participate and was sent to the dean's office.

After quiet time, students were pressured to sign nondisclosure
agreements to not tell their parents when they got home from
school. Students were told if they didn't sign the agreement it
would affect their grades.

"Additionally, I, like many of my classmates, signed a
nondisclosure not to tell anyone, including our parents, about the
program," Hudgins said. "My classmates and I were particularly
warned by a David Lynch Foundation representative not to tell our
parents if our parents were 'religious.'"

A federal judge on April 19 certified the case as a class-action
lawsuit. The law firm handling the case, Mauck and Baker, in
November 2023 won a $150,000 settlement for another student forced
to participate in the program or face being booted from her high
school basketball team.

The Chicago Teachers Union's new list of demands would give
teachers more authority to teach what they want, force beliefs on
students and keep parents in the dark. CTU has also demanded
teachers keep student pronouns a secret from parents.

CTU's current contract ends June 30. They have a list of demands
filling a 142-page document, ranging from social and environmental
justice issues to raises averaging $51,000. [GN]

CHICOS FAS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Dalton Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE  DALTON, individually  and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHICOS FAS INC., d/b/a Chicos, Defendant,
Case No. 0:24-cv-01507-DSD-ECW (D. Minn., April 25, 2024) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.chicos.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

CHICO'S FAS, INC. sells private label women's casual clothing and
related accessories. The Company's clothing includes tops, pants,
shorts, skirts, and dresses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          Jason Gustafson, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
          80 South 8 th Street, Suite 900
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (763) 515-6110
          Email: Chad@throndsetlaw.com
                 pat@throndsetlaw.com
                 jason@throndsetlaw.com

CHILDREN'S PLACE: Plaintiffs' Counsel Awarded $246K in Attys' Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONICA RAEL and ALYSSA
HEDRICK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. THE CHILDREN'S PLACE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-00370-GPC-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Gonzalo Curiel entered an order granting in part
Plaintiffs' renewed motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and
incentive Awards, holding that and $50,017 in costs.

The Plaintiffs' counsel are entitled to $246,555.24 in attorneys'
fees, while the Plaintiffs are entitled to $2,500 incentive awards
each.

The Defendant must pay Class Counsel and the Named Plaintiffs no
later than ten calendar days after the Final Settlement Date, as
defined in the settlement agreement, and upon receipt of relevant
Form W-9, as set forth in sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the settlement
agreement.

The Parties shall confer and file a status report within 60 days of
the date of this order, informing the Court of a voucher
distribution plan which accounts for the reduction in attorneys'
fees and costs.

In 2016, the Plaintiffs sued the Defendant in this class action for
falsely advertising that their items were discounted when they were
not.

On March 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs renewed their motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards, requesting $400,000
in attorneys' fees and costs, substantially less than the
$1,080,000 they requested in their first motion for attorneys'
fees.

The Defendant is a brick-and-mortar and online retailer of
children's clothing and accessories.

A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fRW7HU at no extra
charge.[CC]

CHUNG LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Li Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
JIANXIN LI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHUNG LLC d/b/a Chung's Barber Shop; and
STANLEY CHUNG, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00025-RSB-JCH (W. Va.,
April 23, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Li was employed by the Defendant as a barber.

CHUNG LLC operates barber shops in Charlottesville, Virginia, under
the name Chung's Barber Shop. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
          TROU LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 110
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Tel: (718) 762-1324
          Email: troylaw@troypllc.com

CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Judson Suit Removed to District of Utah
---------------------------------------------------------------
GENE JUDSON; and MICHELLE JUDSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CORPORATION OF THE
PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS; and
ENSIGN PEAK ADVISERS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00796
(C.D. Cal., Jan. 29, 2024), was removed from multi-district
litigation proceeding panel, MDL No. 3102 on April 22, 2024,
transferring the case to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Utah, and assisgned Case No. 2:24-cv-00296-RJS-DAO.

The case is assigned to Judge Robert J. Shelby.

CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF
LATTER-DAY SAINTS is a religious corporation that exists to conduct
temporal and legal affairs on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints, an unincorporated religious association.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David B. Jonelis, Esq.
          LAVELY & SINGER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2906
          Telephone: (310) 556-3501
          Email: djonelis@lavelysinger.com

               - and -

          Todd S. Eagan, Esq.
          EAGAN LAW CORPORATION
          401 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 304-3302
          Email: teagan@eaganlawcorp.com

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Hybrid, Virtual Move Fends Off Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood of Fox News reports that Columbia University may have
fended off the threat of class action lawsuits this week when it
announced classes have shifted to virtual or hybrid amid ongoing
safety concerns stemming from anti-Israel protests, according to a
former law professor at the embattled school.

Attorney Danny Karon, who used to teach at Columbia Law School and
specializes in class action suits, felt Jewish students might have
had a case earlier this week. Rabbi Elie Buechler advised them to
leave campus and go home as anti-Israel agitators made it unsafe.
The university's policies insist it is committed to providing
learning, living and working environments free from harassment. But
then new guidelines said all courses on Columbia's main campus
moved to hybrid learning "until the end of each school's Spring
2024 semester" in an effort to keep students safe.

"I don't think it was pretextual, I think Columbia did the right
thing to preserve the safety of its kids. But with that unwittingly
came a real good class defense," Karon told Fox News Digital.

"It would have been easier for the Jewish kids, or even Arab kids
who feel harassed, or anyone else who felt harassed to have a class
[action case] if the school didn't lump everybody else in with
them," he continued. "Because then you would know that everybody
who was at home studying was there because they felt harassed, and
there'd be no question as to whether they felt aggrieved. They did.
How do you know? Because they left campus. That is a definable
class."

Karon spent 13 years as the chair of the American Bar Association
National Institute on Class Actions. Now that everyone was sent
home from Columbia, he said it's essentially impossible to know who
felt harassed and wanted to flee, as opposed to students who
weren't impacted or are "perfectly fine" with remote learning
either way.

"Now that the school has made it a school-wide approach that might
unwittingly, unknowing to the school, have been enough to scuttle
the possibility of a class action. Or maybe a resourceful
plaintiffs' lawyer, if retained by the right, perhaps harassed
Jewish Arab students, could claim a class of just harassed
students. How they would demonstrate who those were could be a
challenge," Karon said.

"Might it be a definable class and ascertainable class, as we call
it? Possibly. But this step isn't easy. If it were easy, everybody
would do it. And these class actions are necessarily difficult, and
it's necessarily tough to show that cohesiveness among a group of
folks who then necessarily has people who feel different ways," he
continued. "And that's, I think, what we're seeing in some respects
here in a way that didn't exist before the school invoked this new
policy."

Karon, who taught at Columbia Law School in 2018-2019 and has also
taught class-action litigation at the University of Michigan Law
School and The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, loved
his time at the Manhattan-based Ivy League school and is stunned by
recent events.

"I never saw antisemitism anywhere. I saw inclusiveness and
cooperativeness. And, it was just a great vibe. I never saw any of
this. It's really sad that now it's sweeping the campus," he said.


"I would walk through campus and it was so serene and so wonderful
and such a great image, and now it's just peppered with all this
negativity and sadness and tumult in a way that the school can't
get a handle on," Karon continued. "I think it's really sad what's
happening."

The new guidance came amid days of protests at Columbia, where
anti-Israel agitators initially formed an encampment -- setting up
tents and refusing to leave -- on the campus. The protesters have
marched in and around the campus demanding the school lose
affiliations with groups that support Israel amid its war with
Hamas in Gaza, which has resulted in tens of thousands of civilian
deaths.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., suggested Wednesday, April 24,
that the National Guard should be called in to quell the Gaza
cease-fire protests at Columbia University if they don't peter out
themselves.

Columbia University President Dr. Nemat "Minouche" Shafik
previously said in a statement that she was "deeply saddened" by
certain actions of the agitators and called for a "reset."

"I am deeply saddened by what is happening on our campus," Shafik
wrote. "Our bonds as a community have been severely tested in ways
that will take a great deal of time and effort to reaffirm.
Students across an array of communities have conveyed fears for
their safety and we have announced additional actions we are taking
to address security concerns. The decibel of our disagreements has
only increased in recent days. These tensions have been exploited
and amplified by individuals who are not affiliated with Columbia
who have come to campus to pursue their own agendas." [GN]

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Jewish Student Sues Over Campus Safety
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Sarisohn of The Jerusalem Post reports that a class action
lawsuit against Columbia University was was filed in federal court
on Monday morning, April 29, on behalf of a second-year Jewish
student who alleges the school could not guarantee the safety of
its Jewish students.

"We support peaceful protests but when a sliver of them invites and
engages in violence including saying all 'Zionists' (read 'Jews')
should be killed and calls for terrorists attacks on American soil,
that has no place in our country," Jay Edelson, the attorney
representing the students, said in a post on X.

According to Edelson, the lawsuit alleges Columbia needs to enforce
its policies and let students feel free to study, take finals and
otherwise be students "without worrying they will be assaulted.

"We are proceeding on a breach of contract theory and are seeking
immediate injunctive relief," Edelson wrote on X.

The lawsuit says many individuals at Columbia are exercising their
constitutionally protected right to protest and express their views
about Israel, but there's a subset of protesters who have gone
beyond engaging in free speech and have "menacing goals" including
committing acts of violence and intimidating and harassing Jewish
students and faculty members.

The lawsuit accuses the Gaza Solidarity Encampment of being the
center of "round-the-clock" harassment of Jewish students who have
been punched, shoved, spat upon, and blocked from attending classes
and moving freely about campus.

"These extreme demonstrators are not engaging in constitutionally
protected free speech. Instead, they are openly inciting violence
against Jewish students," according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges Columbia has done nothing to "curb this
outrageous behavior or meaningfully discipline those responsible."

According to the lawsuit, the "administration's inaction and
willingness to capitulate to the demands of this extremist element
of demonstrators have fanned the flames of antisemitism across
campus."

The lawsuit outlines instances in which Jewish students were
directly targeted around the encampments, such as a student wearing
a Star of David necklace being forced out of the encampment's
vicinity.

Such instances make clear the protesters are targeting students for
being Jewish, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit accuses Columbia President Minouche Shafik for
prioritizing negotiations with students in the encampment over
Jewish students who have been displaced.

"Columbia has in no uncertain terms announced that the university
is not safe for its Jewish students," the lawsuit says.

After the encampment was set up, Shafik instituted a "hybrid" model
for education for the remainder of the academic year for students
to attend class virtually if they didn't feel safe enough to do so
in person.

"This absurd shift makes no attempt to solve the safety problem on
campus, and at the same time, creates two very different
educational experiences for Jewish and non-Jewish students,"
according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit says Jewish students get a second-class education where
they are restricted to their homes to attend class virtually, and
the segregation of Jewish students is a "dangerous development"
that can escalate into more severe acts of violence.

The lawsuit says Columbia's decision to shift to an online learning
model constitutes a material breach of its contractual obligations.


Life on campus after October 7

The plaintiff, unidentified for safety reasons, is an openly Jewish
student who has experienced numerous instances of harassment and
intimidation on campus since October 7, according to the lawsuit,
though she was generally able to attend classes on campus without
issue.

However, the lawsuit says that changed after the encampment was
erected on April 18 when the level of hostility on campus escalated
dramatically, making the plaintiff fearful of harassment and
physical harm.

"Had plaintiff known that Columbia would not provide an in-person
educational environment free of harassment, plaintiff would not
have chosen to enroll at or pay tuition to Columbia," according to
the lawsuit. [GN]

COMERICA BANK: Sparkman Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Paula Sparkman, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. COMERICA BANK, a foreign corporation,
CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability
corporation, CONDUENT STATE & LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC., a foreign
corporation, Case No. 24CI-000031 was removed from the Superior
Court of California for the County of Tehama, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 26,
2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01206-DJC-DMC.

The Complaint in the State Court Action asserts the following
causes of action: breach of contract; and unfair business practices
in violation of California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          John C. Grugan, Esq.
          Ana Dragojevic, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          560 Mission Street, Suite 1900
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415.743.6963
          Email: john.grugan@hklaw.com
                 ana.dragojevic@hklaw.com

               - and -

          Jenny N. Perkins, Esq.
          Mitchell Turbenson, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2909
          Phone: 424.204.4400
          Email: perkinsj@ballardspahr.com
                 turbensonm@ballardspahr.com


COMMUNITY FORWARD SF: Bruno Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Forward SF,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Karen Bruno, an individual, on
behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated
v. Community Forward SF, Inc., Does 1-50, Inclusive, Case No.
CGC24614303 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 26, 2024).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

Community Forward SF -- https://communityforwardsf.org/ -- is a
non-profit organization that provides social services like homeless
assistance to people.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
          JCL LAW FIRM, APC
          5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600
          San Diego, CA 92121-6720
          Phone: 619-599-8292
          Fax: 619-599-8291
          Email: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
          ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
          5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600
          San Diego, CA 92121-6720
          Phone: 619-255-9047
          Fax: 858-404-9203
          Email: shani@zakaylaw.com


COMPASS MINERALS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Compass
Minerals International, Inc. ("Compass Minerals" or the "Company")
(NYSE: CMP). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
adverse information regarding the Company's business, operations,
and prospects, including allegations that:

     (1) Compass Minerals overstated the likelihood that it would
be awarded a renewed U.S. Forest Service contract for the use of
its proprietary magnesium chloride-based aerial fire retardants for
the 2024 fire season, as a result of safety issues presented by its
fire retardant; and

     (2) Compass Minerals materially overstated the extent to which
testing had confirmed that its fire retardants were safe.

If you bought Compass Minerals shares between November 29, 2023 and
March 22, 2024, and suffered a significant loss on that investment,
you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey
Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at
(888)-508-6832 or, you may visit the firm's website at
www.holzerlaw.com/case/compass-minerals-international/ to learn
more.

The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is June 24, 2024.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021 and 2022, dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content. 

CONTACT:

    Corey Holzer, Esq.
    (888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
    cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]

CORTEVA INC: Cockerill Seeks to Decertify Optional Retirement Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT F. COCKERILL,
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM NEWTON, OLIVER MAJOR, and DARRELL D. BENSON,
SR., individually and as representatives on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, v. CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT SPECIALTY
PRODUCTS USA, LLC; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; THE PENSION AND RETIREMENT PLAN; and THE BENEFIT PLANS
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Case No. 2:21-cv-03966-MMB (E.D. Pa.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to
decertify the optional retirement class.

The Defendants are separately filing a motion for the Court to stay
the sending of notice to Optional Retirement Class members pending
resolution of the Motion. The grounds for this Motion are set forth
in the Defendants' accompanying Memorandum of Law, which is
incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.

As of April 29, 2024, the Defendants have identified 843 persons
who are members of the Optional Retirement Class. Seventy-three
Class members have executed releases, including the Plaintiff
Major, and the releases are substantially similar to one another.

Corteva is a major American agricultural chemical and seed company

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 3, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZWqZL7 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nipun J. Patel, Esq.
          Cory A. Thomas, Esq.
          Todd D. Wozniak, Esq.
          Kayla Pragid, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          One Liberty Place, Suite 3300
          1650 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 252-9600
          E-mail: Nipun.Patel@hklaw.com
                  Cory.Thomas@hklaw.com
                  Todd.Wozniak@hklaw.com
                  Kayla.Pragid@hklaw.com

COSY HOUSE: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cosy House, LLC. The
case is styled as Charity Danso, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Cosy House, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-03167-JHR (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024).

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

Cosy House Collection -- https://www.cosyhousecollection.com/ --
offers a wide variety of high quality and affordable home
goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com


CROSSROADS EQUIPMENT: Bolanos Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crossroads Equipment
Lease and Finance, LLC. The case is styled as Omar Bolanos, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Crossroads
Equipment Lease and Finance, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00552-JGB-SP
(C.D. Cal., March 14, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.

Crossroads Equipment Lease & Finance -- https://www.crlease.com/ --
is your professional partner in the transportation industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Gerald Gunem, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson St., Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone: (608) 237-1775
          Fax: (608) 509-4423
          Email: andrewg@turkestrauss.com


CRUNCHYROLL LLC: MacPhee Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Kevin MacPhee, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. CRUNCHYROLL, LLC, Case No. CACE-24-005536
(Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., April 22, 2024), is
brought for violations the Florida Consumer Collection Practices
Act ("FCCPA") as a result of the Defendants unlawful debt
collection.

On a date better known by Defendant, Defendant began attempting to
collect a debt (the "Consumer Debt") from Plaintiff. The Consumer
Debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to pay money
arising from a transaction between the creditor of the Consumer
Debt, Defendant, and Plaintiff (the "Subject Service").

On February 22, 2024, Defendant sent an electronic mail
communication to Plaintiff (the "Communication"). The Communication
was a communication in connection with the collection Of the
Consumer Debt. The Communication was sent by Defendant and
delivered to Plaintiffs personal e-mail address. The Communication
advised: "Looks like your payment method isn't working. We are
having trouble collecting payment from your credit card." The
Communication was sent by Defendant to Plaintiff at 11:26 PM in
Plaintiffs time zone. The Communication was received by Plaintiff
from Defendant at 11:26 PM in Plaintiffs time zone, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the Consumer Debt.

The Defendant is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place
of business located in Culver City, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq.
          Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
          Gerald D. Labe, Jr., Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
          110 SE 6th St, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (754) 444-7539
          Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                 jen@jibraellaw.com
                 zane@jibraellaw.com
                 gerald@jibraellaw.com


CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Lehr False Advertising Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Cryo-Cell International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended February 29, 2024, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2024, that it is
facing a complaint styled "Lindsey Lehr v. Cryo-Cell International,
Inc.," Case No. 9:23-cv-80405-AMC.

Said suit was initially filed on January 6, 2023 in the Circuit
Court for Palm Beach County, Florida, under Case No.
50-2023-CA-000091, naming the company as defendant and asserting
claims on behalf of a putative class of individuals who entered
agreements with the company for umbilical cord blood storage
services since May 2018.

The complaint alleged that the company's advertising does not
accurately represent the value and efficacy of its services and
asserted claims (and sought unspecified damages) under Florida law.
On March 14, 2023, the company removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (), and
on March 21, 2023, moved to compel arbitration and stay the case.

On October 10, 2023, the court granted the company's motion to
compel arbitration and stayed the case. On October 27, 2023, the
plaintiff filed a demand for arbitration and statement of claims
with the American Arbitration Association, and on January 18, 2024,
the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claims dropping her
class action allegations against the company. On March 19, 2024,
the company filed an answering statement and counterclaim in
response to the plaintiff's claims.

Cryo-Cell International, Inc., headquartered in Oldsmar, Florida,
is into cellular processing and cryogenic cellular storage, with a
current focus on the collection and preservation of umbilical cord
blood stem cells for family use, the manufacture of PrepaCyte CB
units, the processing technology used to process umbilical cord
blood stem cells and cryogenic storage of umbilical cord blood stem
cells for public use.


CVS HEALTH: Controls Access to Prescription Drugs, Jones Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE ELAYNE JONES and MARILYN A. MANZI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CVS HEALTH
CORPORATION, f/k/a CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION, SILVERSCRIPT INSURANCE
COMPANY, LLC, CAREMARK L.L.C., f/k/a CAREMARK INC., CVS PHARMACY,
INC., and CVS CAREMARK PART D SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-01703-JMY (E.D. Pa., April 23, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act and State Consumer Protection Acts
and for conspiracy, fraud, negligence per se, or, alternatively,
negligence, and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the CVS Defendants, along with five
manufacturers of brand drug products, have implemented a fraudulent
scheme to prevent the Plaintiffs and other Medicare Part D
beneficiaries covered by SilverScript plans from accessing cheaper
generic equivalent versions of the prescription drugs Invega,
Asacol HD, Renvela packets, Renvela tablets, Harvoni, Epclusa,
Ventolin HFA, Canasa Rectal Suppository, and Advair Diskus
(together, the "Affected Drugs"). As a result of the CVS
Defendants' fraudulent scheme, the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated beneficiaries have access only to the costlier brand name
versions of the Affected Drugs and the CVS Defendants and their
co-conspirators have ensured astonishing profits for themselves at
the expense of elderly patients suffering from the life-altering
illnesses that the Affected Drugs and their generic equivalents
treat, says the suit.

CVS Health Corporation, formerly known as CVS Caremark Corporation,
is a healthcare services provider, headquartered in Woonsocket,
Rhode Island.

Silverscript Insurance Company, LLC is an insurance company based
in Knoxville, Tennessee.

Caremark L.L.C., formerly known as Caremark Inc., is a pharmacy
benefits management services provider, headquartered in Woonsocket,
Rhode Island.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. is a subsidiary of CVS Health, with a principal
place of business in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.

CVS Caremark Part D Services, LLC is a pharmacy benefit manager,
headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
         Terence S. Ziegler, Esq.
         Melissa L. Yeates, Esq.
         KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (610) 667-7706
         Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
         Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                tziegler@ktmc.com
                myeates@ktmc.com

                 - and -

         James E. Cecchi, Esq.
         Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
         Kevin Cooper, Esq.
         CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
         5 Becker Farm Road
         Roseland, NJ 07068
         Telephone: (973) 994-1700
         Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                decklund@carellabyrne.com
                kcooper@carellabyrne.com

                 - and -

         Eric L. Young, Esq.
         YOUNG LAW GROUP
         3031C Walton Road, Suite 301
         Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
         Telephone: (215) 367-5151
         Facsimile: (215) 367-5143
         Email: eyoung@young-lawgroup.com

D'ERRICO'S PLATNIUM: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SILVIA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. D'ERRICO'S PLATNIUM CORP., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-03105-AMD-LB (E.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.derricojewelry.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

D'ERRICO'S PLATNIUM CORP. operates as a jewelry shop. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

DAIKIN COMFORT: Placentia Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Melissa Placentia, individually, and on behalf
of all other members of the general public similarly situated v.
DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES MANUFACTURING, L.P.; DAIKIN COMFORT
TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTION, INC.; DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES NORTH
AMERICA, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
37-2024-00007050-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on
April 26, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00757-DMS-DEB.

On March 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served the operative First
Amended Complaint (the "FAC"), alleging individual causes of action
for: failure to pay overtime wages, meal period violations, rest
period violations, failure to pay rest period wages, paid sick
leave violations, untimely payment of wages, wage statement
violations, waiting time penalties, failure to reimburse business
expenses, failure to provide employment records, unfair
competition, and retaliation and wrongful termination.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Justin T. Curley, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-4839
          Email: jcurley@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Eric W. May, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Phone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          Email: emay@seyfarth.com


DE BEERS JEWELLERS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against De Beers Jewellers
(US), Inc. The case is styled as Silvia Martinez, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. De Beers Jewellers
(US), Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-03103-ENV-LB (E.D.N.Y., April 25,
2024).

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

De Beers -- https://www.debeers.co.uk/en-gb/home -- is known for
creating the finest diamond jewellery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com


DENIS MCDONOUGH: Powers, et al., Win Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY POWERS, et al., v.
DENIS RICHARD MCDONOUGH, in his official capacity as Secretary of
Veterans Affairs; et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-08357-DOC-KS (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge David Carter entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.

The Court certifies the Class and Subclass to pursue class claims,
appoints the Plaintiffs Powers, Sessom, Fields, Johnson, Wright,
Petitt, Stibbie, Doe 1, and National Veterans Foundation as Class
Representatives for the Proposed Class and Plaintiff Johnson as
Class
Representative for the Proposed Subclass, and appoints Public
Counsel Law Center, Inner City Law Center, Brown Goldstein & Levy,
LLP and Robins Kaplan LLP as Class Counsel for both the Proposed
Class and Subclass.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the following Class and
Subclass:

The "Class":

     "All homeless veterans with Serious Mental Illness [SMI] or
     Traumatic Brain Injuries [TBI], who reside in Los Angeles
     County."

The "Subclass":

     "All Class Members whose income (including veterans disability

     benefits) exceeds 50% of the Area Median Income."

The Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to certify class on April
1, 2024. On April 15, 2024, the Defendants filed their Opposition.
The Plaintiffs submitted their Reply on April 22, 2024. The Court
heard oral arguments on May 2, 2024.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6mzCSr at no extra
charge.[CC]

DIDI GLOBAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in New York Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DiDi Global Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 15, 2024, that it is currently facing
a consolidated case under the caption "In re Didi Global Inc.
Securities Litigation," No. 1:21-cv-05807-LAK.

Starting in July 2021, the company and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in several putative securities
class actions filed in federal court in California. These actions
alleged, in sum and substance, that the registration statement and
prospectus prepared for its June 30, 2021 initial public offering
contained material misstatements and omissions in violation of the
Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On October 12, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel and
consolidated the remaining federal actions. Lead plaintiffs in the
consolidated action filed a consolidated amended complaint on
January 7, 2022. The company moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on March 8, 2022. In response, lead plaintiffs
further amended their complaint, filing a Second Amended Complaint
on May 5, 2022.

On June 3, 2022, the company moved to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint. On March 14, 2024, the court denied the company's and
other defendants' motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

DiDi Global Inc. is a Cayman Islands holding company with
operations in China primarily through its "DiDi Dache" app to
provide online taxi services. It officially operated in June 2021
as DiDi Global Inc.


DIDI GLOBAL: Faces Securities Suit in NY Court Over IPO
-------------------------------------------------------
DiDi Global Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 15, 2024, that in December 2021, the
company and certain of its officers and directors were named as
defendants in a putative securities class action filed in state
court in New York, which similarly alleges that the registration
statement and prospectus prepared for its June 30, 2021 initial
public offering contained material misstatements and omissions in
violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

On April 22, 2022, the parties stipulated to stay the state court
action pending the outcome of motion to dismiss briefing in an
ongoing federal action. The state court action remains in its
preliminary stage.

