---

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

              Thursday, May 23, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 104

                            Headlines

ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: Court OKs Settlement in Securities Suit
AETNA INC: Settles LGBTQ+ Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit
AMERICAN SUGAR: Sued for Violation of Consumer Protection Laws
AT&T MOBILITY: Oliver Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
AUTOMATIC MACHINE: Rodrigues Sues Over Nonpayment of Wages

AXT INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud
B I J CONSTRUCTION: Faces Bernal Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D. Fla.
BANK OF AMERICA: Denies Accountholders' Fraud Claims, Dennie Says
BLUE COAST: Barriga Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Painters
BOATS GROUP: Conspires to Inflate Yacht Commission, Defosey Claims

BV CONTRACTORS: Bernal Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Framers
CALIFORNIA BAIL: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 30
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Response on Bid to Stay Extended to May 24
CGB ENTERPRISES: Illegally Stores Fingerprints, Engelkens Claims
COASTAL PURE: Ousley Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

COLOMBIAN NIGHTS: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Court Dismisses Share Price Class Action Suit
COMPASS MINERALS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 24
DAILY WIRE: Furdock Sues Over Illegal Collection Practices
DIAMOND NAIL SALON: Lu Suit Transferred to E.D. New York

DRIL-QUIP INC: Monteverde Investigates Merger With Innovex
DROPBOX INC: Strickland Files Suit in N.D. California
ELIXIR COSMETICS: Cohen Sues Over Babe Cosmetics' Deceptive Ads
ENTRUST CORPORATION: Class Settlement in Morrison Gets Final Nod
ESTEE LAUDER: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit

FBCS INC: Brooks Seeks Damages for Data Security Failure
FLAGSTAR BANK: Court Grants Summary Judgement on Overdraft Fees
FREDDIE MAC: Securities Suit Trial Set for Oct. 31
GALLAGHER 6 LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Pearson Says
GEMINI TRUST: Moeller-Bertram Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut

GENERAL MOTORS: Gilmore Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia
GLAD PRODUCTS: Woolard Suit Removed to S.D. California
GLOBE LIFE: Bids for Lead Plaintiffs Deadline Set July 1, 2024
GOOD FELLAS INDUS: Sapienza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC: Soto Suit Removed to E.D. California

HARRIS & HARRIS: Lynch Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
HEALTHY SPIRIT: Slate Allowed to Conduct Class Certification
HOME DEPOT: Eisele Suit Removed to D. Oregon
HOSPITALITY UNIVERSAL: Palma Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HPC INDUSTRIAL: Moss Suit Removed to C.D. California

HUB GROUP TRUCKING: Andujar Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
IHEALTH PLANS LLC: Becker Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
INARI MEDICAL: Institutional Investors Sues Over Securities Fraud
INFINITY 1: Sookul Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
INFOSYS MCCAMISH: Case Management Deadlines Stayed in McNally Suit

INTEL CORP: Sued for Misrepresentation of Business Prospects
IROBOT CORPORATION: Das Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
ITW FOOD EQUIPMENT: Abid-Castelo Suit Removed to N.D. California
J.T. THORPE & SON: Carter Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
JEFF ZMUDA: Younger, et al., Seek Declaratory & Injunctive Relief

JETRO HOLDINGS: Hicks Discrimination Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
LOLA RWM: Garrafa Sues Over Unpaid OT and Retaliation
LOS ANGELES, CA: Court Certifies Part-Time Staff Class Suit
M&D CAPITAL: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Maloney Says
MEDSTAR HEALTH: Faces Goldsmith Suit Over Alleged Data Breach

MILAN FOODS: Omelchenko Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages
MISSION CEVICHE: Flores Sues Over Labor Law Violations
NATIONAL AUTO: Underpays Warehouse Employees, Carela Suit Alleges
NEW YORK, NY: Ramjerdi Sues Over Disability Discrimination
NIKE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Labor Codes Violation

OCUGEN INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud
ORTHOCONNECTICUT PLLC: Cion Sues over Unprotected Sensitive Info
PACKAGING EXCHANGE: Maiorano Alleges Failure to Pay Timely Wages
PEDIATRIC DENTAL: Doe Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Okla.
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Brown Sues Over Conspiracy to Fix Gas Prices

PLUG POWER: Hagens Berman Expands Class Period in Class Action
SAC WIRELESS: Heino Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
SKY CLIMBER: Olmedo Seeks Wind Turbine Technicians' Unpaid Wages
SOLVENTUM CORP: Gilbert Sues Over Illegal Company Bylaw
TANDEM DIABETES: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit

TARGET CORP: Smith Sues Over Data Collection Over Email Trackers
UBC PROPERTIES: Faces Suit Over Campus Construction Damages
UDINE & UDINE: Roberts Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
US PAROLE: Sued Over Failure to Accommodate Disabled People
VOYAGER DIGITAL: Athletes Named in Class Action Lawsuit Settlement

WEST GULF MARITIME: Contreras et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
YVES LA POINTE: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Garcia et al. Say
[*] Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in TCPA Class Action Over ATDS

                            *********

ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: Court OKs Settlement in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announce that the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit purchasers of the publicly traded common stock
of Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ADMS):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF
SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS
HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND
REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:

All persons and entities who, during the period between August 8,
2017 and March 4, 2019, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired
the publicly traded common stock of Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Adamas"), and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"):

Please read this notice carefully, your rights will be affected by
a class action lawsuit pending in this court.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has, for settlement purposes only, been
certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class,
except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the
Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full Notice of
(I) Pendency of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Class,
and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and
(III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Lead Plaintiff in the Action has
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $4,650,000 in cash
(the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in
the Action.

A hearing will be held on August 30, 2024 at 9:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Jeffrey S. White at the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, United States Courthouse,
Courtroom 5 -- 2nd Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, to
determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against Defendant, and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice)
should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation
should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of
Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), can be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.AdamasSecuritiesSettlement.com. You may also obtain copies of
the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at
Adamas Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O.
Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063,
1-866-274-4004.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form online or postmarked no later than August
28, 2024 to the Claims Administrator. If you are a Settlement Class
Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the
Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than August 9, 2024 to
the Claims Administrator, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to
share in the proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court such that
they are received no later than August 9, 2024, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Richard King,
Adamas or Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or their counsel
regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the
proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     Leanne H. Solish, Esq.
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     (310) 201-9150
     settlements@glancylaw.com

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

     Adamas Securities Litigation
     c/o Strategic Claims Services
     P.O. Box 230
     600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205
     Media, PA 19063
     866-274-4004
     www.AdamasSecuritiesSettlement.com [GN]

AETNA INC: Settles LGBTQ+ Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna -- one of the largest healthcare companies in the United
States -- will now equally cover fertility treatments for LGBTQ+
patients, in a settlement to a class action lawsuit accusing the
insurer of discriminating against LGBTQ+ people seeking treatment.

According to the National Women's Law Center, Aetna will now make
coverage for artificial insemination standard for all patients and
will also ensure patients have equal access to IVF procedures,
which can be incredibly expensive.

The lawsuit was originally filed in 2021. According to the suit,
Aetna provided unequal access to fertility treatments for LGBTQ+
people trying to get pregnant. Before this settlement, Aetna
provided insurance coverage to heterosexual people who said they
were struggling with fertility more easily than LGBTQ+ people.

The lawsuit alleges Aetna required LGBTQ+ people to pay several
cycles of fertility treatment out-of-pocket before offering
coverage, but did not require heterosexual couples to.

Now, the insurer will set aside a $2 million fund to reimburse
people affected by their previous discriminatory practices.

Kennedy Hunt P.C. applauds this settlement, a big step in
protecting LGBTQ+ people and families in this country. Our
passionate team fights for our clients' civil rights. If you or
someone you know has been a victim of discrimination, our attorneys
at Kennedy Hunt, P.C. may be able to help you. Fill out a
questionnaire so we can understand your claim. [GN]

AMERICAN SUGAR: Sued for Violation of Consumer Protection Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
Natile Inc. (d/b/a Alpine View Family Restaurant), Red Star Diner,
Inc., and The Coffee Bean LLC, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING, INC., ASR
GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC., DOMINO FOODS, INC., MICHIGAN SUGAR
COMPANY, UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS & REFINERS COOPERATIVE F/K/A UNITED
SUGARS CORPORATION, CARGILL, INC., COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC., AND
RICHARD WISTISEN, Case No. 0:24-cv-01654 (D. Minn., May 7, 2024),
is brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 16 of the
Clayton Act as well as the antitrust, unfair competition, and
consumer protection laws of various states.

Since at least January 1, 2019, Defendants and their
co-conspirators conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and
stabilize prices for Granulated Sugar1 sold throughout the United
States.

The Producing Defendants—who are otherwise horizontal
competitors—are among the largest producers and sellers of
Granulated Sugar in the United States, especially after Defendant
United's acquisition of former competitor Imperial Sugar Company
("Imperial") in November 2022.

In furtherance of this conspiracy, among other things, the
Producing Defendants unlawfully signaled pricing decisions and
exchanged competitively sensitive information about prices,
capacity, sales volume, and demand, including through Defendant
Commodity. The Producing Defendants were careful to avoid detection
of their unlawful agreement. For example, while discussing an
information exchange in one email, United's Eric Speece wrote that
he would "call" "rather than put in writing." These actions were
taken with the intended purpose and effect of increasing Granulated
Sugar Prices throughout the United States.

As a result of Defendants' combination and conspiracy, Granulated
Sugar prices in the United States have been artificially inflated
between at least January 1, 2019 to the present ("Class Period"),
causing Plaintiffs and other commercial, industrial, and
institutional indirect purchasers ("Commercial Indirect
Purchasers") to suffer overcharges, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Granulated Sugar in Illinois indirectly
from one or more Defendants and suffered antitrust injury as a
result.

ASR is a global producer and seller of Granulated Sugar.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          Fax: (612) 339-0981
          Email: hmsilton@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Kellie Lerner, Esq.
          Ben Steinberg, Esq.
          Ellen Jalkut, Esq.
          Laura Song, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 980-7400
          Fax: (212) 980-7499
          Email: klerner@robinskaplan.com
                 bsteinberg@robinskaplan.com
                 ejalkut@robinskaplan.com
                 lsong@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Phone: (610) 234-6486
          Fax: (224) 632-4521
          Email: kjustice@fklmlaw.com
                 jjagher@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew W. Ruan, Esq.
          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          100 Tri-State International, Suite 128
          Lincolnshire, IL 60069
          Phone: (224) 632-4500
          Email: mruan@fklmlaw.com
                 dmillen@fklmlaw.com
                 mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com


AT&T MOBILITY: Oliver Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY J. OLIVER, on behalf of himself and similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AT&T MOBILITY, L.L.C., and AT&T, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-01690-VMC (N.D. Ga., April 19, 2024) is a class action
against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
sensitive information of its customers.

The Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ sensitive personally
identifiable information -- which they entrusted to Defendant on
the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against
disclosure -- was targeted, compromised, and unlawfully accessed
due to the Data Breach. The Data Breach was a direct result of
Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
consumers' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack,
says the suit.

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

AT&T Mobility, L.L.C is a wireless carrier and Internet provider in
the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
  
          McNeill Stokes, Esq.
          5372 Whitehall Place, S.E.
          Mableton, GA 30126
          Telephone: (404) 352-2144
          E-mail: mcstokes@bellsouth.net

AUTOMATIC MACHINE: Rodrigues Sues Over Nonpayment of Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID RODRIGUES, ANTHONY FREDA, KEVIN CAMARA, ERNEST MOSCHERA, and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AUTOMATIC MACHINE
PRODUCTS CO., JH VAL VE REAL TY, LLC, JOHN S. HOLDEN III, KEVIN
ARMATA, and FORREST CRISMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-11042 (D.
Mass., April 19, 2024) arises from the Defendants' nonpayment of
wages to Plaintiffs and those similarly situated in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts General Law
148.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants in nonexempt
positions. They seek to represent the class of individuals employed
with AMP as of March 7, 2024.

Automatic Machine Products Co. provides precision machining,
stamping, cleaning, brazing, heat treating, finishing, assembly,
and testing services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Janet R. Ruggieri, Esq.
          Widad Bakkal, Esq.
          MURPHY & RUDOLF, LLP
          446 Main Street, Ste 1503
          Worcester, MA 01608
          Telephone: (508) 425-6330
          Facsimile: (508) 536-0824
          E-mail: ruggieri@murphyrudolf.com

AXT INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against AXT, Inc. ("AXT" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AXTI). Such
investors are advised to 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.

The class action concerns whether AXT and certain of its officers
and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful
business practices.

You have until July 5, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased
or otherwise acquired AXT securities during the Class Period. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.

On April 4, 2024, J Capital Research ("J Capital") published a
report addressing AXT, alleging, among other things, that the
U.S.-listed Company conducts almost all of its business operations
through a subsidiary in China and "wants to list that subsidiary in
Shanghai to capture new financing," but "the listing prospectus
attracted unexpected scrutiny and unveiled a plethora of
undisclosed issues in China." In particular, J Capital alleged that
it "uncovered a deluge of reasons why Chinese regulators
potentially blocked this IPO, including falsifying data, tax
evasion, improper storage of hazardous chemicals, suspicious
related-party transactions, IP litigation, and defaulting on wages
to employees."

On this news, AXT's stock price fell $1.73 per share, or 34.95%, to
close at $3.22 per share on April 4, 2024.

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

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:

   Danielle Peyton
   Pomerantz LLP
   dpeyton@pomlaw.com
   646-581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN]

B I J CONSTRUCTION: Faces Bernal Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE BERNAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. B I J CONSTRUCTION, INC., JOSE J. BLANCO,
and IVAN BLANCO, Defendants, Case No. 6:24-cv-00850 (M.D. Fla., May
6, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mr. Bernal was employed by the Defendants as a framer from
approximately September 30, 2023, to November 30, 2023.

B I J Construction, Inc. is a construction company located at 2037
Picnic Lane, Apopka, Florida. [BN]

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

BANK OF AMERICA: Denies Accountholders' Fraud Claims, Dennie Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY DENNIE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00454 (W.D.N.C., May 6, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, the Electronic Funds Transfers Act, and
California's Unfair Competition Law, and for breach of contract,
including breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The case arises from the Defendant's rejection of bank
accountholders' bona fide fraud claims without conducting a proper
investigation and the use of form denial notices without any
written explanation or supporting documentation. The Defendant
denies fraud claims for transactions it unilaterally deems to be
authorized by consumers without providing any substantive
explanation as to how or why it has satisfied its burden of
demonstrating that the disputed charges were in fact authorized.
Moreover, Bank of America's conduct also constitutes an express
breach of its contract with accountholders. Bank of America
promises that consumers will not be liable for their losses if
their card is lost or stolen if the consumer timely reports the
lost or stolen card. But Bank of America routinely fails to honor
its promises, says the suit.