DiDi Global Inc. is a Cayman Islands holding company with
operations in China primarily through its "DiDi Dache" app to
provide online taxi services. It officially operated in June 2021
as DiDi Global Inc.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Robertson Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL ROBERTSON, on
behalf of herself and her minor child D.R.; ELIZABETH DAGGETT, on
behalf of herself and her minor child H.D.; JOANN MCCRAY, on behalf
of herself and her minor child J.C.; VERONICA GUERRERO, on behalf
of herself and her minor child A.F., MARCIA CANNON-CLARK AND DAVID
CLARK, on behalf of themselves and their minor child B.R.C; and THE
ARC OF THE UNITED STATES, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No.
1:24-cv-00656-PLF (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order certifying a clc

District of Columbia is the capital city of the United States of
America.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 3, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aDKVs2 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kaitlin R. Banner, Esq.
          Chelsea Sullivan, Esq.
          WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR
          CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS
          700 14th Street, N.W., Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 319-1000
          E-mail: kaitlin_banner@washlaw.org
                  margaret_hart@washlaw.org
                  chelsea_sullivan@washlaw.org

                - and -

          Katherine Zeisel, Esq.
          CHILDREN'S LAW CENTER
          501 3rd St, NW, 8th Floor
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 267-4900
          E-mail: zeisel@childrenslawcenter.org

                - and -

          Margaret H. Warner, Esq.
          Eugene I. Goldman, Esq.
          Theodore E. Alexander, Esq.
          Christopher M. Shoemaker, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
          500 North Capitol Street NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 756-8400
          E-mail: mwarner@mwe.com
                  talexander@mwe.com
                  cshoemaker@mwe.com

                - and -

          Shira Wakschlag, Esq.
          Evan Monod, Esq.
          THE ARC OF THE UNITED STATES
          2000 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 534-3708
          E-mail: wakschlag@thearc.org
                  monod@thearc.org

DOMINION ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arble Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE ARBLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOMINION ENERGY SERVICES, INC. d/b/a
DOMINION ENERGY OHIO, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00747 (N.D. Ohio,
April 26, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Arble was employed by the Defendant as a staff.

DOMINION ENERGY, INC. produces and transports energy products. The
Company offers natural gas and electric energy transmission,
gathering, and storage solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Sabo Friedmann, Esq.
          Dominick A. Kocak, Esq.
          THE FRIEDMANN FIRM LLC
          3740 Ridge Mill Drive
          Hilliard, OH 43026
          Telephone: (614) 610-9756
          Facsimile: (614) 737-9812
          Email: Rachel@TFFLegal.com
                 Dominick@TFFLegal.com


DON'T RUN OUT: Starks Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Shaianne Starks, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DON'T RUN OUT, INC. d/b/a PUBLIC
GOODS, Case No. CVRI2400978 was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Riverside, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
April 25, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00895-JWH-MRW.

The Plaintiff alleges that Public Goods violated California law by,
among other things, allegedly charging consumers for subscriptions
without disclosing the subscription terms. Public Goods denies
liability, denies that plaintiff or any putative class member
suffered any damages by reason of any allegation in the complaint,
and denies that any class can or should be certified.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ari N. Rothman, Esq.
          Allison C. Nelson, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 229-9900
          Facsimile: (310) 229-9901
          Email: anrothman@venable.com
                 acnelson@venable.com


DROPBOX INC: Coulter Sues Over Preventable Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Ramsey Coulter, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated consumers v. DROPBOX, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-02637-KAW
(N.D. Cal., May 2, 2024), is brought seeking to hold Defendant
responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff in a massive and
preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected
computer network.

On April 24th 2024, hackers infiltrated and accessed the
inadequately protected computer systems of Defendant and stole the
sensitive personal information ("Personal Information" or "PII") of
thousands of individuals. The PII taken by the hackers includes:
names, addresses, emails, usernames, phone numbers, and hashed
passwords, in addition to general account settings and certain
authentication information such as API keys, OAuth tokens, and
multi-factor authentication.

In short, thanks to Defendant's failure to protect the Breach
Victims' Personal Information, cyber criminals were able to steal
everything they could possibly need to commit nearly every
conceivable form of identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial
and personal lives of potentially millions of individuals. This
includes logging in to Plaintiff's personal bank accounts, mortgage
accounts, and online storage where Plaintiff maintains sensitive
personal documents, including medical records, private photographs,
and other PII information such as social security number, date of
birth, and bank account numbers.

The Defendant's conduct--failing to implement adequate and
reasonable measures to ensure their computer systems were
protected, failing to take adequate steps to prevent and stop the
breach, failing to timely detect the breach, failing to disclose
the material facts that they did not have adequate computer systems
and security practices to safeguard the Personal Information,
failing to honor their repeated promises and representations to
protect the Breach Victims' Personal Information, caused
substantial harm and injuries to Plaintiff, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a subscriber to, and user of, Defendant's
services.

Dropbox, Inc. is a corporation that has its principal place of
business in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Sibilia, Esq.
          OCEANSIDE LAW CENTER
          P.O. Box 861
          Oceanside, CA 92049
          Phone: (760) 666-1151
          Fax: (818) 698-0300
          Email: robert@oceansidelawcenter.com


DTE ELECTRIC: Hughes Suit Seeks Call Center Agents' Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TERRANCE HUGHES and BARBREA YOUNG, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-11075-PDB-APP (E.D. Mich., April 23,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, breach of
contract, and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs Hughes and Young worked for the Defendant as a remote
customer service representative from approximately 2020 through
November of 2023 and as a customer service specialist from
approximately July 2018 through approximately November 2023,
respectively.

DTE Electric Company is an energy company based in Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
         Kathryn E. Milz, Esq.
         SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
         One Town Square, 17th Floor
         Southfield, MI 48076
         Telephone: (248) 355-0300
         Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                kmilz@sommerspc.com

                 - and -

         Jesse L. Young, Esq.
         SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
         141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
         Kalamazoo, MI 49007
         Telephone: (269) 250-7500
         Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com

EHANG HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
EHang Holdings Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 15, 2024, that the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York dismissed a consolidated
securities class action with regards to its American Depository
Shares (ADS).

A federal securities class action lawsuit captioned "Amberber v.
EHang Holdings Limited, et al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-01392-GBD
(February 17, 2021, S.D.N.Y.), was filed by purported holders of
its ADS in federal court.

The complaints asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and generally
allege that the company and certain of its officers made false and
misleading statements regarding the status of its urban air
mobility business, its international and domestic regulatory
approvals, its relationships with major customers, and its
manufacturing facilities. In addition to costs and attorneys' fees,
the complaints seek compensatory and punitive damages.

Said lawsuit was consolidated into a single class action lawsuit
under the caption "In re EHang Holdings Ltd. Securities
Litigation," 1.21-CV-01392-GBD-GWG (February 19, 2021, S.D.N.Y.),
and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were selected in February
2022. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 25,
2022, making similar allegations as those in the previous
complaints. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint in June 2022. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to
the defendants' motion to dismiss in August 2022. The defendants
filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss in September
2022.

In October 2022, the court held oral argument on defendants' motion
to dismiss and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on December 15, 2022, and entered final judgment
dismissing the action in its entirety with prejudice on January 24,
2023. Lead plaintiff did not appeal the final judgment and on
February 23, 2023, lead plaintiff's deadline to appeal expired.

EHang Holdings Limited is the holding company for Guangzhou EHang
Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd., a company based in Guangzhou,
China that develops and manufactures autonomous aerial vehicles and
passenger AAVs which have entered service in China for aerial
cinematography, photography, emergency response, and survey
missions.


EHANG HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
EHang Holdings Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 15, 2024, that the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York dismissed a consolidated
securities class action with regards to its American Depository
Shares (ADS).

A federal securities class action lawsuit captioned "Chaumont v.
EHang Holdings Limited, et al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-01526-GBD
(February 19, 2021, S.D.N.Y.) was filed by purported holders of its
ADS in federal court.

The complaints asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and generally
allege that the company and certain of its officers made false and
misleading statements regarding the status of its urban air
mobility business, its international and domestic regulatory
approvals, its relationships with major customers, and its
manufacturing facilities. In addition to costs and attorneys' fees,
the complaints seek compensatory and punitive damages.

Said lawsuit was consolidated into a single class action lawsuit
under the caption "In re EHang Holdings Ltd. Securities
Litigation," 1.21-CV-01392-GBD-GWG (February 19, 2021, S.D.N.Y.),
and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were selected in February
2022. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 25,
2022, making similar allegations as those in the previous
complaints. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint in June 2022. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to
the defendants' motion to dismiss in August 2022. The defendants
filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss in September
2022.

In October 2022, the court held oral argument on defendants' motion
to dismiss and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on December 15, 2022, and entered final judgment
dismissing the action in its entirety with prejudice on January 24,
2023. Lead plaintiff did not appeal the final judgment and on
February 23, 2023, lead plaintiff's deadline to appeal expired.

EHang Holdings Limited is the holding company for Guangzhou EHang
Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd., a company based in Guangzhou,
China that develops and manufactures autonomous aerial vehicles and
passenger AAVs which have entered service in China for aerial
cinematography, photography, emergency response, and survey
missions.


EL AZTECO INC: Scott ADA Suit Transferred to W.D. Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Bernadette Scott, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. El Azteco Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-10809 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Michigan on April 24, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00413-JMB-SJB to
the proceeding.

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

El Azteco Holding Co. -- https://elazteco.net/ -- provides chain
restaurant services. The Company offers authentic Mexican food
including tacos, burritos, quesadilla, guacamole, chicken
enchilades, and fajitas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Pete Marlin Monismith, Esq.
          PETE M. MONISMITH PA
          3945 Forbes Ave., #175
          Pittsburgh, PA 15213
          Phone: (724) 610-1881
          Email: pete@monismithlaw.com

               - and –

          Aaron Landry Davis, Esq.
          BUTZEL LONG PC (OKEMOS)
          2410 Woodlake Dr., Ste. 420
          Okemos, MI 48864
          Phone: (517) 372-6622
          Email: davisa@butzel.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aaron Landry Davis, Esq.
          Garett Lee Koger, Esq.
          BUTZEL LONG PC (OKEMOS)
          2410 Woodlake Dr., Ste. 420
          Okemos, MI 48864
          Phone: (517) 372-6622
          Email: davisa@butzel.com
                 Koger@butzel.com


EMBRY-RIDDLE: Garceau Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------
Karen A. Garceau, on behalf of the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
University DC Retirement Plan, individually and as a representative
of a class of participants and beneficiaries v. EMBRY-RIDDLE
AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY, INC., Case No. 6:24-cv-00755-PGB-LHP (M.D.
Fla., April 23, 2024), is brought for breaching its fiduciary
duties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA").

The Defendant offers a retirement plan to its employees. Eligible
faculty and staff members may elect to participate in the Plan,
which provides the primary source of retirement income for many
former employees. Plaintiff is a current Plan participants. The
Plan has over 5,000 participants and more than $500 million in
assets. Defined contribution retirement plans, like the Plan,
confer tax benefits on participating employees to incentivize
saving for retirement. According to the Investment Company
Institute, Americans held $7.9 trillion in all employer-based
defined contribution retirement plans as of March 31, 2020, of
which $5.6 trillion was held in 401(k) plans.

To safeguard Plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA imposes
strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon employers and
other plan fiduciaries. As of December 31, 2022, the Plan had
$495,777,816 in assets. Accordingly, the Plan has substantial
bargaining power regarding compensation paid to third party service
providers. However, instead of leveraging the Plan's tremendous
bargaining power to benefit Plan participants and beneficiaries,
like a prudent fiduciary would, Defendant over the relevant time
period, chose poorly performing investments, inappropriate
high-cost mutual fund share classes, and caused the Plan to pay
excessive compensation to the Plan's recordkeeper for routine
administrative services.

It is a fundamental duty of ERISA fiduciaries to select prudent
investments for retirement plans and to defray expenses for the
Plan. That is because individual plan participants cannot do this
themselves. They must rely on plan fiduciaries to do so for them
and the entire Plan. The Defendant made no meaningful attempt to
reduce the Plan's expenses or to prudently monitor and review the
Plan's investment options. Defendant employed flawed and
ineffective processes, which failed to ensure that: (a) the
compensation paid by the Plan the Plan's recordkeeper was not
excessive, and (b) that each investment option that was offered in
the Plan was prudent. Defendant's mismanagement of the Plan
constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence in violation
of the ERISA. Defendant's actions (and omissions) were contrary to
actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its
participants millions of dollars, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a current participant in the Plan.

The Defendant is a private, for-profit, nonsectarian university
with its principal place of business in Daytona Beach,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 337-7992
          Fax: (813) 229-8712
          Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
                 lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                 aheystek@wfclaw.com
                 gdesane@wfclaw.com


EMPRESA DISTRIBUIDORA: Continues to Defend Payment Obligations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Empresa Distribuidora y Comercializadora Norte S.A. (EDENOR S.A.)
disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal period ending
December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on April 24, 2024 that the Company continues to defend itself from
the payment obligations-related class suit .

On May 4, 2021, Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil Para Su
Defensa (CFD) brought a class action against the Company in the
Court having jurisdiction in Administrative and Tax Matters of the
City of Buenos Aires, Clerk's Office No. 3 of the Judicial
Management Office in Consumer Relations, claiming damages allegedly
caused by the Company to customers by virtue of the Agreement on
the Regularization of Payment Obligations entered into in 2019 by
the Company, the Energy Secretariat and the Electric Power Market
and Renewable Resources Secretariat, and claiming the reinstatement
of the penalties set forth therein, plus interest, loss of profit
or opportunity and punitive damages.

The Company answered the complaint and filed a motion to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction ("excepcion de incompetencia") of the
local courts.

The court admitted the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
and, as a consequence thereof, on January 6, 2022, sent the
proceedings to the Court having jurisdiction in Civil and
Commercial Federal Matters No. 5 – Clerk's Office No. 9.

As of the date of this annual report, the case has been brought to
trial.

The Company's management believes there exist reasonable grounds to
believe that Edenor should prevail in this case.

Empresa Distribuidora y Comercializadora Norte S.A. (edenor), a
public service company, engages in the distribution and sale of
electricity in Argentina.


EMPRESA DISTRIBUIDORA: Resolution of Consumidores Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Empresa Distribuidora y Comercializadora Norte S.A. (EDENOR S.A.)
disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal period ending
December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on April 24, 2024 that the Consumidores Financieros class suit is
pending resolution.

In March 2010, Consumidores Financieros Asociación Civil Para Su
Defensa ("CFD") brought a class action against the Company and
Edesur in National Court of Original Jurisdiction in Federal
Administrative Matters No. 2, Clerk's Office No. 3, seeking the
reimbursement of: (i) interest applicable to the payment of energy
purchased from the WEM, transferred to customers, (ii) the Value
Added Tax (VAT) percentage on that interest, calculated on a
taxable base that is allegedly contrary to the Consumer Protection
Law; and (ii) the late payment charges calculated at the lending
rate published by Banco de la Nación Argentina.
     
On April 22, 2010, the Company answered the complaint, filing a
motion to dismiss for lack of standing ("excepcion de falta de
legitimacion"), requesting, at such opportunity, that a summons be
served upon the Federal Government, the Federal Administration of
Public Revenues (“AFIP”) and the ENRE as third-party
defendants.

Prior to the time allowed to produce evidence, the Tax authorities
were ordered to conduct a review of the proceedings in order to
issue an opinion on the motion to dismiss for lack of standing
filed by Edenor.

After the proceedings were sent back to the court, the motion was
rejected.

At the time, the Company filed an appeal against such denial.

In 2022, evidence was offered and arguments were submitted, with
the Company invoking lack of standing and the termination of the
action by lapse of time.

The rendering of a decision on the motions filed by the Company has
been deferred and will be considered when final judgment is
rendered.

The action brought by ADDUC will be considered together with these
actions.

As of the date of this annual report, this case is pending
resolution.

Empresa Distribuidora y Comercializadora Norte S.A. (edenor), a
public service company, engages in the distribution and sale of
electricity in Argentina.


EQUINIX INC: Chan Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Wayne Chan, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EQUINIX, INC., CHARLES MEYERS, and KEITH D. TAYLOR,
Case No. 3:24-cv-02656 (N.D. Cal., May 2, 2024), is brought as a
federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded Equinix securities between May
3, 2019 and March 24, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period") and seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder as a result of the
Defendants' false and misleading statements.

On May 3, 2019, Equinix filed with the SEC its quarterly report on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2019 (the "1Q19 Report").
Attached to the 1Q19 Report were certifications pursuant to the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX") signed by Defendants Meyers and
Taylor attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the
disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal
control over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud.

The statements were materially false and/or misleading because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business which were known to Defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
Equinix manipulated its financials to reduce operational expenses
and boost Adjusted Funds From Operations ("AFFO"); Equinix oversold
power capacity and did not warn of the risks associated with this
practice; Equinix lacked adequate internal controls; and as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

On March 20, 2024, before the market opened, Hindenburg Research
released a report on Equinix entitled "Equinix Exposed: Major
Accounting Manipulation, Core Business Decay And Selling an AI Pipe
Dream As Insiders Cashed Out Hundreds of Millions" (the "Hindenburg
Report" or the "Report").

The Report then stated that this issue presents an increasingly
serious risk to the Company, given that data center power demand
usage is projected to go up over time, as a result of the
increasing use of machine learning and artificial intelligence. On
this news, the price of Equinix stock fell by $19.70 a share, or
2.33%, on March 20, 2024, to close at $824.88. The next day, it
fell a further $13.24, or 1.6%, to close at $811.64. Then, on March
25, 2020, before the market opened, the Company filed with the SEC
a current report on Form 8-K. On this news, the price of Equinix
stock fell by $8.45 per share, or 1.05%, to close at $792.52 on
March 25, 2024.

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

The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

Equinix operates as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for tax
purposes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


EUCLID CHEMICAL: Birdsell Sues Over Concrete Additives Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID A. BIRDSELL, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE IN BANKRUPTCY OF
AGAVERO READYMIX, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY; RPM
INTERNATIONAL INC.; COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN S.A.; SAINT-GOBAIN
CORPORATION; CHRYSO, INC.; GCP APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SIKA
CORPORATION; SIKA AG; CINVEN, LTD.; CINVEN, INC.; MASTER BUILDERS
SOLUTIONS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS ADMIXTURES
U.S., LLC; AND DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01726 (E.D.
Pa., April 24, 2024) alleges violation of the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are
engaged in an unlawful agreement to fix the prices for: (a)
chemical admixtures for concrete, (b) chemical additives for
cement, (c) chemical admixtures for mortar, and (d) products
containing or bundled with any of these (collectively, "CCAs").

The Defendants entered into an agreement to charge
supra-competitive prices for CCAs through price increases and the
imposition of surcharges. This agreement resulted in Agavero and
members of the Class paying supra-competitive prices for CCAs in
the United States and its territories.

By reason of the alleged violations of the antitrust laws,
Plaintiff and the members of the Class have sustained injury to
their businesses or property, having paid higher prices for CCAs
than they would have paid in the absence of Defendants' illegal
contract, combination, or conspiracy, says the suit.

THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY designs and manufactures concrete
chemicals. The Company offers admixtures, concrete fibers, curing
and sealing compounds, structural grouts, epoxy adhesives, floor
hardeners and toppings, joint fillers, industrial and architectural
coatings. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          Gerard A. Dever, Esq.
          Mary L. Russell, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
          One South Broad Street, 23 rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          Email: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
                 gdever@finekaplan.com
                 mrussell@finekaplan.com

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Peter Moran, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1133 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (917) 438-9189
          Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                 pmoran@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Larry D. Lahman, Esq.
          Roger L. Ediger, Esq.
          MITCHELL DECLERCK, P.L.L.C.
          202 West Broadway Avenue
          Enid, OK 73701
          Telephone: (580) 498-1782
          Email: ldl@mdpllc.com
                 rle@mdpllc.com

EXSCIENTIA PLC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Exscientia p.l.c. ("Exscientia" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:EXAI) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and
docketed under 24-cv-05692, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Exscientia securities between March 23, 2022,
and February 12, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company
and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Exscientia securities during the Class Period, you have until June
25, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle
Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Exscientia in an artificial intelligence ("AI") driven Pharma-tech
company that engages in the design and develop differentiated
medicines for diseases with high unmet patient needs.

At all relevant times, the Company purported to "maintain[] the
highest standards of business conduct and ethics" and, to that end,
adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics which applies to all
of its employees, officers and directors, including former Chief
Executive Officer ("CEO") and Director Defendant Andrew Hopkins
("Hopkins"), former Chairman of the Company's Board of Directors
(the "Board") Defendant David Nicholson ("Nicholson"), and all
other executive and senior officers.

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

     (i) Defendant Hopkins had engaged in improper relationships
with employees that were inconsistent with the Company's standards
and values;

    (ii) Defendant Nicholson had prior knowledge of Defendant
Hopkins's relationships and had improperly addressed Hopkins's
misconduct without consulting the Board;

   (iii) the Company's maintenance and enforcement of its Code of
Business Conduct and Ethics was inadequate to safeguard against the
foregoing conduct;

    (iv) the foregoing failures subjected the Company to a
heightened risk of disruptive leadership transitions and/or
reputational harm; and

     (v) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

On February 13, 2024, Exscientia issued a press release
"announc[ing] that its Board of Directors (the ‘Board') has
decided to terminate the employment of [Defendant] Hopkins as the
Company's [CEO] and Principal Executive Officer, and to remove Dr.
Hopkins from his role as an Executive Director of the Board, in
each case for cause and effective immediately." The press release
further revealed that the Board's decision was taken following an
investigation which found that Defendant Hopkins had "engaged in
relationships with two employees that the Board determined were
inappropriate and inconsistent with the Company's standards and
values." In addition, the press release indicated that during the
course of the investigation, the Board learned that "[Defendant]
Nicholson [. . .] had prior knowledge of the existence of the
earlier of Dr. Hopkins' relationships and had addressed the
situation directly, and with the involvement of other outside
counsel, rather than in consultation with the Board," and
"[f]ollowing discussions with the Board, on February 12, 2024 Dr.
Nicholson tendered his resignation from his positions with the
Company."

On this news, Exscientia's stock price fell $1.72 per share, or
22.9%, to close at $5.79 per share on February 13, 2024.

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

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

FAMILY DOLLAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lindsey Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
LEQUINTIN LINDSEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC.; FAMILY
DOLLAR STORES OF TENNESSEE, LLC; and DOLLAR TREE FAMILY DOLLAR,
LLC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02254 (W.D. Tenn., April 22,
2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Lindsey was employed by the Defendants as an assistant
manager.

FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC. operates as a national discount store.
The Company offers merchandise that includes consumables, apparel,
accessories, seasonal, electronics, and home products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FIRST ENERGY: Securities Class Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------
First Energy Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal
quarterly ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 25, 2024 that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio stayed the
securities class suit during the pendency of the district court
motion.

In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation (S.D. Ohio); on July
28, 2020 and August 21, 2020, purported stockholders of FE filed
putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.

Those actions have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff, the Los
Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, has been appointed
by the court.

A consolidated complaint was filed on February 26, 2021.

The consolidated complaint alleges, on behalf of a proposed class
of persons who purchased FE securities between February 21, 2017
and July 21, 2020, that FE and certain current or former FE
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
issuing misrepresentations or omissions concerning FE's business
and results of operations.

The consolidated complaint also alleges that FE, certain current or
former FE officers and directors, and a group of underwriters
violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
as a result of alleged misrepresentations or omissions in
connection with offerings of senior notes by FE in February and
June 2020.

On March 30, 2023, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification.

On April 14, 2023, FE filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit seeking to appeal that order, which the Sixth
Circuit granted on November 16, 2023.

On November 30, 2023, FE filed a motion with the S.D. Ohio to stay
all proceedings pending the circuit court appeal.

All discovery is stayed during the pendency of the district court
motion.

FirstEnergy is an electric utility headquartered in Akron, Ohio.


FITNESS EQUIPMENT: Mangone Sues Over Unlawful Pricing and Sales
---------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Mangone, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. FITNESS EQUIPMENT SERVICES, LLC d/b/a Sole
Fitness, a Utah limited liability company, Case No.
3:24-cv-00465-HZ (D. Ore., March 14, 2024), is brought to address
Defendant's misleading and unlawful pricing, sales, and discounting
practices on its website www.soletreadmills.com for Sole
Fitness-branded exercise equipment (the "products").

The Defendant advertises fake and inflated comparison reference
prices to deceive customers into a false belief that the sale price
is a deeply discounted bargain price.

Anyone visiting the website who buys an item on "sale" from a
regular price is being misled. So too is any person who buys an
item on "sale" from a "stricken" regular price or a "stricken"
MSRP. This is because that item has not been listed for sale or
sold on the website, in the recent past and for a substantial
period of time, at the regular price. Additionally, Defendant's
MSRP is entirely bogus—it is an inflated sum at which Defendant
rarely, if ever, offers or sells the products on the website. Yet
Defendant's use of inflated reference prices, strikethrough pricing
and discounting, and purported limited time sales all lead
reasonable consumers to believe that the products in fact had been
listed for sale or sold on the website at the regular price, in the
recent past, for a substantial period of time.

Beyond that, Defendant's products sold on the website not only have
a market value lower than the promised regular price or MSRP, but
the market value of the products is also lower than the "sale"
price. By using false reference pricing and false MSRPs, Defendant
artificially drives up demand for the products, and by extension
drives up the price of the products. As a result, consumers
received a product worth less than the price paid. As a result,
consumers are deceived into spending money they otherwise would not
have spent, purchasing items they would not have purchased, and
spending more money for an item than they otherwise would have
absent deceptive marketing, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased products from the website and shipped them
to her address in Oregon.

The Defendant develops, markets, and sells fitness equipment for
residential use, including treadmills, ellipticals, bikes and
rowers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy S. DeJong, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Bailey, Esq.
          STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
          209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
          Portland, OR 97204
          Phone: (503) 227-1600
          Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
          Email: tdejong@stollberne.com
                 ebailey@stollberne.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 866.252.0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

               - and -

          Alexander E. Wolf, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse
          Beverly Hills, California 90212
          Phone: 872.365.7060
          Email: awolf@milberg.com


FLORIDA: Faces Class Suit Over Medicaid Termination Notices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Justin Marcus Smith, J.D., writing for Wolters Kluwer, reports that
class members were entitled to adequate notice of the deprivation
of their Medicaid benefits "regardless of the substantive
correctness of the ineligibility determination."

Medicaid beneficiaries whose coverage was terminated during the
"unwinding" process could obtain certification of a class based on
the court's sua sponte modification of their class definition to
provide more commonality as to the termination notices received,
held a federal district court in Florida. The court found Florida's
standing arguments for dismissal were moot where some of the named
Medicaid enrollees bringing the suit against the Secretary for the
Florida Agency for Health Care Administration and the Secretary for
the Florida Department of Children and Families had injury standing
to represent all class and sub-class members, based on the court's
adjustment of the main class definition. The enrollees challenged
whether the termination notices received were adequate, not the
underlying correctness of the terminations. The court also found
the other requirements of class certification satisfied (Chianne D.
v. Weida, April 23, 2024, Howard, M.).

Background. Under federal requirements, state Medicaid agencies had
up to 12 months to complete Medicaid "unwinding" reviews after the
March 31, 2023, end of the COVID-19 continuous-coverage period. The
states returned to the standard Medicaid renewal process after that
date.

Out of 2.5 million Florida "unwinding" determinations, Florida
deemed 830,000 people ineligible for Medicaid, including, in this
matter, two adults and three children. The state issued written
notices of termination of benefits and the right to a fair hearing.
The enrollees challenged the adequacy of their termination notices
under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the
Medicaid Act. They sought to represent two classes, each of which
they designated as a "subclass." First, the enrollees asked the
court to certify a "subclass A" of any individual who received a
termination notice with no "Designated Reason" or including only a
"Designated Reason" that did not refer to a specific Medicaid
eligibility factor. Second, the enrollees sought to represent a
second "subclass B" of individuals whose termination notices
included a reason code that stated income ineligibility without
stating the income used to determine eligibility or the applicable
income standard. The state moved to dismiss the suit on standing
grounds.

Dismissal moot. The court reasoned it did not have to address the
parties' arguments for and against standing. It could simply amend
the class definition instead. The state argued that one plaintiff
was not enrolled in Medicaid and did not claim to be eligible from
the outset of the lawsuit. The state similarly argued that another
plaintiff's claim became moot when her postpartum eligibility for
Medicaid ended, so she, too, was no longer enrolled in or eligible
for Medicaid and did not claim to be currently entitled to Medicaid
benefits. As such, the state said neither had cognizable harm. The
plaintiffs, meanwhile, argued that one had standing based on her
claim for reinstatement, pending receipt of an adequate
pretermination notice, and the other plaintiff's claim fell within
the "inherently transitory" exception to mootness.

The court resolved the impasse by reformulating "subclass A" as the
primary class to more accurately reflect the claims. The enrollees
would then have standing to pursue the amended subclass A, as the
main class, as well as subclass B. The court reminded that the
plaintiffs only needed one terminated enrollee among them to
satisfy Article III standing and pursue the claims for declaratory
and injunctive relief in this action. Having amended the class
definition to do that, the court denied the state's motion to
dismiss as moot.

Constitutional standing. The state did not otherwise challenge the
standing of the other plaintiffs to assert their claims; however,
the court considered their standing sua sponte. The court
recognized they "undoubtedly" had standing to assert their claims
based on the pleaded concrete injuries of lost time, emotional
distress, and medical bills traceable to the "confusing"
termination notices. With respect to the more important prospective
relief sought, the court saw an ongoing benefit issue and the
potential for receipt of another allegedly inadequate termination
notice at a future redetermination. The court said these were all
ongoing injuries traceable to the notices and redressable through
declaratory and injunctive relief.

Subclass A. The court said it was not convinced that the plaintiffs
managed to form a cohesive class of those who lost Medicaid
coverage for various reasons merely based on their shared right to
adequate notice and their shared receipt of termination notices
with similar "Designated Reasons." The court said it could easily
remedy this by redefining and limiting the proposed classes to
center on the shared characteristic of termination based on income.
The court found the termination notices uniformly lacked
individualized income information and income standards. The court
accordingly certified a primary class to replace "subclass A" aimed
at resolving whether termination notices lacking income information
were adequate to satisfy due process and the Medicaid Act, where
the enrollee was found ineligible based on income. The court
retained the "subclass b" definition as the sole "subclass."

The state contended the class definition was overbroad because it
contained many members who suffered no injury because they were not
in fact eligible for continued Medicaid benefits as of the
unwinding period. The court found this argument unavailing because
the allegedly unlawful termination notice practices were the whole
point of the suit; therefore, each class member would have suffered
some quantum of the same harm. The court concluded all class
members were facially entitled to adequate notice of the
deprivation of their Medicaid benefits "regardless of the
substantive correctness of the ineligibility determination."

The court also disagreed with the state's position that the case
concerned "bare procedural violations." The court reasoned that the
procedural rights were to protect the class member's concrete
interest in their Medicaid benefits. Purported notice deficiencies
were substantial because they posed a material risk of harm to
those interests. Moreover, Rule 23(b)(2) did not require the named
plaintiffs to show that all class members had standing in order to
obtain classwide injunctive and declaratory relief. The key was
whether the party opposing the class would affect all persons
similarly situated such that his acts would apply generally to the
whole class.

Numerosity. The court found numerosity satisfied where over 100,000
enrollees received notice of Medicaid coverage denial or
termination with at least one designated reason identifying income
as the basis for the decision. As to the subclass, the record
showed over 700,000 Medicaid enrollees received a notice that used
only one or more of the "Designated Reason" codes 227, 249, and
520, and nearly 300,000 of those remained without coverage in
December 2023. The court said numerosity would be satisfied even if
only a small portion of the 700,000 were terminated on the basis of
income. In any event, joinder would be impractical because the
putative class members were all over Florida, they had limited
resources, and future recipients of inadequate termination notices
were not even identifiable yet.

Commonality. The court was satisfied that the case involved common
or standardized state conduct directed toward Medicaid enrollees
whose benefits were terminated based on income.

Typicality. The plaintiffs satisfied the typicality requirement
under the court's modified class definition. They were all Medicaid
beneficiaries terminated on the basis of income. Uniform unlawful
omission of individual income information and fair hearing language
would be unlawful as to the entire class and subclass. The court
also could not discern any conflict between the plaintiffs and the
interest of the class.

The case is No. 3:23-cv-985-MMH-LLL.

Attorneys: Katherine Debriere (Florida Health Justice Project) and
Amanda Avery (National Health Law Program) for Chianne D. and C. D.
Andy Bardos (GrayRobinson, PA) for Jason Weida and Shevaun Harris.
[GN]

FOUR SEASONS: Hilbert Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREL HILBERT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FOUR SEASONS HOTELS LIMITED, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-03114-KPF (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://wwwfourseasons.com/newyorkdowntown, contains access
barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the
benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the
public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website
include, but not limited to: (1) it fails to read-aloud and provide
notice when a user clicks on the options available, (2) the codes
embedded in each link, button, and form is outdated and fails to
abide by the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Guidelines
to the extent that the codes fail to help those visually impaired
clearly understand what functions are present on the website and
capable of interaction, and (3) due to the lack of clarity, users
will be unable to make a booking while fully understanding what
days they had chosen and what price points each booking costs, says
the suit.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.

Four Seasons Hotels Limited is a company that sells online goods
and services, doing business in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Eric L. Siegel, Esq.
         ERIC SIEGEL LAW, PLLC
         888 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1200
         Washington, DC 20006
         Telephone: (771) 220-6116
         Facsimile: (202) 223-6625
         Email: esiegel@ericsiegellaw.com

FOXTROT RETAIL: Moore Sues Over Failure to Provide Notice
---------------------------------------------------------
Jamil Ladell Moore, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. FOXTROT RETAIL, INC.; OUTFOX HOSPITALITY LLC;
and DOM'S MARKET LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03272 (N.D. Ill., April 24,
2024), is brought arising as a class action under the federal
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN") and the
Illinois Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
("IWARN") based on Defendants' failure to provide notice of mass
layoff or plant closing.

On April 23, 2024, the Defendants' Retail Stores permanently
closed. Over 30 Dom's and Foxtrot Locations abruptly closed.
Employees at all Dom's and Foxtrot locations were terminated
immediately without any prior notice on April 23, 2024. On
Foxtrot's Instagram Page on April 23, 2024, Foxtrot announced that
"After much consideration and evaluation, we regret to announce
that Foxtrot and Dom's Kitchen & Market will be closing their doors
starting April 23, 2024. The closure affects 33 Foxtrots and 2
Dom's grocery stores across Chicago, Austin, Dallas, DC areas."

No employees of Foxtrot or Dom's were given prior notice of
termination on April 23, 2024. Several employees scheduled to work
at Dom's or Foxtrot on April 23, 2024 first learned of the mass
layoff in the middle of the work-shift on April 23, 2024. The
Plaintiff nor any members of the putative WARN and/or IWARN classes
received at least 60 days' notice of the Defendants plant closing
and/or mass layoff. Neither the Plaintiff nor members of the
putative WARN and/or IWARN classes received compensation for the
60-day notice period that should have been paid under WARN and/or
IWARN, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was an employee at a Retail Stores during the time
period at issue in this case.

Foxtrot and Dom's are Illinois corporations engaged in the business
of operating grocery stores, markets, and coffee shops serving
Chicagoland communities for the last five or more years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Syed Haseeb Hussain, Esq.
          HASEEB LEGAL, LLC
          420 E Waterside Dr #3004
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Main Phoe: (954) 225-4934
          Office: (630) 534-2527
          Email: sh@haseeblegal.com


FRONTIER CALIFORNIA: Duran Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Andy Duran, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2401488 was
removed from the Superior Court of California, Riverside County, to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on April 22, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00849.

The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a violation of a federal statute:
the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
failed to provide him with statutory disclosures and notices.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Rod M. Fliegel, Esq.
          Kurt R. Bockes, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          101 Second Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415.433.1940
          Fax: 415.399.8490
          Email: rfliegel@littler.com
                 kbockes@littler.com


FULL SAIL LLC: Buxton Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lauren Buxton, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Full Sail, LLC doing business as: Full
Sail University, Case No. 2:23-cv-00148 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, to
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on April
23, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:24-cv-00747-JSS-DCI to
the proceeding.

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

Full Sail University -- https://www.fullsail.edu/ -- offers campus
and online degree programs that are designed for the world of
entertainment media and emerging technologies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael T. Ramsey, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & RAMSEY, PLLC
          429 Porter Avenue
          Ocean Springs, MS 39564
          Phone: (228) 875-0572
          Email: mike@sheehanramsey.com

               - and -

          Eric H. Weitz, Esq.
          Max S. Morgan, Esq.
          THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
          1515 Market Street, #1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (267) 587-6240
          Fax: (215) 689-0875
          Email: eric.weitz@theweitzfirm.com
                 max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Elizabeth Ross Hadley, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG
          300 W 6th St., Ste 2050
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: (512) 320-7200
          Email: hadleye@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory W. Herbert, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA - Orlando
          450 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 650
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Phone: (407) 420-1000
          Email: herbertg@gtlaw.com


FULL TRUCK: Settlement Deal Reached in Kohli Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd. (FTA) disclosed in its Form 20-F
report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2024, that on
September 17, 2023, FTA entered into a binding term sheet that
agrees in principle to settle a shareholder class action lawsuit
captioned "Pratyush Kohli v. Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd., et al.,"
Case No. 1:21-cv-03903 (E.D.N.Y.)

On July 12, 2021, FTA, certain of its current and former directors
and officers and others were named as defendants in a putative
shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of
New York. On September 13, 2022, an amended class action complaint
was filed. On November 1, 2022, a second amended class action
complaint was filed, which FTA and certain other defendants moved
to dismiss on February 2, 2023. Plaintiffs submitted their
opposition to FTA's motion to dismiss on April 3, 2023. FTA and
certain other defendants submitted their reply in support of the
motion to dismiss on May 18, 2023.

The action is brought on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased or acquired the Company’s securities from June 22, 2021
to July 2, 2021. The SAC alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly false and
misleading statements or omissions in the company's Registration
Statement issued in connection with the IPO. It also alleges
violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On or around February 27, 2024, FTA and other parties to the
lawsuits executed a stipulation of settlement that resolves the
lawsuits for $10.25 million. The settlement amount is an all-in
amount that covers all attorneys' fees, administrative costs,
expenses, class member benefits, class representative awards, and
costs of any kind associated with the resolution of the lawsuits.
On March 8, 2024, the parties submitted the stipulation to the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, or the Court, and the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement on April 3, 2024. On April 8,
2024, FTA paid the settlement amount in full, to be held in escrow
pending final settlement approval in accordance with the
stipulation of settlement.

A final settlement approval hearing has been set for September 5,
2024.

Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd. is a Cayman Islands holding company
with operations primarily conducted through the consolidated
affiliates in China and by its subsidiaries operating digital
freight platforms in China.

GEICO CASUALTY: Perkins Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Deeba Perkins, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. Geico Casualty Company, Government
Employees Insurance Company, Geico Advantage Insurance Company,
GEICO Secure Insurance Company, Geico Choice Insurance Company,
Geico General Insurance Company, GEICO Indemnity Company, Case No.
CV 24 994917 was removed from the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on April
23, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00736 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Contract Dispute.

GEICO Casualty Company -- https://www.geico.com/ -- operates as an
insurance company. The Company offers auto, motorcycle, home,
renters, flood, life, general liability, travel, and business
insurance services.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Manuel D. Cardona, Esq.
          DICKSON WRIGHT
          180 East Broad Street, Ste. 3400
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (614) 591-5468
          Fax: (844) 670-6009
          Email: mcardona@dickinson-wright.com


GENERAL DYNAMICS: Sherman Act-Related Class Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
General Dynamics Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
fiscal period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 24, 2024 that the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the
Sherman Act related class suit on April 19, 2024.

On October 6, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia against General Dynamics Corporation, certain of its
subsidiaries and various other companies alleging that they
conspired, in violation of the Sherman Act, not to solicit naval
architects and marine engineers from each other.

The named plaintiffs purport to represent a class of individuals
consisting of all naval architects and marine engineers employed by
the shipyard and consultancy defendants, their predecessors, their
subsidiaries and/or their related entities in the United States at
any time since January 1, 2000.

The plaintiffs allege that the conspiracy suppressed compensation
paid to the putative class members, and the plaintiffs seek trebled
monetary damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive and other equitable
relief.

The Company is defending the matter.

On April 19, 2024, the District Court dismissed the plaintiffs'
complaint.

General Dynamics Corporation is a diversified defense company. The
Company offers a broad portfolio of products and services in
business aviation, combat vehicles, weapons systems, munitions,
shipbuilding design and construction, information systems, and
technologies. [BN]



GENERAL MOTORS: Behm Sues Over Unlawful Sale of Drivers' Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Behm, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ONSTAR, LLC, and LEXISNEXIS RISK
SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-01517-DSD-ECW (D. Minn., April 26,
2024), is brought against the Defendants, for their collection of
and sharing or sale of drivers' data without their notice,
knowledge, or consent and is brought against the Defendants for
common law invasion of privacy and unjust enrichment, and
violations of the Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act, the
Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Minnesota
Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

This case arises out of GM and OnStar's secretive accessing,
recording, collecting, and storing of drivers' driving Telematics
Data which include, but are not limited to, events related to
acceleration, hard braking, and high speeds, as well as Vehicle
Identification Numbers ("VINs") and location or GPS data
("Telematics Data"). GM and OnStar collect this Telematics Data,
without drivers' knowledge or consent, then share and/or sell these
data to third parties, such as Lexis, again without knowledge or
consent from the drivers. Lexis then shares this data with other
third parties including auto insurance companies, again without
drivers' knowledge or consent, in violation of their privacy
rights. This conduct has led to additional injury, including
increased insurance premiums or denial of auto insurance coverage
altogether, in cases where auto insurance companies interpret the
Telematics Data to demonstrate dangerous driving behavior.

OnStar markets itself as offering high-tech connectivity to provide
"heightened" driving experience by offering Automatic Crash
Response, Emergency Services, and Roadside Assistance whereby it
utilizes wi-fi and location information to assist drivers in the
event of an accident, among other services. For some GM vehicle
purchasers, OnStar offers this service free of charge for a limited
time, so they are not even aware of agreeing to the OnStar
subscription. Even when drivers actively subscribe to OnStar, they
are not aware that GM and OnStar secretly track and compile
Telematics Data and then share it with or sell it to third parties,
such as Lexis. Lexis then compiles this data and shares it with or
sells it to auto insurance companies without drivers' knowledge or
consent. Auto insurance companies may use this data to increase
auto insurance premiums or to deny coverage altogether in some
cases.

GM and OnStar, however, failed to adequately disclose their
accessing, recording, collecting, storing, disclosing, sharing,
and/or selling of the drivers' Telematics Data. In fact, they
deliberately concealed this information from Plaintiff and the
Class Members, as well as the general public. It was not until the
publication of the March 11, 2024 New York Times article
"Automakers Are Sharing Consumers' Driving Behavior With Insurance
Companies" that Plaintiff and Class Members were made aware of
Defendants' accessing, recording, collecting, storing, disclosing,
sharing, and/or selling of their Telematics Data. Plaintiff and
Class Members have suffered damages as a result of the sharing of
their Telematics Data, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a 2022 Cadillac Escalade from Coon Rapids
Chrysler Jeep Dodge RAM in Coon Rapids, Minnesota, which was
manufactured and sold by GM and equipped with OnStar.

GM is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company
that owns and manufactures automobile brands including Chevrolet,
GMC, Cadillac, and Buick, and sells automobiles throughout the
United States, including in this district, and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Catherine K. Smith, Esq.
          Mary M. Nikolai, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 333-8844
          Fax: (612) 339-6622
          Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                 csmith@gustafsongluek.com
                 mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Drews Sues Over Unlawful Selling of Data
--------------------------------------------------------
Karen Drews and Melvin Drews, a married couple, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
ONSTAR LLC, LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., and VERISK ANALYTICS,
INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-11194-SDK-EAS (E.D. Mich., May 3, 2024), is
brought against Defendants on behalf of themselves and all those
similarly situated for damages and equitable relief, including
restitution and injunctive relief as a result of the Defendants'
unlawful selling and sharing of data.

The number of Internet-enabled vehicles has grown logarithmically
in recent decades, paving the way for auto manufacturers to collect
tremendous amounts of data from their drivers. That data often
includes drivers' vehicle locations, vehicle use, driving behavior,
trip and performance data, as well as personal identifying
information including names, addresses, email address, and phone
numbers.

GM, however, has not used that data for mere safety and quality
monitoring. It has instead commoditized that data—including
drivers' mileage, braking, acceleration and speed (the "Driver
Data")—by selling it to data broker Defendants LexisNexis and
Verisk. GM has sold the Driver Data to these third parties for
profit without their drivers' consent or knowledge. After
purchasing Driver Data from Defendant GM, Defendants LexisNexis and
Verisk then re-commoditize that data by selling it to insurance
companies, who then use that data to justify charging higher
insurance rates or offer higher quotes.

For Defendant GM's purchasers and lessees, it all begins with their
vehicles' OnStar Smart Driver feature. Smart Driver is a free
service offered by GM that is innocuously described as a service to
improve driver behavior and safety, with drivers earning "badges"
for developing driver patterns like braking slowly, limiting hard
accelerations, and wearing seatbelts.

Some drivers enroll in the Smart Driver feature at the dealership
or afterwards, but are never informed during the enrollment process
that their Driver Data will be shared with (and sold to) LexisNexis
or Verisk, who will then sell it to insurance companies. Other
drivers never enroll in the Smart Driver feature but later discover
that their Driver Data was still collected by Defendant GM and
sold, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased a 2019 Chevrolet Corvette from Mike
Anderson Chevrolet in Merrillville, Indiana.

General Motors Company is a Delaware corporation, which has its
principal place of business in the State of Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Emily E. Hughes, Esq.
          Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Phone: 248-841-2200
          Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
                 eeh@millerlawpc.com
                 dal@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
          Karin B. Swope, Esq.
          COTCHETT PITRE & McCARTHY LLP
          999 N. Northlake Way, Suite 215
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Phone: 206/802-1272
          Fax: 650/697-0577
          Email: tloeser@cpmlegal.com
                 kswope@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          James M. Davis, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619/338-1100
          Fax: 619/338-1101
          Email: tblood@bholaw.com
                 jdavis@bholaw.com


GIVENCHY CORPORATION: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GIVENCHY CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-03145 (E.D.N.Y., April 26, 2024) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.givenchy.com, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

GIVENCHY CORPORATION was founded in 1977. The company's line of
business includes owning or leasing franchises, patents, and
copyrights which they in turn license others to use. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
          100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
          Hicksville, NY 11801
          Telephone: (929) 324-0717
          Facsimile: (929) 333-7774
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com

GOLDEN KEY: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Perazzoli Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PABLO PERAZZOLI, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GOLDEN KEY TITLE SERVICES, LLC,
Case No. 6:24-cv-00746-WWB-EJK (M.D Fla., Apr. 23, 2024) alleges
that the Defendants failed to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect its
customers' personally identifiable information (PII) from a
foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack.

The PII compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and
Class Members' names, driver's license numbers, and Social Security
numbers. The PII compromised in the Data Breach was targeted and
exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those
cyber-criminals.

On Nov. 9, 2023, the Defendant began sending the Plaintiff and
other Data Breach victims a Notice of Data Security Incident
letter. Omitted from the Notice Letter were the dates of the Data
Breach, the details of the root cause of the Data Breach, the
vulnerabilities exploited, and the remedial measures undertaken to
ensure such a breach does not occur again.

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

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

The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages and
injunctive relief, including improvements to the Defendant's data
security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit
monitoring services funded by the Defendant.

The Defendant is "a full-service title and real estate settlement
provider that operates in Florida."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GOODRX HOLDINGS: Barsuli Sues Over Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------
LISA MARIE BARSULI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC.; DOUGLAS
HIRSCH; TREVOR BEZDEK; and KARSTEN VOERMANN, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-03282 (C.D. Cal., April 22, 2024) is a federal securities
class action on behalf of a class of all persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired GoodRx common stock between
September 23, 2020, and November 8, 2022, inclusive, alleging
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose that: (1) while Kroger
accounted for less than 5 percent of the pharmacies accepting
GoodRx discounts, Kroger was responsible for nearly 25 percent of
GoodRx's total prescription transactions revenue (the Company's
primary revenue stream); and (2) Kroger could unilaterally cease
accepting GoodRx discounts, cutting off some or all of GoodRx's
revenues for purchases at Kroger's pharmacies; and (3) as a result,
Defendants' representations about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

The price of GoodRx common stock declined an additional $1.18 per
share, or more than 22 percent, from a close of $5.24 per share on
November 8, 2022, to close at $4.06 per share on November 9, 2022.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
decline in the market value of the Company's common stock when the
truth was revealed, Plaintiff and other members of the class have
suffered significant damages, says the suit.

GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC. operates a digital healthcare platform. The
Company develops tele-medicine platform and a free-to-use website
to access quality healthcare at a reasonable price. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ
          MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 400-3000
          Facsimile: (415) 400-3001
          Email: skaplan@ktmc.com

GOODRX HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on June 21
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs
investors that the firm has filed a securities fraud class action
lawsuit against GoodRx Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: GDRX) ("GoodRx" or
the "Company") on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired
GoodRx common stock between September 23, 2020, and November 8,
2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action, captioned
Barsuli v. GoodRx Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. Case
2:24-cv-03282- DDP-AJR was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

Important Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired GoodRx common stock during the Class Period may, no later
than June 21, 2024, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff for
the class.

If you suffered GoodRx losses, you may CLICK HERE or GO TO:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/goodrx-holdings-inc-1?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=gdrx&mktm=r

You can also contact attorney Jonathan Naji, Esq. of Kessler Topaz
by calling (484) 270-1453 or by email at info@ktmc.com.

DEFENDANTS' MISCONDUCT

GoodRx operates a price comparison platform for prescription drugs
which, in many cases, offers consumers access to lower prices
(through discount codes and coupons) for their medications. GoodRx
generates most of its revenue from contracts with pharmacy benefit
managers ("PBMs") who agree to pay GoodRx a commission on
prescription drug purchases made by consumers who use GoodRx's
discount codes and coupons at participating pharmacies. GoodRx also
generates a portion of its revenue from subscription plans like the
"Kroger Rx Savings Club," which provides "access [to] lower
prescription prices at" pharmacies operated by The Kroger Co.
("Kroger").

In connection with GoodRx's initial public offering on September
23, 2020, and throughout the remainder of the Class Period,
Defendants continuously touted the Company's strong relationships
with pharmacies as a significant element of its business plan.
Among other things, GoodRx repeatedly highlighted the Kroger Rx
Savings Club. Critically, however, Defendants never informed
investors of the material risk that Kroger, which accounted for
nearly 25% of GoodRx's prescription transactions revenue, could
unilaterally refuse to accept GoodRx's discounts.

On May 9, 2022, investors began to learn the truth about the risks
of GoodRx's over-dependence on Kroger (including the risk that,
notwithstanding the Kroger Rx Savings Club, Kroger could
unilaterally refuse to accept GoodRx's discounts), when GoodRx
revealed that, late in the first quarter of 2022, "a grocery chain
had taken actions that impacted acceptance of discounts from most
PBMs for a subset of drugs" and that this "impacted the acceptance
of many PBM discounts for certain drugs at this grocer's stores."
GoodRx further acknowledged that this disruption "could have an
estimated revenue impact of roughly $30 million" in the second
quarter of 2022 -- resulting in the Company announcing
disappointing second quarter 2022 revenue guidance of only about
$190 million. While Defendants refused to identify the grocer by
name, analysts and media outlets quickly recognized that the
unnamed grocery chain was Kroger.

On this news, the price of GoodRx common stock plummeted $2.78 per
share, or more than 25%, from a close of $10.75 per share on May 9,
2022, to close at $7.97 per share on May 10, 2022.