Bank of America, N.A. is a national bank with its headquarters and
principal place of business located in Charlotte, North Carolina.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
         THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
         11 North Market Street
         Asheville, NC 28801
         Telephone: (828) 258-2991
         Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com

                 - and -

         Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
         Edwin E. Elliott, Esq.
         SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
         14 N.E. 1st Ave. St. 1205
         Miami, FL 33132
         Telephone: (305) 479-2299
         Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                edwine@shamisgentile.com

                 - and -

         Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
         KALIELGOLD PLLC
         950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
         Berkeley, CA 94710
         Telephone: (202) 350-4783
         Email: sgold@kalielgold.com

                 - and -

         Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
         EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
         20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
         Aventura, FL 33180
         Telephone: (786) 289-9471
         Email: chris@edelsberglaw.com

BLUE COAST: Barriga Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Painters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS A. BARRIGA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE COAST PAINTING, LLC, a/k/a
BLUE COAST PAINTING & RENOVATION, and FERDYLANDO CERDAS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-21767 (S.D. Fla., May 6, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Barriga was employed by the Defendants as a painter from
approximately February 21, 2024, to April 14, 2024.

Blue Coast Painting, LLC, also known as Blue Coast Painting &
Renovation, is a construction company doing business in Dade
County, Florida. [BN]

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

BOATS GROUP: Conspires to Inflate Yacht Commission, Defosey Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
TRICIA DEFOSEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOATS GROUP, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, PERMIRA ADVISERS, LLC, a New York Limited
Liability Company, YATCO, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company,
INTERNATIONAL YACHT BROKER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not for
Profit Corporation, YACHT BROKER'S ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, a
Maryland Corporation, UNITED YACHT SALES, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, DENISON YACHT SALES, INC., a Florida
Corporation, DENISON NEW YACHTS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, NORTHROP & JOHNSON YACHT SALES, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, HMY YACHT SALES, INC., a Florida Corporation,
GALATI YACHT SALES, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company,
MARINEMAX, INC., a Florida Corporation, SHARON & JACK MALATICH,
LLC, a Maryland Limited Liability Company, TOURNAMENT YACHT SALES,
LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, RJC YACHT SALES, INC., a
Florida Corporation, THE MULTIHULL COMPANY, LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Company, SUNSHINE CRUISING YACHTS LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, and CATAMARAN SALES, INC., a Florida
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-21766 (S.D. Fla., May 6,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in an
anticompetitive and illegal conspiracy to unreasonably restrain
trade in violation of the Sherman Act by requiring yacht sellers to
pay a buyer-broker commission and an inflated total broker
commission. The Defendants' conspiracy has, among other things, (i)
required sellers to pay the buyer-broker commission; (ii) required
sellers to pay an inflated total commission and an inflated
buyer-broker commission; (iii) restrained price competition among
buyer-brokers; and (iv) restrained price competition in the market
for yachts by withholding important information on yachts necessary
for determining fair prices. As a result of the Defendants' ongoing
anticompetitive conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class have been
injured in their business and property and suffered damages.

Boats Group, LLC is an advertising company, headquartered in Miami,
Florida.

Permira Advisers LLC is the owner and operator of Boats Group, LLC,
headquartered in New York, New York.

YATCO, LLC is a yacht marketplace company, headquartered in
Parkland, Florida

International Yacht Broker's Association, Inc. is an association of
yacht brokers, headquartered in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

Yacht Broker's Association of America is an association of yacht
brokers, headquartered in Annapolis, Maryland.

United Yacht Sales, LLC is a yacht brokerage firm headquartered in
Stuart, Florida.

Denison Yacht Sales, Inc. is a yacht brokerage firm headquartered
in Dania Beach, Florida.

Denison New Yachts, LLC is a yacht brokerage firm headquartered in
Dania Beach, Florida.

Northrop & Johnson Yacht Sales, LLC is a yacht brokerage firm
headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

HMY Yacht Sales, Inc. is a yacht brokerage firm headquartered in
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Galati Yacht Sales, LLC is a yacht brokerage firm headquartered in
Anna Maria, Florida.

MarineMax, Inc. is a yacht brokerage firm headquartered in
Clearwater, Florida.

Sharon & Jack Malatich, LLC is a yacht brokerage firm headquartered
in Rock Hall, Maryland.

Tournament Yacht Sales, LLC is a yacht brokerage firm headquartered
in Tequesta, Florida.

RJC Yacht Sales, Inc. is a yacht brokerage firm headquartered in
Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

The Multihull Company, LLC is a yacht brokerage firm headquartered
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Sunshine Cruising Yachts LLC is a yacht brokerage firm
headquartered in Saint Augustine, Florida.

Catamaran Sales, Inc. is a yacht brokerage firm headquartered in
Fort Lauderdale, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Etan Mark, Esq.
         MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
         80 SW 8th Street, Suite 1999
         Miami, FL 33130
         Telephone: (305) 374-0440

                 - and -

         Lee Albert, Esq.
         Brian D. Brooks, Esq.
         GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
         230 Park Avenue, Suite 358
         New York, NY 10169
         Telephone: (212) 682-5340
         Email: lalbert@glancylaw.com
                bbrooks@glancylaw.com

BV CONTRACTORS: Bernal Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Framers
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE BERNAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BV CONTRACTORS, INC. and BERENICE VAZQUEZ,
Defendants, Case No. 6:24-cv-00851 (S.D. Fla., May 6, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum
wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Mr. Bernal was employed by the Defendants as a framer from
approximately December 01, 2023, to January 19, 2024.

BV Contractors, Inc. is a construction company located at 4200
Sebring Parkway, Sebring, Florida. [BN]

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

CALIFORNIA BAIL: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 30
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re California Bail Bond Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 4:19-cv-00717-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Jon Tigar entered an order extending case deadlines by 135 days
from the operative case deadlines:

            Event                  Prior Deadline      Proposed
                                                       Deadline

  Plaintiffs' motion for class       June 17, 2024    Oct. 30,
2024
  Certification, designation of
  experts, and disclosure of
  opening expert reports

  Defendants' opposition to motion   Aug. 26, 2024    Jan. 29,
2025
  for class certification,
  designation of rebuttal experts,
  disclosure of rebuttal expert
  reports, and Daubert motions to
  exclude testimony in opening expert
  reports

  Plaintiffs' reply brief ISO        Oct. 21, 2024    Mar. 26,
2025
  Class Certification, disclosure
  of reply expert reports,
  oppositions to Daubert motions
  to exclude testimony in opening
  expert reports, and Daubert
  motions to exclude testimony
  in rebuttal expert reports

  Replies to oppositions to          Nov. 20, 2024    Apr. 25,
2025
  Daubert motions to exclude
  testimony in opening expert reports

  Oppositions to Daubert motions     Dec. 18, 2024    May 23, 2025
  to exclude testimony in rebuttal
  expert reports

  Replies to Oppositions to          Jan. 17, 2025   June 23, 2025
  Daubert Motions to exclude
  testimony in Rebuttal Expert
  Reports


On Nov. 7, 2022, the Court issued an Order denying the Defendants'
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' third consolidated class action
complaint.

On March 15, 2024, pursuant to the Court's minute entry following
the March 8, 2024 Case Management Conference, the Parties submitted
a Joint Statement Re: Deposition Protocol Proposals, along with
competing deposition protocols.

To date, the Plaintiffs have noticed nine (9) depositions of
Defendant fact witnesses and served thirteen (13) third-party
deposition subpoenas, and the Plaintiffs anticipate scheduling and
taking dozens of depositions over the course of the next few
months.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D406n2 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
          Katherine Lubin Benson, Esq.
          Michelle A. Lamy, Esq.
          Miriam E. Marks, Esq.
          Emily N. Harwell, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: dharvey@lchb.com
                  kbenson@lchb.com
                  mlamy@lchb.com
                  mmarks@lchb.com
                  eharwell@lchb.com

                - and -

          Benjamin David Elga, Esq.
          JUSTICE CATALYST LAW
          25 Broadway, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (518) 732-6703
          E-mail: belga@justicecatalyst.org

                - and -

          Stephanie Carroll, Esq.
          Ghirlandi Guidetti, Esq.
          PUBLIC COUNSEL
          610 South Ardmore Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA, 90005
          Telephone: (213) 385-2977
          Facsimile: (213) 201-4722
          E-mail: scarroll@publiccounsel.org
          gguidetti@publiccounsel.org

                - and -

          Stuart T. Rossman, Esq.
          Shennan Kavanagh, Esq.
          Jennifer S. Wagner, Esq.
          NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
          7 Winthrop Square, Fourth Floor
          Boston, MA 02110-1245
          Telephone: (617) 542-8010
          Facsimile: (617) 542-8028
          E-mail: srossman@nclc.org
                  skavanagh@nclc.org
                  jwagner@nclc.org

                - and -

          David Seligman, Esq.
          TOWARDS JUSTICE
          1410 High Street, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (720) 441-2236
          E-mail: david@towardsjustice.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Beatriz Mejia, Esq.
          Michael A. Attanasio, Esq.
          Timothy W. Cook, Esq.
          Max Sladek de la Cal, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          55 Hudson Yards
          New York, NY 10001

                - and -

          Julie A. Gryce, Esq.
          Michael P. Murphy, Esq.
          John Hamill, Esq.
          Michael Pullos, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          401 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101-4297
          Telephone: (619) 699-2700
          E-mail: julie.gryce@dlapiper.com
                  michael.murphy@dlapiper.com
                  John.hamill@us.dlapiper.com
                  Michael.pullos@us.dlapiper.com

                - and -

          Darryl Anderson, Esq.
          Joshua D. Lichtman, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 651-5562
          E-mail: darryl.anderson@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  joshua.lichtman@nortonrosefulbright.com

                - and -

          John P. Marino, Esq.
          Kristen Wenger, Esq.
          RIVKIN RADLER LLP
          1301 Riverplace Boulevard, 10th Floor
          Jacksonville, FL
          Telephone: (904) 792 8925
          E-mail: john.marino@rivkin.com
                  kristen.wenger@rivkin.com

                - and -

          Anne K. Edwards, Esq.
          SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
          444 South Flower Street, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 358-7210
          E-mail: aedwards@sgrlaw.com

                - and -

          David F. Hauge, Esq.
          Todd H. Stitt, Esq.
          Vincent S. Loh, Esq.
          MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP
          10880 Wilshire Blvd 19th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024

                - and -

          W. Scott Croft, Esq.
          DENTONS BINGHAM GREENEBAUM LLP
          101 S. Fifth Street, 3500 PNC Tower
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 587-3758
          E-mail: scott.croft@dentons.com

                - and -

          Spencer Y. Kook, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3476
          Telephone: (213) 680-2800
          Facsimile: (213) 614-7399
          E-mail: skook@hinshawlaw.com

                - and -

          Gary A. Nye, Esq.
          ROXBOROUGH, POMERANCE, NYE & ADREANI,
          LLP
          5900 Canoga Ave UNIT 450
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367

                - and -

          Brendan Pegg, Esq.
          Lindsay Cooper-Greene, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRENDAN PEGG CORPORATION
          201 E. Ojai Avenue #1505
          Ojai, CA 93024
          Telephone: (805) 302-4151
          E-mail: brendan@bpegglaw.com

                - and -

          Sara K. Hunkler, Esq.
          Myles D. Morrison, Esq.
          Joshua P. Mayer, Esq.
          RUGGERI PARKS WEINBERG LLP
          1875 K Street NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 984-1400
          E-mail: shunkler@ruggerilaw.com
                  mmorrison@ruggerilaw.com
                  jmayer@ruggerilaw.com

                - and -

          Albert K. Alikin, Esq.
          Kenneth A. Remson, Esq.
          FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP
          550 South Hope Street, 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 615-7029
          E-mail: Albert.Alikin@fmglaw.com
                  Ken.Remson@fmglaw.com

                - and –

          Paul J. Riehle, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 551-7521
          E-mail: paul.riehle@faegredrinker.com

                - and -

          John Sebastinelli, Esq.
          Howard Holderness, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          101 Second Street, Suite 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94105-3668
          Telephone: (415) 650-1300
          E-mail: sebastinellij@gtlaw.com
                  holdernessh@gtlaw.com

CASSAVA SCIENCES: Response on Bid to Stay Extended to May 24
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re Cassava Sciences, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00751-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge
David Alan Ezra entered an order granting the joint motion to
extend time to file:

-- Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants motion to stay,

-- Defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class
    certification, and

-- Plaintiffs' reply in support of plaintiffs' motion for class
    certification.

The Plaintiffs' deadline to respond to Defendants' Motion to Stay
is extended until May 24, 2024.

The Defendants' deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification is extended until June 28, 2024.

The  Plaintiffs' deadline to reply in support of Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification is extended until August 23, 2024.

Cassava is a biotechnology company focused on Alzheimer's disease.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DS0V61 at no extra
charge.[CC]

CGB ENTERPRISES: Illegally Stores Fingerprints, Engelkens Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
BLAZE ENGELKENS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CGB ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03602 (N.D. Ill., May 3, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of 740 Illinois Compiled Statutes.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful collections,
obtainments, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's
sensitive and proprietary biometric identifiers and/or biometric
information processed via a fingerprint scan as part of the time
clock procedure for timekeeping and payroll purposes. CGB
Enterprises utilizes a biometric terminal and biometric scanning
software to collect the fingerprint scans of their employees,
including the Plaintiff. At all relevant times, CGB Enterprises had
no written policy, made available to the public, establishing a
retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying
biometric information when the initial purpose for collecting or
obtaining such biometric information has been satisfied or within
three years of the individual's last interaction with CGB
Enterprises, whichever occurs first. As such, CGB Enterprises'
retention of the Plaintiff's and Class members' biometric
information was unlawful and in violation of 740 ILCS, says the
suit.

CGB Enterprises, LLC is an operator of grain facilities in
Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
         8401 Crawford Ave. Suite 104
         Skokie, IL 60076
         Telephone: (847) 986-5889
         Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
         Email: mike@fradinlaw.com

                - and -

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

COASTAL PURE: Ousley Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Ousley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Coastal Pure Beverages, LLC; Silver Screen
Bottling Co. d/b/a Coastal Pure Beverages; Christopher Brett
Thomason; and Gordon Whitener, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-02096-DCN (D.S.C., April 19, 2024) arises out of
Defendants' alleged systemic policy and practice of failing to pay
employees for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

Plaintiff Ousley has been an employee of Defendants and the
predecessor companies since approximately June 2017. She brings
this action, individually and on behalf of a class of all
individuals employed by the Defendants who did not receive their
proper compensable wages.