On November 8, 2022, Defendants provided further information on the
severity of the revenue impact from the Kroger disruption -- with
the Company estimating that the "impact of the grocer issue on
third quarter [prescription transactions revenue] was approximately
$40 million" and that the Company expected "a combined $45 million
to $50 million estimated impact to prescription transactions
revenue" for the fourth quarter of 2022. Defendants further
acknowledged that the Company was seeking to enter into contractual
relationships with pharmacies to prevent similar disruptions from
occurring in the future.

On this news, the price of GoodRx common stock declined an
additional $1.18 per share, or more than 22%, from a close of $5.24
per share on November 8, 2022, to close at $4.06 per share on
November 9, 2022.

WHAT CAN I DO?

GoodRx investors may, no later than June 21, 2024, move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff for the class, through Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing
and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP encourages GoodRx investors who have suffered significant
losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more information.

WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?

A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries.

For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
please visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

   Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
   Jonathan Naji, Esq.
   280 King of Prussia Road
   Radnor, PA 19087
   Telephone:(844) 887-9500
   info@ktmc.com [GN]

GRAND CENTRAL: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grand Central Optical
340 Madison Corp. The case is styled as Charity Danso, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Grand Central Optical
340 Madison Corp., Case No. 1:24-cv-03163-VEC (S.D.N.Y., April 25,
2024).

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

Grand Central Optical -- https://grandcentraloptical.com/ -- is a
Family-Owned & operated Optical business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com


GRMC INC: Roane Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brandon Lee Roane, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. GRMC, INC., doing business as Garrett
Regional Medical Center, Case No. 1:24-cv-00141 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 23,
2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11070-ADB to the
proceeding.

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

Sika AG -- https://www.sika.com/en/ -- is a Swiss multinational
specialty chemical company that supplies to the building sector and
motor vehicle industry, headquartered in Baar, Switzerland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arnold J. Abraham, Esq.
          CYBERLAW, LLC
          220 N. Liberty Street
          Baltimore MD 21201
          Phone: (443) 906-3495
          Email: abraham@thecyberlawteam.com

               - and -

          Eric J. Menhart, Esq.
          LEXERO LAW
          512 C Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Phone: (855) 453-9376
          Fax: (855) 453-9376
          Email: eric.menhart@lexero.com

               - and -

          Robert William Murphy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY
          440 Premier Circle, Suite 240
          Charlottesville, VA 22901
          Phone: (434) 328-3100
          Fax: (434) 328-3101
          Email: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gilbert S. Keteltas, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Ave N.W., Suite 1100
          Washington, DC 20036-5403
          Phone: 202.861.1530
          Fax: 202.861.1530
          Email: gketeltas@bakerlaw.com


HALLS CHOPHOUSE: Bogacz Sues Over Failure of Paying Proper Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Bogacz, Individually and On Behalf All Others Similarly
Situated V. HALLS CHOPHOUSE GRILL, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02503-RMG
(D.S.C., April 25, 2024), is brought for the Defendant's violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the
Defendants failure of paying proper wages.

The Defendant violated the FLSA in the following ways: failed to
provide statutory notice of taking a tip credit; requiring
Plaintiff and similarly situated Servers to performing work that is
not tip producing nor part of a tipped occupation for a substantial
amount of time and only paying them $2.13 an hour; required
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Servers to share
portions of their tips with managers and/or supervisors; and failed
to compensate Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Servers at
the lawful time-and-a half/overtime rate for hours worked in excess
of 40 per work-week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a Server at the 300 Nexton Square Or,
Summerville, SC location from March of 2023 to August 2023.

The Defendant is an upscale restaurant chain with locations in
Charleston, SC; Nexton of Summerville, SC; Columbia, SC;
Greenville, SC; and Nashville, TN.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
          4900 O' Hear Ave, Suite 100 & 200
          North Charleston, SC 29405
          Phone: (843) 588-5587
          Email: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Reid Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Reid, Keith Chee, Willard Thomas, Michael
Todd Debona, Brock Knowlton, Percy Sledge, Joseph Akers, Andrew
Loudenbeck, Brook Booth, Steve Booth, Jesse Martinez, Camron Brown,
Mark Meintel, Andrew Kezele, Celeste Evans, Scott Godley, Ronald
Pixler, Dale Richardson, Sierra Sanchez, Marcel Tira, Talon Wilder,
David Villines, Malachi Sanders, Gabe Maldonado, Richard Tuttle,
Charlie Childress, James Moes, Mikel Roden, Todd Sorensen, Mark
Mannino, Brian Kelly, James Long, Brian Andrew Mason, Michael
Pentrack, Elvira Kolundzic, Keri Mason, Jonathan Little, Juan
Carlos Fernandez, Ronald Geracci, Sierra Shepherd, Karina Burchard,
David Saunders, Tracy Haines, Sebastian Netotea, Brandon Grant,
Katie Meyer, Dwayne McDuffie, Tim Schow, Katherine Craven, Seth
Hartman, Jane Doe, Kristin Ashford, Cody Reed, Stephanie Cumpton,
Lawrence Geis, Tina Cundiff, Luke Boysen, Frank Smerekanich,
Johnathan Veenstra, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Honeywell International, Inc., Case No.
3:23-cv-00836 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri on April 26, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00305-RK to the
proceeding.

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

Honeywell International Inc. -- https://www.honeywell.com/us/en --
is a worldwide technology and manufacturing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 N. Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 337-7992
          Fax: (813) 229-8712
          Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
                 aheystek@wfclaw.com
                 lcabassa@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Kathryn Comly Hopkinson, Esq.
          HOPKINSON LAW, LLC
          1510 W Cleveland St
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Phone: (508) 274-9169
          Fax: (813) 902-6040

               - and -

          Jacob Matthew Norris, Esq.
          NORRIS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1033 Bullard Court, Suite 207
          Raleigh, NC 27615
          Phone: (919) 981-4475
          Fax: (919) 926-1676
          Email: jmn@ncconsumerlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anne Marie Estevez, Esq.
          Joseph D. Magrisso, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
          Miami, FL 33131-3075
          Phone: (305) 415-3330
          Fax: (877) 432-9652
          Email: annemarie.estevez@morganlewis.com
                 joseph.magrisso@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Daniel B. Boatright, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC-KCMO WALNUT
          1201 Walnut, Ste. 1450
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Phone: (816) 627-4401
          Fax: (816) 817-7703
          Email: dboatright@littler.com

               - and -

          Michael S. Burkhardt, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market St
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 963-5130
          Email: michael.burkhardt@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Leah S. Freed, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          2415 E Camelback Rd., Suite 800
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Phone: (602) 778-3700
          Fax: (602) 778-3750


HSNI LLC: Lobello Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA LOBELLO,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. HSNi,
LLC, a limited liability corporation, Case No.
8:24-cv-00026-VMC-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order under Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), for court-authorized notice of this lawsuit to all
similarly situated employees.

The Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an order:

   (1) Conditionally certifying the proposed FLSA Collective;

   (2) Requiring the Defendant to identify all putative collective

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

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

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

       "All current and former CSRs who worked for Defendant at any

       time during the three years preceding the filing of the
       Complaint up through and including judgment (the "FLSA
       Collective").

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

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

       sent, with one reminder email sent 30 days thereafter to
anyone
       who did not respond.

Ms. Lobello, worked for Defendant as an hourly CSR remotely from
her home in Smithville, Tennessee from September 2018 to June 2023,
and was paid an hourly wage most recently at $16.00.

The Defendant is a Florida-based media retailer, selling thousands
of unique products, such as electronics, apparel, jewelry, and
health and beauty products, through its website and shows, which
are broadcast 24 hours a day via cable, satellite, and network
television1

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 1, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f8wn0S at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Kathryn E. Milz, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  kmilz@sommerspc.com

                - and -

          Bradley W. Butcher, Esq.
          BUTCHER & ASSOCIATES, P.L.
          6830 Porto Fino Circle, Suite 2
          Fort Myers, FL 33912
          Telephone: (239) 322-1650
          E-mail: bwb@b-a-law.com

HUMANA INC: Harrison Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Kentucky
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Humana, Inc. The case
is styled as Carlton Harrison, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Humana, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00262-CHB
(W.D. Ky., April 26, 2024).

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

Humana Inc. -- https://www.humana.com/ -- is a for-profit American
health insurance company based in Louisville, Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aleksandr Sasha Litvinov, Esq.
          SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
          867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste #1520
          Boston, MA 02116
          Phone: (617) 202-3409
          Fax: (888) 410-0415
          Email: sasha@skclassactions.com

               - and -

          Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
          SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
          166 Geary Street, Suite 1500, #1507
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 839-7077
          Fax: (888) 410-0415
          Email: yeremey@skclassactions.com


I.D. JEWELRY INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.D. Jewelry, Inc.
The case is styled as Silvia Martinez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. I.D. Jewelry, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-03100 (E.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024).

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

I.D. Jewelry, Inc. -- https://idjewelry.com/ -- are a top jewelry
store in NYC's Diamond District.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com


INK 477: Anastasopoulos Sues Over Improperly Retained Tips
----------------------------------------------------------
Chrisovalantou Anastasopoulos, for herself and others similarly
situated v. INK 477 LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-21586-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
April 25, 2024), is brought on behalf of similarly situated
employees who were entitled to receive and who actually received
tips while working for Defendant at its restaurant known as "Level
6" and is brought for the recovery of the tips/overtips that
Defendant improperly retained/distributed in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Defendant charged and collected a mandatory service charge from
its customers. The Defendant, like most service establishments'
owners, allowed its customers to leave discretionary gratuities
above the mandatory service charge. The Defendant's customers left
gratuities (tips) intended to be paid to Plaintiff and the other
similarly situated front-of-the-house tipped employees who worked
for it. The discretionary gratuities (tips) that Defendant's
patrons left are referred to as "tips."

The Defendant exercised complete control over the credit card tips
that its patrons left for its tipped employees, accumulating them
in a "tip pool" or another aggregate arrangement, and then
Defendant either retained a portion of the tips collected (by
failing to distribute all tips and overtips collected) and/or
distributed a portion of the tips and overtips to traditionally
non-tipped employees (such as owners, officers, directors,
partners, managers, or supervisors).

The Defendant's unlawful pay practices deprived Plaintiff and the
other similarly situated front-of-the-house tipped employees of the
tips and overtips they earned and should have received, which
amount results in a significant sum when aggregated. The Plaintiff
retained the undersigned counsel and agreed to pay a reasonable
attorney's fee for all services related to this matter, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a front-of-the-house tipped
employee, particularly as a server, at Level 6.

Ink 477 LLC operates a restaurant called Level 6.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
          FAIRLAW FIRM
          135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770
          Coral Gables, FL 33146
          Phone: 305.230.4884
          Email: brian@fairlawattorney.com


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Allman Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Frederick L. Allman and Jorge A. Torres,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
International Business Machines Corporation, Colorado Department of
Health Care Policy & Financing State of Colorado ex rel., Case No.
1:24-cv-00996 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on April 26, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11126-ADB to the
proceeding.

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

International Business Machines Corporation, nicknamed Big Blue --
http://www.ibm.com/-- is an American multinational technology
company headquartered in Armonk, New York and present in over 175
countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Patrick Rosier, Esq.
          KUHN RASLAVICH P.A.
          2110 West Platt St.
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Phone: (813) 340-9777
          Fax: (813) 422-7783
          Email: joe@thekrfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nathaniel H. Nesbitt, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          1601 Wewatta St., Ste. 900
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: 303-899-7300
          Email: nathaniel.nesbitt@hoganlovells.com


JUVIA'S PLACE: Eyeshadow Contains Unfit Additives, Suarez Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nikelle Suarez, Leticia Nyberg, and Kerriann Salmon, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Juvia's Place LLC,
Case No. 2:24-at-00499 (E.D. Cal., Apr. 23, 2024) challenges the
Defendant's deceptive marketing, advertising, and sale of certain
Juvia's Place eyeshadow palettes containing synthetic color
additives that are unsafe, unfit and unapproved for use around the
eye.

The Products challenged in this Complaint encompass the following
eyeshadow palettes manufactured, labeled, distributed, and sold by
Defendant: Culture, Culture 2, The Coffee Shop, Afrogalactic,
Garden of Juvia, The Zulu, The Candy Shop, The Chocolates, The
Berries, The Sweet Pinks, The Warrior 3, Olori 1, Olori 2, and
Olori 3, The Bronzed and Bronzed Rustic, The Nubian and The Nubian
2, The Nubian Royal, The Wahala, The Wahala 2, The Magic Mini,
Fula, Blushed Rose, Vanessa, The Masquerade Mini, The Festival, The
Mauves, the Nudes palettes.

Through its marketing materials and affirmative product
descriptions, the Defendant has consistently portrayed the
Products, and all their ingredients, as safe, suitable, and
intended for use as eyeshadows, the Plaintiffs assert.

Had consumers been aware that the Products contained color
additives that are unsafe, unfit and unapproved for use in
eyeshadows, they would not have purchased the Products or would
have paid substantially less for them. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs
and Class members were deprived of the benefit of their bargain and
were therefore financially injured by the Defendant's conduct, the
suit says.

In Aug. 6, 2020, the Plaintiff Suarez purchased The Warrior 3
eyeshadow palette from the Ulta Beauty online webpage. In Nov. 25,
2020, the Plaintiff Suarez purchased The Nubian Royalty Gift Set
(containing The Nubian Royal eyeshadow palette), The Berries
eyeshadow palette, The Chocolates eyeshadow palette, The Mauves
eyeshadow palette, The Sweet Pinks eyeshadow palette, and The Nudes
eyeshadow palette, all from their respective Ulta Beauty online
webpages.

The Defendant sells Juvia's Place brand beauty products and
cosmetics.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
          Joshua Nassir, Esq.
          Nicole Babaknia, Esq.
          TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP
          2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2580
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 751-5948
          E-mail: bheikali@treehouselaw.com
                  rglezakos@treehouselaw.com
                  jnassir@treehouselaw.com
                  nbabaknia@treehouselaw.com

JUVIA'S PLACE: Suarez Files Suit in E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Juvia's Place, LLC.
The case is styled as Nikelle Suarez, Leticia Nyberg, Kerriann
Salmon, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Juvia's Place, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01179-CKD (E.D. Cal., April
23, 2024).

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

Juvia's Place, LLC -- https://www.juviasplace.com/ -- is the
world's most highly-pigmented eyeshadow palettes, foundations, and
lip products that show beautifully on the darkest to fairest skin
tones..[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP
          2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2580
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 751-5928
          Email: bheikali@treehouselaw.com


KANSAS, MO: Court Extends Filing of Class Cert Reply to May 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roberson, et al., v. The
Kansas City Southern Railway Co., Case No. 4:22-cv-00358 (W.D. Mo.,
Filed May 31, 2022), the Hon. Judge Roseann A Ketchmark entered an
order granting motion for extension of time to file reply as to
motion to certify class:

-- Reply suggestions due by:                      May 31, 2024

The suit alleges violation of the Family Medical Leave Act.

Kansas City Southern is the cross-border freight railroad at the
heart of every transportation supply chain in the United States and
Mexico.[CC]


KARS4KIDS INC: Faces Dugger Suit Over Donation Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY DUGGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KARS4KIDS INC.; and OORAH INC., inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02419 (N.D. Cal., April 23, 2024)
alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, the California False Advertising Law, California
Business and Professions Code, and California Unfair Competition
Law.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants are
engaged in a scheme to deceive unwitting donors to donate their
vehicles to Kars4Kids for undisclosed and misrepresented purposes.
Defendants publicly disseminated false and misleading
advertisements soliciting vehicle donations to purportedly help
local needy children, regardless of any racial, ethnic, or
religious affiliation, inducing Plaintiff and Class members to
donate their vehicles under false pretenses.

Instead, Defendants used those donations to fund a separate entity,
Oorah, and its promotion of orthodox ideology to Jewish families in
New York and New Jersey. Defendants also used the vast majority of
donation proceeds to fund their own significant expenses and
investments.

By failing to inform potential donors that their car donations
would be used almost exclusively to: (i) fund Oorah and its
orthodox "outreach" activities; (ii) benefit families of only one
religion in one geographic area; and (ii) fund Kars4Kids' and
Oorah's significant expenses and investments, Defendants' ads
misled and deceived thousands of donors, who, like Plaintiff, would
not have donated had they known the truth about Defendants' scheme,
says the suit.

KARS4KIDS INC. is a Jewish nonprofit car donation organization
based in Lakewood, New Jersey in the United States. Kars4Kids is a
501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that states that its mission is
"to fund educational, developmental and recreational programs for
low-income youth" through programs largely facilitated by its
sister charity Oorah, which focuses on Jewish children and
families.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          Sarah R. Holloway, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 543-1305
          Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
          Email: eagrover@kellergrover.com
                 sholloway@kellergrover.com

KLOVER HOLDINGS INC: Pierce Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Natalie Pierce, Michelle Ingrodi, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KLOVER HOLDINGS,
INC., Case No. GD 24-003757 was removed from the Allegheny County
Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on May 3, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00665 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Contract Dispute.

Klover Holdings Inc. -- https://www.joinklover.com/ -- offers an
app for instant cash advances and financial tools, without fees or
credit checks.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
          Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
          Stephanie Moore, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP
          6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
          Pittsburgh, PA 15208
          Phone: (412) 223-5740
          Fax: (412) 626-7101
          Email: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
                 ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
                 smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Colin J. Callahan, Esq.
          Marco S. Attisano, Esq.
          FLANNERY GEORGALIS
          707 Grant Street, Suite 2750
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 339-1336
          Email: ccallahan@flannerygeorgalis.com
                 mattisano@flannerygeorgalis.com


LA ESTRELLA TACOS: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against La Estrella Tacos &
Seafood Inc., et al. The case is styled as Paula Rodriguez, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. La Estrella
Tacos & Seafood Inc., Juan Fonseca, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2024-0005110 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April
26, 2024).

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

La Estrella Tacos & Seafood Inc. -- https://laestrellatacos.com/ --
is a Mexican Restaurant.[BN]

LENS.COM INC: Gonneville Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Angela Gonneville, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LENS.COM, INC., Case No.
2484CV00531-BLS2 was removed from the Suffolk Superior Court l, to
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
on April 25, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11110-PBS.

The Plaintiff alleges that "Lens.com packs a junk fee into its
transactions which it describes after the point of purchase as a
'processing fee.'" The Plaintiff alleges that she was personally
harmed in August 2019, when she purchased three boxes contact
lenses for a total price of $82.50. According to Plaintiff, she
paid an undisclosed processing charge of $5.21. the Plaintiff, on
behalf of herself and the putative class, brings claims against
Lens.com for Breach of Contract (Count I), Breach of the Duty of
Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Count II), and Unjust Enrichment
(Count III).[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Theodore J. Folkman, Esq.
          RUBIN AND RUDMAN LLP
          53 State St.
          Boston, MS 02109
          Phone: (617) 330-7135
          Email: tfolkman@rubinrudman.com

               - and -

          Mark Bettilyon, Esq.
          Jed Hansen, Esq.
          THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP
          The Walker Center
          175 S. Main Street, Suite 900
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Phone: (801) 566-6633
          Email: mark.bettilyon@tnw.com


LG ELECTRONICS: Court Closes Hernandez Case
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Hernandez et al., v.
LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-08813-SVW-SSC
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stephen Wilson entered an order closing
Hernandez case and mooting Defendants' motion to dismiss and
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

LG manufactures and distributes consumer electronic products.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pvJqxS at no extra
charge.[CC]

LIGHTFOOT FISHING: Martinez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jose Martinez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Lightfoot Fishing & Rental Inc. and Charles L.
Lightfoot, Case No. 7:24-cv-00109 (W.D. Tex., April 24, 2024), is
brought against the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime pay that
is required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Defendants have a business plan that includes paying some
non-exempt employees a salary plus a day rate for each day the
employees work in the field, no matter how many hours per week the
employees work. This plan also includes not paying the employees an
overtime premium for those hours over 40 per workweek. Defendants'
failure to pay the overtime premium required by law allows them to
gain an unfair advantage over competitors who follow the law in
their employment practices. The Plaintiff is one of the workers
hired by the Defendants as a salary and day-rate employee and not
paid overtime pay, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Lightfoot, Inc. as an oil field operator
and fisherman from May of 2018 until October of 2023.

Lightfoot is an owner and the control person of Lightfoot,
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 10099
          Houston, TX 77206
          Phone: 713-868-3388
          Facsimile: 713-683-9940
          Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces Meade Suit Over 33.2% Stock Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD C. MEADE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LINCOLN NATIONAL CORPORATION, ELLEN COOPER, DENNIS
GLASS, and RANDAL FREITAG, Case No. 2:24-cv-01704 (E.D. Pa., Apr.
23, 2024) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Lincoln National securities between
Nov. 4, 2020 and Nov. 2, 2022, inclusive, under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On Nov. 2, 2022, after the market closed, Lincoln National released
its third quarter 2022 financial results, reporting a net loss of
$2.6 billion for the quarter. This was compared to a net income of
$318 million for the third quarter of 2021 the previous year.

On this news, Lincoln's stock price fell $17.27, or 33.2%, to close
at $34.83 per share on Nov. 3, 2022, on unusually heavy trading
volume, says the suit.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors:

   (1) that the Company was experiencing a decline in its VUL
       business;

   (2) that the goodwill associated with the life insurance
       business was overstated;

   (3) that the Company's policy lapse assumptions were outdated;

   (4) that the Company's reserves were overstated;

   (5) that the Company's reported financial results and financial

       statements were misstated; and

   (6) that the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's

       business, operations, and prospects were materially
       misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

Plaintiff Meade purchased Lincoln National securities during the
Class Period.

Lincoln is a holding company which operates multiple insurance and
retirement businesses through subsidiary companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee Albert, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 358
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com
                  prajesh@glancylaw.com

LOTTA DOUGH: Abboud Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lotta Dough, LLC. The
case is styled as Monica Abboud, on behalf of herself and all those
similarly situated v. Lotta Dough, LLC d/b/a Hoboken Pie, Case No.
1:24-cv-00482 (W.D. Tex., May 3, 2024).

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

Lotta Dough, LLC doing business as Hoboken Pie --
https://hobokenpie.com/ -- is a pizza restaurant offering
high-quality, hand-tossed pies in the historic Red River Cultural
District since 2008.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Email: ak@kazlg.com


LOWE'S HOME: Carrillo Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Bernice Carrillo, an individual, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC.,
a North Carolina Corporation; and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2024-2346 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Joaquin, to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California on
April 26, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01215-DJC-AC.

The Complaint asserts the following six causes of action for
violation of the California Labor Code and California Business and
Professions Code: "Failure to Pay Overtime Wages"; "Failure to
Provide Meal Periods"; "Failure to Provide Rest Periods"; "Failure
to Furnish Timely and Accurate Wage Statements"; "Failure to Pay
All Wages Due Upon Termination"; and "Violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law ('UCL').[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq.
          Francesca L. Hunter, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Phone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          Email: jbrophy@seyfarth.com
                 fhunter@seyfarth.com


MARVELOUS MARK: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNATHAN MEJIA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, v. MARVELOUS MARK TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., CE
SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC and CE SOLUTIONS INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-03011-AMD-VMS (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 23, 2024) seeks to recover
from Defendants unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Mr. Mejia worked 6 days per week and shifts from 12-16 hours per
day. He was paid just $11.00 per hour, by direct deposit. The
Defendants failed to pay Mejia minimum wage. In addition, despite
working in excess of 40 hours per week and ten hours per day, Mr.
Mejia was not paid overtime or spread-of-hours. Furthermore, the
Defendants committed statutory wage violations by failing to
furnish Mejia with a wage notice upon his hire or accurate wage
statements with each payment received, the lawsuit alleges.

The Plaintiff brings claims for relief pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23, on behalf of all non-exempt
employees employed by the Defendant on or after the date that is
three years before the filing of the Complaint.

The Plaintiff also brings claims for relief pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23, on behalf of all non-exempt
employees employed by the Defendants on or after the date that is
six years before the filing of the Complaint.

Mr. Mejia was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
from March 9, 2023 to July 18, 2023.

Marvelous is a licensed trucking company running freight hauling
business from Lucan, Ontario.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert D. Salaman, Esq.
          AKIN & SALAMAN PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 1420
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 825-1400
          E-mail: rob@akinlaws.com

MASTERCORP INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE; JOHN DOE #1; and JOHN DOE #2, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MASTERCORP INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00678 (E.D. Va., April 25, 2024) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as a hotel cleaner.

MASTERCORP, INC. provides cleaning and maintenance services. The
Company offers departure cleaning, laundry management, assessment,
traffic area carpet cleaning, inventory control, and maintenance
reporting services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Hanna, Esq.
          Nicolas Mendoza, Esq.
          Nicole Rubin, Esq.
          MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC
          1401 K Street NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 223-2620
          Email: mhanna@murphypllc.com
                 nmendoza@murphypllc.com
                 nrubin@murphypllc.com

               - and -

          Rachel Geman, Esq.
          Wesley Dozier, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (250) 355-9500
          Email: rgeman@lchb.com
                 wdozier@lchb.com

MDL 2992: Parties in Labor Class Suit Seek to Extend Case Schedule
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Bank of America California
Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
(S.D. Cal.), the Parties file a joint motion to extend case
schedule as follows:

       Event               Current              Proposed
                             Date                Date

  Motion for Class       May 14, 2024     14 days after Defendant
  Certification                           files its Answer to all
                                          class allegations and its

                                          affirmative defenses

  Opp. to Motion for     June 25, 2024    8 weeks after Motion for

  Class Certification                     Class Certification

  Reply ISO Motion for   July 23, 2024    4 weeks after Opp. to
Motion
  Class Certification                     for Class Certification

  Fact Discovery         Aug. 13, 2024    3 weeks after Class
  Completed                               Certification Reply

  Expert Disclosures     Sept. 17, 2024   5 weeks after Fact
Discovery
                                          Completed

  Expert Discovery       Nov. 12, 2024    4 weeks after Rebuttal
  Completed                               Expert Disclosures

The parties further request that the Pretrial Motions Deadline and
all
subsequent deadlines be continued accordingly and be set upon
issuance of the Court's order on the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PKzuh5 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian Danitz, Esq.
          Karin B. Swope, Esq.
          Andrew F. Kirtley, Esq.
          COTCHETTPITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: bdanitz@cpmlegal.com
                  kswope@cpmlegal.com
                  akirtley@cpmlegal.com

                - and -

          Michael Rubin, Esq.
          Connie K. Chan, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
          E-mail: mrubin@altber.com
                  cchan@altber.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James W. Mcgarry, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          100 Northern Avenue
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 570-1000
          Facsimile: (617) 523-1231
          E-mail: JMcGarry@goodwinlaw.com

                - and -

          Sabrina M. Rose-Smith, Esq.
          Matthew L. Riffee, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          1900 N Street NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 346-4000
          Facsimile: (202) 346-4444
          E-mail: SRoseSmith@goodwinlaw.com
                  MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com

MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 31, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEYYED JAVAD MAADANIAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00665-RSL (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Robert Lasnik entered an order setting trial date
and
related dates (class action) as follows:

  Trial Date:                                   Nov. 2, 2026

  Deadline to submit joint ESI                  May 17, 2024
  Protocol and Protective Order,
  or alternatively, disputes regarding
  the same:

  Deadline to join additional parties:          May 29, 2024

  Deadline to amend pleadings:                  June 28, 2024

  Substantial completion of document            Sept. 20, 2024
  Discovery:

  Close of fact discovery:                      Dec. 1, 2024

  Deadline for Plaintiff to file motion         Jan. 31, 2025
  for class certification and serve
  class certification expert reports:

  Deadline for Defendants to file               April 11, 2025
  opposition to motion for class
  certification, serve any class
  certification expert reports, and file
  any Daubert motions regarding Plaintiff's
  class certification experts:

  Settlement conference held no later than:     April 17, 2026

Mercedes-Benz is the distributor for Mercedes-Benz passenger cars
in the United States.

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

MIDDLETOWN MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blumrath Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
LEANN BLUMRATH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDDLETOWN MEDICAL, P.C., Defendant, Case
No. 7:24-cv-03097 (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2024) seeks to recover from
the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Blumrath was employed by the Defendant as a call center
representative.

Middletown Medical, P.C. provides health care services. The Company
offers cancer care, digestive diseases, heart and vascular, imaging
and radiology, surgery, nursing, orthopedics, rehabilitation and
physical therapy, transplant, and women's health services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David T. Sirotkin, Esq.
          MORELLI LAW FIRM, PLLC
          777 Third Avenue, 31 st Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 751-9800
          Facsimile: (212) 751-0046
          Email: dsirotkin@morellilaw.com

               - and -

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

MIKEL H. WILLIAMS: Assad Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MIKEL H. WILLIAMS, et
al. The case is styled as George P. Assad, Jr., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. MIKEL H. WILLIAMS,
KIRKLAND H. DONALD, TINA W. JONAS, WILLIAM J. MADIA, DANIEL B.
PONEMAN, BRADLEY J. SAWATZKE, NEIL S. SUBIN, W. THOMAS JAGODINSKI,
TETSUO IGUCHI, CENTRUS ENERGY CORP., and COMPUTERSHARE TRUST
COMPANY, N.A., Case No. 2024-0426-PAF (Del. Chancery Ct., April 24,
2024).

The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."

Mikel H. Williams has been a member of the Board since 2013 and
its
Chairman since 2014.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
          Daniel E. Meyer, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN, LITOWITZ, BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 364-3601

               - and -

          Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq.
          Edward Timlin, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 554-1400

               - and -

          William J. Fields, Esq.
          Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
          Samir Shukurov, Esq.
          FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
          141 Tompkins Ave, Suite 404
          Pleasantville, NY 10570
          Phone: (212) 231-1500

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RMLAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlake Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Phone: (484) 324-6800


MITEK SYSTEMS: Court Dismisses Securities Suit w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
Mitek Systems, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended February 29, 2024, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2024, that on September 13,
2023, plaintiffs in the putative class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois filed a Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal. On September 14, 2023, the court dismissed the
lawsuit without prejudice, ending the litigation.

On December 16, 2021, the company was sued in a putative class
action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois alleging that
the Company had violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act (BIPA) with respect to identity verification services that the
company provided to its customer HyreCar, Inc. for its customers in
Illinois.

Plaintiff claimed that the company had not obtained the required
consent to collect and use his biometric information, and that he
and a class of similarly situated individuals therefore are
entitled to statutory damages under BIPA.

The company removed this suit to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, and on March 4, 2022 the company
filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration based on HyreCar's terms and
conditions requiring its customers to arbitrate on an individual
(non-class) basis.

On May 4, 2022 the trial court denied the Arbitration Motion. On
December 21, 2022, the trial court's ruling was upheld on appeal,
and the case subsequently was remanded back to the trial court. On
March 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding a
second named plaintiff, who is also a HyreCar end-user, but
otherwise not materially changing the allegations. On March 27,
2023, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative,
to Strike Class Allegations. On May 11, 2023, and after the
company's motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, to strike class
allegations had been fully briefed, the plaintiffs filed a Motion
for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint seeking to add two new
named plaintiffs, who are end-users of the company's customers
Instacart and Roadie, and to remove one named plaintiff. The
Company opposed the Motion for Leave.

Mitek Systems, Inc. is a software development company that provides
mobile image capture and digital identity verification solutions.
Mitek markets and sells its products and services worldwide through
internal, direct sales teams located in the U.S., Europe, and Latin
America as well as through channel partners.


MOELIS & CO: Final Order on Stockholder Suit Still Not Issued
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moelis & Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 24, 2024, that the Delaware Court of Chancery
has not yet issued final order for the stockholders class suit.

During 2023, West Palm Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund, a
putative Class A stockholder of the Company, filed a class action
lawsuit, on behalf of itself and other similarly-situated Class A
stockholders, in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company
seeking declaratory judgment that certain provisions of the
Stockholders Agreement between the Company and Partner Holdings are
invalid and unenforceable as a matter of Delaware law.

On March 4, 2024, the Court of Chancery issued an interlocutory
order, presently in effect, that certain provisions of the
Stockholders Agreement, including the provisions relating to
approval rights and director vacancies, are facially invalid, void,
and unenforceable under Delaware law.

A final order has not yet been entered in the lawsuit and the time
for taking an appeal has not yet run.

Moelis is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York City and
describes itself as a leading global independent investment bank
that offers comprehensive, globally integrated financial advisory
services across all major industry sectors.[BN]






MORGANTOWN, WV: Rowand Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Morgantown,
West Virginia. The case is styled as Anthony Rowand, personally,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. City of
Morgantown, West Virginia, Case No. 1:24-cv-00041-TSK (N.D.W. Va.,
April 22, 2024).

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

Morgantown -- https://www.morgantownwv.gov/ -- is a city in West
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary M. Smith, Esq.
          Laura Christine Davidson, Esq.
          Lesley Marie Nash, Esq.
          MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC.
          1029 University Ave., Ste. 101
          Morgantown, WV 26505
          Phone: (304) 326-0188
          Fax: (304) 344-3145
          Email: gary@msjlaw.org
                 laura@msjlaw.org
                 lesley@msjlaw.org


MR. COOPER: Continues to Defend Consolidated Cabezas Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cooper Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
fiscal period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 24, 2024 that the Company continues to
defend itself from the consolidated Cabezas class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

On November 3, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, captioned Cabezas v. Mr. Cooper Group, Inc.,
No. 23-cv-02453 ("Cabezas"), in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, by plaintiff Jennifer Cabezas
purportedly on behalf of a class consisting of those persons
impacted by the cybersecurity incident that occurred on October 31,
2023.

The class action complaint alleges claims for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of express contract, breach of implied
contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of
confidence, and breach of fiduciary duty based upon allegations
that the Company did not employ reasonable and adequate security
measures to protect customer personal information accessed in the
cybersecurity incident.

The Cabezas complaint seeks damages, declaratory and injunctive
relief, and an award of costs, attorney fees and expenses, among
other relief.

Between November 2023 and January 31, 2024, 25 additional putative
class actions were filed against the Company asserting
substantially similar claims and allegations as those asserted in
the Cabezas action.

The Cabezas court consolidated all 25 cases with the Cabezas
action, and administratively closed the 25 separate matters.

Mr. Cooper Group, Inc. provides servicing, origination and
transaction-based services related to single family residences
throughout the United States.[BN]


MR. COOPER: Continues to Defend Randles Class Suit in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cooper Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
fiscal period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 24, 2024 that the Company continues to
defend itself from Randles class suit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California.

On February 7, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, captioned Randles v. Mr. Cooper Group, Inc.
("Randles"), in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California, purportedly on behalf of persons residing
in California who were impacted by the cybersecurity incident.

The Randles complaint alleges one claim under the California
Consumer Privacy Act, and seeks damages, declaratory and injunctive
relief, and an award of litigation expenses and attorneys' fees.

The Company has moved to transfer venue of the Randles action to
the same court where the Cabezas action is pending, so the cases
can be consolidated.

Mr. Cooper Group, Inc. provides servicing, origination and
transaction-based services related to single family residences
throughout the United States.[BN]


NATIONAL LIABILITY: Neal Files Suit in E.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Liability &
Fire Insurance Company. The case is styled as Harvey Neal,
individually & on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Liability & Fire Insurance Company, Case No.
2:24-cv-00280-JRG (E.D. Tex., April 25, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.

National Liability and Fire Insurance Company --
https://www.nationalliabilityfire.com/ -- is a national Property
and Casualty insurer specializing in Workers Compensation
coverage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Andrew Holmes, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES HOLMES, PC
          212 South Marshall
          Henderson, TX 75654
          Phone: (903) 657-2800
          Fax: (903) 657-2855
          Email: jh@jamesholmeslaw.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Cassese Sues Over Injuries Caused to Borrowers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Cassese, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC D/B/A MR. COOPER, Case No.
2:24-cv-03305 (E.D.N.Y., May 3, 2024), is brought arises out of
injuries caused to borrowers who payoff their mortgage or home
equity loans serviced by the Defendant.

The Defendant demands borrowers pay "daily interest" through the
date of payoff but often collects and fails to refund daily
interest demanded and collected for days after the date of payoff.
The Defendant's retention of daily interest after loan payoff is a
breach of the borrowers' loan agreements, conversion of borrowers'
monies and unjustly enriches the Defendant at borrowers' expense.
In addition, the Defendant's promise in its payoff letters to
refund any overpayment of daily interest is false and deceptive.

The Plaintiff was the borrower on a mortgage loan serviced by the
Defendant. When she sought to repay that mortgage in 2021, the
Defendant provided her with a payoff letter listing the amount
necessary to payoff her loan. That payoff amount included "daily
interest" of $18.61 calculated through April 1, 2021. That same
payoff letter promised that any "overpayment" will be refunded to
the borrower within 20 days. the Plaintiff fully repaid her loan on
or before March 29, 2021, which has been acknowledged in
correspondence by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. the Defendant has
never refunded the daily interest overpaid by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff and other Class members are injured as a direct and
proximate cause of the unlawful acts of the Defendant in demanding,
collecting and failing to refund the overpayment of daily interest
on repaid mortgage and home equity loans, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was the owner of a home located at 627 Brooklyn
Avenue in Baldwin, New York that was secured by mortgage loan
serviced by Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Cooper is authorized to do business by the New York Secretary
of State and is a mortgage loan servicer registered with the New
York Department of Financial Services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph S. Tusa, Esq.
          TUSA P.C.
          P.O. Box 566
          55000 Main Road, 2nd Floor
          Southold, NY 11971
          Phone: (631) 407-5100
          Email: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com

               - and -

          Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq.
          Scott V. Papp, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Ste. 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 997-0500
          Email: pstphillip@lowey.com
                 spapp@lowey.com


NEW YORK, NY: Elie Sues Over Due Process Rights Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph R. Elie, Jr., 714 Lex Acquisition LLC CCSM LLC, 301-305 West
125 LLC, Flatbrush Delaware Holding LLC, 3684 Nostrand Ave.
Associates LLC, 837 Utica Avenue LLC, and 600 Broadway Partners LLC
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS and JAMES
S. ODDO, in his official capacity as commissioner of the New York
City Department of Buildings, Case No. 1:24-cv-03319 (E.D.N.Y., May
3, 2024), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief and
damages, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
for violations of their due process rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment, stemming from the New York City Department of Buildings'
("DOB") unconstitutional building and construction code enforcement
process and ensuing continued noncompliance civil penalties.

New York City (the "City") enforces its building and construction
laws through the DOB codes and regulations, whereby it reviews and
issues permits and licenses, inspects buildings, and enforces
compliance with the City's construction code.

As part of its Building Code enforcement policy and process,
Defendants issue two types of fines (referred to by DOB and herein
as "civil penalties") for code violations. One set of civil
penalties can be challenged through the City's Environmental
Control Board/Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings
(ECB/OATH). These civil penalties are referred to as "reviewable
civil penalties." The other set of civil penalties bypass the
judicial system and are imposed directly by Defendants. They can
never be challenged or appealed. For these fines, the cited party
has one sole option: full payment without due process. These
"unreviewable civil penalties" are the core of this Complaint.

Pursuant to its policy and practice, Defendants issue unreviewable
civil penalties for many different infractions. The Defendants
issue unreviewable civil penalties for no less than 14 different
infractions. Some of the unreviewable civil penalties are issued in
conjunction with and in addition to reviewable civil penalties.
Other unreviewable civil penalties are issued independently of any
reviewable civil penalties.

The common thread of all unreviewable civil penalties is the
penalty is imposed without affording the cited party a fair hearing
or meaningful, impartial review. Instead, Defendants simply ignore
their basic due process obligations. These unreviewable civil
penalties may not be challenged or appealed, and as such violate
the cited party's due process rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Plaintiffs file the present action for the deprivation
of said rights.

While the government has a legitimate interest in ensuring that
construction sites and buildings are safe, this interest may only
be achieved in a manner consistent with constitutional mandates of
due process. Defendants' procedures and practices for prosecuting
violations of its building and construction laws do not come close
to meeting these standards, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Elie owns a residential building.

The City of New York is a municipal corporation organized under the
laws of the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luis Munoz, Esq.
          THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          488 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (917) 319-9758
          Facsimile: (516) 506-7695
          Email: LMunoz@carlsonattorneys.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Fink, Esq.
          THE FINK LAW FIRM, P.C.
          488 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 280-6600
          Facsimile: (516) 506-7695
          Email: SFink@thefinklawfirmpc.com


NOBLE ENERGY INC: Boulter Files Suit in D. Colorado
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Noble Energy Inc. The
case is styled as Mike Boulter, Boulter LLC, Barclay Farms, LLC, on
behalf of themselves and classes of similarly situated persons v.
Noble Energy Inc., Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP, Case No.
1:24-cv-00710-SKC-KAS (D. Colo., March 14, 2024).

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

Noble Energy, Inc. -- https://nobelenergy.com/ -- was a company
engaged in hydrocarbon exploration headquartered in Houston,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George A. Barton, Esq.
          BARTON & BURROWS, LLC
          5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110
          Mission, KS 66205
          Phone: (913) 563-6250
          Email: george@bartonburrows.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James Robert Henderson, Esq.
          Jonathan William Rauchway, Esq.
          Molly Jane Kokesh, Esq.
          Theresa Wardon Benz, Esq.
          DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP
          1550 17th Street, Suite 500
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: (303) 892-9400
          Fax: (303) 893-1379
          Email: jim.henderson@dgslaw.com
                 jonathan.rauchway@dgslaw.com
                 molly.kokesh@dgslaw.com
                 theresa.benz@dgslaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony N. Kaim, Esq.
          Barrett H. Reasoner, Esq.
          Shannon Nicole Smith, Esq.
          GIBBS & BRUNS LLP
          1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 5300
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: (713) 751-5249
          Fax: (713) 750-0903
          Email: akaim@gibbsbruns.com
                 breasoner@gibbsbruns.com
                 snsmith@gibbsbruns.com

               - and -

          Carlos R. Romo, Esq.
          Ezekiel J. Williams, Esq.
          Jacqueline F. Hyatt, Esq.
          Mairead K. Dolan, Esq.
          WILLIAMS WEESE PEPPLE & FERGUSON PC
          1801 California Street, Suite 3400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: (303) 228-2531
          Fax: (303) 861-4017
          Email: cromo@williamsweese.com
                 zwilliams@williamsweese.com
                 jhyatt@williamsweese.com
                 mdolan@williamsweese.com


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Plaintiffs Ask Court's Prelim OK of $600M Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Elverd of Morning Journal reports that attorneys
representing the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit against
Norfolk Southern filed a motion, asking the Ohio District Northern
District Court to grant preliminary approval of the $600 million
principal settlement that was announced earlier this month.

Despite what the motion called a belief that "the claims asserted
against Norfolk Southern in this case have merit" and that
plaintiffs would "ultimately be successful in prevailing on the
merits at trial," the length of time it would take for the case to
play out in court, coupled with the expense of that litigation and
the uncertainty of how it would end led the plaintiffs to seek a
settlement.

"The settlement agreement between Norfolk Southern and Plaintiffs
will provide relief now, as opposed to years, or even decades, down
the road," the motion read. "Recognizing that further litigation
would be risky, burdensome, and expensive, plaintiffs and Norfolk
Southern agree that it is desirable and beneficial that the case is
settled."

The motion said the agreement "provides substantial recovery" for
the East Palestine community and surrounding area, and "will
provide households, families, and local businesses much-needed,
immediate relief for the losses, suffering, and inconvenience they
have endured since February 3, 2023."

The motion and exhibits filed along with it revealed the proposed
timeline of the approval process, setting the final approval
hearing as Sept. 25.

The documents also revealed how much the plaintiffs' lawyers could
receive from brokering the deal. Under the agreement, class counsel
agrees to "seek no more than 27% of the total monetary recovery"
and "costs and expenses up to 3% of the fund." That means the
attorneys stand to pocket $180 million -- $162 million in legal
fees and $18 million in other expenses.

The filing also requested that Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
be appointed as the settlement administrator who "will determine
the allocation formula and fixed amounts" based on scored criteria
including geographic proximity, household size, number of children
in the household, relocation mandates, and length of displacement
with payments will be distributed based on the allocated points.

The motion clarified that only claims within the first 10 miles
will be scored. For plaintiffs 10 to 20 miles, only actual
displacement and extraordinary injuries will be considered.
Businesses are entitled to losses that can be proven through tax
returns or other documents. [GN]

NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Powell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northeastern
University, et al. The case is styled as Armani Powell,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Northeastern University, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
CGC24614228 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 26, 2024).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

Northeastern University (NU or NEU) --
https://www.northeastern.edu/ -- is a private research university
with its main campus in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
          Phone: 213-381-9988
          Fax: 213-381-9989
          Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com


NORTHGATE GONZALEZ: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arellano Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA ARELLANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHGATE GONZALEZ MARKETS, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV10515 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 26, 2024) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Arellano was employed by the Defendants as a cake
decorator.

NORTHGATE GONZALEZ MARKETS, INC. operates a chain of supermarkets.
The Company provides foods, drink, recipes, wines, flowers, online
shopping, delivery services, and household goods. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
          Christina N. Mirzaie, Esq.
          HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 696-2306
          Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
          Email: haig@hbklawyers.com
                 christina@hbklawyers.com

NUOVO ARTISTIC: Dulei Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
-------------------------------------------------------
KIRUNIS DULEI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NUOVO ARTISTIC STUDIOS MIAMI LLC, Defendant,
Case No. CACE-24-005655 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., April 23, 2024)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

NUOVO ARTISTIC STUDIOS MIAMI LLC is a photography studio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
          Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
          Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                 jen@jibraellaw.com
                 zane@jibraellaw.com
                 gerald@jibraellaw.com

NUVISION AUTO GLASS: Therrien Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NuVision Auto Glass
LLC. The case is styled as Justin Therrien, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. NuVision Auto Glass LLC, Case
No. 2:24-cv-00934-SPL (D. Ariz., April 24, 2024).

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

NuVision Auto Glass -- https://www.nuvisionautoglass.com/ -- is one
of the fastest growing auto glass companies in the US.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


NV5 INC: Pascual Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NV5, INC., et al. The
case is styled as Lester Pascual, an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff/Petitioner v. NV5, INC.,
NVS GLOBAL, INC., Defendant/Respondent, Case No. C24-01131 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Contra Costa Cty., April 26, 2024).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Other Employment-eFile."

NV5 -- https://www.nv5.com/ -- is a leading provider of
professional and technical engineering and consulting solutions
with strong management team with 200 years of combined industry
experience.[BN]

The Plaintiff/Petitioner is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 438-5555
          Fax: (310) 300-1705
          Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
                 jeff@tomorrowlaw.com


NVIDIA CORP: Court OK's Bid to Seal Certain Exhibits in Tobias Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTINA TOBIAS, ANTHONY
BRIGGS, ANN MACDONALD and DAVID CALDER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF NVIDIA CORPORATION, THE 401(K) BENEFITS PLAN
COMMITTEE OF NVIDIA CORPORATION, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No.
4:20-cv-06081-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an
order granting the Defendants' motion in its entirety and sealing
the following documents from the public record:

Item          Description                     Attached To
  No.

   1    Plaintiff Tobias's Plan         Exhibit 15 to the
Declaration
        account statements for the      of Clarissa Kang in
Support
        period Jan. 1, 2014 through     of Defendants' Opposition
to
        June 30, 2022                   Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class
                                        Certification.
                                        Designating Party:
Defendants
                                        and Plaintiffs.

   2    Plaintiff Briggs's Plan         Exhibit 16 to the Kang
        account statements for the      Declaration.
        period Jan. 1, 2014 through     Designating Party:
Defendants
        June 30, 2020                   and Plaintiffs.

   3    Plaintiff MacDonald's Plan      Exhibit 17 to the Kang
        account statements for the      Declaration.
        period Jan. 1, 2014 through     Designating Party:
Defendants
        March 31, 2017                  and Plaintiffs.

   4    Plaintiff Calders's Plan        Exhibit 18 to the Kang
        account statements for the      Declaration.
        period Jan. 1, 2014 through     Designating Party:
Defendants
        Dec. 31, Declaration.           and Plaintiffs.

NVIDIA is an American semiconductor company and a global
manufacturer of high-end graphics processing units (GPUs).

A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QsJrI6 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Clarissa A. Kang, Esq.
          Dylan D. Rudolph, Esq.
          Catherine L. Reagan, Esq.
          TRUCKER HUSS
          135 Main Street, 9th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 788-3111
          Facsimile: (415) 421-2017
          E-mail: ckang@truckerhuss.com
                  drudolph@truckerhuss.com
                  creagan@truckerhuss.com

NVIDIA CORP: Dubus Sues Over Unlawful Copying of Copyrighted Works
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Dubus, III, Susan Orlean, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation; Case No. 4:24-cv-02655 (N.D. Cal., May 2, 2024), is
brought arising under the Copyright Act as a result of the
Defendants unlawful copying of copyrighted works into AI software
program multiple times.

A large language model is an AI software program designed to emit
convincingly naturalistic text outputs in response to user prompts.
NeMo Megatron–GPT ("NeMo Megatron") is a series of large language
models created by NVIDIA and released in September 2022. Rather
than being programmed in the traditional way—that is, by human
programmers writing code--a large language model is trained by
copying an enormous quantity of textual works, extracting protected
expression from these works, and transforming that protected
expression into a large set of numbers called weights that are
stored within the model.

These weights are entirely and uniquely derived from the protected
expression in the training dataset. Whenever a large language model
generates text output in response to a user prompt, it is
performing a computation that relies on these stored weights, with
the goal of imitating the protected expression ingested from the
training dataset.

The Plaintiffs and Class members are authors. They own registered
copyrights in certain books that were included in the training
dataset that NVIDIA has admitted copying to train its NeMo Megatron
models. Plaintiffs and Class members never authorized NVIDIA to use
their copyrighted works as training material. NVIDIA copied
Plaintiffs' and Class members' copyrighted works multiple times to
train its NeMo Megatron language models, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs own registered copyrights in multiple books.

NVIDIA is a diversified technology company founded in 1993 that
originally focused on computer-graphics hardware and has since
expanded to other computationally intensive fields, including
software and hardware for training and operating AI software
programs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          205 N. Monroe Street,
          Media, PA 19063
          Phone: 215-864-2800
          Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Nada Djordjevic, Esq.
          James A. Ulwick, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLP
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 214-7900
          Email: akeller@dicellolevitt.com
                 ndjordjevic@dicellolevitt.com
                 julwick@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          David A. Straite, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLP
          485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (646) 933-1000
          Email: dstraite@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Brian O'Mara, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLP
          4747 Executive Drive
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Phone: (619) 923-3939
          Facsimile: (619) 923-4233
          Email: briano@dicellolevitt.com


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Proposes to Settle Weiner Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
called Weiner v. Ocwen Financial Corp., Case No. Case No.
14-cv-02597, (E.D. Cal.) (the "Settlement"). This Notice summarizes
Class Members' rights and options. More details are available at
www.OcwenFeeSettlement.com.

A federal court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.

What is this about?

Plaintiff alleges that Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and its parent
company Ocwen Financial Corporation (together, "Defendants" or
"Ocwen") over-charged borrowers for certain property valuation
expenses, including Broker Price Opinions ("BPOs") or Hybrid
Valuations ("Hybrids"), which Plaintiff alleges contained
undisclosed "mark-ups." Ocwen denies Plaintiff's claims, and all
alleged wrongdoing associated with Plaintiff's claims. The Court
has not decided who is right or wrong. Instead, the Parties have
agreed to the Settlement to avoid the costs, risk, and delays
associated with continuing this complex and time-consuming
litigation.

Who is affected?

The Court certified a Nationwide Settlement Class that includes all
residents of the United States of America who have or had a loan
serviced by Ocwen and who paid for one or more BPOs or Hybrids
charged by Ocwen through Altisource, from November 5, 2010 through
September 29, 2017, the date of the class certification order in
this action. The Court also certified a California Settlement
Sub-Class that includes all residents of the State of California
who have or had a loan serviced by Ocwen and to whom charges for
one or more BPOs or Hybrids were assessed to their mortgage account
by Ocwen through Altisource, from November 5, 2010 through
September 29, 2017 (the "class period"). The Nationwide Settlement
Class and California Settlement Sub-Cass are collectively the
Settlement Class.