Coastal Pure Beverages operates a production and bottling facility
in Charleston County, South Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Scott Falls, Esq.
          Ashley L. Falls, Esq.
          FALLS LEGAL, LLC
          P.O. Box 12910
          Charleston, SC 29422
          Telephone: (843) 737-6040
          Facsimile: (843) 737-6140

COLOMBIAN NIGHTS: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Agustin Perez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. COLOMBIAN NIGHTS LLC a/k/a COLOMBIAN NIGHTS a/k/a
NOCHES DE COLOMBIA, MARIA C. VELEZ and SEBASTIAN COLORADO, Case No.
2:24-cv-05891 (D.N.J., May 7, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid
overtime wages the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), and the New Jersey Wage Payment
Law ("NJWPL").

During the first nine or so years of his employment, the Defendants
scheduled Plaintiff to work from 11 AM or 12 PM until midnight, six
days per week, resulting in him working 72 hours per week. Many of
the other members of the FLSA Collective and the Class were
scheduled to work between 45 and 70 hours per week, or more. On
days that they were assigned to work, Plaintiff and other members
of the FLSA Collective and the Class were often unable to take
lunch, or any other, breaks because there was so much work to do.

Despite them working many hours in excess of 40 per week,
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the members of the FLSA
Collective and the Class any overtime premiums for overtime hours
they worked for Defendants. Further, Defendants at times shaved off
some of Plaintiff's hours worked, paying him--at straight-time
only--for many, but not all, of the hours he worked for
Defendants.

The Defendants did not keep accurate records, as required by
federal and state law, of all the hours worked by Plaintiff and the
members of the FLSA Collective and the Class. The Defendants knew
of, and/or showed reckless disregard for, the practices by which
Plaintiff and the members of the FLSA Collective and the Class were
not paid overtime premiums for overtime hours they worked for
Defendants, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work in their
kitchen, first as a dishwasher and then as a cook/kitchen helper,
and to perform similar tasks, at Noches De Colombia.

COLOMBIAN NIGHTS LLC a/k/a COLOMBIAN NIGHTS a/k/a NOCHES DE
COLOMBIA is a New Jersey Limited Liability Company that operated
Noches De Colombia restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Harrison, Esq.
          HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOC., LTD
          110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Phone: 888-239-4410
          Email: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Court Dismisses Share Price Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Neilson, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that a court has
dismissed a class action that alleged Commonwealth Bank traded
shares at an artificially inflated price amid its failure to comply
with anti-money laundering obligations.

The failed class action, supported by Omni Bridgeway, alleged the
Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) did not comply with continuous
disclosure obligations and did not correct allegedly defective
cleansing notices between June 2014 and August 2017.

Due to the alleged deficiencies, the applicants said CBA shares
traded on the ASX "at an artificially inflated price".

While the current matter involved separate questions of legal
liability, the case related to CBA's $700 million penalty in August
2017 for a failure to comply with its obligations under the
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Act 2006.

The present applicants, Philip Anthony Baron and Zonia Holdings,
alleged the bank had information relating to these contraventions
but failed to disclose them on the Australian Securities Exchange
(ASX).

They alleged that had this been disclosed, "it would have had a
material effect on the market price of CBA's shares".

The class action also alleged the bank engaged in misleading or
deceptive conduct "on a continuous basis" by failing to publish,
correct or modify the various representations on the ASX.

In a summary, Justice David Yates said the applicant's matter "was
such that the court was not satisfied the ASX listing rules
required the bank to disclose that information to the ASX".

Justice Yates added that even in the event the information had been
disclosed by the bank, he was not satisfied it would have been
likely to influence "persons who commonly invest in securities in
deciding whether to acquire or dispose of CBA shares".

"More generally, I am not satisfied that the information, in any of
its pleaded forms, was information that a reasonable person would
expect to have a material effect on the price or value of CBA
shares if that information were to have been generally available at
the relevantly pleaded times," Justice Yates said.

The only orders made were to provide the parties with an
opportunity to bring agreed orders and answers to common
questions.

The reasons for the judgment were restricted until mid-May. [GN]

COMPASS MINERALS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 24
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Compass Minerals International,
Inc. (NYSE: CMP) between November 29, 2023 and March 22, 2024, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important June 24,
2024 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action first
filed by the Firm.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Compass Minerals securities during the
Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of
any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee
arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Compass Minerals class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8924 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has
already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than June 24, 2024. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose 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; (2)
Compass Minerals materially overstated the extent to which testing
had confirmed that its fire retardants were safe; and (3) as a
result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Compass Minerals class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8924 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

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

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. 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. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

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

Contact Information:

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

DAILY WIRE: Furdock Sues Over Illegal Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL FURDOCK, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE DAILY WIRE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
24-001770-CI (Fla. Cir., 6th Judicial, Pinellas Cty., April 19,
2024) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent multiple electronic
communications to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of
the Consumer Debt. Each of the Electronic Communications were sent
to Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time
zone of Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have the consent of
Plaintiff to communicate with him between the said hours. As such,
by and through each of the Electronic Communications, Defendant
violated FCCPA, says the suit.

The Daily Wire LLC is an American conservative news website and
media company.[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
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  jen@jibraellaw.com
                  zane@jibraellaw.com
                  gerald@jibraellaw.com

DIAMOND NAIL SALON: Lu Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Shangming Lu, Maria Olga Lliguicota, on their
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Diamond Nail
Salon, LLC doing business as Diamond Nail & Spa; Gui Biao Qi also
known as: Leo Qi; Elaine Bao also known as: Helen Bao also known
as: Ellen Bao; Jose Rojas; GREENWICH NAILS AND SPA, LLC doing
business as Diamond Nail & Spa; Case No. 3:19-CV-02017-VAB was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on May 7, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-mc-01849-UAD to the
proceeding.

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

Diamond Nails -- https://diamondnailsllc.com/ -- is an eco-friendly
beauty and wellness center that provides nail, massage, eyelash,
waxing, and threading services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          John Troy, Esq.
          Tiffany Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Phone: (718) 762-1324
          Email: troylaw@troypllc.com
                 johntroy@troypllc.com
                 troylegalpllc@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Paulus Chan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAULUS H CHAN LLC
          157 Forest Hill Road
          North Haven, CT 06473
          Phone: (860) 250-9536


DRIL-QUIP INC: Monteverde Investigates Merger With Innovex
----------------------------------------------------------
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 Dril-Quip, Inc. (NYSE: DRQ), relating to its
proposed merger with Innovex Downhole Solutions, Inc.. Under the
terms of the agreement, Dril-Quip stockholders will own
approximately 52% of the combined company on a fully diluted
basis.

Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/dril-quip-inc/. 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 [GN]

DROPBOX INC: Strickland Files Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dropbox, Inc. The
case is styled as Shyrah Strickland, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Dropbox, Inc., Case No.
4:24-cv-02731-KAW (N.D. Cal., May 7, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.

Dropbox -- http://www.dropbox.com/-- is a file hosting service
operated by the American company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Elizabeth Ruth Klos, Esq.
          COLE & VAN NOTE
          555 12th Street, Suite 1725, Suite 1725
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Phone: (510) 891-9800
          Email: lvn@colevannote.com
                 sec@colevannote.com
                 erk@colevannote.com


ELIXIR COSMETICS: Cohen Sues Over Babe Cosmetics' Deceptive Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
DALIT COHEN and MELANIE WOHL, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ELIXIR COSMETICS OPCO,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-03327 (E.D.N.Y., May 5, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of New York's
Consumer Protection from Deceptive Acts and Practices Law and
breach of express warranty.

The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Babe Lash
Essential Serum and Babe Brow Amplifying Serum. The Defendant
advertised the products as legal and safe cosmetics that are not
associated with serious physical and/or medical risks. In truth,
the products contain isopropyl cloprostenate (ICP), a chemical
compound used in prescription drugs. However, unlike drugs, the
products are unlawfully sold without a prescription and/or
disclosure of their known association with material adverse
side-effects. The Defendant failed to seek regulatory approval for
safety and efficacy, and instead deceptively marketed and sold the
products as cosmetics, even though they are unapproved drugs. The
Plaintiffs would not have purchased the products had they been
transparently marketed and advertised as having the characteristics
that they do, that is, of illegality and with risk of causing
serious physical injury and harm and have been harmed economically
by purchasing the products as a result of the Defendant's
deception, says the suit.

Elixir Cosmetics Opco, LLC is a cosmetics company with its
principal place of business located in Frisco, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Michael D. Braun, Esq.
         KUZYK LAW, LLP
         2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 800
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (213) 401-4100
         Facsimile: (213) 401-0311
         Email: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com

                 - and -

         Maia Kats, Esq.
         JUST FOOD LAW, LLC
         5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 440
         Washington, DC 20015
         Telephone: (202) 243-7910
         Email: maiakats@justfoodlaw.com

ENTRUST CORPORATION: Class Settlement in Morrison Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as James Morrison, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Entrust
Corporation, and Entrust MN Corporation, Case No.
0:23-cv-00415-ECT-ECW (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Eric Tostrud
entered an order that:

   1. Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action
      Settlement is granted;

   2. Final certification of the Settlement Class is granted;

   3. Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees,
      Litigation Costs, and Service Awards [ECF No. 39] is granted;


   4. Class counsel is awarded one-third of the Settlement Fund, or

      $125,000;

   5. Class counsel is awarded $10,000 in reasonable expenses;

   6. Class representative James Morrison is awarded a service
award
      of $3,000 for his service to the Settlement Class;

   7. Final approval of the methods and forms of notice provided to

      Class Members is granted.

The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties with respect to the interpretation and implementation of
the Settlement Agreement for all purposes.

The Plaintiff and members of the conditionally certified class were
Entrust employees who were required to provide—and
provided—private information to Entrust to receive employment and
compensation.

On June 18, 2022, Entrust discovered it had been subjected to a
ransomware attack that targeted Entrust's back-office system.

The Plaintiff's core allegation is that Entrust failed to
adequately safeguard electronically stored private information in
connection with the data security incident announced by Entrust in
December 2022, and Plaintiff brings five claims: negligence;
negligence per se; declaratory judgment; breach of implied
contract; and unjust
Enrichment.

Entrust is a cybersecurity vendor providing services including
securing transactions, identities, and data to various businesses
and government entities.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=szz8n7 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brittany N. Resch, Esq.
          Raina Borrelli, Esq.
          STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
          Chicago, IL

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leslie Kostyshak, Esq.
          Neil K. Gilman, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          Washington, DC

                - and -

          Robert E. Cattanach, Esq.
          Roxanna Gonzalez, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
          Minneapolis, MN

ESTEE LAUDER: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Estee Lauder Cos. Inc.  disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the consolidated securities class
suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

On December 7, 2023 and January 22, 2024, the Company and its Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer were named as
defendants in separate purported securities class action complaints
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

On February 20, 2024, those two purported securities class actions
were consolidated into one action.

On March 22, 2024, plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended
class action complaint, which alleges that defendants made
materially false and misleading statements during the period
February 3, 2022 to October 31, 2023 in press releases, the
Company's public filings and during conference calls with analysts
that artificially inflated the price of the Company's stock in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Defendants intend to defend the action vigorously.

The Estée Lauder Companies Inc. is a worldwide manufacturer,
marketer and seller of skin care, makeup, fragrance and hair care
products.



FBCS INC: Brooks Seeks Damages for Data Security Failure
--------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, INC., Case
No. 2:24-cv-02007-NIQA (E.D. Pa., May 10, 2024), seeks damages and
injunctive relief for Defendant's alleged failure to implement
adequate and reasonable data security measures.  

This action arises from a data breach that occurred on Defendant's
computer network on or about February 26, 2024 wherein
cybercriminals accessed and/or stole sensitive data, including
personally identifiable information (PII), of Plaintiff and Class
members. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to properly
safeguard and protect Plaintiff and Class members' personal
information, thus enabling cybercriminals to exfiltrate, steal, and
misuse it. Defendant also allegedly failed to timely detect the
data breach, failed to take adequate steps to prevent and stop the
data breach, and failed to provide timely and proper notice of the
incident, causing substantial harm and injuries to Plaintiff and
Class members.

Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc. (FBCS) is a debt
collection agency based in Hatboro, PA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
        LYNCH CARPENTER     
        1133 Penn Avenue, Floor 5
        Pittsburgh, PA 15222
        Telephone: (412) 322-9243
        E-mail: kelly@lcllp.com

                - and -
     
        A. Brooke Murphy, Esq.
        MURPHY LAW FIRM
        4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700
        Oklahoma City, OK 73108
        Telephone: (405) 389-4989
        E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com

FLAGSTAR BANK: Court Grants Summary Judgement on Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen E. Larson, writing for Consumer Finance Monitor, reports
that on April 16, 2024, the U.S. District Court Judge Gershwin A.
Drain in the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment
in favor of Flagstar Bank (the "Bank") in a case where the
plaintiff alleged breach of contract and conversion with respect to
the Bank's overdraft (OD) and non-sufficient funds (NSF) fee
practices. The court previously dismissed the plaintiff's
conversion claim in 2021, but allowed the breach of contract claims
to proceed.

The Bank's OD fee practices on transactions that were authorized
into a positive available balance but settled into a negative
available balance (APSN) were as follows:

  -- Everyday debit card transactions were authorized against a
positive available balance;

  -- A temporary debit authorization hold was placed on the account
in the amount of the debit card transaction;

  -- When the debit card transaction was presented for final
payment, the temporary hold was removed and the transaction posted
to the account; and

  -- If the account's available balance was negative due to
intervening transactions that posted to the account prior to the
debit card transaction posting to the account, an OD fee was
charged to consumers who consented to participate in the Bank's
overdraft service.

The Bank also charged a NSF fee each time an item was presented for
payment and returned unpaid due to insufficient funds, resulting in
multiple NSF fees charged on the same transaction.

The court determined that the plaintiff did not sufficiently
demonstrate that the Bank had breached the account agreement by
assessing the OD fees for APSN transactions and multiple NSF fees
for items that were returned unpaid more than once. (Note that
there was no dispute that plaintiff opted into the overdraft
service for everyday debit card transactions.)