What does the Settlement provide?

If approved, the Settlement will provide:

     a. A $60 reimbursement for each BPO fee that Settlement Class
Members paid during the class period;

     b. A $70 reimbursement for each Hybrid fee that Settlement
Class Members paid during the class period;

    c. Reversals and/or credits for any California Sub-Class
Members who continue to have loans serviced by Ocwen, in the amount
of $60 for each BPO and $70 for each Hybrid fee that was assessed
to the Class Member during the class period but for which the Class
Member has not paid; and

     d. Defendants' modification of disclosures to borrowers in
valuation-related correspondence and reports, and in any applicable
fee schedules, to identify, as applicable, the "reconciliation"
service added by vendors to BPO and Hybrid products.

What are my options?

Class Members can file a claim, request exclusion, object, or do
nothing.

File a Claim. To receive a payment from the Settlement, submit a
valid claim electronically at www.OcwenFeeSettlement.com or
postmarked by September 29, 2025. By submitting a claim, you give
up your right to sue or continue to sue Defendants for the claims
in this case.

Request Exclusion. To remove yourself from the Settlement ("opt
out"), submit an exclusion request by July 12, 2024. If you exclude
yourself, you will receive no payment from the Settlement, but this
is the only option that will allow you to keep your right to sue or
continue to sue Defendants for the claims in this case.

Object. If you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement, you may
object or tell the Court what you do not like about the Settlement.
If you object, you must still submit a claim to receive a payment.
Objections must be submitted by July 12, 2024.

Do Nothing. If you do nothing, you will receive no payment from the
Settlement and you will give up your right to sue or continue to
sue Defendants for the claims in this case.

For more details about your rights and options and how to file a
claim, exclude yourself, or object, go to
www.OcwenFeeSettlement.com.

What happens next?

The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on September 5, 2024
at 1:30 p.m. PT, to consider whether to give final approval to the
Settlement and grant Settlement Class Counsel's request for
attorneys' fees and costs, as well as reimbursement for Settlement
Administration Costs. The Court appointed the law firm of Baron &
Budd P.C., to represent Settlement Class Members as Settlement
Class Counsel. Settlement Class Counsel will request attorneys'
fees, estimated to be $8,000,000, plus reimbursable litigation
costs, estimated to be $950,000. If approved by the Court, the
attorneys' fees and costs will be paid by the Defendants. You do
not need to attend the Final Approval Hearing. Settlement Class
Counsel will answer any questions the Court may have. You or your
attorney may ask to speak at the hearing at your own expense, but
you do not have to. To do so, you must file with the Court, by on
or before July 12, 2024, a notice of intent to appear at the Final
Approval Hearing.

How can I get more information?

Go to www.OcwenFeeSettlement.com, email
info@OcwenFeeSettlement.com, call toll-free 1-888-995-0316, or
write to Ocwen Fee Settlement, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O.
Box 91338, Seattle, WA 98111. [GN]

OHANA MILITARY: Powell Suit Removed to D. Hawaii
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cleophas C. Powell, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated v. Ohana Military Communities, LLC, Hunt MH
Property Management, LLC, Doe Defendants 1-10, Case No.
1CCV-23-0001504 was removed from the Circuit Court of the First
Circuit State of Hawaii, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Hawaii on April 22, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00184-LEK-KJM to
the proceeding.

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

Ohana Military Communities, LLC --
https://www.ohananavycommunities.com/ -- provides real estate
services. The Company focuses on military housing, community
development, real asset investment management, and multifamily
housing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos D. Perez-Mesa, Jr., Esq.
          CLAY IWAMURA PULICE & NERVELL
          700 Bishop St Ste 2100
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Phone: (808) 535-8441
          Fax: (808) 535-8446
          Email: cperez-mesa@paclawteam.com

               - and -

          Jason Shawn Kasamoto, Esq.
          STATE OF HAWAII
          415 S. Beretania Street #415
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Phone: (808) 384-5911
          Email: jkasamoto@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joachim P. Cox, Esq.
          Kamala S. Haake, Esq.
          Randall C. Whattoff, Esq.
          COX FRICKE A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP LLP
          800 Bethel Street, Suite 600
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Phone: (808) 585-9440
          Email: jcox@cfhawaii.com
                 khaake@cfhawaii.com
                 rwhattoff@cfhawaii.com


OIL BAR LLC: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Oil Bar, LLC. The
case is styled as Angela Wahab, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. The Oil Bar, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03156
(S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024).

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

The Oil Bar, LLC -- https://www.theoilbar.com/ -- offers a
selection of over 400 Fragrance Oils.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com


ON Q FINANCIAL: Connelly Sues Over Inadequate Data Security
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ryant Connelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. On Q Financial LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01006-SPL (D.
Ariz., May 2, 2024), is brought seeking to hold the Defendant
responsible for the injuries the Defendant inflicted on Plaintiff
and tens of thousands of similarly situated persons ("Class
Members") due to the Defendant's impermissibly inadequate data
security, which caused the personal information of Plaintiff and
those similarly situated to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access
by cybercriminals (the "Data Breach") on or about February 20,
2024.

The Data Breach affected 211,650 individuals. The data which the
Defendant collected from the Plaintiff and Class Members, and which
was exfiltrated by cybercriminals from the Defendant, were highly
sensitive. The exfiltrated data included personal identifying
information ("PII") such as: first and last names, postal
addresses, full Social Security Numbers, and loan numbers. Prior to
and through the date of the Data Breach, the Defendant obtained
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and then maintained that
sensitive data in a negligent and/or reckless manner. As evidenced
by the Data Breach, the Defendant inadequately maintained its
network, platform, software rendering these easy prey for
cybercriminals.

The risk of the Data Breach was known to the Defendant. Thus, the
Defendant was on notice that its inadequate data security created a
heightened risk of exfiltration, compromise, and theft. Then, after
the Data Breach, Defendant failed to provide timely notice to the
affected Plaintiff and Class Members—thereby exacerbating their
injuries. Ultimately, Defendant deprived Plaintiff and Class
Members of the chance to take speedy measures to protect themselves
and mitigate harm. Simply put, Defendant impermissibly left
Plaintiff and Class Members in the dark—thereby causing their
injuries to fester and the damage to spread. Even when Defendant
finally notified Plaintiff and Class Members of their PII's
exfiltration, Defendant failed to adequately describe the Data
Breach and its effects.

The Plaintiff and Class Members will likely suffer additional
financial costs for purchasing necessary credit monitoring
services, credit freezes, credit reports, or other protective
measures to deter and detect identity theft. The Plaintiff and
Class Members have suffered—and will continue to suffer--from the
loss of the benefit of their bargain, unexpected out-of-pocket
expenses, lost or diminished value of their PII, emotional
distress, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to
mitigate the fallout of the Data Breach. Through this action,
Plaintiff seeks to remedy these injuries on behalf of himself and
all similarly situated individuals whose PII were exfiltrated and
compromised in the Data Breach, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a client of On Q Financial between mid-2022 and
early 2024.

On Q Financial operates a mortgage company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Colleen M. Auer, Esq.
          AUER RYAN, P.C.
          20987 N. John Wayne Parkway, #B104-374
          Maricopa, AZ 85139
          Phone: 520-705-7332
          Email: eryan@auer-ryan.com
                 cauer@auer-ryan.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Ronald Podolny, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 223-5505
          Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                 ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com


ON THE GO LAUNDRY: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against On The Go Laundry NYC
Corp. The case is styled as Charity Danso, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. On The Go Laundry NYC Corp., Case
No. 1:24-cv-03159 (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2024).

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

On the Go Cleaners -- https://www.onthegocleaners.com/ -- is
Manhattan's most reliable laundry and dry cleaning delivery
service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com


PARFIT LLC: Berman Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parfit LLC. The case
is styled as Christopher Berman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Parfit LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-60685-WPD
(S.D. Fla., April 24, 2024).

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

Parfit LLC is in the athletica health and fitness industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel Greenfield Mandler, Esq.
          STOK FOLK + KON
          18851 NE 29th Avenue Ste 1005
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: (305) 935-4440

               - and -

          Scott Adam Edelsberg Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: (305) 975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


PASSAGE HEALTH: Perman Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Passage Health
International, LLC. The case is styled as Karl Perman, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Passage Health
International, LLC doing business as: International Billing Office,
Case No. 2:24-cv-02115-HDV-RAO (C.D. Cal., March 14, 2024).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Passage Health International, L.L.C. -- https://passagehi.com/ --
is a medical billing partner for clinics and hospitals that
routinely treat international patients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary Z. Zermay, Esq.
          ZERMAY LAW APC
          3000 Coral Way Suite 1115
          Coral Gables, FL 33145
          Phone: (305) 767-3529
          Fax: (844) 894-6204
          Email: Zach@ZermayLaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Gil, Esq.
          Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: jonathan@kazlg.com
                 ryan@kazlg.com


PAUL NAKASONE: Murbach Seeks Leave to File Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE MURBACH, Individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. PAUL
NAKASONE, GENERAL, UNITED STATES ARMY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY
AGENCY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01308-JRR (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting Plaintiff's motion for leaves to
file for class certification within three weeks after the close of
discovery.

On June 14, 2023, this Court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss
or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment and motion to Strike
Class Allegations.

The parties are in the midst of discovery, despite a general
discovery deadline of June 24, 2024, with the exception of requests
for admissions, which have a deadline of July 2, 2024.

The parties are still conferring on some outstanding discovery
issues. The Defendant seeks to narrow the scope of Plaintiff's
interrogatories and request for documents and Plaintiff is
providing an amended set of requests for admissions. Dispositive
pretrial motions are due three
weeks after on July 23, 2024. Due to delays in discovery, the
Plaintiff anticipates that the parties will seek a new scheduling
order.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 3, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GHzQap at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Mainen, Esq.
          1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 820
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 785-2805
          Facsimile: (202) 785-0289
          E-mail: matthewmainen@dbranchlaw.com

PG&E CORP: Shareholders' Bid to Intervene in Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal
quarterly ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 24, 2024 that the motion of
shareholders group to intervene in the consolidated securities
class suit pending.

A group of shareholders who also filed proofs of claim in the
Chapter 11 Cases filed a motion to intervene in the District Court
action to, among other things, oppose the lifting of the stay
sought by PERA.

That motion remains pending.

In June 2018, two purported securities class actions were filed in
the District Court, naming PG&E Corporation and certain of its
then-current and former officers as defendants, entitled David C.
Weston v. PG&E Corporation, et al. and Jon Paul Moretti v. PG&E
Corporation, et al., respectively.

The complaints alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in
various PG&E Corporation public disclosures related to, among other
things, vegetation management and other issues connected to the
2017 Northern California wildfires.

The complaints asserted claims under Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and sought unspecified monetary relief, interest, attorneys' fees
and other costs.

Both complaints identified a proposed class period of April 29,
2015 to June 8, 2018.

On September 10, 2018, the court consolidated both cases, and the
litigation is now denominated In re PG&E Corporation Securities
Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, Case No. 18-03509.

The court also appointed PERA as lead plaintiff.

PERA filed a consolidated amended complaint on November 9, 2018.

On December 14, 2018, PERA filed a second amended consolidated
complaint to add allegations regarding the 2018 Camp fire,
including allegations regarding transmission line safety and the
PSPS program.

Due to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, the proceedings
were automatically stayed as to PG&E Corporation and the Utility.

On February 22, 2019, a third purported securities class action was
filed in the District Court, entitled York County on behalf of the
York County Retirement Fund, et al. v. Rambo, et al. (the "York
County Action").

The complaint named as defendants certain then-current and former
officers and directors, as well as the underwriters of four public
offerings of notes from 2016 to 2018.

Neither PG&E Corporation nor the Utility was named as a defendant.


The complaint asserted claims under Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, based on alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the note
offerings related to, among other things, PG&E Corporation's and
the Utility's vegetation management and wildfire safety measures.

On May 7, 2019, the York County Action was consolidated with In re
PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation.

On May 28, 2019, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
actions filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint,
which includes the claims asserted in the previously filed actions
and names as defendants PG&E Corporation, the Utility, certain
current and former officers and former directors, and the
underwriters.

On August 28, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court denied PG&E Corporation's
and the Utility's request to extend the stay to the claims against
the officer, director, and underwriter defendants.

On October 4, 2019, the officer, director, and underwriter
defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint,
which motions are under submission with the District Court.

On September 30, 2022, the District Court issued an order staying
the action pending resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings.

Accordingly, the District Court administratively closed the case,
subject to a motion by the parties thereto to reopen the case.

On October 31, 2022, PERA filed a notice of appeal of the District
Court's order staying the action.

PERA filed its opening brief on March 6, 2023, the answering brief
was filed on May 8, 2023, and PERA filed its reply on May 30, 2023.
Oral argument was held on September 13, 2023.

A group of shareholders who also filed proofs of claim in the
Chapter 11 Cases filed a motion to intervene in the District Court
action to, among other things, oppose the lifting of the stay
sought by PERA.

That motion remains pending.

PG&E Corporation is an energy and gas company based in California.


PHARMAVITE LLC: Mackey Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts
----------------------------------------------------------------
HUNTER MACKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PHARMAVITE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-24-005654 (Fla. Cir., Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., April
23, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of
the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA).

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not
capable of receiving phone calls when it made telephonic sales
calls by text message to promote its Nature Made products.

Pharmavite, LLC is an American vitamin and supplement company based
in West Hills, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
         A. Heller, Esq.
         Social Justice Law Collective, PL
         974 Howard Ave.
         Dunedin, FL 34698
         Telephone: (202)709-5744
         Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
         Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
                shawn@sjlawcollective.com

PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: GMP Revives Respiratory Machine Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers Weekly reports that the class action against Philips
Electronics for its CPAP and BiPAP devices, designed to assist
those with sleep apnoea, was temporarily stalled when the law firm
that initiated the proceedings abandoned it.

Gerard Malouf & Partners (GMP) has now taken over the proceedings
with lead plaintiff Luciano Tomai, who has alleged it took the
company 12 months to replace the recalled machine.

"Almost three years after the recall, and due to a lack of progress
in legal proceedings, sufferers affected by these faulty machines
are still without justice or compensation," Gerard Malouf said.

"This machine was designed to alleviate health issues, but has in
some cases resulted in users requiring surgery trying to manage the
side effects. Philips must be held accountable."

Research discovered foam designed to reduce the noise degraded over
time, so users were allegedly breathing in potentially harmful
levels of particles and gas, including formaldehyde. The
potentially fatal chemicals have been linked to respiratory issues
and cancers.

GMP's class action alleges that not only had Philips failed to
adequately test and evaluate the machines, but the company then
failed to warn consumers about the dangerous chemicals.

Tomai said he used the machine for eleven years and had been forced
to use it for another year once he learnt of the recall.

He alleges his health issues, including surgeries to remove a
kidney and a piece of his liver, were a result of the machine.

"My health has gone downhill quite rapidly since I started using
the machine," Tomai said.

"To know that they were aware of these issues for years and did
nothing about it is disgraceful. Their recklessness has had a
life-changing effect on people.

"I want to see them held responsible." [GN]

PLEX INC: Disclose Personal Info to Third Parties, Lee Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PLEX, INC.; and PLEX GMBH, Defendants, Case
No. 5:24-cv-02386 (N.D. Cal., April 22, 2024) alleges that the
Defendants have installed "tracking pixels" on its website,
watch.plex.tv., and secretly and surreptitiously sends consumers'
viewing activities to third-party providers like Meta Platforms,
Inc. ("Meta" or "Facebook") without consent, in violation of the
Video Privacy Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants violated
the VPPA by knowingly disclosing personal information and
personally identifiable information, including the names of
specific videos and video services Plaintiff and Class Members
requested and obtained, to Meta without their consent.
Specifically, Plex installed computer code on its website called
the "Meta Tracking Pixel," which tracks and records Plaintiff and
Class Members' private video consumption, says the Plaintiff.

PLEX, INC. operates as an entertainment company. The Company
provides a streaming media platform where users can enjoy free
movies and TV shows. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
          Joshua B. Glatt, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
                 jwilner@bursor.com
                 jglatt@bursor.com

PRIMACY CAREERS: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Primacy Careers, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Cirilo Lopez, Maria Hernandez,
individually, and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Primacy Careers, LLC, Golden Hill Staffing, Inc.,
Simwon America Corp., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0005010 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 25, 2024).

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

Primacy Careers, LLC -- https://www.primacycareers.com/ -- is a
staffing agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake R. Jones, Esq.
          4348 Valle Vis
          San Diego, CA 92103-1255
          Phone: 619-249-2197


PRIME NOW: Quintero Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Bridget Sibyl Quintero, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRIME NOW LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; AMAZON.COM LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware limited
liability company; AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; CHRISTOPHER ESPINOZA, an individual; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV07023 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of
Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on April 24, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-03382-MWF-RAO.

In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action against
Defendants: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum
Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest
Periods; Waiting Time Penalties; Wage Statement Violations; Failure
to Timely Pay Wages; Violation of Labor Code; and Unfair
Competition.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bradley J. Hamburger, Esq.
          Nasim A. Khansari, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213.229.7000
          Facsimile: 213.229.7520
          Email: bhamburger@gibsondunn.com
                 nkhansari@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Megan Cooney, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612-4412
          Phone: 949.451.3800
          Facsimile: 949.451.4220
          Email: mcooney@gibsondunn.com


PRISCILLA A. MADRID: Suit Filed in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Priscilla A. Madrid,
et al. The case is styled as John Doe, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Priscilla A. Madrid, Thomas
Vasquez, William Earl Baker, Jr., Paige Merrill Baker, Kiry K.
Gray, James Schaedler, John Gustafson, Jacqueline M. Morris, Sandra
Andersen, Jennifer Campion, Donald Selby, Jr., Terrie Guertin,
Manriguz, George Manriquez, are all Family Members of Bertha
Torres, Case No. 8:24-cv-00909-UA (C.D. Cal., April 26, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.[BN]

PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Mirshokri Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Shannon Mirshokri, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Progress Software Corporation,
California Physicians Service doing business as: Blue Shield of
California, Eyemed Vision Care, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00387 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on April 23, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11068-ADB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle.

Progress Software Corporation -- https://www.progress.com/ -- is an
American public company that produces software for creating and
deploying business applications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
          THE LYON FIRM
          2754 Erie Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Phone: (513) 381-2333
          Fax: (513) 766-9011
          Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com


RANGE CREDIT BUREAU: Holden Files FCRA Suit in D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Range Credit Bureau
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Joshua Holden, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Range Credit Bureau
Inc., Yeller Towing & Wrecking, Inc., Case No.
0:24-cv-01480-KMM-LIB (D. Minn., April 22, 2024).

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

Range Credit Bureau -- https://rcbcollections.com/ -- is a debt
recovery and collection company that also checks recovery and
credit card processing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl E. Christensen, Esq.
          CHRISTENSEN SAMPSEL PLLC
          305 Fifth Avenue North, Suite 375
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 473-1200
          Fax: (612) 823-4777
          Email: carl@christensensampsel.com

               - and -

          Carter B. Lyons, Esq.
          Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Phone: (612) 770-4221
          Fax: (651) 704-0907
          Email: carter@consumerjusticecenter.com
                 tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com

               - and -

          Christopher Wilcox, Esq.
          CHRISTENSEN LAW OFFICE
          305 Fifth Avenue North, Suite 375
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 823-3831
          Email: chris@clawoffice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cameron A. Lallier, Esq.
          Charles Robert Shafer, Esq.
          Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq.
          BASSFORD REMELE PA
          100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1254
          Phone: (612) 333-3000
          Fax: (612) 746-1252
          Email: clallier@bassford.com
                 cshafer@chestnutcambronne.com
                 pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com


RED LOBSTER HOSPITALITY: Neubauer Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cassandra Neubauer, individually and on behalf
of all similarly-situated current citizens of Illinois and the
United States v. RED LOBSTER HOSPITALITY LLC AND CONTINENTAL MILLS,
INC., Case No. 24-L-0361 was removed from the Circuit Court for the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
on April 23, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01160-RJD.

The Complaint alleges five causes of action against Defendants:
violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act ("ICFA"), (Deceptive
Practices), violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act ("ICFA"),
(Unfair Practices), Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied
Warranty and unjust enrichment. These claims arise out of
Defendants' allegedly false and deceptive marketing and sale of the
Red Lobster Cheddar Bay Biscuit Mix (the "Product").[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Raymond A. Greene, III, Esq.
          BURNHAM BROWN
          A Professional Law Corporation
          2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 105
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598-2537
          Email: rgreene@burnhambrown.com


REGENT HOLDING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Demaio Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
DESIREE DEMAIO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REGENT HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 24-005739 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., April 25, 2024) seeks to
stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

REGENT HOLDING COMPANY, LLC is a designer, marketer and supplier of
home decor and accent products that are sold throughout North
America, Europe and Asia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          974 Howard Ave.
          Dunedin, FL 34698
          Telephone: (202) 709-5744
          Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
          Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
                 shawn@sjlawcollective.com

RISAS DENTAL: Beltran Files Suit in D. Arizona
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Risas Dental
Management LLC. The case is styled as Raul Beltran, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Risas Dental
Management LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00912-JJT (D. Ariz., April 22,
2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Risas Dental Management LLC -- https://risasdental.com/ -- offers
home of affordable dental and braces.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELWITZ OSTROW PA
          1 W Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500
          Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 525-4100

               - and -

          Kenneth Jay Grunfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          65 Overhill Rd.
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: (954) 525-4100
          Fax: (954) 525-4300
          Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com


RV SOLUTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flores Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
JUAN JOSE FLORES, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RV SOLUTION, LLC; ALEJANDRO VIERA GAMEZ; and
JOEL ALBERTO REZENDIZ SALAS, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-01519
(S.D. Tex., April 24, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff Flores was employed by the Defendants as a welder.

RV SOLUTION, LLC specializes in industrial manufacturing. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq.
          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 10099
          Houston, TX 77206
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          Email: tpadgett@buenkerlaw.com
                 jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY: Tague Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saint Louis
University. The case is styled as Elizabeth Tague, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Saint Louis
University, Case No. 4:24-cv-00581-JAR (E.D. Mo., April 22, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Saint Louis University -- https://www.slu.edu/ -- is a private
Jesuit research university with campuses in St. Louis, Missouri,
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Dale Pospisil, Esq.
          POSPISIL SWIFT LLC
          1600 Genessee, Suite 340
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Phone: (816) 895-6440
          Email: mdp@pslawkc.com


SALLY BEAUTY SUPPLY: Rios Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Iris Rios, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SALLY BEAUTY SUPPLY LLC., SALLY BEAUTY
HOLDINGS, INC., and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive; Case No.
30-2024-01370472-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on April 26, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-00912.

The Complaint asserts claims for: Unpaid Missed Rest Breaks; Unpaid
Interrupted/Missed Meal Breaks; Failure to Pay all Overtime Wages
Earned; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages and Pay for all Wages Earned
and Pay for Vacation Time; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses;
Failure to Maintain Accurate Payroll Records, Improper Wage
Statements; Failure to Wages Upon Separation; Failure to Pay Sick
Days; Failure to Pay COVID-19 Supplemental Sick Leave; Failure to
Provide Suitable Seating; Violation of Business and Professions
Code; and Civil Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
          Marlene M. Moffitt, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Phone: 858-652-3110
          Facsimile: 858-652-3101
          Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
                 marlene.moffitt@ogletree.com


SHADAL LLC: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Silvia Martinez, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. SHADAL, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02982-FB-JRC
(E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2024), is brought against Defendant for the
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's
website, www.sermonetagloves.com (the "Website"), to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and
therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore,
Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of
such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com


SIKA AG: 570 Concrete Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as 570 Concrete, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. SIKA AG; SIKA CORPORATION; CHRYSO,
INC.; GCP APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN
S.A.; SAINT GOBAIN NORTH AMERICA; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS
ADMIXTURES U.S., LLC; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH;
CINVEN LTD.; CINVEN, INC.; THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY; RPM
INTERNATIONAL INC.; AND DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:23-cv-04845 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on April 23, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-03045-LJL to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.

Sika AG -- https://www.sika.com/en/ -- is a Swiss multinational
specialty chemical company that supplies to the building sector and
motor vehicle industry, headquartered in Baar, Switzerland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
          EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
          411 S. State Street, Ste. N-300
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Phone: (215) 867-2399
          Fax: (267) 685-0676

               - and -

          Mindee J. Reuben
          WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 545-7200
          Fax: (215) 545-6535

               - and -

          Joshua H. Grabar
          GRABAR LAW OFFICE
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (267) 507-6085
          Fax: (267) 507-6048
          Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com


The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeremy Heep, Esq.
          Julian Newton Weiss, Esq.
          PEPPER, HAMILTON, L.L.P.
          3000 Two Logan Square
          18th and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 981-4000

               - and -

          Mark H. Hamer, Esq.
          BAKER MCKENZIE
          815 Connecticut Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 452-7077

               - and -

          David Frazier, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Giordano, Esq.
          Marguerite M. Sullivan, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP (DC)
          555 Eleventh Street, Nw, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: (202) 637-2200
          Fax: (202) 637-2201
          Email: david.frazier@lw.com

               - and -

          Anne Salomon, Esq.
          Christa C. Cottrell, Esq.
          Daniel E. Laytin, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North Lasalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: (312) 862-3092
          Email: anne.salomon@kirkland.com
                 ccottrell@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Heather P. Lamberg, Esq.
          Bruce McCulloch, Esq.
          FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
          700 13th Street NW, Ste 10th Floor
          Washington D.C., DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 777-4500
          Email: bruce.mcculloch@freshfields.com

               - and -

          Anna E. Sanders, Esq.
          Gerald E. Burns, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          Two Liberty Place
          50 S. 16th Street, Suite 3200
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (215) 665-3957
          Email: anna.sanders@bipc.com

               - and -

          Abram J. Ellis, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          1155 F Street NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: (202) 636-5579

               - and -

          Andrew P. Fishkin, Esq.
          FISHKIN LUCKS LLP
          One Gateway Center, Suite 1150
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 536-2800
          Fax: (973) 679-4435
          Email: afishkin@fishkinlucks.com

               - and -

          Joshua Hazan, Esq.
          U.S. District Court
          500 Pearl Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (248) 506-3234
          Email: joshua.hazan@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Peter Guryan, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Ave
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 455-2750
          Email: peter.guryan@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Zachary Winthrop Silverman, Esq.
          FISHKIN LUCKS LLP
          One Gateway Center, Suite 1150
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 536-2800
          Fax: (973) 679-4435
          Email: zsilverman@fishkinlucks.com


SIKA AG: Keystone Concrete Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Keystone Concrete Block & Supply Co. Inc., on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. SIKA AG; SIKA
CORPORATION; CHRYSO, INC.; GCP APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN S.A.; SAINT GOBAIN NORTH AMERICA; MASTER
BUILDERS SOLUTIONS ADMIXTURES U.S., LLC; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS
DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; CINVEN LTD.; CINVEN, INC.; THE EUCLID CHEMICAL
COMPANY; RPM INTERNATIONAL INC.; AND DOES 1-10, Case No.
2:23-cv-04723 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on April 22, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-03033-LJL to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.