The court found that the Bank's 2017 change in terms notice
delivered to plaintiff provided effective notice of the updated
circumstances that could lead to assessment of an OD/NSF fee. The
APSN language in the account agreement (from the 2017 change in
terms) explained how APSN overdraft transactions work and when a
fee will be assessed with an illustrative example. The court found
plaintiff's assertion that OD fees would not be assessed on APSN
transactions inconsistent with the plain language of the account
agreement, which stated that the Bank makes the determination to
assess an OD/NSF fee "at the time the Item is presented for
payment." The court also noted that "[plaintiff] cannot advance an
interpretation to a contract that she did not read." In her
discovery deposition, plaintiff admitted that she "glanced" or
"skimmed over" the account agreement but did not "read" it. The
court also rejected plaintiff's arguments that the Bank acted in
bad faith when it exercised its discretion to pay or return a
transaction or that its revised disclosures were an acknowledgement
of prior wrongdoing.

While the Bank prevailed on its clear fee disclosures, we do not
expect this ruling to deter similar class actions or mass
arbitrations. The case was brought 4 years ago, prior to the
issuance of the regulatory guidance set forth below. Plaintiff
attorneys will continue to bring claims and leverage recent
regulatory guidance from federal and state regulators that indicate
assessing overdraft fees for APSN transactions and multiple NSF
fees are unfair or deceptive practices. Recent regulatory guidance
includes:

  -- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Guidance:

    -- In October 2022, the CFPB issued Circular 2022-06 to address
the unfair practice of charging unanticipated overdraft fees for
APSN transactions. The CFPB found the practice unfair because the
fees cannot be reasonably anticipated by consumers, are likely to
impose substantial injury that cannot be avoided, and are not
outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.

    -- The CFPB also addressed overdraft fee and NSF practices in
its Supervisory Highlights "Junk Fees" Special Edition Issue 29,
Winter 2023 and Supervisory Highlights Junk Fees Update Special
Edition Issue 31, Fall 2023, indicating that CFPB examiners found
institutions had engaged in unfair practices when they assessed
fees for unanticipated overdraft fees for APSN transactions and
assessed multiple NSF fees when the same transaction was presented
multiple times for payment against an insufficient balance in the
consumer's account.

    -- Although the CFPB has not yet formally weighed in on the
issue of representment NSF fees, the federal prudential regulators
and the CFPB generally take consistent positions with respect to
consumer compliance issues (and Acting Comptroller Hsu and CFPB
Director Chopra are current members of the FDIC Board of
Directors.)

    -- In January 2024, the CFPB proposed a rule to cap overdraft
fees and make overdraft credit programs subject to Regulation Z
disclosure requirements and a rule to ban "rarely charged" NSF fees
for declined transactions.

  -- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Guidance:

    -- In April 2023, the FDIC issued FIL-19-2023: Supervisory
Guidance on Charging Overdraft Fees for Authorize Positive, Settle
Negative (APSN) Transactions to advise banks that charging
overdraft fees for APSN transactions is an unfair practice and can
result in violations of the Section 5 of the FTC Act and Dodd-Frank
Act.

    -- In August 2022, the FDIC issued FIL-40-2022, which it
replaced with FIL 32-2023 Supervisory Guidance on Multiple
Re-Presentment NSF Fees in June 2023. The FDIC advised that failure
of a bank to clearly and conspicuously provide information that
adequately advises customers that it assesses multiple NSF fees
arising from the same transaction is considered to be deceptive
pursuant to Section 5 of the FTC Act and, in certain circumstances,
unfair if multiple NSF fees are charged for the same transaction in
a short period of time without giving customers sufficient notice
or opportunity to bring their accounts to a positive balance in
order to avoid the assessment of additional NSF fees. The FDIC also
warned that "while revising disclosures may address the risk of
deception, doing so may not fully address the unfairness risks."
The FDIC overcame a legal challenge to this guidance in April
2024.

  -- Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) Guidance:

    -- In April 2023, the OCC issued Bulletin 2023-12: Overdraft
Protection Programs: Risk Management Practices (4.26.23). The OCC
advised that in reviewing overdraft programs that assess APSN
overdraft fees, it has found, in some instances, that account
materials were deceptive for purposes of Section 5 of the FTC Act
with respect to the banks' overdraft practices. The misleading
disclosures contributed to OCC findings that the APSN overdraft
fees were also unfair practices for purposes of Section 5. Notably,
the OCC also states that even when disclosures described the
circumstances under which consumers could incur overdraft fees, the
OCC found that APSN overdraft fees were unfair for purposes of
Section 5 because consumers were still unlikely to be able to
reasonably avoid injury and the facts satisfied the other factors
for establishing unfairness (i.e., the practice causes substantial
consumer injury and the injury is not outweighed by benefits to the
consumer or to competition). The OCC stated that through ongoing
supervision, it has identified concerns with a bank's assessment of
an additional fee on a representment transaction, resulting in
findings in some instances that the practice was unfair and
deceptive. The OCC indicated that disclosures can be deceptive
under Section 5 if they do not clearly explain that multiple or
additional NSF or overdraft fees may result from multiple
presentments of the same transaction. The OCC stated that even when
disclosures explain that a single check or ACH transaction can
result in more than one fee, a bank's practice of assessing fees on
each representment can also be unfair under Section 5 if consumers
cannot reasonably avoid the harm and the other factors for
unfairness are met.

  -- New York Department of Financial Services Guidance:

    -- In July 2022, New York Department of Financial Services
issued guidance to discourage banks from engaging in certain unfair
practices involving APSN transactions that cause overdraft fees,
multiple NSF fees on representments, and so-called "double"
overdraft fees in connection with overdraft protection services.

  -- California Attorney General Guidance:

    -- In February 2024, California's Attorney General issued
letters to state-chartered banks and credit unions warning that
overdraft fees for APSN transactions and returned deposited item
fees may violate California's Unfair Competition Law and the
federal Consumer Financial Protection Act. [GN]

FREDDIE MAC: Securities Suit Trial Set for Oct. 31
--------------------------------------------------
Freddie Mac disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 1, 2024, that the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio set a trial date for a securities
class suit on October 21, 2024.

This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from August
1, 2006 through November 20, 2007.

FHFA later intervened as Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its
complaint on several occasions.

The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements concerning our business, risk management, and the
procedures we put into place to protect the company from problems
in the mortgage industry.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest, and
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney and expert fees.

In August 2018, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion
for class certification.

On April 6, 2023, the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court's
September 17, 2020 decision to grant the plaintiff's request for
summary judgment and enter final judgment in favor of Freddie Mac
and other defendants.

The Sixth Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.

The District Court scheduled the trial to begin on October 21,
2024.

Freddie Mac is, commonly known as Freddie Mac, a
government-sponsored enterprise chartered by ongress in 1970, with
a mission to provide liquidity, stability, and affordability to the
U.S. housing market by primarily purchasing single-family and
multifamily residential mortgage loans originated by lenders and
packaging these loans into guaranteed mortgage-related securities,
which are sold in the global capital markets, and transfer
interest-rate and liquidity risks to third-party investors.



GALLAGHER 6 LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Pearson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
LOTRESE PEARSON, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
GALLAGHER 6 LLC D/B/A GALLAGHER GROUP, PBS, INC. COMMUNITY
RESIDENTIAL HOME D/B/A GALLAGHER GROUP, and SHIRLEY GALLAGHER,
individually and in her official capacity, Defendants, Case No.
CACE-24-005446 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., April 19,
2024) involves the failure of the Defendants to remit minimum wage
and overtime wage payments to the Plaintiff in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a "house parent" for the Defendants since
August 13, 2013 which required her to work for extended periods of
time directly on the premises, including applicable sleep time
while remaining present on-site on an overnight shift at the Group
Home facility, often interrupting her sleep for clients, driving
clients to activities and appointments, and was required to provide
all levels of care within the Group Home. On or about August 30,
2023, the Plaintiff resigned due to the Defendants' continued
failures to properly compensate her for her hours worked.

Gallagher 6 LLC operates and administers privately run, "Group
Residences," or "Group Homes," for the care of disabled and
developmentally disabled adults in Oakland Park, Broward County,
Florida, as well as several other locations throughout South
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelly L. O'Connell, Esq.
          O'CONNELL LAW, PLLC
          175 S.W. 7th Street, Suite 2410
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 209-9246
          E-mail: ko@kellyoconnelllaw.com

GEMINI TRUST: Moeller-Bertram Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tobias Moeller-Bertram, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gemini Trust Company,
LLC, Digital Currency Group, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02027 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut on April 30, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00786-SRU to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities.

Gemini Trust Company, LLC -- https://www.gemini.com/ -- is an
American cryptocurrency exchange and custodian bank.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jonathan D. Polkes, Esq.
          Caroline Hickey Zalka, Esq.
          Jessica L. Falk, Esq.
          Nicole E. Prunetti, Esq.
          Dylan L. Ruffi, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Phone: (212) 310-8000
          Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
          Email: jonathan.polkes@weil.com
                 caroline.zalka@weil.com
                 jessica.falk@weil.com
                 nicole.prunetti@weil.com
                 dylan.ruffi@weil.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Gilmore Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank, et
al. The case is styled as Grace Gilmore, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, OnStar LLC,
LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., Verisk Analytics, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-02070-TWT-JEM (N.D. Ga., May 10, 2024).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

General Motors Company -- https://www.gm.com/ -- is an American
multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in
Detroit, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andre J. Arias, Esq.
          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          135 Chesnut Ridge Road
          Montvale, NJ 07645
          Phone: (201) 391-7000
          Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com

               - and -

          Howard Theodore Longman, Esq.
          LONGMAN LAW, P.C.
          354 Eisenhower Parkway
          Livingston, NJ 07039
          Phone: (973) 994-2315
          Email: hlongman@ssbny.com

               - and -

          James Cameron Tribble, Esq.
          John Raymond Bevis, Esq.
          Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
          THE BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
          31 Atlanta Street
          Marietta, GA 30060
          Phone: (770) 227-6375
          Email: ctribble@barneslawgroup.com
                 bevis@barneslawgroup.com
                 roy@barneslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
          THE GRANT LAW FIRM, PLLC
          521 Fifth Avenue, 17 Floor
          New York, NY 10175
          Phone: (212) 292-4441
          Email: lgrant@labaton.com


GLAD PRODUCTS: Woolard Suit Removed to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Craig Woolard, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. THE GLAD PRODUCTS COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, and THE CLOROX COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Case
No. 37-2024-00016126-CU-BT-CTL was removed from the Superior Court
for the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on May 10, 2024, and assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-00829-AJB-DDL.

The Plaintiff's claims relate to Glad Recycling bags, which are
sturdy translucent bags designed to hold recyclable waste (the
"Products"). The Plaintiff claims that Defendants' packaging and
labeling of the Products, including the name "Recycling" bags, the
circular or "chasing arrows" symbol, and the statement that the
Products are "Designed for Municipal Use" (collectively the
"Challenged Representations"), misleads reasonable consumers to
believe that the Products are suitable for recycling and fit for
municipal use throughout California and the United States. The
Plaintiff contends that he and other consumers have suffered injury
because they would not have purchased the Products or would not
have paid a "price premium" for them had they known that the
Products did not have the attributes claimed, promised, warranted,
advertised, and/or represented. The Plaintiff purports to assert
claims under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Count I),
California's Unfair Competition Law (Count II), California's False
Advertising Law (Count III); and unjust enrichment.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Steven A. Zalesin, Esq.
          Jane Metcalf, Esq.
          PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 336-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 336-2222
          Email: sazalesin@pbwt.com
                 jmetcalf@pbwt.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Neubauer, Esq.
          Kim S. Zeldin, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS, LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2913
          Phone: (310) 843-6300
          Facsimile: (310) 843-6301
          Email: mneubauer@carltonfields.com
                 kzeldin@carltonfields.com


GLOBE LIFE: Bids for Lead Plaintiffs Deadline Set July 1, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Globe Life, Inc. f/k/a Torchmark Corporation
(NYSE: GL) common stock between May 8, 2019 and April 10, 2024.
Globe Life is an insurance company that offers a wide range of
insurance products, including life insurance, mortgage protections,
and supplemental health insurance. Globe Life operates five wholly
owned insurance subsidiaries with Income Life Insurance Company
("AIL") being its largest.

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

The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating the Allegations that
Globe Life, Inc. (GL) Engaged in Insurance Fraud

According to the complaint, during the class period, Globe Life
touted its consistent revenue growth, particularly from AIL, which
accounted for 50% of the Company's profits in 2022 and 2023. During
the class period, Globe Life reported consistent premium revenue
growth at the Company, led by consistent premium revenue growth at
AIL. The Company also represented that its employees adhered to a
Code of Conduct requiring all Globe Life employees comply with
relevant laws and regulations, purportedly ensuring that the
Company would maintain a workplace free from violence, threatening
behavior, and illegal drugs.

The complaint alleges that the truth emerged on April 11, 2024,
when investment research firm Fuzzy Panda published a report
alleging that Globe Life had engaged in wide-spread insurance
fraud, while permitting a culture of unchecked sexual harassment.
Specifically, the report alleged that several Globe Life
subsidiaries were underwriting policies for dead and fictitious
people, as well as adding policies to existing users' accounts
without their consent. In addition, the investment research firm
uncovered evidence that the subsidiaries maintained a hostile
workplace where sexual harassment, drug use, and sexual assault
went unchecked -- conduct that violated the Company's Code of
Conduct.

As a result of these disclosures, the price of Globe Life common
stock declined $55.76, or 53%, from a closing price of $104.93 per
share on April 10, 2024, to a closing price of $49.17 per share on
April 11, 2024.

What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Glove Life, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class must file their motions with the court by
July 1, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You
do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a
recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent
class member.

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

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

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

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

Contact:

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

GOOD FELLAS INDUS: Sapienza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Good Fellas Indus.
Inc. The case is styled as Christopher Sapienza, in his individual
and representative capacity and others similarly situated v. Good
Fellas Indus. Inc., Case No. 24STCV11844 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., May 10, 2024).

Good Fellas Industries, Inc. provides building construction
services. The Company specializes fabrication, management, and
installation of custom window treatments including bed covering,
upholstery, decorative pillows, roman, roller shades, and
draperies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James B. Hardin, Esq.
          EMPLOYEES FIRST LABOR LAW P.C.
          1 S. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 200
          Pasadena, CA 91105
          Phone: (310) 853-3461
          Email: jonathanl@pierrelacour.com

GRAYBAR ELECTRIC: Soto Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Soto, an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., a New
York corporation; ERNESTO ACOSTA, an individual; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 24CECG01252 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Fresno, to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
on May 1, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00520-SKO.

The Complaint seeks damages and penalties for a variety of alleged
wage-hour violations for a period commencing on March 21, 2020. The
Plaintiff alleges that he and the putative class are entitled to
recover purportedly unpaid overtime, minimum wages, and meal and
rest period premiums, in addition to wage statement penalties,
waiting time penalties, statutory and civil penalties, vacation
pay, expense reimbursement, restitution, costs, and attorneys'
fees.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kevin D. Sullivan, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310.556.8861
          Facsimile: 310.553.2165
          Email: ksullivan@ebglaw.com


HARRIS & HARRIS: Lynch Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harris & Harris, Ltd.
The case is styled as Daniel J. Lynch, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Harris & Harris, Ltd., Case No.
1:24-cv-03510 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2024).

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

Harris & Harris -- https://harrisharrislondon.co.uk/ -- is an
environmentally and socially responsible interior and product
design studio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marwan R. Daher, Esq.
          Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Fax: (630) 575-8188
          Email: mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com
                 mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com


HEALTHY SPIRIT: Slate Allowed to Conduct Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Slate, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. HEALTHY SPIRIT, LLC,
d/b/a EASYREST ADJUSTABLE SLEEP SYSTEMS, Case No. 1:23-cv-03034-MJM
(D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Matthew Maddox entered an order granting
the Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct class certification and
damages discovery.

The Defendant provides holistic wellness and massage therapy
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X7wS6M at no extra
charge.[CC]

HOME DEPOT: Eisele Suit Removed to D. Oregon
--------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kathleen Eisele, on behalf of herself and a
class of other current and former employees v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A.,
INC., Case No. 24CV17801 was removed from the Circuit Court for the
State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah, to the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon on May 7, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-00764.

The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts that Plaintiff brings this case
as a class action on behalf of herself and a class of other current
and former employees of Defendant to recover statutory damages,
attorney fees, costs, disbursements, and pre- and post-judgment
interest. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made "true-up"
payments to Plaintiff and to the putative class members, that those
payments included "pre judgment interest," and that Defendant
allegedly treated the interest as wages incorrectly for tax
deduction and tax reporting purposes.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher F. McCracken, Esq.
          James M. Barrett, Esq.
          E.A. Meg Barankin, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          The KOIN Center
          222 SW Columbia Street, Suite 1500
          Portland, OR 97201
          Phone: 503-552-2140
          Email: christopher.mccracken@ogletree.com
                 james.barrett@ogletree.com
                 meg.barankin@ogletree.com


HOSPITALITY UNIVERSAL: Palma Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Palma, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Hospitality Universal Services Corp, Gerardo Vieyra Lara, and Anahi
A. Vieyra, individually, Case No. 8:24-cv-01085 (M.D. Fla., May 7,
2024), is brought to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular
and overtime wages under United States laws the Fair Labor
Standards Act (the "FLSA").

The Plaintiff was paid weekly for all his hours but he was not paid
for overtime hours, as required by law. Plaintiff signed
timesheets, and Defendants were in absolute control of his schedule
and activities. Defendants knew the number of hours that Plaintiff
and other similarly situated individuals were working. Therefore,
the Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at
the rate of time and a half his regular rate, for every hour that
he worked in excess of 40, in violation the FLSA. The Plaintiff
seeks to recover unpaid regular wages and overtime for every hour
worked over 40 during his employment, liquidated damages, and any
other relief as allowable by law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a houseman and cleaned hotels providing
hospitality services in interstate commerce.

Hospitality Universal Services Corp. is a Florida Profit
Corporation performing business in Wesley Chapel, Pasco
County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HPC INDUSTRIAL: Moss Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Derek Moss, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. HPC INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; CLEAN HARBORS, INC., a Massachusetts
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No.
24STCV06730 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on May 6, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03760.

The Complaint brings putative class claims for the alleged: Failure
to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; Failure to Pay
All Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage
Statements; and Unfair Competition.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-239-9800
          Facsimile: 213-239-9045
          Email: zander.chemers@ogletree.com


HUB GROUP TRUCKING: Andujar Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jorge Andujar and Franklin Pena Batista, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. HUB GROUP
TRUCKING, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-16987 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on May 7,
2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02296-TLP-CGC to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor to Collect Unpaid
Wages.

Hub Group, Inc. -- https://www.hubgroup.com/ -- is a transportation
and logistics management company in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Phone: (215) 884-2491
          Email: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Edna Doris Guerrasio, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          Eleven Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 969-3012
          Fax: (212) 969-2900
          Email: eguerrasio@proskauer.com


IHEALTH PLANS LLC: Becker Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IHealth Plans LLC.
The case is styled as Ilona Becker, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. IHealth Plans LLC, Case No.
0:24-cv-60730-XXXX (S.D. Fla, May 1, 2024).

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

iHealth -- https://ihealthlabs.com/ -- is making personal
healthcare management easier for everyone.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio S., Ste. 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Email: ryan@kazlg.com


INARI MEDICAL: Institutional Investors Sues Over Securities Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Institutional investor and union pension fund Plaintiff Michiana
Area Electrical Workers' Pension Fund filed a class action lawsuit
today against Inari Medical, Inc. ("Inari" or the "Company"),
William Hoffman, Andrew Hykes, and Mitch C. Hill, alleging they
defrauded investors by issuing false and misleading statements
concerning Inari's business, operations, and prospects,
particularly with regard to the Company's financial results and the
success of its product sales.

The suit, brought in federal court in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York was filed by leading
investor law firm Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.

The action is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or acquired Inari common stock between February 24, 2022
and February 28, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action
is captioned Michiana Area Electrical Workers' Pension Fund, IBEW
Local 153 v. Inari Medical, Inc., William Hoffman, Andrew Hykes,
and Mitch C. Hill, CASE # 1:24-cv-03686 (S.D.N.Y.).

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Inari is a medical device company
that develops and manufactures a variety of products, including
minimally invasive, novel, catheter-based mechanical thrombectomy
devices and their accessories to address the unique characteristics
of specific medical conditions. These products are aimed at
improving outcomes for patients suffering from venous
thromboembolism ("VTE") and other vascular diseases and conditions.
During the Class Period, Defendants consistently touted Inari's
"record revenue," purportedly driven by "the strength in our core
VTE business." But Defendants failed to disclose that a significant
portion of its expenses were used to compensate medical
professionals improperly for using Inari's products. In truth,
while Defendants were speaking positively about the Company's
growth prospects, it had been engaging in illegal business
practices. Specifically, the Company had been unlawfully
compensating health care professionals in violation of the federal
Anti-Kickback Statute and Civil False Claims Act. Defendants also
misled investors regarding business expenses in order to conceal
their illicit conduct.

The market was thus shocked when, after the close of trading on
February 28, 2024, Inari revealed in its Form 10-K for fiscal year
2023 that it had received a civil investigative demand from the
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, in connection with an
investigation under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and Civil
False Claims Act, requesting information and documents primarily
relating to meals and consulting service payments provided to
health care professionals. In response to this news, Inari's stock
price plummeted over $12 per share or 21% the very next trading day
-- from a closing price of $58.26 per share on February 28, 2024 to
$46.12 per share on February 29, 2024 -- wiping out approximately
$700 million in market capitalization in one trading day and
damaging investors.

For investors who purchased or acquired Inari common stock during
the Class Period, you are a member of this proposed Class and may
be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff, which is a
court-appointed representative for the Class, by complying with the
relevant provisions for the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"). See 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4(a)(2)(A)(i)-(iv). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court by no later than July 12, 2024, which is the
lead plaintiff deadline that was established by publication of this
notice on May 13, 2024. You do not need seek to become a lead
plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery. You may also
retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights, please contact Caitlin M. Moyna at
Grant & Eisenhofer at 646-722-8513, or via email at
cmoyna@gelaw.com.

View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240513592772/en/

CONTACT:

    Grant & Eisenhofer
    Caitlin M. Moyna
    (646) 722-8513
    cmoyna@gelaw.com [GN]

INFINITY 1: Sookul Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------
Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Infinity 1 Incorporated, Case No. 1:24-cv-03321
(S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for
their 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 is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Infinity provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.rockabilia.com/ (hereinafter "Rockabilia.com" or "the
website"). The Defendants' 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").

Despite readily available accessible technology, such as the
technology in use at other heavily trafficked retail websites,
which makes use of alternative text, accessible forms, descriptive
links, resizable text and limits the usage of tables and
JavaScript, the Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively
visual interface. Infinity's sighted customers can independently
browse, select, and buy online without the assistance of others.
However, blind persons must rely on sighted companions to assist
them in accessing and purchasing on Rockabilia.com. By failing to
make the website accessible to blind persons, Defendant is
violating basic equal access requirements under both state and
federal law, 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.

Infinity provides to the public a website known as Rockabilia.com,
which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and
services, including the ability to browse a variety of band
merchandise such as clothing and accessories for men, women, and
children, and make purchases, among other features.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kimmia Salehi, Esq.
          MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
          100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
          Hicksville, NY 11801
          Phone: (404) 452-0779
          Fax (929).333.7774
          Email: kimmia@khaimovlaw.com


INFOSYS MCCAMISH: Case Management Deadlines Stayed in McNally Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McNally v. InfoSys
McCamish Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00995 (N.D. Ga., Filed
March 6, 2024), the Hon. Judge J.P. Boulee entered an order staying
current disclosure and case management deadlines and the deadline
to file a motion for class certification until after the Court
rules on the motion to dismiss.

The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

Infosys is an insurance business process solutions provider with
platform-based solutions.[CC]

INTEL CORP: Sued for Misrepresentation of Business Prospects
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC) securities
between January 25, 2024 and April 25, 2024. Intel designs,
develops, manufactures, markets, and sells computing and related
products and services worldwide. The Company's product portfolio is
comprised of central processing units (CPUs), chipsets, processors,
graphics processing units (GPUs), and other semiconductor
products.

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

The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating the Allegations that
Intel Corporation (INTC) Misrepresented its Business Prospects

The complaint alleges that on October 11, 2022, CEO Pat Gelsinger
announced the Company would shift to an "internal foundry model"
(the "Internal Foundry" or "Foundry" model). Under the Internal
Foundry model, Intel would recognize revenues generated from both
external foundry customers and Intel Products, as well as
technology development and product manufacturing costs historically
allocated to Intel Products. The Company emphasized the cost saving
and margin improving benefits the Internal Foundry model would
provide and the tailwind it would bring to IFS.

The complaint further alleges that on April 2, 2024, Intel issued a
press release that disclosed a retrospective revision of the
Company's financial results under the new Foundry model reporting
structure, revealing that the Foundry segment experienced an
operating loss of $7 billion on sales of $18.9 billion in 2023,
that Foundry revenue in 2023 was $18.9 billion down $8.6 billion
from 2022, that the segment's operating loss included a $2.1
million in lower product profit driven by lower internal revenue.
On this news, Intel's stock price fell $3.61, or 8.2%, to close at
$40.33 per share on April 3, 2024.

On April 25, 2024, after the markets closed, Intel released its
first quarter 2024 financial results, the first quarter reporting
the Company's results under the Foundry model; the results revealed
the Company's Foundry segment declined 10% compared to the same
quarter last year, to a revenue of $4.4 billion. On this news,
Intel's stock price fell $3.23, or 9.2%, to close at $31.88 per
share on April 26, 2024.

Plaintiff contends that during the class period, defendants failed
to disclose to investors:

     (1) the growth of Intel Foundry Services ("IFS") was not
indicative of revenue growth reportable under the Internal Foundry
segment;

     (2) the Foundry experienced significant operating losses in
2023;

     (3) that the Foundry experienced a decline in product profit
driven by lower internal revenue; and

     (4) as a result the Foundry model would not be a strong
tailwind to the Company's IFS strategy.

What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Intel Corporation. Shareholders who want to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class must file their motions with the court by
July 2, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You
do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a
recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent
class member. For more information, click here.

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

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

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

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

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

IROBOT CORPORATION: Das Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dylan Das, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. IROBOT CORPORATION, COLIN M. ANGLE,
and JULIE ZEILER, Case No. 2:24-cv-02138 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 30,
2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11158-WGY to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for the
Securities Exchange Act.

iRobot Corporation -- https://www.irobot.com/ -- is an American
technology company that designs and builds consumer robots.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          Email: tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James R. Carroll, Esq.
          Alisha Quintana Nanda, Esq.
          Rene H. DuBois, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          500 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Phone: (617) 573-4800
          Fax: (617) 573-4822
          Email: James.Carroll@skadden.com
                 Alisha.Nanda@skadden.com
                 rene.dubois@skadden.com

               - and -

          Scott D. Musoff, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          One Manhattan West
          New York, NY 10001
          Phone: (212) 735-7852
          Fax: (917) 777-7852
          Email: smusoff@skadden.com


ITW FOOD EQUIPMENT: Abid-Castelo Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ali Abid-Castelo, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ITW FOOD EQUIPMENT GROUP, LLC, a
corporation; and DOES 1 TO 10, inclusive, Case No. 24CV065981 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on May 10, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 3:24-cv-02813-KAW.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts class and individual claims for
the following labelled causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum and
Straight Time Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to
Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods;
Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to
Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Indemnify
Employees for Expenditures; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 489-3939
          Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
          Email: asommerfeld@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Aileen H. Kim, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Phone: (949) 851-3939
          Facsimile: (949) 553-7539
          Email: aileenkim@jonesday.com


J.T. THORPE & SON: Carter Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Israel Carter, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. J.T. THORPE & SON, INC., Case No.
GD-24-003490 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 30, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00644.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, alleges two claims "to recover unpaid wages and
other damages." The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the
putative class, alleges a claim for alleged failure to pay overtime
under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("MWA"). In Count II,
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the putative class, alleges a
claim for alleged failure to pay earned wages under the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment Collection Law ("WPCL").[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christian Antkowiak, Esq.
          Ryan J. Wilk, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          Union Trust Building
          501 Grant Street, Suite 200
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1410
          Phone: 412-562-8800
          Fax: 412-562-1041
          Email: christian.antkowiak@bipc.com
                 ryan.wilk@bipc.com


JEFF ZMUDA: Younger, et al., Seek Declaratory & Injunctive Relief
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kimberly Younger, Barbara
Frantz, Kora Liles, Michaela Spencer, Sharon Huddleston, and
Jennifer Lockett, v. Jeff Zmuda et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-03069-JWL
(D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and injunctive
relief under 28 U.S.C. Section and Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

The U.S. District of Kansas is the appropriate venue under 28
U.S.C. 1391 because it is where the events giving rise to the
claims arose and holds "Class Action Allegations."

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v34kH6 at no extra
charge.[CC]

JETRO HOLDINGS: Hicks Discrimination Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LAKAI HICKS, v. JETRO HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a RESTAURANT
DEPOT and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, Case No. CAM-L-000397-24, was
removed from the New Jersey Superior Court, Camden County, to the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on May
10, 2024.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-06033 to the proceeding.