Sika AG -- https://www.sika.com/en/ -- is a Swiss multinational
specialty chemical company that supplies to the building sector and
motor vehicle industry, headquartered in Baar, Switzerland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP(SF)
          44 Montgomery, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 633-1908
          Email: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
          GRABAR LAW OFFICE
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (267) 507-6085
          Fax: (267) 507-6048
          Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com

               - and -

          Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          888 16th Street, NW, Ste. 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 540-7200
          Fax: (202) 540-7201
          Email: ngiddings@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Jeannine M Kenney, Esq.
          HAUSFELD L.L.P. (PA)
          1604 Locust Street, 2nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (267) 702-2310
          Email: jkenney@hausfeldllp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeremy Heep, Esq.
          Julian Newton Weiss, Esq.
          PEPPER, HAMILTON, L.L.P.
          3000 Two Logan Square
          18th and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 981-4000

               - and -

          Baker McKenzie, Esq.
          815 Connecticut Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 452-7077

               - and -

          David Frazier, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Giordano, Esq.
          Marguerite M. Sullivan, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP (DC)
          555 Eleventh Street, Nw, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: (202) 637-2200
          Fax: (202) 637-2201
          Email: david.frazier@lw.com

               - and -

          Anne Salomon, Esq.
          Christa C. Cottrell, Esq.
          Daniel E. Laytin, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North Lasalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: (312) 862-3092
          Email: anne.salomon@kirkland.com
                 ccottrell@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Heather P. Lamberg, Esq.
          Bruce McCulloch, Esq.
          FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
          700 13th Street NW, Ste 10th Floor
          Washington D.C., DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 777-4500
          Email: bruce.mcculloch@freshfields.com

               - and -

          Anna E. Sanders, Esq.
          Gerald E. Burns, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          Two Liberty Place
          50 S. 16th Street, Suite 3200
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (215) 665-3957
          Email: anna.sanders@bipc.com

               - and -

          Abram J. Ellis, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          1155 F Street NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: (202) 636-5579

               - and -

          Andrew P. Fishkin, Esq.
          FISHKIN LUCKS LLP
          One Gateway Center, Suite 1150
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 536-2800
          Fax: (973) 679-4435
          Email: afishkin@fishkinlucks.com

               - and -

          Joshua Hazan, Esq.
          U.S. District Court
          500 Pearl Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (248) 506-3234
          Email: joshua.hazan@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Peter Guryan, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Ave
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 455-2750
          Email: peter.guryan@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Zachary Winthrop Silverman, Esq.
          FISHKIN LUCKS LLP
          One Gateway Center, Suite 1150
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 536-2800
          Fax: (973) 679-4435
          Email: zsilverman@fishkinlucks.com


SIKA AG: Lakewood Concrete Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lakewood Concrete Corp., on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated v. SIKA AG; SIKA CORPORATION; CHRYSO,
INC.; GCP APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN
S.A.; SAINT GOBAIN NORTH AMERICA; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS
ADMIXTURES U.S., LLC; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH;
CINVEN LTD.; CINVEN, INC.; THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY; RPM
INTERNATIONAL INC.; AND DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:23-cv-04797 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on April 22, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-03026-LJL to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.

Sika AG -- https://www.sika.com/en/ -- is a Swiss multinational
specialty chemical company that supplies to the building sector and
motor vehicle industry, headquartered in Baar, Switzerland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lec Blaine Finley, Esq.
          Cody McCracken, Esq.
          Melissa Morgans, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Phone: (202) 789-3960

               - and -

          Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
          TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC
          1901 Ave. of the Stars, 2nd Fl
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 278-2600
          Fax: (310) 278-2640
          Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          Two CityPlace Drive, Ste Second Floor
          Saint Louis, MO 63141
          Phone: (314) 226-1015
          Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Lee Albert, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: (212) 682-5340
          Fax: (212) 682-0988
          Email: lalbert@glancylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark H Hamer, Esq.
          BAKER MCKENZIE
          815 Connecticut Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 452-7077

               - and -

          Jeremy Heep, Esq.
          Julian Newton Weiss, Esq.
          PEPPER, HAMILTON, L.L.P.
          3000 Two Logan Square
          18th and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 981-4000

               - and -

          Baker McKenzie, Esq.
          815 Connecticut Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 452-7077

               - and -

          David Frazier, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Giordano, Esq.
          Marguerite M. Sullivan, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP (DC)
          555 Eleventh Street, Nw, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: (202) 637-2200
          Fax: (202) 637-2201
          Email: david.frazier@lw.com

               - and -

          Anne Salomon, Esq.
          Christa C. Cottrell, Esq.
          Daniel E. Laytin, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North Lasalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: (312) 862-3092
          Email: anne.salomon@kirkland.com
                 ccottrell@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Heather P. Lamberg, Esq.
          Bruce McCulloch, Esq.
          FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
          700 13th Street NW, Ste 10th Floor
          Washington D.C., DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 777-4500
          Email: bruce.mcculloch@freshfields.com

               - and -

          Anna E. Sanders, Esq.
          Gerald E. Burns, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          Two Liberty Place
          50 S. 16th Street, Suite 3200
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (215) 665-3957
          Email: anna.sanders@bipc.com

               - and -

          Abram J. Ellis, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          1155 F Street NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: (202) 636-5579

               - and -

          Andrew P. Fishkin, Esq.
          FISHKIN LUCKS LLP
          One Gateway Center, Suite 1150
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 536-2800
          Fax: (973) 679-4435
          Email: afishkin@fishkinlucks.com

               - and -

          Joshua Hazan, Esq.
          U.S. District Court
          500 Pearl Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (248) 506-3234
          Email: joshua.hazan@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Peter Guryan, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Ave
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 455-2750
          Email: peter.guryan@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Zachary Winthrop Silverman, Esq.
          FISHKIN LUCKS LLP
          One Gateway Center, Suite 1150
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 536-2800
          Fax: (973) 679-4435
          Email: zsilverman@fishkinlucks.com


SIKA AG: M&D Peterson Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as M&D Peterson, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. SIKA AG; SIKA CORPORATION; CHRYSO,
INC.; GCP APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN
S.A.; SAINT GOBAIN NORTH AMERICA; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS
ADMIXTURES U.S., LLC; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH;
CINVEN LTD.; CINVEN, INC.; THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY; RPM
INTERNATIONAL INC.; AND DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:23-cv-04711 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on April 23, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-03056-LJL to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.

Sika AG -- https://www.sika.com/en/ -- is a Swiss multinational
specialty chemical company that supplies to the building sector and
motor vehicle industry, headquartered in Baar, Switzerland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP (SF)
          44 Montgomery, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 633-1908
          Email: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          888 16th Street, NW, Ste 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 540-7200
          Fax: (202) 540-7201
          Email: ngiddings@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq.
          HAUSFELD L.L.P. (PA)
          1604 Locust Street, 2nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (267) 702-2310
          Email: jkenney@hausfeldllp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeremy Heep, Esq.
          Julian Newton Weiss, Esq.
          PEPPER, HAMILTON, L.L.P.
          3000 Two Logan Square
          18th and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 981-4000

               - and -

          Mark H. Hamer, Esq.
          BAKER MCKENZIE
          815 Connecticut Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 452-7077

               - and -

          David Frazier, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Giordano, Esq.
          Marguerite M. Sullivan, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP (DC)
          555 Eleventh Street, Nw, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: (202) 637-2200
          Fax: (202) 637-2201
          Email: david.frazier@lw.com

               - and -

          Anne Salomon, Esq.
          Christa C. Cottrell, Esq.
          Daniel E. Laytin, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North Lasalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: (312) 862-3092
          Email: anne.salomon@kirkland.com
                 ccottrell@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Heather P. Lamberg, Esq.
          Bruce McCulloch, Esq.
          FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
          700 13th Street NW, Ste 10th Floor
          Washington D.C., DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 777-4500
          Email: bruce.mcculloch@freshfields.com

               - and -

          Anna E. Sanders, Esq.
          Gerald E. Burns, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          Two Liberty Place
          50 S. 16th Street, Suite 3200
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (215) 665-3957
          Email: anna.sanders@bipc.com

               - and -

          Abram J. Ellis, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          1155 F Street NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: (202) 636-5579

               - and -

          Andrew P. Fishkin, Esq.
          FISHKIN LUCKS LLP
          One Gateway Center, Suite 1150
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 536-2800
          Fax: (973) 679-4435
          Email: afishkin@fishkinlucks.com

               - and -

          Joshua Hazan, Esq.
          U.S. District Court
          500 Pearl Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (248) 506-3234
          Email: joshua.hazan@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Peter Guryan, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Ave
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 455-2750
          Email: peter.guryan@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Zachary Winthrop Silverman, Esq.
          FISHKIN LUCKS LLP
          One Gateway Center, Suite 1150
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 536-2800
          Fax: (973) 679-4435
          Email: zsilverman@fishkinlucks.com


SISTERS OF THE SORROWFUL: Filing of Conditional Cert Bid Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Olejnik v. Sisters of the
Sorrowful Mother -- International Finance Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00977 (E.D. Wisc., Filed July 21, 202), The Hon. Judge
William C. Griesbach entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for extension of time to July 2, 2024, to file her
motion for conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

Additionally, the following motions are vacated and will be reset
following a decision on the motion for conditional certification:

-- The Aug. 7, 2024 deadline to file motions for final
certification,
    class certification, and decertification;

-- The Dec. 11, 2024 discovery deadline; and

-- The Jan. 22, 2025 dispositive motion deadline.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sisters is an international Franciscan congregation.[CC]

SOULCYCLE LLC: DiFalco Files Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SoulCycle, LLC. The
case is styled as Ian DiFalco, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. SoulCycle, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03103
(S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2024).

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

SoulCycle Inc. -- https://www.soul-cycle.com/ -- is a fitness
company owned by Equinox Group which offers indoor cycling and
spinning workout classes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


SOUTHERN TIRE MART: Ruiz Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joey Ruiz, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated v. SOUTHERN TIRE
MART, LLC a Mississippi Limited Liability Company; SOUTHERN TIRE
MART AT PILOT LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV06704 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on April 25, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-03429.

The Plaintiff's Complaint raises nine causes of action for Minimum
Wages, Unpaid Overtime, Meal Break Violations, Rest Break
Violations, Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment, Wage Statement
Violations, Untimely Final Wages, Failure to Reimburse Necessary
Business Expenses, and Violation of Cal. Business & Professions
Code and Violation of Cal. Labor Code.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gary W. Bethel, Esq.
          Jason H. Borchers, Esq.
          Andrew H. Woo, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302
          Fresno, CA 93704.2225
          Phone: 559.244.7500
          Fax: 559.244.7525
          Email: gbethel@littler.com
                 jborchers@littler.com
                 awoo@littler.com


SOUTHSTATE BANK: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Richardson, writing for The Daily Hodl, reports that a U.S.
bank is facing a proposed class action lawsuit for allegedly
failing to protect its customers' sensitive personal information
and suffering a massive data breach.

SouthState Bank, which has over $45 billion in assets, is being hit
with a class action lawsuit led by plaintiff Latonya Gore in
Florida, filings show.

The suit concerns a February 2024 data breach that compromised the
banks' clients' full names, financial account numbers and Social
Security numbers.

SouthState is accused of negligently failing to take adequate and
reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected
against unauthorized intrusions, failing to take standard and
reasonably available steps to prevent the breach and failing to
provide its customers prompt and accurate notice of the incident.

The plaintiffs allege hackers have already use the personal
information that was released in the breach to engage in identity
theft. They also argue there remains a high risk that the hackers
can commit other crimes like opening bank accounts, taking out
loans or obtaining fake driver's licenses in the victims' names.

While SouthState reportedly issued a letter to customers regarding
the breach, the plaintiffs argue it left out virtually all the
important information.

Says the lawsuit,

"Despite defendant's intentional opacity about the root cause of
this incident, several facts may be gleaned from the notice letter,
including:

     a) that this data breach was the work of cybercriminals;

     b) that the cybercriminals first infiltrated defendant's
networks and systems, and downloaded data from the networks and
systems, and

     c) that once inside defendant's networks and systems, the
cybercriminals targeted information including plaintiff's and class
members' Social Security numbers for download and theft."

The plaintiffs are seeking damages, which include the need have to
constantly monitor their financial and personal records for years
to come, the lawsuit says. [GN]

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Counsel Seeks Class Action Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Fox21 reports that Erlich Law Firm has moved to certify a class
action lawsuit against Southwest Airlines, alleging systemic
interference with employees' federally protected family and medical
leave rights.

The motion, filed in the Northern District of California under case
number 3:22-cv-00868-JSC, represents a crucial step towards
collective redress for thousands of Southwest Airlines Co.
(LUV:NYSE) flight attendants nationwide. The proposed class action
accuses the airline of penalizing employees who took legally
entitled leave, leading to denied disciplinary point reductions,
and in some cases, wrongful terminations.

According to court documents, the case hones in on Southwest's
policy change enacted on March 1, 2019, which plaintiffs argue
contravenes the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by
disqualifying flight attendants from disciplinary point
improvements once they exercise their FMLA rights. Plaintiffs
allege that the policy not only imposes unfair disciplinary
measures but also acts as a deterrent against the utilization of
FMLA leave.

The lawsuit, initiated by Roreste Refuerzo and Selina Cashin on
behalf of similarly impacted colleagues, is poised to address
grievances for two distinct classes: one seeking injunctive relief
and another for damages. The former includes all Southwest flight
attendants in the United States who, since March 1, 2019, have
exercised FMLA rights and consequently lost access to disciplinary
point reduction. The latter class concerns those who were
terminated following the accrual of points post-FMLA leave.

Plaintiffs' counsel, Erlich Law Firm, in conjunction with Andrus
Anderson LLP, aims to secure a declaration that Southwest's
practices violate both federal and state law, alongside an
injunction to halt the contentious policy. Additionally, plaintiffs
seek monetary compensation for affected class members.

The case highlights a growing tension between employment practices
and workers' rights, setting a potentially precedent-setting stage
for how FMLA regulations are honored within the airline industry
and beyond.

A hearing on the motion for class certification is scheduled for
September 5, 2024, at the Phillip Burton Federal Building in San
Francisco, CA, where the court will consider the arguments for
consolidating the claims into a class action.

As legal proceedings advance, the outcome stands to not only impact
the plaintiffs but also reverberate through labor and employment
law practices, reaffirming or challenging the strength of
protections afforded under the FMLA.

This case underscores the need for a delicate balance between
operational policies of companies and the legal rights of
employees, as employers navigate the complexities of implementing
fair labor standards while maintaining business efficacy.

The Erlich Law Firm's pursuit of justice in this context reflects
an ongoing commitment to holding corporations accountable and
ensuring that the rights of workers are upheld in accordance with
both the letter and spirit of the law.

CASE INFORMATION

United States District Court Northern District of California
REFUERZO v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00868-JSC

Erlich Law Firm has more than 20 years of experience in holding
employers accountable for their illegal actions against the people
who work for them. If you believe your rights at work have been
violated, you could potentially be entitled to damages from your
employer.

   Erlich Law Firm
   180 Grand Ave. Suite 1380 Oakland, CA 94612
   (510) 788-2337
   https://erlich.lawyer/your-rights/wrongful-termination/
   Press Contact : Jason Erlich [GN]

SPRECKELS SUGAR: Castro Suit Removed to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Arnold Samuel Castro, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. SPRECKELS SUGAR COMPANY, INC.,
a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. ECU003426 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of Imperial, to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on April 25,
2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00747-TWR-MMP.

The Complaint asserts eight causes of action: Failure to Pay
Minimum Wage; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to
Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks;
Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely
Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate
Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carrie M. Francis, Esq.
          STINSON LLP
          1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-4584
          Phone: (602) 279-1600
          Fax: (602) 240-6925
          Email: carrie.francis@stinson.com


STUDENTS FOR JUSTICE: May Face Class Suit Over RICO Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Roman of the Middle East Forum reports that the rise of
antisemitism on college campuses across the United States has
reached alarming levels, demanding immediate and decisive action.
Central to these troubling developments is the group known as
Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), implicated in numerous
incidents that extend beyond free speech into coordinated
harassment and intimidation. While purporting to advocate for
Palestinian rights, SJP repeatedly crosses legal boundaries that
protect the civil liberties of Jewish students and students of
Israeli national origin. Given the severity and organized nature of
their actions, a class action lawsuit under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) emerges as a
necessary legal remedy.

RICO provides a powerful tool for addressing wrongful acts done as
part of an ongoing criminal organization. Originally designed to
combat organized crime, legal practitioners have successfully
applied RICO in various civil contexts, including dismantling the
Ku Klux Klan and curtailing aggressive tactics by anti-abortion
groups. These precedents illustrate RICO's applicability to
organizations that, under the guise of advocacy, engage in
systematic violations of individuals' rights.

In the context of SJP, applying RICO is appropriate due to the
alleged coordinated nature of their activities across state lines,
which affects a national population of students. The statute
specifically targets patterns of racketeering activity -- defined
as the commission of multiple acts indicative of an ongoing,
organized conspiracy to commit fundamental breaches of the law.
SJP's repeated engagements in tactics that intimidate, harass, and
silence Jewish students and supporters of Israel fit the legal
definition of racketeering activity.

A class action lawsuit is particularly suitable for addressing the
widespread influence of SJP's alleged misconduct. This strategy
allows for the collective representation of all affected Jewish
students and students of Israeli national origin, thereby
addressing the scope of the issue across multiple educational
institutions. By preventing the fragmented litigation of similar
claims, this approach can lead to consistent rulings and standards
of proof across different jurisdictions.

Including all affected students in the lawsuit emphasizes the
systemic nature of the grievances and could help in securing a
broad-based injunction that provides clear, consistent protections.
Moreover, it enhances the enforceability and influence of the
court's rulings, potentially setting a precedent that could deter
similar behaviors in other organizations.

A proposed model lawsuit compiled by the Middle East Forum catalogs
over 100 specific incidents involving SJP, ranging from physical
intimidation to the disruption of academic events and systemic
harassment. These incidents collectively suggest a pattern of
behavior that aligns with RICO's provisions against sustained and
organized harassment. The lawsuit would seek to halt these
activities through injunctive relief, secure punitive measures to
deter future misconduct, and obtain compensatory damages for those
affected.

By establishing SJP as a RICO violator, the lawsuit could lead to
significant structural changes within the organization, potentially
curtailing its presence and activities on campuses. Such a legal
designation would not only penalize past actions but could also
precipitate the dissolution of -- or significant operational
limitations on -- SJP on campuses nationwide.

Individual members of SJP could face severe consequences if found
liable under a RICO-based lawsuit. These include significant
financial penalties like triple damages and legal costs, injunctive
relief that could restrict their activities or dissolve SJP
chapters, personal civil liability for damages caused, and
potential criminal implications if overlapping criminal behaviors
are identified. Additionally, they could suffer reputational damage
and educational repercussions such as disciplinary actions from
their institutions. Collectively, these consequences would not only
penalize the involved individuals, but also serve as a strong
deterrent against similar future misconduct, aiming to restore a
safe and respectful environment on campuses.

If members of SJP are found liable under a RICO-based lawsuit,
regrouping under a new name would not shield them from legal
consequences due to the comprehensive nature of RICO. This statute
allows for broad injunctive relief that can prohibit similar future
activities regardless of the organization's name by focusing on
dismantling the underlying "enterprise" involved in the
racketeering activity. Such a ruling would include close monitoring
and stringent compliance measures to prevent the continuation of
illegal conduct, thereby making it legally risky and less
attractive for the same group to rebrand and continue operations.
Additionally, the personal liabilities incurred by individual
members would follow them, further deterring reformation under a
new guise and significantly hindering the viability and continuity
of their movement.

Pursuing legal action against SJP would affirm the American legal
system's commitment to protecting students from discrimination and
harassment based on national origin and religion. It would also
emphasize the seriousness with which the legal system treats such
cases, potentially encouraging other educational institutions to
take more proactive measures in preventing similar behaviors.

The consequences of inaction are clear: a continuation of the
hostile environment that stifles academic freedom and undermines
the educational experiences of countless students. Conversely,
successful litigation of this case could fundamentally reshape
campus dynamics, fostering an academic environment where open
dialogue and safety are guaranteed for all students, regardless of
their background or political beliefs.

To ensure an effective resolution to the rampant antisemitism on
college campuses, it is imperative to address the root of the
problem. While individual Title VI claims against universities for
allowing a hostile environment have merit, these efforts may be
better channeled into a unified and strategic legal approach.
Therefore, lawyers and plaintiffs currently pursuing such claims
should consider redirecting their focus and resources toward
directly confronting the primary purveyor of these antisemitic
activities: Students for Justice in Palestine. By initiating a
comprehensive RICO-based lawsuit against SJP, attorneys can target
the core structure and activities that perpetuate discrimination
and hostility. This consolidated action would not only amplify the
impact but also enhance the likelihood of achieving significant
systemic change, thereby safeguarding the rights and well-being of
Jewish and Israeli students across the nation.

To effectively combat the surge of campus antisemitism, a unified
legal front against SJP through a class action RICO lawsuit is
essential. This approach is not merely legally sound -- it is a
moral imperative that tackles the core of this national issue,
aiming to deliver justice for the victims and set a powerful
precedent to ensure the safety and dignity of all students across
the nation's campuses. Decisive action is required now. Lawyers,
plaintiffs, and all stakeholders committed to civil rights and
academic freedom must unite their efforts and resources on this
critical battle. It is crucial that the courts rigorously assess
and act upon these claims. By standing firm in this pivotal moment,
the networks of hate can be dismantled, and a commitment to a safe
and inclusive academic environment can be reaffirmed. The time has
come to turn the tide against antisemitism in American educational
institutions once and for all. [GN]

SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Hunter Sues Over Deceptive Lending Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND HUNTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-24-005640 (Fla. Cir., Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., April
23, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of
the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and unjust
enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive lending
practices wherein it procures relationships with businesses that
sell solar panel systems in Florida instead of engaging in direct
marketing and uses them to market its loans in connection with
sales. Pursuant to the arrangements, the Defendant and its partner
Florida solar companies quote consumers very low interest rates and
monthly installments while promising that installments will be
offset by energy savings. This emphasis on extremely low financing
costs induces Florida consumers, including the Plaintiff and the
putative class, to both purchase systems and finance those
purchases with the Defendant's loans. The Defendant deceives
consumers by charging a hidden and costly dealer fee that it adds
into the stated price of each financed system while falsely telling
consumers that the inflated price only reflects the system's cost
rather than financing. As a result of the Defendant's deceptive
acts, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages.

Sunlight Financial, LLC is a financing provider for home solar
systems based in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         J. Matthew Stephens, Esq.
         METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C.
         2201 Arlington Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 939-0199
         Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
         Email: mstephens@mtattorneys.com

TAILORED SHARED: Marshall Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Melissa Marshall, individually, and on behalf of
all other members of the general public similarly situated v.
TAILORED SHARED SERVICES, LLC, a limited liability company, THE
MEN'S WEARHOUSE, LLC, a limited liability company, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV07672 was removed from the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on April 26, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03446.

The Plaintiff's first cause of action alleges that "Defendants
knowingly failed to pay to Plaintiff and the Class compensation for
all hours they worked" in violation of Labor Code. The Plaintiff's
second cause of action is for the alleged failure to pay overtime
compensation pursuant to California Labor Code. In the third and
fourth causes of action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
"wrongfully failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class with legally
required meal periods" and "wrongfully failed to authorize and
permit Plaintiff and the Class to take timely and duty-free rest
periods."[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cory D. Catignani, Esq.
          VORYS SATER SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
          4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (949) 526-7904
          Facsimile: (949) 526-7904
          Email: cdcatignani@vorys.com


TARGET CORPORATION: Carbine Sues Over False & Misleading Packaging
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Carbine, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 2:24-cv-03721
(C.D. Cal., May 3, 2024), is brought for violations of the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), and for breach of express warranty as a result of the
Defendant's false and misleading packaging, labeling, and
advertising.

The Defendant's Good and Gather Pasta Sauce products' packaging
prominently displays on the front of the label the claim that these
Products1 contain "No Artificial Colors, Flavors, or
Preservatives." This statement is false. Each of the Products are
made with citric acid--a preservative ingredient used in food
products.

The Defendant's packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme is
intended to give consumers the impression that they are buying a
premium product that is free from preservatives. The Plaintiff, who
purchased the Products in California, was deceived by Defendant's
unlawful conduct and brings this action on her own behalf and on
behalf of California consumers to remedy Defendant's unlawful acts,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Products during the class period in
California.