The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the New
Jersey Law Against Discrimination, with Plaintiff seeking damages,
attorneys' fees, interest, and any other appropriate relief.   

Jetro Holdings LLC is a holding company headquartered in New York.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented
by:                                   
                                  
         Lauren J. Marcus, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.         
         One Newark Center, 8th Floor
         Newark, NJ 07102
         Telephone: (973) 848-4700

LOLA RWM: Garrafa Sues Over Unpaid OT and Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------
REBECCA GARRAFA, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. LOLA RWM INC dba LITTLE OWL LEARNING ACADEMY and
LORAINNE GONZALEZ, individually, Case No. 8:24-cv-01119-MSS-SPF
(M.D. Fla., May 10, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an Administrative
Assistant on or about April 10, 2024. Defendants allegedly refused
to pay Plaintiff overtime premium for hours worked over 40 in a
work week as part of their pay policy. When Plaintiff confronted
Defendants about their unlawful conduct, her employment was
terminated. The Plaintiff claims that she suffered damages
including lost wages, benefits, and other remuneration, emotional
distress, and humiliation as a result of Defendants' retaliatory
actions.

The Plaintiff now brings claims for unpaid overtime and retaliation
under the FLSA.

Based in Florida, LOLA RWM Inc provides child learning and
development services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
         Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
         FLORIN|GRAY     
         16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
         Lutz, FL 33558
         Telephone: (727) 220-4000
         Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
         E-mail: wflorin@floringray.com
                 Miguel@floringray.com

LOS ANGELES, CA: Court Certifies Part-Time Staff Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled that a lawsuit
brought by two part-time instructors against the Long Beach
Community College District over its failure to pay part-time staff
a minimum wage for required work can now proceed as a certified
class action lawsuit. This ruling expands the class represented in
the suit, paving the way to include more than 900 other impacted
adjunct faculty.

The suit was originally filed in April 2022 by Visual Arts
Department instructors Karen Roberts and Seija Rohkea. In that
complaint they alleged that the College violated state and federal
minimum wage laws by failing to compensate part-time instructors
for all required work outside of lecture hours, including grading,
class and syllabi preparation, administrative duties, and student
office hours. LBCC adjunct faculty have been compensated only for
their actual time teaching a class, an issue that the adjunct
faculty’s union (Certificated Hourly Instructors, or CHI) has
attempted to have the College address at the bargaining table time
and time again without success.

"I’m relieved and excited," said plaintiff Roberts about the
ruling. "I deeply appreciate that the judge took into account all
we do as adjunct faculty."

The suit is seeking backpay plus interest, missing retirement
system contributions for unpaid wages, a court declaration and
injunction requiring LBCC to pay its part-time faculty for all
hours worked, and any other penalties available under law.

Roberts was joined at the downtown Los Angeles courthouse by
supporters, including Community College Association President Eric
Kaljumagi, CCA Vice President Randa Wahbe, CCA Higher Ed Director
DeWayne Shaeffer, and Long Beach City College Faculty Association
Suzanne Engelhardt.

"We are in solidarity with our part-time faculty," said Engelhardt.
"I’m very happy with Judge Rice’s consideration that this
additional work and class preparation is important. We look forward
to this case moving forward and to our colleagues getting the pay
they deserve."

Judge Stuart M. Rice did not yet set a trial date, ordering the
parties to confer about issues including class notification,
possible mediation, or settlement negotiation. Both sides will
update the judge on June 25. [GN]

M&D CAPITAL: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Maloney Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JILLIAN MALONEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. M&D CAPITAL PREMIER BILLING LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-02945-LB (E.D.N.Y., April 19, 2024) is a class
action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard sensitive information of its clients' patients.

The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information
-- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding
that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted,
compromised, and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach. The
Private Information compromised in the Data Breach was exfiltrated
by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those
cyber-criminals who target Private Information for its value to
identity thieves, says the suit.

As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
have been exposed to 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 suit alleges.

M&D Capital Premier Billing LLC is a New York-based medical billing
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440
          Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
          E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com

MEDSTAR HEALTH: Faces Goldsmith Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
TINA GOLDSMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MEDSTAR HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01371-RDB (D.
Md., May 10, 2024) accuses the Defendant of failing to implement
and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to
protect Plaintiff's and Class members' private information.

The Defendant experienced a data breach between approximately
January 25, 2023 and October 18, 2023, during which unauthorized
individual or individuals obtained Plaintiff's and Class members'
personally identifiable information and personal health
information. The Plaintiff alleges that the data breach occurred as
a result of Defendant's inadequate data security measures. The
Plaintiff seeks damages and relief and brings claims for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Maryland
Consumer Protection Act.  

MedStar is a healthcare service provider headquartered in Columbia,
MD. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Gary E. Mason, Esq.
        Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
        Lisa A. White, Esq.
        MASON LLP     
        5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
        Washington, DC 20015
        Telephone: (202) 429-2290
        E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
                dperry@masonllp.com
                lwhite@masonllp.com

                - and -
     
        Ben Barnow, Esq.
        Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
        BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
        205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630  
        Chicago, IL 60606
        Telephone: (312) 621-2000
        Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
        E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                aparkhill@barnowlaw.com

MILAN FOODS: Omelchenko Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
LULIANA OMELCHENKO and EMRE YILMAZ, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MILAN FOODS CORP. and
ERTAN KUSDIL, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02974 (S.D.N.Y., April
19, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The complaint alleges the Defendants' engagement in illegal
deductions from gratuities, failure to pay minimum wage for all
hours worked, failure to provide with notices/wage statements, and
failure to provide spread-of-hours compensation.
             
Plaintiffs Omelchenko and Yilmaz were employed by Defendants as
servers from February 2024 until the present and from mid-2022
until September 2023, respectively.

Milan Foods Corp owns and operates the Sea Salt Restaurant located
in Manhattan, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          Josef Nussbaum, Esq.
          JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          32 Broadway, Suite 601
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640
          Facsimile: (212) 981-9587

MISSION CEVICHE: Flores Sues Over Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------
DANIELA FLORES, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. MISSION CEVICHE, LLC d/b/a MISSION CEVICHE,
MISSION CEVICHE UES INC d/b/a MISSION CEVICHE, MISSION CEVICHE
CANAL LLC d/b/a MISSION CEVICHE, MISSION CEVICHE NOMAD LLC d/b/a
MISSION CEVICHE, JOSE LUIS CHAVEZ, BRICE MASTROLUCA, and MIGUEL
YARROW, Case No. 1:24-cv-03626 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2024), accuses
the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt server at their
Mission Ceviche restaurant at 1400 2nd Ave, New York, NY 10021 from
August 2022 to April 2023. Plaintiff brings this action over
Defendants' alleged violations of the FLSA and the NYLL, including
among others, failure to properly pay wages including overtime due
to time shaving and invalid tip credit, illegal retention of
gratuities, and retaliation. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief for
Defendants violations.

Headquartered in New York, NY, Mission Ceviche LLC operates
restaurants throughout New York City. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        C.K. Lee, Esq.
        LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC     
        148 West 24th Street, Second Floor
        New York, NY 10011
        Telephone: (212) 465-1188
        Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

NATIONAL AUTO: Underpays Warehouse Employees, Carela Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS CARELA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL AUTO PARTS WAREHOUSE, LLC, d/b/a
NATIONAL PERFORMANCE WAREHOUSE, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-21752
(S.D. Fla., May 6, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a warehouse employee
from approximately April 20, 2022, to March 24, 2024.

National Auto Parts Warehouse, LLC, doing business as National
Performance Warehouse, is a national distributor of auto parts,
truck parts, accessories, and car care products, with its place of
business in Hialeah, Florida. [BN]

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

NEW YORK, NY: Ramjerdi Sues Over Disability Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------
Jan Ramjerdi, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
("CUNY"), QUEENSBOROUGH COMMUNITY COLLEGE, FELIX V. MATOS
RODRIGUEZ, in his official capacity, CHRISTINE MANGINO, in her
individual capacity, MARTHA ASPROMATIS, in her individual capacity,
YSABEL MACEA, in her individual capacity, SANGEETA NOEL, in her
individual capacity, and AMARIS MATOS, in her individual capacity,
Case No. 1:24-cv-03380-NGG-RML (E.D.N.Y., May 7, 2024), is brought
against Defendants for disability discrimination, including failure
to accommodate, disparate treatment, and disparate impact in
violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Although, upon information and belief, the CUNY system represents
one of the nation's top networks of higher education institutions,
the teaching excellence provided by faculty to students has not
been reciprocated by NYC, CUNY, and/or QCC in how they treat their
faculty with respect to faculty's disability accommodation and
medical leave rights. The Defendants' failure--driven by a
one-size-fits all in-person teaching mandate prohibiting fully
remote teaching--to abide by the requirements of the federal,
state, and city reasonable disability accommodation and medical
leave laws--has been nothing short of egregious.

Upon information and belief, this failure and dogged non-compliance
with reasonable accommodation law has been most poignantly centered
on the denial of remote work accommodations for faculty requesting
these disability accommodations because of mental health
disabilities.

This pattern or practice of disability discrimination includes, but
is not limited to: a standard operating procedure of illegal denial
of remote work disability accommodation; disparate impact
discrimination resulting from a policy against fully remote
teaching by faculty; intentional disability discrimination through
the continued maintenance of a policy against fully remote teaching
by faculty despite knowledge of its discriminatory disparate impact
on disabled persons with mental health disabilities and/or disabled
persons who request remote work accommodations; and creation,
promulgation, and enforcement of a medical separation policy
designed to circumvent reasonable accommodation provisions and/or
that makes no provision for the applicability of and right to
reasonable accommodations (such as remote work) that would permit
faculty to satisfy their employment responsibilities with a
reasonable accommodation, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been a tenured Associate Professor of English at
QCC since September 1, 2009, and an Associate Professor at QCC
since 2003.

NYC is a municipal entity created and authorized under the laws of
the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cyrus E. Dugger
          THE DUGGER LAW FIRM, PLLC
          28-07 Jackson Ave., 5th Fl.
          Long Island City, NY 11101
          Phone: (646) 560-3208
          Fax: (646) 390-4524
          Email: cd@theduggerlawfirm.com


NIKE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Labor Codes Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Golden of HR Dive reports that Nike violated California's
labor codes and unfair competition law when it failed to
accommodate postpartum and nursing female workers, a former retail
employee alleged in a class-action lawsuit May 8.

According to the suit, filed in the California Superior Court for
the County of Los Angeles, the plaintiff primarily breastfed her
3-year-old child "until she was forced to stop" due to Nike's
policies. She claimed Nike failed to provide reasonable breaks to
pump and that the store she worked at did not have a dedicated
lactation facility.

The plaintiff sued on behalf of herself and similarly situated
current and former employees. Nike did not immediately respond to
an HR Dive request for comment.

Dive Insight:

Protections for nursing employees received a boost in 2022 via the
Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act, or
PUMP Act. Under the law, nursing workers have the right to
reasonable break time to express breast milk for up to one year
after their child's birth, and employers are required to provide a
nonbathroom space that is shielded from view, free from intrusion,
available as needed and functional for pumping.

California's labor code has similar requirements for employers,
mandating additional break time to employees who need to express
breast milk as well as the provision of nonbathroom, private
facilities to do so.

In her complaint against Nike, however, the plaintiff alleged the
retailer did not allow her time to pump outside of her scheduled
meal or rest periods. She claimed this policy forced her to drive
10 minutes to a friend's house to pump during her lunch break and
express milk in the store's bathroom sink.

The plaintiff further alleged that, in lieu of a dedicated
lactation facility, she was given the choice of pumping in her
manager's office, the store's bathroom or her car. Neither location
allowed sufficient privacy to pump, she claimed, and the store
lacked a dedicated refrigerator in which she could store her milk.
"There were a couple of times that [the plaintiff] stored her milk
in the fridge, but it was thrown out even when she put her name on
the milk," per the suit.

Since the PUMP Act's passage, the U.S. Department of Labor has
conducted outreach to employers about the law's protections. Last
year, for example, the agency updated workplace posters. In
November, a DOL investigator said during a virtual presentation
that the law may protect workers who are exempt from the
wage-and-hour protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Nike suit is the latest in a series of workplace
lactation-related lawsuits. In February, a former McDonald's
manager sued, alleging one of the chain's Kansas restaurants failed
to provide nursing employees with reasonable break time and a
proper space to express milk.

Nike also has previously faced criticism over its treatment of
pregnant athletes as well as female employees generally.

In the late 2010s, former Nike CEO Mark Parker issued a formal
apology to employees after reports of a discriminatory company
culture toward women emerged in news reports and lawsuits. Olympic
athlete Alysia Montano also criticized the brand in a 2019 New York
Times op-ed in which she wrote that the company failed to support
pregnant athletes. That year, Nike reversed course on its prior
policy of cutting pay for female athletes who became pregnant. [GN]

OCUGEN INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Ocugen, Inc. ("Ocugen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OCGN).
Such investors are advised to 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.

The class action concerns whether Ocugen and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.

You have until June 10, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who purchased
or otherwise acquired Ocugen securities during the Class Period. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.

On April 1, 2024, after the market closed, Ocugen filed a Current
Report on Form 8-K with the United States ("U.S.") Securities and
Exchange Commission revealing that, in connection with the
preparation of the Company's financial statements for the year
ended December 31, 2023, Ocugen identified certain accounting
errors related to the application of U.S. GAAP to certain
agreements with one of its business partners related to a
collaboration agreement and that the Company's previously-issued
audited consolidated financial statements for each fiscal year
beginning January 1, 2020 and its previously-issued unaudited
interim condensed consolidated financial statements for each of the
first three quarters in such years (the "Restated Periods"), as
well as the associated earnings releases and investor presentations
or other communications describing such financial statements, were
materially misstated and, accordingly, should no longer be relied
upon and will be restated. In additional, Ocugen indicated that it
had determined that the errors resulted from the existence of a
material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting
that also existed during the Restated Periods and that its internal
control over financial reporting was not effective as of December
31, 2023. As a result, the Company's Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Accounting Officer concluded that the Ocugen's disclosure
controls and procedures were not effective as of December 31, 2023.


On this news, Ocugen's stock price fell $0.16 per share, or 10.38%,
to close at $1.38 per share on April 2, 2024.

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.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:

   Danielle Peyton
   Pomerantz LLP
   dpeyton@pomlaw.com
   646-581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN]

ORTHOCONNECTICUT PLLC: Cion Sues over Unprotected Sensitive Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN CION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ORTHOCONNECTICUT, PLLC, Defendant, Case No.
FST-CV24-6066746-S (Conn. Super., Fairfield Cty., May 10, 2024)
arises from Defendants failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information and
personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's
information network and asserts claims for negligence, breach of
implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.

Despite the prevalence of public announcements of data breach and
data security compromises, Defendant failed to prevent the data
breach, which began no later than between November 24 and November
28, 2023. In addition, Defendant failed to timely send data breach
notices to Plaintiff and to other data breach victims. The
Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant, dated April 26, 2024,
stating that their PHI/PII was involved in the data breach.

Based in Connecticut, Orthoconnecticut, PLLC is a healthcare
services company specializing in orthopedic practice. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Reardon, Esq.
          REARDON SCANLON LLP
          45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 944-9455
          E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com

                  - and -

          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
          954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518
          San Juan, PR 00907
          Telephone: (215) 789-4462
          E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com

PACKAGING EXCHANGE: Maiorano Alleges Failure to Pay Timely Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW MAIORANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PACKAGING EXCHANGE INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00557-BKS-ML (N.D.N.Y., April 22, 2024)
seeks to recover untimely wage compensation and other damages for
Plaintiff and others similarly situated hourly workers under the
New York Labor Law.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant has failed to properly pay
Plaintiff and other warehouse workers their wages within seven
calendar days after the end of the week in which these wages were
earned.

Plaintiff Maiorano was employed by Packaging Exchange as a forklift
operator and warehouse picker packer from on or about February 2,
2024 until approximately April 2024.

Packaging Exchange is a packaging solutions company headquartered
in Somerset, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PEDIATRIC DENTAL: Doe Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Okla.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JANE DOE, Individually, and as Mother and Next
Friend of J.D. and A.D., Minors, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEDIATRIC DENTAL GROUP, LLC;
PEDIATRIC DENTAL GROUP II, LLC, D/B/A PEDIATRIC DENTAL GROUP AND
ADVENTURE VISION; HERO VISION OF UTICA, PLLC D/B/A ADVENTURE DENTAL
& VISION; HERO DVO, LLC D/B/A HERO PRACTICE SERVICES, Defendants,
Case No. CJ-2024- 00360, was removed from the District Court of
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on April 19, 2024.

The Court of Clerk for the Northern District of Oklahoma assigned
Case No. 4:24-cv-00177-MTS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the PDG Defendants, as part of the "Hero
family of brands," improperly disclosed confidential personally
identifying information and/or protected health information as
defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
to unauthorized third parties via third-party tracking technology.
The Plaintiff further alleges that the PDG Defendants "benefited"
from the unauthorized disclosure of PII and PHI.

Pediatric Dental Group, LLC provides pediatric dental and
orthodontics services.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charles H. Moody, Jr., Esq.
          RODOLF & TODD
          15 E. 5th St., 6th Floor
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 295-2100
          Facsimile: (918) 295-7800
          E-mail: cmoody@rodolftodd.com

               - and -

          Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1801 California Street, Ste. 4400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 861-0600
          Facsimile: (303) 861-7805
          E-mail: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Lisa Houssiere, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          811 Main Street, Ste. 1100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 751-1600
          Facsimile: (713) 751-1717
          E-mail: lhoussiere@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan S. Maddalone, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1801 California Street, Ste. 4400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 861-0600
          Facsimile: (303) 861-7805
          E-mail: jmaddalone@bakerlaw.com

PERMIAN RESOURCES: Brown Sues Over Conspiracy to Fix Gas Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK BROWN, ABRAHAM DRUCKER, CHRISTOPHER GALLANT, and STEVEN
PRICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. PERMIAN RESOURCES CORP. F/K/A CENTENNIAL RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT, INC.; CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION; CONTINENTAL
RESOURCES INC.; DIAMONDBACK ENERGY, INC.; EOG RESOURCES, INC.; HESS
CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION; and EXXON MOBIL
CORPORATION F/K/A PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES COMPANY, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00430 (D.N.M., May 6, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, the Colorado Antitrust Act, the Illinois Antitrust Act, the
Nevada Unfair Trade Practices Act, and the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants and their
co-conspirators entered into a continuing agreement, understanding,
and conspiracy in restraint of trade artificially to fix, raise,
and stabilize price for crude oil and retail gasoline in the United
States, including by restraining their respective production
volumes. The Plaintiffs and members of the Classes have been
injured and will continue to be injured in their businesses and
property by paying more for retail gasoline purchased indirectly
from the Defendants and their co-conspirators for their personal
use than they would have paid and will pay in the absence of the
combination and conspiracy, says the suit.

Permian Resources Corp., formerly known as Centennial Resource
Development, Inc., is an oil and gas production company
headquartered in Midland, Texas.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation is an oil and gas production company
headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Continental Resources Inc. is an oil and gas production company
headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Diamondback Energy, Inc. is an oil and gas production company
headquartered in Midland, Texas.

EOG Resources, Inc. is an oil and gas production company
headquartered in Houston, Texas.

Hess Corporation is an oil and gas production company headquartered
in New York, New York.

Occidental Petroleum Corporation is an oil and gas production
company headquartered in Houston, Texas.

Exxon Mobil Corporation, formerly known as Pioneer Natural
Resources Company, is an oil and gas production company
headquartered in Irving, Texas. [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
         Telephone: (312) 984-0000
         Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
         Email: malmstrom@whafh.com

                 - and -

         Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
         WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
         270 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 545-4600
         Email: burt@whafh.com

PLUG POWER: Hagens Berman Expands Class Period in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges investors who suffered substantial losses in
Plug Power Inc. (NASDAQ: PLUG) to submit their losses now.

Expanded Class Period: Mar. 1, 2023-Jan. 16, 2024

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 21, 2024

Website: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/PLUG

Contact Email: PLUG@hbsslaw.com

Phone: 844-916-0895

Class Action Against Plug Power Inc. (NASDAQ: PLUG): The lawsuit
challenges Plug Power's claims that its green hydrogen production
plant construction was "on track" and that it had identified
non-dilutive funding opportunities. The complaint alleges that Plug
Power misled investors by omitting to disclose:

Supply Chain Challenges: Plug overstated its ability to mitigate
the negative impacts of supply chain constraints and material
shortages on its hydrogen business. It also exaggerated the
sufficiency of its cash and capital to fund operations.

Delays and Funding Issues: The company continued to experience
delays in its green hydrogen production facility build-out plans
and faced challenges securing external funding sources for growth.
Investors learned the truth on Nov. 9, 2023, when Plug announced
dismal Q3 2023 results. The company blamed supply challenges in the
North American hydrogen network and revealed liquidity problems
that raised doubts about its ability to continue as a going
concern. This news caused Plug shares to plummet by over 40% on
Nov. 10, 2023. Subsequently, analyst downgrades followed. On Jan.
17, 2024, Plug's shares dropped again after Seeking Alpha reported
that Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco maintained an
underweight rating and a $3 price target. The analyst also
reportedly warned of the increasing likelihood that Plug would need
to raise $1 billion to $1.5 billion in equity capital to support
its capital-intensive business.

After the Class Period, on May 9, 2024, Plug reported its Q1 2024
financial results, including a sharp increase in net loss and a
whopping 43% drop in revenues from the year earlier period. Plug
also informed investors that "we've implemented a series of
restructuring measures aimed at reducing costs and improving
efficiencies[]" and "[t]his includes headcount reductions and
operational considerations[.]"

"We are investigating whether Plug may have downplayed supply chain
and funding hurdles," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner
leading the firm's investigation.

About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation
firm focusing on corporate accountability. The firm is home to a
robust practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers,
workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for
those harmed by corporate negligence and other wrongdoings. Hagens
Berman's team has secured more than $2.9 billion in this area of
law. More about the firm and its successes can be found at
hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at
@ClassActionLaw.

Contact:

   Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]

SAC WIRELESS: Heino Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JACOB HEINO, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. SAC WIRELESS, LLC, Case No. 240401236, was
removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 10, 2024.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02009 to the proceeding.

The case arises from Defendant's alleged violation of the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.   

Based in Elgin, IL, Sac Wireless LLC develops and implements
network infrastructure solutions. [BN]

The Defendant is represented
by:                                   
                                        
         Susan M. Valinis, Esq.
         Leah A. Lewis, Esq.
         REILLY, McDEVITT & HENRICH, P.C.         
         One South Penn Square Suite 410
         Philadelphia, PA 19107

SKY CLIMBER: Olmedo Seeks Wind Turbine Technicians' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROEL OLMEDO, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SKY CLIMBER WIND SOLUTIONS LLC d/b/a SKY CLIMBER
RENEWABLES, an Ohio for-profit corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-05303-TLF (W.D. Wash., April 19, 2024) is a class and
collective action brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid wages
and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, Washington Minimum Wage Act, Washington Wage Rebate Act,
Washington Industrial Welfare Act, and related Washington Dept. of
Labor & Industries regulations

The complaint alleges the Defendant's violation of the federal and
state laws by failing to pay proper overtime, willfully withholding
earned wages, and failing to provide bona fide meal and rest
periods.

Plaintiff Olmedo was employed by the Defendant as a wind turbine
technician in Washington, Texas, and Iowa from approximately August
2019 until September 2022.

Sky Climber Wind Solutions LLC is an independent service provider
to the North American renewable energy industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael C. Subit, Esq.
          FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS, LLP
          705 Second Ave., Suite 1200
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 682-6711    
          E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788    
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com

SOLVENTUM CORP: Gilbert Sues Over Illegal Company Bylaw
-------------------------------------------------------
ERIC R. GILBERT, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of SOLVENTUM CORPORATION v. SOLVENTUM
CORPORATION, Case No. 2024-0501 (Del. Ch., May 10, 2024) accuses
the Defendant of violating Delaware law by adopting a bylaw that
undermines stockholders' fundamental right to elect directors.

The Board of Defendant Solventum allegedly included in the
company's bylaws a provision (Removal Bylaw) requiring any
individual nominated for election to the Board to tender an
irrevocable resignation that may be triggered by the Board. Such a
rule purports to grant directors the power to remove fellow
directors which is illegal under Delaware law and is therefore
invalid. The Removal Bylaw also subverts stockholders' right to
elect directors of their choosing, says the suit.

The Plaintiff, a Solventum stockholder, brings this action to seek
declaratory relief invalidating the Removal Bylaw.  

Solventum Corporation is a global healthcare company based in
Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Joseph L. Christensen, Esq.
        CHRISTENSEN & DOUGHERTY LLP     
        1201 N. Market Street, Suite 1404  
        Wilmington, DE 19801
        Telephone: (302) 212-4330

              - and -
     
        Abbott Cooper, Esq.
        ABBOTT COOPER PLLC
        1266 East Main Street
        Suite 700R
        Stamford, CT 06902
        Telephone: (475) 477-5031

              - and -
     
        D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
        Adrienne Bell, Esq.
        KASKELA LAW LLC
        18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
        Newtown Square, PA 19073
        Telephone: (888) 715-1740

TANDEM DIABETES: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mondaq reports that on April 30, 2024, Judge Marilyn L. Huff of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California dismissed with leave to amend a putative class action
asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
a medical device company and certain of its former officers. Lowe
v. Tandem Diabetes Care Inc., 2024 WL 1898473 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 30,
2024). Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations
regarding the demand for its products. The Court held plaintiffs
failed to adequately allege that any challenged statement was false
at the time it was made and also failed to adequately allege
scienter.

Plaintiffs alleged, relying on statements attributed to two former
employees of the company, that defendants were aware of -- and
failed to adequately disclose -- significant market headwinds
arising from the COVID‑19 pandemic, macroeconomic conditions, and
competition that the company faced. Plaintiffs alleged that, as a
result, the company had to restate its earnings guidance, reported
lower than expected revenue, and restated its expected sales.

The Court first assessed the statements attributed to the former
employees of the company and found that the allegations failed to
demonstrate the former employees' knowledge or reliability. As to
one former employee, the Court noted they were responsible for only
a single sales region in the United States, and it was not clear
why that employee would have knowledge of other regional sales
activities, general market conditions throughout the country, or
otherwise had access to the company's financial reports,
forecasting techniques, or other information showing how the
company considered these market headwinds in developing its sales
forecasts. While this former employee also allegedly shared their
concerns about the headwinds the company faced with "senior members
of management," the employee was not alleged to have shared these
concerns with the named individual defendants.  The Court further
determined that plaintiffs' allegations were insufficient with
respect to the second former employee because plaintiffs failed to
allege when that employee was employed at the company and failed to
show that employee had specific knowledge of the company's
forecasting techniques or knew of specific market concerns that
were shared with the individual defendants. Id. The Court concluded
that it would therefore "afford[] . . .  little weight" to the
former employees' allegations in evaluating whether plaintiffs had
adequately alleged falsity or scienter.

With respect to falsity, the Court held that the company had, in
fact, repeatedly disclosed to investors the headwinds that
plaintiffs claimed the company had omitted. The Court noted that
the company repeatedly acknowledged the challenges it expected to
face from market competition, the aftermath of the pandemic, and
specific products that competed against its own that plaintiffs
suggested were not taken into consideration in formulating
performance guidance. While plaintiffs suggested that the company
represented the headwinds were dissipating, the Court observed that
the company had been clear that headwinds would "persist through
the end of the year" and concluded that the challenged statements
-- "we estimate that over the next few quarters that we'll start to
see [competitive noise] dissipate" and "we think that things will
settle down in a quarter or two" -- did not mean in the full
context of the company's disclosures that "competitive challenges
were, in fact, dissipating or settling down."

In addition, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately
allege scienter because plaintiffs failed to allege a plausible
motive for making the allegedly fraudulent statements.  The Court
held that the company's desire to prevent its stock from declining
was too generic a motive to support an inference of scienter,
especially since the individual defendants were not alleged to have
financially benefited from the alleged fraud. The Court also noted
plaintiffs failed to establish that the individual defendants were
aware of or reckless in not knowing any negative information that
competition was not "in line" with their prior expectations,
because plaintiffs alleged nothing beyond conclusory allegations
that these defendants were closely monitoring the headwinds the
company faced due to their positions within the company. Id. The
Court also determined that plaintiffs' scienter allegations
otherwise lacked particularized facts, were not based on conduct
that was alleged to be false or misleading, were not supported by
the suggestion that the company's stock underperformed other
companies in the industry during the relevant period, and that
scienter could not be inferred simply from the timing of various
statements the company made that were more upbeat relative to its
revised earnings guidance. The Court further held that all these
items collectively did not support a strong inference the company
engaged in intentional or deliberately reckless misconduct,
particularly compared to the competing inference that, although the
company acknowledged the headwinds it faced, it mistakenly believed
they could be overcome. [GN]

TARGET CORP: Smith Sues Over Data Collection Over Email Trackers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Action, reports that Target
class action claims retailer collects private info through email
trackers.