The Defendant manufactures, distributes, advertises, markets, and
sells Good and Gather Pasta Sauce products..[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
          Craig W. Straub, Esq.
          Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
          9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Phone: (866) 276-7637
          Fax: (310) 510-6429
          Email: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com
                 craig@crosnerlegal.com
                 zach@crosnerlegal.com


TESLA MOTORS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Panossian Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JACK PANOSSIAN, an individual, on behalf of himself, all other
aggrieved employees, and the general public v. TESLA MOTORS, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV10253 (Cal. Super., Apr. 23, 2024) challenges the Defendants'
employment practices with respect to their employees in the State
of California, who are paid in whole on an hourly basis from Feb.
2, 2023 to the present.

The Defendants' policy and practices (official and unofficial) led
to the systematic underpayment of all wages, including overtime
pay, and fails to provide legally compliant meal and rest breaks to
the Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees, the Plaintiff asserts.

In particular, the Defendants compensate the Plaintiff and
Aggrieved Employees with straight time for all hours worked, even
for work in excess of eight hours per day and/or 40 hours per work
week, and fails to pay them overtime wages accordingly, and further
fails to pay the Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for all straight
time hours they worked.

The Defendants routinely failed to compensate Service Center
employees based on the actual time worked but instead only paid
Aggrieved Employees for the actual time clocked in and clocked out,
without accounting for mandatory pre-shift and post-shift work, the
suit alleges.

The Defendants also required the Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees
to perform work tasks during unpaid breaks, fail to provide meal
and rest breaks, fail to pay premium pay for such defective breaks,
fail to timely compensate employees for all wages earned, failed to
adequately compensate employees for business expenses, failed to
provide a safe and healthy work environment, and fail to properly
and accurately calculate overtime and report wages earned, hours
worked, and wage rates, the suit adds.

The Plaintiff commenced his employment with the Defendants in
August 28 2021 and last worked for Tesla on April 15, 2024.

Tesla is an American multinational automotive and clean energy
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
          Alfred Movsesyan, Esq.
          BOYAMIAN LAW, INC.
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203-1922
          Telephone: (818) 547-5300
          Facsimile: (818) 547-5678
          E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com
                  alfred@boyamianlaw.com

TESSENDERLO KERLEY: Richardson Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JONAH RICHARDSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. TESSENDERLO KERLEY, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00921-SMB
(D. Ariz., Apr. 23, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to pay
employees overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and Washington state law.

The lawsuit alleges that the Plaintiff was not fully and properly
paid at a rate of one-and-one-half times his regular rate of pay
for all of his hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

Likewise, the Defendant applied its pay practices and/or policies
to its other similarly situated hourly, non-exempt employees.

The Plaintiff brings his FLSA claim pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
216(b) as a collective action on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated employees of the following
opt-in collective:

      "All current and former hourly, non-exempt production
      employees of the Defendant who were paid 40 or more hours of

      work in any workweek during the 3 years preceding the filing

      of this Complaint and continuing through the final
      disposition of this case (the "FLSA Collective" or "FLSA
      Collective Members").

The Plaintiff also brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of himself and a class of persons,
defined as:

      "All current and former hourly, non-exempt production
      employees of the Defendant in Washington who were paid 40 or

      more hours of work in any workweek during the 3 years
      preceding the filing of this Complaint and continuing through

      the final disposition of this case (the "Class" or "Class
      Members").

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a production
employee at the Defendant's production facility in Washington.

The Defendant is engaged in the development, production, and sale
of chemicals and chemical products for the agricultural, mining,
and industrial markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7034 Braucher St., N.W., Suite B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com

TEXAS LUTHERAN: Delacruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. TEXAS LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY, Case No.
1:24-cv-03418 (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2024), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its interactive
website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered
thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973
("RA") prohibiting discrimination against the blind.

Because Defendant's interactive websites, https://www.tlu.edu,
including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, including, but
not limited to, https://www.tlubulldogs.com/landing/index and
https://bookstore.tlu.edu (collectively, the "Website" or
"Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA and the RA.
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's websites will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services—all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

TEXAS LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY, operates the Texas Lutheran online
retail store, as well as the Texas Lutheran interactive Website and
advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: Danalgottlieb@aol.com
                 Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                 Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal


TGC PCSC: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Commercial Property
----------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals v. TGC PCSC LLC; MIAMI LAKES
OIL, INC. d/b/a FOOD SPOT; and LAKES UNLIMITED, LLC d/b/a CAFE MI
VITROLA, Case No. 1:24-cv-21725-JLK (S.D. Fla., May 3, 2024), is
brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' commercial retail plaza
(hereinafter the "Commercial Property") being inaccessible to
people who are disabled.

In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the
ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to
discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block
them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses
therein.

The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses
named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with
ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at
the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within
the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and
use of each of the premises.

The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and
businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to
access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial
Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.

The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located
therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae
down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate.

TGC PCSC LLC, owned and operated a commercial retail plaza located
in Hialeah, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beverly Virues, Esq.
          Armando Mejias, Esq.
          GARCIA-MENOCAL P.L.
          350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
          Coral Gables, Fl 33134
          Phone: (305) 553-3464
          Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
          Secondary Email: amejias@lawgmp.com
                    aquezada@lawgmp.com
                    jacosta@lawgmp.com

               - and -

          Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
          5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
          Miami, FL, 33155
          Phone: (305) 350-3103
          Primary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com


TORRANCE MEMORIAL MEDICAL: Mora Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Torrance Memorial
Medical Center, et al. The case is styled as Rosemary Mora, on
behalf of herself and current and former aggrieved employees v.
Torrance Memorial Medical Center, Does 1 to 100, Case No.
24STCV11107 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 3, 2024).

Torrance Memorial Medical Center --
https://www.torrancememorial.org/ -- is a private hospital located
in Torrance, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ashly Valenzuela, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, California 90211
          Phone: (310) 432-0000
          Fax: (310) 432-0001
          Email: avalenzuela@lelawfirm.com


TORY BURCH LLC: Ayala Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tory Burch, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Samantha Varela Ayala, an individual on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Tory Burch,
LLC, , Case No. 24CV072587 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., April
22, 2024).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."

Tory Burch, LLC -- https://www.toryburch.com/en-us/ -- offers
women's clothing, dresses, designer shoes, handbags, accessories &
more.[BN]

TQ LOGISTICS INC: Wicklund Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TQ Logistics Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Jason Wicklund, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TQ Logistics Inc., Nital
Pillay, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0004980 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., April 24, 2024).

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

TQ Logistics -- https://tqlogistics.com/ -- provides customized
dedicated trucking services based on two driving principles:
consistent on-time delivery and maximum cost efficiency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 438-5555
          Fax: (310) 300-1705
          Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com


UNITED PARCEL: Class Cert Oral Argument in Malone Set for June 13
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MALONE, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,
INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-03643-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joshua
Wolson entered an order as follows:

   1. The oral argument regarding class certification scheduled for

      June 13, 2024 is cancelled.

   2. On Jan. 19, 2024, the Plaintiff Michael Malone filed redacted

      versions of his Memorandum of Law in support of the
Plaintiff's
      motion for class certification and exhibits 10-12, 30, and
33
      and filed unredacted versions of these documents under seal,

      without seeking leave. If Mr. Malone or Defendant United
Parcel
      Service, Inc. intends for these redactions to remain in
place,
      then that Party shall file a supporting Motion to Seal in
      accordance with the governing standards set forth in In re
      Avandia Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prod. Liab. Litig., 924 F.3d
662
      (3d Cir. 2019) on or before May 8, 2024.

On Feb. 23, 2024, UPS filed Exhibits 1-10 to its Memorandum of Law
In
Support of the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for
Class Certification under seal and in redacted form without seeking
leave to do so. If Mr. Malone or UPS intends for these redactions
to remain in place, then that Party shall file a supporting Motion
to Seal in accordance with the governing standards on or before May
8, 2024.

On March 22, 2024, Mr. Malone filed a Motion for Temporary Sealing

Pending UPS's Motion to Permanently Seal, seeking leave to file a
redacted version of his Reply brief and Exhibit 44 attached thereto
based upon UPS's position that the redacted information is
confidential." He filed unredacted versions of these documents
under seal and in redacted form. To the extent UPS intends for the
redactions to remain in place, then UPS shall file a supporting
Motion to Seal in accordance with the governing standards on or
before May 8, 2024.

In addition, Mr. Malone filed his Motion for Temporary Sealing
Pending
UPS's Motion to Permanently Seal under seal without leave to do so,
and I see no basis whatsoever to keep that motion under seal. Thus,
the Clerk of Court shall unseal the Motion that appears at ECF No.
57.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i2UpTZ at no extra
charge.[CC]

UNITED SEATING: Ducrepin Sues Over Unauthorized Disclosure of PII
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Ducrepin, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated v. UNITED SEATING AND MOBILITY, LLC d/b/a NUMOTION, Case
No. Case 3:24-cv-00545 (M.D. Tenn., May 2, 2024), is brought
arising out of the unauthorized disclosure of the confidential
personal information, Personally Identifying Information1 ("PII"),
of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members, approximately 4,190
current and former employees of Defendant Numotion, from February
29, 2024 to March 2, 2024.

Specifically, between February 29, 2024 to March 2, 2024, "an
unknown, unauthorized third party accessed Numotion's computer
systems," "encrypted some of its computer files," and "may have
accessed and acquired certain files from its systems. The data
security incident exposed the names, dates of birth, Social
Security numbers, and employment information of Plaintiff and the
Class (the "Data Breach").

As a condition of employment, employees are required to entrust
Defendant with their sensitive, private PII, including names, dates
of birth, social security numbers, and other personal information.
According to Defendant's April 15, 2024 letter notifying Plaintiff
and other affected individuals of the Data Breach ("Data Breach
Notice"), mostly between February 29, 2024 to March 2, 2024, an
unauthorized person gained access to Numotion's network and
acquired files containing data including Plaintiff's an Class
Members' PII, such as their Social Security numbers.

Numotion failed to undertake adequate measures to safeguard the PII
of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members, including failing to
implement industry standards for data security to protect against
cyberattacks in the Data Breach. Although Numotion discovered the
Data Breach on or about March 2, 2024, it failed to notify and warn
employees of the unauthorized disclosure of their PII therein until
April 15, 2024, over six weeks later.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failures to protect
employees' sensitive PII and warn them promptly and fully about the
Data Breach, Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members have suffered
widespread injury and damages necessitating Plaintiff seeking
relief on a class wide basis, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a victim of Defendant's Data Breach.

Numotion offers Complex Rehab Technology (CRT) products and
accessories, innovative lifestyle products, service and repair,
catheters, wheelchair accessible vehicles, and other services for
individuals with mobility challenges.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC - NASHVILLE
          223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 254-8801
          Fax: (615) 250-3937
          Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
                 amize@stranchlaw.com

               - and -

          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          Amina A Thomas, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: (317) 636-6481
          Fax: (317) 636-2593
          Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
                 athomas@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          908 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Phone (872) 263-1100
          Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
          Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
                 raina@turkestrauss.com


UNITED STATES: Court Modifies Class Cert Order in Lucas Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCAS R., et al., v.
XAVIER BECERRA, Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-05741-DMG-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Dolly Gee entered an order modifying the court's class
certification order as follows:

-- Jon Cieslak, Mary Kathryn Kelley, and Megan Donohue are removed
as
    class counsel

-- Leecia Welch and Necha Desai, formerly of NCYL, are removed as

    class counsel.

-- Brenda Shum and Mishan Wroe of NYCL are appointed as class
    counsel.

-- Poonam Juneja of NYCL, Carlos Holgum of the Center for Humans
    Rights and Constitutional Law, Holly S. Cooper and Carter C.
White
    of the University of California Davis School of Law, and Summer

    Wynn of Cooley LLP shall continue as class counsel.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tB3wWX at no extra
charge.[CC]


UNIVERSITY OF THE PEOPLE: Unlawfully Collects Debt, Lefevere Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR LEFEVERE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF THE PEOPLE, Defendant, Case
No. CACE-24-005650 (Fla. Cir., Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty.,
April 23, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act
(FCCPA).

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the FCCPA
by communicating with debtors, including the Plaintiff, in
connection with debt collection between the hours of 9:00 PM and
8:00 AM in their time zone without prior consent.

University of the People is a tuition-free online university based
in Pasadena, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
         Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
         C. Hedaya, Esq.
         D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
         110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 907-11 36
         Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                jen@jibraellaw.com
                zane@jibraellaw.com
                gerald@jibraellaw.com

UR JADDOU: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in Martirosyan Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VAGGE MARTIROSYAN, v. UR
M. JADDOU ET AL, Case No. 8:23-cv-02207-MRA-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani entered an order setting
scheduling Conference as follows:

-- Service of Pleadings. If plaintiff has not already served the
    operative complaint on all defendants, plaintiff shall do so
    promptly and shall file proofs of service of the summons and
    complaint within three days thereafter.

-- Order Applies to Pro Se Litigants. "Counsel," as used in this
    Order, includes parties who have elected to appear without
counsel
    and are representing themselves in this litigation.

-- Lead trial counsel and any unrepresented parties must attend
the
    scheduling conference, unless excused by the Court for good
cause
    prior to the conference.

-- Continuance. A request to continue the scheduling conference
will
    be granted only for good cause. The parties should plan to file

    the Joint Rule 26(f) Report on the original due date even if a

    continuance is granted. The Court will not continue the
scheduling
    conference to allow the parties to explore settlement.

-- The Court may vacate the scheduling conference and issue a case

    management order based on the Joint Rule 26(f) Report.

-- The Joint Rule 26(f) Report must be filed not later than 14
days
    before the scheduling conference.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zkiLm2 at no extra
charge.[CC]

US AVIATION SERVICES: Rivas Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brandon Rivas, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. U.S. AVIATION SERVICES
CORP., a Nevada corporation, and DOES 1 TO 50, Case No.
CIVSB2403694 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of
California in and for the County of San Bernardino, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
April 22, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00855.

The Complaint alleged failure to pay for all hours worked,
including minimum wage and overtime hours; failure to provide meal
periods or meal period premiums; failure to provide rest periods or
rest period premiums; waiting time penalties; failure to timely pay
wages during employment; failure to provide legally compliant
itemized wage statements; failure to reimburse necessary
business-related expenses; and unfair competition.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christina T. Tellado, Esq.
          Billy Sahachartsiri, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213.896.2400
          Fax: 213.896.2450
          Email: christina.tellado@hklaw.com
                 billy.sahachartsiri@hklaw.com


VALLEY MOUNTAIN REGIONAL: Brett Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valley Mountain
Regional Center Inc. The case is styled as Maurice Brett,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Valley
Mountain Regional Center Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UPI-2024-0005025
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 25, 2024).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil PI/PD/WD (Other)."

Valley Mountain Regional Center -- https://www.vmrc.net/ -- is a
non-profit organization that provides developmental disability
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Vollbrecht, Esq.
          COLE & VAN NOTE
          555 12th St., Ste. 2100
          Oakland, CA 94607-3625
          Phone: 510-891-9800
          Email: wpv@colevannote.com


VINCENT K. MCMAHON: PRGERS Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VINCENT K. MCMAHON,
et al. The case is styled as City of Pontiac Reestablished General
Employees' Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. VINCENT K. MCMAHON, NICK KHAN, PAUL
LEVESQUE, GEORGE A. BARRIOS, STEVE KOONIN, MICHELLE D. WILSON,
STEVE PAMON, MICHELLE R. MCKENNA, FRANK A. RIDDICK III, WORLD
WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, TKO GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., and
ENDEAVOR GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2024-0432-JTL (Del.
Chancery Ct., April 24, 2024).

The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."

Vincent Kennedy McMahon is an American businessman and former
professional wrestling promoter.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marcus E. Montejo, Esq.
          Corinne Elise Amato, Esq.
          Kevin H. Davenport, Esq.
          John G. Day, Esq.
          Seth T. Ford, Esq.
          PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
          1310 King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 888-6500


VITALITY GROUP: Elias Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joseph Elias, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The Vitality Group doing business as:
Vitality Group International, Inc., LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04656 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on April 23, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11069-ADB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Vitality -- https://www.vitalitygroup.com/ -- wellness solutions
engage members at the intersection of wellbeing and care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          Salena Jasmin Chowdhury, Esq.
          MASON LLP
          5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640
          Washington, DC 20015
          Phone: (202) 429-2290
          Fax: (202) 429-2294
          Email: gmason@masonllp.com
                 lwhite@masonllp.com
                 schowdhury@masonllp.com

               - and -

          Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP (DC)
          641 S. St. NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Phone: (202) 640-1168
          Fax: (202) 429-2294
          Email: dperry@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Theodore Beloyeannis Bell, Esq.
          MASON LLP
          8045 Kenneth Ave.
          Skokie, IL 60076-3215
          Phone: (202) 640-1169
          Email: tbell@masonllp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Schieber, Esq.
          Gabrielle Ganze, Esq.
          Jaimin Hemendra Shah, Esq.
          TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
          111 East Wacker, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 527-4000
          Email: jschieber@taftlaw.com
                 gganze@taftlaw.com
                 jshah@taftlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel Reza Saeedi, Esq.
          Rachel L. Schaller, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          444 W. Lake Street, Ste. 1650
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 776-2517
          Email: daniel.saeedi@blankrome.com
                 rachel.schaller@blankrome.com


W.K.S. FROSTY CORP: Serrano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against W.K.S. Frosty Corp.,
et al. The case is styled as Ana Serrano, on behalf of herself and
current and former aggrieved employees v. W.K.S. Frosty Corp., Does
1 to 100, Case No. 24STCV11147 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
May 3, 2024).

WKS Restaurant Group -- https://www.wksusa.com/ -- is a family
owned business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ashly Valenzuela, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, California 90211
          Phone: (310) 432-0000
          Fax: (310) 432-0001
          Email: avalenzuela@lelawfirm.com


WELLS FARGO: Dillon Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Dillon, Marc Kafka, individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Wells Fargo Securities,
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00684 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on April 22, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-03059-AS to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Wells Fargo Securities, LLC -- https://www.wellsfargo.com/cib/ --
provides investment banking services. The Company offers merchant
banking, purchase sale, and brokerage of securities, and advisory
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (312) 984-0000
          Email: malmstrom@whafh.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Bright, Esq.
          Christopher J. Houpt, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 506-2462
          Email: bbright@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Lucia Nale, Esq.
          Matthew Fenn, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP (CHICAGO)
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 782-0600
          Fax: (312) 701-7711
          Email: lnale@mayerbrown.com
                 mfenn@mayerbrown.com


WELLS FARGO: Haydn Files FCRA Suit in E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank, et
al. The case is styled as Arik Haydn, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells
Fargo & Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-00505-CDB (E.D. Cal., April 26,
2024).

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

Wells Fargo & Company -- http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is an
American multinational financial services company with a
significant global presence.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 973-0900
          Fax: (202) 973-0950
          Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com


WELLSTAR HEALTH SYSTEM: Suit Filed in N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wellstar Health
System, Inc. The case is styled as Jane Doe, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wellstar Health System,
Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01748-JPB (N.D. Ga., April 23, 2024).

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

Wellstar -- https://www.wellstar.org/ -- is the largest and most
integrated healthcare system in Georgia, affiliated medical groups,
urgent care centers and provide tailored health plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Ready Tate, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP
          235 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 400
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Phone: (404) 282-4806
          Fax: (504) 608-1465
          Email: atate@peifferwolf.com

               - and -

          Brandon Michael Wise, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP
          One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Phone: (314) 833-4827
          Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com

               - and -

          Britany Kabakov, Esq.
          David S. Almeida, Esq.
          Elena Belov, Esq.
          ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
          849 W. Webster Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60614
          Phone: (312) 576-3024
          Email: britany@almeidalawgroup.com
                 david@almeidalawgroup.com


WESTERN UNION: Continues to Defend Financial Privacy Act Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Right to Financial Privacy Act
class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

In December 2022, a purported class action complaint was filed
against several money transfer business defendants, including the
Company, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, alleging that these defendants violated the
federal Right to Financial Privacy Act and California's Financial
Information Privacy Act.

The United States Department of Homeland Security and Immigration
and Customs Enforcement are also named as defendants.

The operative complaint alleges that the defendants violated
plaintiffs' financial privacy rights by sharing private financial
information with law enforcement agencies through a program
coordinated by the Transaction Record Analysis Center.

On January 24, 2023, an amended complaint was filed naming the
Company's subsidiary Western Union Financial Services, Inc.
("WUFSI") as a defendant in place of The Western Union Company.

The court granted in part and denied in part WUFSI's motion to
dismiss the operative complaint on March 21, 2024.

On February 21, 2024, another purported class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California against the Company (d/b/a WUFSI) and other
defendants on behalf of California residents whose information was
sent to the Transaction Record Analysis Center.

On April 12, 2024, an amended complaint was filed naming WUFSI as a
defendant in place of the Company.

Due to the preliminary stage of these matters, the ultimate outcome
and any potential financial impact to the Company cannot be
reasonably determined at this time.

WUFSI intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters.

The Western Union Company is into cross-border, cross-currency
money movement, payments, and digital financial services,
empowering consumers, businesses, financial institutions, and
governments.


WESTROCK SERVICE: Acu Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Edgar R. Acu, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WESTROCK SERVICE, LLC; WESTROCK
COMPANY; WESTROCK CALIFORNIA, LLC; WESTROCK CP, LLC; WESTROCK
CONSUMER PACKAGING GROUP, LLC; WESTROCK PACKAGING SYSTEMS, LLC; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2401400 was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside,
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on April 22, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00854.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are collectively liable to
Plaintiff and Class Members for the following: Failure to pay
Plaintiff and Class Members the applicable minimum wage pursuant to
California Labor Code and "any additional applicable Wage Orders,
which require such compensation to non-exempt employees." Failure
to pay Plaintiff and Class Members for all overtime pursuant to
California Labor Code. Failure to provide Plaintiff and Class
Members with meal periods pursuant to California Labor Code.
Failure to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with rest periods
pursuant to California Labor Code. Failure to indemnify Plaintiff
and Class Members for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred
in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties pursuant to
Labor Code. Failure to pay wages due to Plaintiff and Class Members
upon discharge pursuant to California Labor Code. Failure to
furnish Plaintiff and Class Members timely, accurate, and itemized
wage statements pursuant to California Labor Code. Unfair and
unlawful business practices pursuant to California Business and
Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mia Farber, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
          Phone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          Email: mia.farber@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Scott P. Jang, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          50 California Street, 9th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
          Phone: (415) 394-9400
          Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
          Email: Scott.Jang@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Isabella L. Shin, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          160 W. Santa Clara St., Suite 400
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Phone: (408) 579-0404
          Facsimile: (408) 454-0290
          Email: Isabella.Shin@jacksonlewis.com


WILLIAM C. BAILEY: Berry Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Heath Berry, individually and derivatively on
behalf of Radiance Technologies, Inc. and the owners Radiance Of
Technologies, Inc. v. WILLIAM C. BAILEY, ROBERT E. (BUD) CRAMER,
JIM SCANLON, JEAD DEASON, JIM POSS, CAROL TEVEPAUGH, JT THOMPSON
AND JOHN F. THOMPSON, Case No. 47-CV-2024-900415.00 was removed
from the Circuit Court of Madison County, Alabama, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on April
25, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00522-HNJ.

The Plaintiff's claims are under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA").[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          W. Brad English, Esq.
          Emily J. Chancey, Esq.
          Robert G. Jones, Esq.
          La Keisha Butler, Esq.
          Taylor R. Holt, Esq.
          MAYNARD NEXSEN PC
          655 Gallatin Street
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Phone: (256) 512-5705
          Email: benglish@MaynardNexsen.com
                 echancey@MaynardNexsen.com
                 rjones@MaynardNexsen.com
                 Ibutler@MaynardNexsen.com
                 taholt@MaynardNexsen.com

               - and -

          Tom J. Butler, Esq.
          Ethan McDaniel, Esq.
          Grace R. Murphy, Esq.
          Thomas W.H. Buck, Jr., Esq.
          S. Reeves Jordan, Esq.
          MAYNARD NEXSEN PC
          1901 Sixth Avenue North. Suite 1700
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 254-1063
          Email: tbutler@MaynardNexsen.com
                 emcdaniel@MaynardNexsen.com
                 gmutphy@MaynardNexsen.com
                 tbuck@MaynardNexsen.com
                 rejordan@MaynardNexsen.com


YARDI SYSTEMS: FCRA Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Doe, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., RENTGROW, INC., and
CLEARA, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-10118 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the So District of Massachusetts on May 2,
2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11175-IT to the
proceeding.

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

Yardi Systems -- https://www.yardi.com/ -- is a software vendor for
the real estate industry with end-to-end property and investment
management software and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jenna Dakroub, Esq.
          CONSUMER ATTORNEYS
          6345 Balboa Boulevard, Suite 247
          Encino, CA 91316
          Phone: (602) 807-1525
          Fax: (718) 715-1750
          Email: jdakroub@consumerattorneys.com

               - and -

          Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq.
          CONSUMER ATTORNEYS PLC
          2290 East Speedway Boulevard
          Tucson, AZ 85719
          Phone: (602) 807-1504
          Fax: (757) 930-3662
          Email: srotkis@consumerattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ronald I. Raether, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          5 Park Plaza, Ste. 1400
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: (949) 622-2722
          Email: ron.raether@troutman.com


ZOETIS INC: Rosen Law Starts Securities Class Action Investigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an
investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Zoetis Inc. (NYSE: ZTS) resulting from allegations
that Zoetis may have issued materially misleading business
information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Zoetis securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=24154 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On April 12, 2024, before the market opened,
The Wall Street Journal released an article entitled "What Killed
Their Pets? Owners Blame Meds, but Vets Aren't Sure." This article
discussed possible side effects caused by Librela and Solensia, two
drugs which are produced by Zoetis, and are respectively used to
treat arthritis in dogs and cats. The article also stated "[h]ealth
regulators in the U.S. and Europe -- which have received thousands
of reports of side effects -- are conducting reviews" and that
"[t]he FDA received more than 3,800 reports of side effects
concerning the drugs through the end of last year."

On this news, Zoetis' stock fell $12.75 per share, or 7.8%, to
close at $149.98 per share on April 12, 2024.

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

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

Contact Information:

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


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***