Target class action lawsuit overview:

Who: Plaintiff Kiloh Smith filed a class action lawsuit against
Target Corp.

Why: Target allegedly unlawfully collects private information from
consumers who open the retailer's marketing emails.

Where: The Target class action lawsuit was filed in Arizona federal
court.

A new Target class action claims the retail giant violates its
email subscribers' privacy by embedding hidden spy pixel trackers
in its emails.

In the lawsuit, filed in Arizona federal court, plaintiff Kiloh
Smith says he subscribes to the Target email list and was unaware
that Target Corp. was using hidden spy pixel trackers to capture
and log sensitive information.

This information includes when and where subscribers open email
messages, how long they spend reading the email, their IP address,
device information and whether the email was forwarded, Smith
claims.

Target email tracking violates Arizona law, plaintiff claims

Because Smith never consented to this kind of data collection when
he signed up to receive Target emails, he claims Target is
violating Arizona's Telephone, Utility and Communication Service
Record Act.

This Arizona law prohibits companies from collecting or attempting
to collect communication records of email recipients without their
consent, Smith alleges.

"[Target's] invasive surveillance of plaintiff's sensitive reading
habits and clandestine collection of his confidential email records
invaded his privacy and intruded upon his seclusion," the Target
class action lawsuit says.

Target class action: spy pixel tracks consumers' behavior without
consent

The spy pixel allegedly allows Target to track the individual
behavior of the Target email recipient, including the activation of
links in the message. The retailer can also track the marketing
impact of the email, including a list of pages the consumer visited
after viewing the email, the Target class action lawsuit claims.

Arizona law allows state residents to pursue civil remedies for
violations of the law, the lawsuit explains. Smith seeks to
represent himself and a proposed class of persons in Arizona who
opened a Target email containing a tracking pixel.

Another recent Target class action lawsuit accuses the retailer of
unlawfully using advanced video surveillance systems to collect the
biometric data of thousands of Illinois residents without
consumers' knowledge and consent.

Smith is represented by Gerald Barrett of Ward Keenan & Barrett PC
and Yitzchak Kopel of Bursor & Fisher PA.

The Target email class action lawsuit is Kiloh Smith v. Target
Corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-01048-ROS, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona. [GN]

UBC PROPERTIES: Faces Suit Over Campus Construction Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cindy White, writing for Pique New Magazine, reports that the City
of Kelowna, UBC Properties Investments and several others including
engineers, builders and architects, are facing a class action
lawsuit over damage to nearby buildings during excavation for the
new downtown campus of UBC Okanagan.

The suit was filed at the Vancouver registry of the Supreme Court
of British Columbia on May 3, 2024 on behalf of Monique Saebels,
Meghan Beckmann and Eight Spaces Group Inc. They are seeking a
class action for anyone living in or doing business in buildings
damaged by construction activities at 550 Doyle Avenue.

Saebels and Beckmann were tenants of Hadgraft Wilson Place, which
is right next door to the UBCO site. The apartment building
operated by Pathways Abilities Society was evacuated at the end of
March after resident say they started seeing cracks and other
damage. Eight Spaces Group was operating Okanagan coLab in leased
space at 1405 St. Paul Street, across the road from the
construction site. That building was closed indefinitely in late
2023.

Residents of Hadgraft Wilson Place have still not been allowed to
return to their homes. Many of them are currently being put up in
housing at Okanagan College.

The lawsuit alleges that as early as July 2023, "the defendants, or
each of them knew or ought to have known that the shoring wall that
was part of UBCO Development construction site was unstable and the
excavation and construction work on the Lands posed a danger to
adjacent properties. However, they failed to stop construction and
excavation activities on the Lands or warn the plaintiffs and class
members of the resultant damage and the dangerous conditions to the
surrounding properties."

It goes on to allege that the damage to Hadgraft Wilson Place, 1405
St. Paul Street and also the Kelowna Legion building included large
cracks throughout the floors, walls and ceilings, structural damage
to the foundation, damage to HVAC and plumbing, malfunctioning
elevators, misaligned windows and doors and ruptured pipes.

The plaintiffs claim the city, UBC Properties Investments and the
other defendants were negligent for, among other things, not
ensuring that the proposed UBCO development design and construction
was suitable for the particular geographic and soil conditions of
the area and that it was constructed in a manner that would not
damage surrounding properties.

The city issued a new development permit for the UBC project
recently after UBC Land Trust requested an alteration that would
see a two-storey parkade built instead of the original plan of a
four-storey underground parkade.

UBC Okanagan has also sent a request through BC Housing to be
granted access to Hadgraft Wilson Place to assess possible repairs
to the structure. The City of Kelowna has said that it will be
several months before resident might be able to return.

The defendants in the lawsuit have 21 days after being served to
respond to the lawsuit, which requires certification by a judge to
proceed as a class action.

These allegations have not been proven in court. [GN]

UDINE & UDINE: Roberts Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Udine & Udine, P.A.
The case is styled as Chasitee Roberts, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated v. Udine & Udine, P.A., Case No.
3:24-cv-00450-WWB-MCR (M.D. Fla., May 7, 2024).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Udine & Udine, P.A. is a general practice law office.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq.
          Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq.
          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (754) 444-7539
          Email: jen@jibraellaw.com
                 gerald@jibraellaw.com
                 jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                 zane@jibraellaw.com


US PAROLE: Sued Over Failure to Accommodate Disabled People
-----------------------------------------------------------
W. Mathis, K. Davis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, PATRICIA K.
CUSHWA, in her official capacity as Acting Chairman of the United
States Parole Commission; COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION
AGENCY, and RICHARD S. TISCHNER, in his official capacity as
Director of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01312-TNM (D.D.C., May 6, 2024), is brought
challenging the failure of the federal government's post-conviction
supervision system to accommodate individuals with disabilities as
required by federal law in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.

People with disabilities, who are over-represented among the
supervision population, are set up to fail in the federal
government's supervision system for residents of the District. To
meaningfully participate in their supervision, many people with
disabilities require reasonable accommodations.

Because of its systematic failure to accommodate individuals with
disabilities, the government's supervision system in D.C. violates
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Rehabilitation
Act"). The Rehabilitation Act requires the government to
affirmatively provide reasonable accommodations to ensure that
people with disabilities have meaningful access to the benefits of
the supervision system—foremost among them, the opportunity to be
released from supervision upon successfully completing the
supervision term. The Rehabilitation Act prohibits the government
from administering supervision in a manner that has the effect of
discriminating on the basis of disability, or of substantially
impairing the purpose of supervision: helping people reintegrate
into their communities.

The Plaintiffs' experiences on supervision illustrate these
systematic violations. Plaintiff W. Mathis is a 70-year-old Black
military veteran with congestive heart failure who has been on
parole for 18 years. Despite maintaining consistent contact with
his Community Supervision Officer ("CSO"), Mr. Mathis was recently
incarcerated for nine days for technical violations of his
supervision. During his incarceration, he missed a medical
procedure to treat his congestive heart failure, even though
Defendants were aware of the appointment.

The Plaintiff K. Davis is a middle-aged Black man who lives with
chronic pain and mobility limitations stemming from third-degree
burns, as well as anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress
disorder ("PTSD"). Defendants are aware of Mr. Davis's
disabilities, but nonetheless submitted an Alleged Violation Report
("AVR") for his arrest after he did not contact his CSO for a
period of less than two weeks, despite the fact that he made it to
every single drug testing appointment and tested negative every
time. Then, despite knowing about Mr. Davis's disabilities and his
concerted efforts to comply with supervision, the Commission
imposed a 12-month prison sentence. During his incarceration at a
Bureau of Prisons facility in Pennsylvania for these technical
parole violations, Mr. Davis missed a crucial surgery for his burns
that had been scheduled with his doctor at Washington Hospital
Center in D.C.

To comply with federal law, Defendants--the Commission, CSOSA, and
the heads of these agencies--must implement a system to
affirmatively assess people's accommodation needs and provide the
reasonable accommodations Plaintiffs and the proposed class need to
have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs are persons with disabilities.

United States Parole Commission is the federal agency responsible
for the administration of parole and supervised release in
Washington, D.C., including setting the general supervision
conditions, as well as decisions regarding the continuation,
revocation, or termination of parole and supervised release.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hanna M. Perry, Esq.
          PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
          633 3rd Street NW
          Washington, D.C. 20004
          Phone: (202) 579-0633
          Email: hperry@pdsdc.org

               - and -

          Allison Frankel, Esq.
          Ashika Verriest, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (617) 650-7741
          Email: afrankel@aclu.org
                 averriest@aclu.org

               - and -

          Samir Deger-Sen, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          1271 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 906-1200
          Fax: (212) 751-4864
          Email: samir.deger-sen@lw.com

               - and -

          Scott Michelman, Esq.
          Michael Perloff, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
          529 14th Street NW, Suite 722
          Washington, D.C. 20045
          Phone: (202) 457-0800
          Email: smichelman@acludc.org
                 mperloff@acludc.org

               - and -

          Peter E Davis, Esq.
          Christine C Smith, Esq.
          Jordan L Hughes, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 Eleventh Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20004
          Phone: (202) 637-2200
          Fax: (202) 637-2201
          Email: peter.davis@lw.com
                 christine.smith@lw.com
                 jordan.hughes@lw.com


VOYAGER DIGITAL: Athletes Named in Class Action Lawsuit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Racing News reports that multiple athletes will pay out a combined
$2.42 million in a settlement. It comes from failed cryptocurrency
exchange Voyager Digital.

The class-action lawsuit netted the settlement on May 3. Retired
NFl player Rob "Gronk" Gronkowski will pay the largest sum at
$1.9M.

NBA player Victor Oladipo will pay $500,000.

Landon Cassill will pay $25,000. The NASCAR Xfinity Series driver
had Voyager Digital as a sponsor.

Cassill has also run 343 NASCAR Cup Series races over a 12-year
career. His most recent NCS start came with Spire Motorsports in
2022.

All three athletes have agreed to the settlement under the terms
they are not admitting nor denying any of the accusations in the
case.

The settlement will go to those that joined the Voyager Earn
Program Account or those who purchased VGX tokens between October
2019 to the preliminary approval date.

Cassill has not raced in the NASCAR Xfinity Series since 2022 when
he ran full-time for Kaulig Racing.

The now 34-year-old was crowned the NASCAR Xfinity Series Rookie of
the Year in 2008. [GN]

WEST GULF MARITIME: Contreras et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALFONSO CONTRERAS, et al. v. WEST GULF MARITIME ASSOCIATION, and
COOPER/PORTS AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-01774 (S.D. Tex., May
10, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay overtime.

The Plaintiffs are members of the International Longshoremen's
Association and are employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees
pursuant to the terms of the FLSA. The Defendants allegedly failed
to pay Plaintiffs overtime for hours worked more than 40 per week.
The Plaintiffs bring this action to recover unpaid overtime and
other damages.

Based in Houston, TX, West Gulf Maritime Association (WGMA)
operates as a non-profit organization providing payroll support and
labor relations services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

        Katherine T. Mize, Esq.
        MIZE PC     
        717 Milam, Suite 1200
        Houston, TX
        Telephone: (713) 595-9675
        Facsimile: (713) 595-9670
        E-mail: katherine.mize@mizepc.com

                - and -
     
        Douglas T. Gilman, Esq.
        Brenton J. Allison, Esq.
        GILMAN ALLISON, LLP
        2005 Cullen Blvd.
        Pearland, TX 77581
        Telephone: (713) 225-5767
        Facsimile: (866) 543-3643
        E-mail: ballison@gilmanallison.com

YVES LA POINTE: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Garcia et al. Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDUIN GARCIA, WILMER ORELLANA, FRANKLIN LAINEZ ORDONEZ, MARINA
ORELLANA GOMEZ, JOSE LAINEZ, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. YVES LA POINTE DRYWALL INC. and AP
DRYWALL INC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00170-JCN (D. Me., May 10, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of failing to pay overtime, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Maine Unpaid Wage laws.

The Plaintiffs and Class members performed labor in the Portland
Maine area within the last six years as employees of Defendants
pursuant to the FLSA and the Main Unpaid Wage statutes. Allegedly,
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated laborers
overtime compensation despite working more than 40 hours per week.
The illegal practice is continuing and ongoing, according to
Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover payment of their unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees.

Yves La Pointe Drywall Inc. provides construction services and is
based in Auburn, ME. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

        Jeffrey Neil Young, Esq.
        Margaret O’Neil, Esq.
        SOLIDARITY LAW, PLLC     
        9 Longmeadow Road
        Cumberland Foreside, ME 04110
        Telephone: (207) 844-4243
        E-mail: jyoung@solidarity.law
                moneil@solidarity.law

                - and -
     
        Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
        Zev H. Antell, Esq.
        Samantha R. Galina, Esq.
        BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
        140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
        Richmond, VA 23219
        Telephone: (804) 648-4848
        Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
        E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com
                zev@butlercurwood.com
                samantha@butlercurwood.com

[*] Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in TCPA Class Action Over ATDS
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Gibb, writing for Accounts Recovery, reports that the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a
Telephone Consumer Protection Act case, ruling that in order to
meet the definition of an automated telephone dialing system, the
technology must include the capacity to randomly or sequentially
generate telephone numbers to be dialed.

The Background: The plaintiff was sent a text message by a vendor
that the defendant hired after the plaintiff had opted out of
receiving messages. She filed a class-action lawsuit against the
defendant in 2019, accusing it of violating the TCPA by using an
ATDS and by using an artificial voice. A District Court judge
granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, concluding that both
claims failed.

The Ruling: The TCPA defines an ATDS as equipment which has the
capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using
an random or sequential number generator; and to dial such
numbers.

  -- The plaintiff attempted to argue that the definition of an
ATDS includes a system that dials numbers randomly drawn from a
pre-existing list of telephone numbers, such as lists of numbers
submitted by consumers who sign up for a program or benefit. The
defendant countered that the definition only relates to systems
that generate telephone numbers and not systems using pre-existing
lists of numbers.

  -- Admitting that the definition of an ATDS is "no model of
clarity," the Appeals Court still determined that an ATDS is a
system that generates telephone numbers.

  -- The TCPA was intended to protect against telephone lines being
tied up unnecessarily. "These concerns are not implicated by a
system that uses a pre-existing list of telephone numbers that are
not automatically or randomly generated, but that are drawn from
other sources, including, as here, from consumers themselves who
voluntarily provided them." [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 ***